mearsheimer's 5 assumptions of 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. In this article, we ask whether human nature may predispose us, like our nonhuman primate cousins, to behave as offensive realists. 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). Andr Munro was an editor at Encyclopaedia Britannica. Likewise, many other religious and utopian theorists attribute egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias to special, or at least changeable, circumstances. Mearsheimer's 5 Assumptions 1) International System is Anarchic 2) Great Powers possess military capability 3) States can't be certain about other state intentions 4) Survival is the primary goal of great powers 5) Great powers are rational actors Mearsheimer's 3 Functions of State Behavior 1) States fear each other For example, Wrangham recounts that among the Inuit of the Arctic, unfamiliar men would normally be killed even before questions were asked.139, Such wariness of individuals from other groups is paralleled among animals. We recognize that humans are influenced by culture, norms, rational calculation, and moral principles. Third, state leaders are the actors who make important strategic decisions from a set of options, and they are potentially affected by their human dispositions and those of their advisers, even if their actions are tempered by checks and balances. Aggression may be a risky strategy, but it is a more attractive option than starvation or other lethal dangers. Each season at Evermore Park brings new adventures, fit for all ages. Behavior varies considerably, just as standard offensive realism predicts for states, and countervailing forces would sometimes mitigate power-maximization strategiesalthough the very need for and difficulties of those countervailing forces help to demonstrate the fact that offensive realist behavior remains an underlying problem. Natural selection generates contingent behavior because it is more effective than blind aggression. Ali, Saleem H. in evolutionary biology from Oxford University and a Ph.D. in political science from Geneva University. Some decried the work as conspiratorial or factually weak, whereas others applauded its authors for having the courage to raise an important policy issue. Reproductive access to females tends to be highly skewed, with a few males responsible for a large proportion of progeny. His new book, God is Watching You: How the Fear of God Makes Us Human (Oxford University Press, 2015), examines the role of religion in the evolution of cooperation and how cross-culturally ubiquitous and ancient beliefs in supernatural punishment have helped human society overcome major challenges of collective action. This recurrence of behavioral patterns across different taxonomic groups suggests that the behaviors characterized by offensive realism have broad and deep evolutionary roots. As well as being the key behavioral traits identified by Mearsheimer, self-interest, social stratification, and groupish behavior are three of the most prominent behavioral features of social animals. How does the evolutionary perspective outlined above relate to offensive realism? We do not need to resort to group selection unless altruism cannot be explained by more conventional mechanisms based on individual selection. That certainly may be, as he attempts to demonstrate. Deriving a theory of structural realism that he has famously branded "offensive realism," Mearsheimer speaks with admirable clarity: "China cannot rise . In Matt Ridleys words, to prefer group selection over individual selection is to prefer genocide over murder.Reference Ridley188 Group selection can promote cooperation and altruism, but only within the group. The parsimony of general theories depends on how well they explain phenomena across space and time; in other words, the more closely they coincide with empirical observations across cultures and throughout history. Rather, we build on an accumulation of knowledge about human evolution and behavior derived from anthropology, evolutionary biology, experimental psychology, evolutionary game theory, genetics, and neuroscience. Third, we illuminate offensive realisms new explanatory power when wedded to evolution. For Waltz, anarchy provides the ultimate cause of state behavior, but he also uses a structuralist analysis in his argument. Similarly formidable obstacles to cooperation exist in international relations. Previous work has explored the implications of evolved human behaviors for specific aspects of politics and international relations, such as the causes of war or risk-taking.19 However, we ask a bigger-picture question, identifying whether core assumptions underlying international relations theory match scientific knowledge about human evolution and behavior. As we have noted, offensive realism contains explicit assumptions about how states behave in international politicsgiven the hostile environment, states are (and ought to be if they are to survive) self-interested, power maximizing, and fearful of others. 