mearsheimer's 5 assumptions of realism

Evolutionary theory is especially helpful here because it advances our understanding of the proximate (biological) causes of offensive realist behavior and the conditions under which mistakes are more likely to be made (i.e., conditions that exacerbate egoistic, dominating, and groupish behaviors even where such behaviors may not help to achieve strategic goals). We should therefore expect instances of evolutionary mismatch in which evolved behaviors lead to poor decisions in modern settings. As Chinggis Khan is purported to have said: The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes.159 Although not usually expressed in such stark terms, the pleasure of competition and victory has been widely recognized as a feature of human nature from classical times to the present day, and success in competitive interactions and the domination of others are known to increase testosterone and dopamine responses in menthe so-called victory effect.160 Such dominance behavior is, we suggest, exaggerated among leaders because they are generally ambitious and competitive, and usually male. Mearsheimer and Fear | SpringerLink Although warfare is a high-stakes collective action problem, warriors are willing to participate because over evolutionary time the dividends have tended to outweigh the costs.84,Reference Wrangham and Glowacki85. While biological group selection in humans is possible in theory, there have not been any published empirical examples. Mearsheimer's theory is a spin-off of Kenneth Waltz's neorealism, also known as structural or defensive realism. Similarly formidable obstacles to cooperation exist in international relations. Men, more often than women, lead states. If anything, group selection would tend to increase violence, since between-group competition (conflict among strangers) can be more brutal than within-group competition (conflict among kin and fellow group members). Indeed, it is at these vast scales where our evolved dispositions can have their greatest and most dangerous effects. Instead, we can make more concrete predictions about how humans tend to think and act in different conditions, based on new scientific knowledge about human cognition and behavior, and in particular a greater understanding of the social and ecological context in which human brains and behaviors evolved. Egoism and dominance are important mechanisms for attaining security, but also important is attaining security from members of other groups. In short, offensive realism may really be describing the nature of the human species more than the nature of the international system. 21 June 2016. Table2. Heis the author of Darwin and International Relations: On the EvolutionaryOrigins of War and Ethnic Conflict (University Press of Kentucky, 2004). However, dominance hierarchies were in some sense a mechanism by which this anarchy could be suppressedat least within the groupto the benefit of all group members since they share at least some common interests (such as avoiding conflict). Has data issue: false We recognize that offensive realism remains controversial, and we would like to address three fundamental problems with the theory. Indeed, Wrangham and Glowacki find evidence that after warriors killed members of a neighboring society, the killers group benefited as a whole via territorial expansion83precisely as has been shown for intergroup killings by chimpanzees. Similar patterns are evident in nature. Classical realists (such as Thucydides, E.H. Carr, Arnold Wolfers, and Hans Morgenthau) and offensive realists share the assumption that states seek to maximize power - that states are relentless seekers of power and influence.Specifically, for classical realists "nations expand their political interests abroad when their relative power increases . The first assumption is that there is anarchy in the international system, which means that there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can guarantee limits on the behavior of states (Mearsheimer 2001, 30). Debate continues as to whether modern states actually do, or should, behave in this way, but we are struck by a different question. Egoism and dominance arose as strategies that provided solutions to achieving survival and reproduction in this environment. This insight has important implications for international politics because it suggests that we can potentially createat least in principleenvironments that take account of our human nature so we can turn them to our advantage, such as designing institutions that elicit cooperative rather than conflictual tendencies.Reference Keohane164,Reference Stein165. The Yanomamo among whom I lived were constantly worried about attacks from their neighbors and constantly lived in fear of this possibility. However, the European project was set up precisely to respond to centuries of European powers competing and fighting for power at great cost. Some evidence suggests that the separation between common chimpanzees and bonobos was quite recent, occurring perhaps only 0.86 million to 0.89 million years ago, although it remains possible that the separation occurred much earlier, between 1.5 million to 2.5 million years ago.Reference Won and Hey166 Either way, humans separated from our common ancestor with both chimpanzee species long before, about 5 million to 6 million years ago. Evolutionary theory provides an important framework for understanding the ingroup/outgroup distinction commonly noted by anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists, and perhaps most prominently by psychologists.Reference Kurzban, Neuberg and Buss120,121 Of the many biases identified in the so-called cognitive revolution in psychology, the ingroup/outgroup bias is one of most pervasive, pernicious, and powerful. Is John Mearsheimer right that his five assumptions make it Like egoism, the desire to dominate is a trait of human nature (which, as with egoism, we stress does not necessarily apply to every individual or situation but is a statistical tendency underlying behavior). Studies from an evolutionary perspective of the fundamental assumptions of neoliberalism, constructivism, poststructural approaches, Marxist and dependency theories, and other theories of international relations would be welcomed for four reasons. Evolutionary theorists now recognize, following William Hamiltons concept of inclusive fitness, that egoism has complexities. Third, the group could acquire more of the resource from outside of their territory through migration to uninhabited areas, trade, theft, or warfare.65,77,Reference Guilaine and Zammit67,Reference LeBlanc and Register68,Reference Wrangham and Peterson69,70, Although warfare is certainly costly to any member of a group who is killed or wounded, as well as in terms of the resources and time expended, it can become the sole (or least bad) choice for a group if migration is risky due to factors such as inhospitable or unproductive terrain or hostile neighboring groups, and where trade is difficult or impossible. The modern understanding of evolution rejects the simplistic stereotype that selfish genes equates to selfish organisms (Richard Dawkins carefully explained why that is not a logical consequence in The Selfish Gene Reference Dawkins6). Offensive realists can thus explain more than the behavior of states or great powers. Until recently, international relations theorists rarely used insights from the life sciences to inform their understanding of human behavior. Of course, cooperation and helping behaviors are common in nature, but such behaviors persist only where they help the genes causing that behavior to spread. We reiterate the point above, however, that it is the context of our own evolution as hunter-gatherers in the socio-ecological conditions of the Pleistocene era that offers the crucial evidence on human behavioral adaptations. This article is dedicated to the memory of Rafe Sagarin, an exceptional ecologist, colleague, and friend who devoted much of his life to bridging the gap between the life and social sciences. Survival of the disciplines: Is international relations fit for the new millennium? The result was that the theory lacked, and still lacks, a scientifically describable ultimate cause. It is hard to escape the conclusion from the ethnographic and archeological evidence from Europe, North America, South American, Australia, and New Guinea that hunter-gatherers both simple and complex engaged in socially sanctioned lethal conflict between independent polities, suggesting an extremely long history of warfare that can ultimately be traced back to early hominins., Terry Jones and Mark AllenReference Allen and Jones58, Humans evolved as a distinct lineage principally in the Pleistocene era (from 2 million to 10,000 years ago), and our analysis therefore requires a discussion of the small-scale hunter-gatherer groups that formed the social and ecological context for that period of human evolution. Individuals may follow generalized decision rules, but these rules give rise to different behaviors in different contexts. John Mearsheimer is one of these theorists. Clearly, when it comes to the many distinctive physiological and behavioral changes humans have undergone, ecology has been as or more important than phylogeny (hence, the field of evolutionary anthropology focuses on hunter-gatherer analogues, not nonhuman primate analogues). John J. Mearsheimer | Biography, Books, & Facts | Britannica Aggression is not a cultural accident, but an evolutionary adaptation for acquiring and securing resourcesjust as it is for other species. Rather, chimpanzees appear to have evolved an innate aggression toward other groups, a tendency that causes them to attack neighboring males when the opportunity arises, and leads to greater Darwinian reproductive success over time. John Mearsheimer also sees a looming tragedy, one that (he argues) is inevitable. Our evolutionary approach predicts the same behavior as offensive realism but derives from a different ultimate cause. Table4. Many criticisms of international relations theories focus on these unsubstantiated or contested assumptions about underlying human nature. Also like Waltz, Mearsheimer argues that bipolarity (where two states have the majority of power and international influence) is more stable than multipolarity for three reasons: First, bipolarity provides fewer opportunities for war between the superpowers; second, there will tend to be smaller imbalances of power between the superpowers; and, third, there is less potential for great power miscalculation.29. Identification with a specific group provides individuals with meaning and purpose, encouraging them to become part of a community with common interests, values, and goals.Reference Hewstone, Rubin and Willis122,Reference Fiske123,Reference Sidanius and Pratto124 One also knows what one is notthe outgroup, which is stereotyped and homogenized as the Other. Among the many different possible ingroup categories, the most common and significant include family, friends, age, sex, class, ethnicity, politics, religion, and nationality. Two theories of offensive realism. Strikingly, therefore, behavioral dispositions that enhanced success in the small-scale intergroup anarchy of humans evolutionary past may have endowed us with behaviors that also enhance success in the anarchy of the international system. Darwin himself envisioned these nuances, even though he did not know the biological mechanisms at work. The key finding is that humans quickly adopt an us (ingroup) versus them (outgroup) worldview. We recognize that many factors may affect the behavior of states, including bureaucracies, types of government, culture, international institutions, or the international system itself, but we also recognize, as traditional theories of international politics have from the time of Thucydides, that humans affect state behavior as well.Reference Levy202 Many factors come between an individual leader and the behavior of a state, but that does not mean leaders have no effect at all. Even optimists acknowledge that remarkable mechanisms and institutions are required to generate and sustain cooperation, and the identification and implementation of these conditions occupies many of our colleagues.180,Reference Milner181,182 183 The European Union, to give one flagship example, is often put forward as a vision of the future, demonstrating that democratic states are willing to subordinate self-interest for a greater good, and that war is becoming obsolete. This is because a single male can reproduce with multiple females, whereas females can usually only reproduce and rear the offspring of one male at a time, with a long delay before becoming reproductively available again. Some of these date from the split with our last nonhuman primate ancestor at the beginning of the Pliocene, around 5 million years ago. As we show in the next section, competition between groups is especially significant for human evolution, and for international politics, precisely because it is at the intergroup level where anarchy reigns supreme and is much harder to suppress. China V Rise: Offensive or Defensive Realism Ghazala Yasmin Jalil - JSTOR What is the logic for risking life and limb in engaging in violent aggression against other groups? We recognize that humans are influenced by culture, norms, rational calculation, and moral principles. First, the group could eliminate or reduce consumption to make the resource last. While biological group selection among humans is unlikely, the selection of cultural traits among groups is possible. No theory is perfect. Recently, a 10-year conflict in the Kibale Mountains of Uganda came to an end. He also frequently participated in public debates by contributing op-ed articles to the The New York Times and other national newspapers. A caveat to this prediction is that women in power may tend to act like men, either because selection effects trump stereotypical sex differences (female leaders may have personalities similar to male leaders), or because egoism and dominance are necessary traits in order to survive in the system of international anarchy (or on Capitol Hill).Reference Fukuyama197,Reference Clift and Brazaitis198. Offensive realism, a theory of international relations, holds that states are disposed to competition and conflict because they are self-interested, power maximizing, and fearful of other states. Wherever actors are left to compete with each other by relying on their own devices (whether in the human evolutionary past or today), we predict that actors within those systems will exhibit similar behavior, not least self-help behavior to maximize power. He argues, like Waltz, that the anarchic international system is responsible for much troublesuspicion, fear, security competition, and great power warsin international politics. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics - Wikipedia Offensive realism, more than other major theories of international relations, closely matches what we know about human nature from the evolutionary sciences. Combining the previous two considerations (leaders and sex) raises another problem: If leaders are especially egoistic and domineering, and if sex is a primary cause, does this not mean that we predict state leaders will undertake actions (consciously or subconsciously) that serve to maximize their own personal reproductive opportunitiesperhaps at the expense of state interests? http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/59922#eid5780558, http://edge.org/conversation/steven_pinker-the-false-allure-of-group-selection. Examples of offensive realism include John J. Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future: Instability inEurope after the Cold War,"International Security, Vol. Offensive realists and other theorists of international relations may see more or less of each. Mearsheimers argument is a key contribution to the growing body of literature on offensive realism.Reference Lynn-Jones33,34 In general, offensive realists argue that states are compelled to maximize their relative power because of competition in the international system.Reference Mearsheimer35,36,37 States will be secure only by acting in this way. Fourth, we have argued that evolutionary insights closely match offensive realism among existing theories of international relations. This seemingly straightforward idea is controversial, not least among realists themselves. Ethological studies have shown that hierarchical dominance systems within a primate groups social network can reduce overt aggression, although aggression increases again when the alpha male is challenged.Reference Knauft116,Reference Flack, Girvan, de Waal and Krakauer117,Reference de Waal118. He uses and adapts on Waltz's theory to paint a much more pessimistic and altogether darker picture of International relations theory. The motivation for such conquests does not, of course, involve conscious planning to attain larger territories or more offspring. Each season at Evermore Park brings new adventures, fit for all ages. However, the persistence of these three traits across domains and over time casts doubt on arguments like these, and strongly counts in favor of an evolutionary explanation instead. A dominance hierarchy is created competitively, often violently, and is maintained forcefully, but it can serve to prevent or reduce conflict within a group because it establishes a pecking order that is generally respected. Mearsheimer's theory operates on five core assumptions. Biology, politics, and the emerging science of human nature, Violence and Warfare among Hunter-Gatherers, Behavior, Culture, and Conflict in World Politics, Blood Is Their Argument: Warfare Among the Mae Enga Tribesmen of the New Guinea Highland, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage, The Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory, Constant Battles: The Myth of the Peaceful, Noble Savage, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Human aggression in evolutionary psychological perspective, The evolution of war: theory and controversy, Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population, Group competition, reproductive leveling, and the evolution of human altruism, Intergroup aggression in chimpanzees and war in nomadic hunter-gatherers: Evaluating the chimpanzee model, Warfare and reproductive success in a tribal population, The genetical evolution of social behavior. Egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias are widespread because they increased survival and reproductive success compared with other strategies and were therefore favored by natural selection. Hierarchies may be weak or strong, and alpha males may sire nearly all offspring or just more than others. That natural selection should have drawn out the same three traits as Mearsheimer may seem a remarkable coincidence. The environment in which we evolved typically implies the Pleistocene era, lasting from 2 million years ago until around 10,000 years ago. As a result of our evolution, humans will act like offensive realists even inside the statethat is, in conditions of hierarchy (as far as they are be able to)as well as in relations between states. This perspective does not deny the importance of institutions, norms, and governance in international politics. Kenneth Waltz placed realism on a more scientific foundation by introducing a new realist theory: neorealism or structural realism. Instead, the best strategy is a constant effort to maximize power to stay ahead of rivals. Let us begin, therefore, by situating offensive realism in the realist paradigm moregenerally. In 2007 Mearsheimer coauthored with Stephen M. Walt a best-selling but highly controversial book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007). In fact, he was highly critical of the Iraq War (200311) and what he saw as an attempt by the United States to police the world. For Mearsheimer, states seek to maximize power not because they are aggressive, but because the system requires itthis behavior is the best way to maximize security in an anarchic world. Indeed, part of the beauty of evolutionary approaches is their ability to predict sources of variationthe socio-ecological conditions under which we should expect to see humans acting (in this case) more fearful and more self-interested, and pursuing more power maximization, rather than less. Our approach also suggests that if offensive realism is a product of human nature, rather than merely a consequence of international anarchy, it can be broadened to explain human conflict at many levels, from tribal warfare, ethnic conflict, and civil wars to domestic politics, commercial competition, and international relations. First, we explain the theory of offensive realism and the place of anarchy in that theory. https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Mearsheimer, The University of Chicago - Biography of John J. Mearsheimer. However, we argue that offensive realists need not depend on the anarchy of the state system to advance their argument. As an alpha male provides stability to the group, so too a hegemon in international politics, as many scholars recognize, may provide stability for lesser states both in the realm of international security and for international political economy. Wranghams and Glowackis work has also established empirical support for the evolutionary logic in the patterns of intergroup conflict. The fact that all prior utopian visions have failed to come to fruition does not prove that current ones will fail too. They can only be regional hegemons. This is what neorealists call a self-help system: Leaders of states are forced to take these steps because nothing else can guarantee their security in the anarchic world of international politics. Evolutionary theory offers a powerful explanation for the trait of egoism (by which we mean the nonpejorative definition of self-regarding, prompted by self-interest).86 Given competition for limited resources and threats from predators and the environment, an individual organism is primed to seek its own survival andthe Darwinian bottom linereproductive success. Bradley A. Thayer is professor of political science at the University of Iceland. The third contribution of our theory is that it identifies a more explicit role for leaders (see Table3). Unsatisfied with military life, he decided to pursue graduate studies rather than become a career officer. This recurrence of behavioral patterns across different taxonomic groups suggests that the behaviors characterized by offensive realism have broad and deep evolutionary roots. An organized social structure can help promote the harvesting of resources, coordinate group activity, and reduce within-group conflict. These types of adaptations not only consume precious time and energy but can also decrease survival in other, nonreproductive domains of life (for example, the plumage of male peacocks limits their ability to fly). Second, critics of offensive realism point to countering factors such as the democratic peace or international institutions. 2022. Warfare might then be necessary for offensive purposes, to plunder resources from others. Anarchy allows Waltz to argue that states must behave much the way Morgenthau expected, but for different reasons. A key debate in evolutionary anthropology has revolved around the origins and extent of intergroup conflict among hunter-gatherers, and the emerging consensus is that such conflict is (and has long been) significant and widespread, and that it serves adaptive functions.59, Let us first consider these functional advantages. Mearsheimer explains that when following a realist policy . Although Thomas Hobbes claimed to have deduced Leviathan scientifically from motion and the physical senses, he was writing two hundred years before Darwin and so had no understanding of evolution.Reference Hobbes53 International relations scholars have tended to claim to deduce their own theories from Hobbes, or subsequent philosophers who followed him, and we suggest it is time to revisit the idea of foundational scientific principles. Huda, Mirza Sadaqat Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article (requires login). Clearly, not all individuals or businesses or states act the same way all the time or in all circumstances. This version of realism retains the traditional realist assumption that the primary state goal is power, rather than the defensive realist assumption that states seek security. The recent crises of the Euro and migration have shown in stark terms that individual states continue to exploit the opportunity to free-ride on others if they can, and even the most powerful states, such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, have been reluctant or unwilling to make sacrifices to protect other states. However, an evolutionary perspective raises new doubts about the significance of such evidence. Evolutionary theory and the causes of war,, John Strate emphasizes the importance of defense from attack by conspecifics, other humans; he argues that it caused the growth of human societies. Culture Bound Assumptions in Behavior Intention Models | ACR The fact that the five assumptions are instrumental to the theory of Mearsheimer is undeniable. The origins of warfare are rooted in the imperative to gain and defend resources necessary for survival and reproduction in dangerous and competitive conditions. He is the author of Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions (Harvard University Press, 2004), which argues that common psychological biases to maintain overly positive images of our capabilities, our control over events, and the future play a key roles in causing war, and, with Dominic Tierney, Failing to Win: Perceptions of Victory and Defeat in International Politics (Harvard University Press, 2006), which examines how and why popular misperceptions commonly create undeserved victories or defeats in wars and crises. However, if actors seek dominance at least partly because of evolved behavioral dispositions (of which actors may not even be aware), then we may expect sometimes to observe power-maximizing behavior whether or not it is a good strategy. Individuals bide their time, form coalitions and alliances, and cooperate with others, but they also seize power where the opportunity arises. For example, a group seeking a fixed source of water may be unable to trade for it if the group lacks adequate resources to offer in exchange. Under an iron fist, even the most egotistical, dominating, and xenophobic actor will be prevented from realizing his or her goals. Analysing Mearsheimers Critique Of Structural Realism Politics Essay Whether or not humans and chimpanzees inherited warlike propensities from a common ancestor, there was nevertheless a strong selection pressure in both species to develop them. Drawing on both disciplines, he is interested in how new research on evolution, biology, and human nature challenges theories of international relations, conflict, and cooperation. 5-57; Eric J.Labs, "Beyond Victory: Offensive Realism and the Expansion of War Aims,"Security Studies,Vol. First, offensive realism fails to explain why costly wars sometimes occur against the interests of the states that initiate them. Evolution is sometimes argued to operate on groups rather than individuals (group selection). However, even fellow realists have found problems and inconsistencies with Waltz's structural realism. Humans and chimpanzees shared some features of their socio-ecological environment, such as spatially and temporally variable food resources, which required that individuals leave the protection of the group to forage in open or bordering areas, often alone or in small groups, subjecting them to greater risks of predation or ambush from conspecifics.Reference wrangham, Pilbeam, Galdikas, Briggs, Sheeran, Shapiro and Goodall167 In contrast, the ecology of bonobos has been relatively benign. (PDF) Effects of Face Masks on Emotion Interpretation in Socially If anchored on evolutionary theory, offensive realism allows new insights to elucidate why individuals and substate groups are self-interested, vie for power, and fear each other, and it can explain political behavior and war that occurred long before the creation of the modern state system in 1648. However, we need to see the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. The impact of these biological factors on social and political behavior will vary depending on context.

Trailers For Rent Calhoun, Ga, Articles M