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). Collective action to attain public goods, however, is much harder to attain because of the threat of free-riders (as demonstrated, for example, by the slow response to climate change, the reluctance of states to accept Syrian refugees, and Eurozone fiscal responsibility). Kenneth Waltz placed realism on a more scientific foundation by introducing a new realist theory: neorealism or structural realism. Individuals may follow generalized decision rules, but these rules give rise to different behaviors in different contexts. All anarchy does is remove constraints on pursuing such behavior. Mearsheimer outlines five bedrock assumptions on which offensive realism stands: (1) the international system is anarchic; (2) great powers inherently possess some offensive military capability; (3) states can never be certain about the intentions of other states; (4) survival is the primary goal of great powers; and (5) great powers are rational actors.39 From these core assumptions, Mearsheimer argues three general patterns of behavior result: fear, self-help, and power maximization.40 It is these three behaviors that are the focus of our article. Recently, a 10-year conflict in the Kibale Mountains of Uganda came to an end. Mearsheimer based his theory on five core assumptions: (1) the international system is anarchic (there is no authority that exists above the states to arbitrate their conflicts), (2) all states have some military capability (however limited), (3) states can never fully ascertain the intentions of other states, (4) states value survival above all else, and (5) states are rational actors that seek to promote their own interests. Third, by acknowledging that the social and natural sciences are both necessary to understand human behavior, we advance consilience. 1 (Summer 1990), pp. He expands on Waltz's idea of structure causing behaviour . It is not just that we lack a global Leviathan today; humans never had such a luxury. Although it is not our intention to resolve offensive realisms theoretical lacunae, an evolutionary account can help to explain them. Evolutionary theory explains why humans are egoistic, strive to dominate others, and make ingroup/outgroup distinctions. The cognitive mechanisms underpinning the three traits were established in an environment very different from the one in which humans now live, but they persist because our brains, biochemistry and nervous systems, which evolved over many millions of years, have remained the same despite the rapid sociological and technological advances of the last few centuries. He subsequently became Content Manager at PressReader. What is the logic for risking life and limb in engaging in violent aggression against other groups? The fact that there is no world government compels the leaders of states to take steps to ensure their security, such as striving to have a powerful military, forging and maintaining alliances, and acting aggressively when necessary. Rather, we suggest it is an example of what biologists call evolutionary convergencesimilar traits arising in different settings because they are good solutions to a common problem. 2018. It is very important to notice that anarchy, according to Mearsheimer, . 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. To the extent that cultural group selection extends back into our evolutionary past, cultural traits have not been consistently or powerfully contrary to the evolved traits of egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias. 1-49; Robert Gilpin, War and The Yanomamo among whom I lived were constantly worried about attacks from their neighbors and constantly lived in fear of this possibility. At the dawn of the 21st century, an era that will be dominated by science at least as much as philosophy, we have the opportunity to move away from untested assumptions about human nature. Table1. The central issue raised by our theory is what causes states to behave as offensive realists predict. More important, however, is that we both evolved in conditions of free-for-all competitionof anarchywithout any Leviathan to administer life-and-death struggles with rival groups, a situation well recognized in the study of international relations among states. As formulated by Mearsheimer, the theory of offensive realism is a type of neorealism because the principal causes of state behavior are rooted in the anarchic international system. Note: In all cases, we argue, holding onto the status quo is not always good enough to ensure survival. Natural selection has led to a variety of contingent, context-dependent adaptations for maximizing survival and reproduction that include cooperation and alliances as well as self-help and aggression. George C. Williams famously made this point in response to so called nave group selectionists of the time, and his insight has continued to be reiterated to biology students ever since.Reference Williams189. However, we need to see the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Until recently, international relations theorists rarely used insights from the life sciences to inform their understanding of human behavior. Let us begin, therefore, by situating offensive realism in the realist paradigm moregenerally. 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. The group can accept organization with some centralization of power (dominance hierarchies), or it can engage in perpetual conflict (scramble competition), which incurs costs in terms of time, energy, and injuries, as well as depriving the group of many benefits of a communal existence, such as more efficient resource harvesting.119 Among social mammals, and primates in particular, dominance hierarchies have emerged as the primary form of social organization. Reckless States and Realism John J. Mearsheimer Abstract Kenneth Waltz opted to reject the rational actor assumption in developing his theory of international politics. Mearsheimer based his theory on five core assumptions: (1) the international system is anarchic (there is no authority that exists above the states to arbitrate their conflicts), (2) all states have some military capability (however limited), (3) states can never fully ascertain the intentions of other states, (4) states value survival above all Thus, the power of sexual selection can lead to the evolution of traits that actually damage survival in order to achieve superiority over other males.Reference Lincoln, Short and Balaban104,Reference Trivers and Campbell105 Reproduction trumps survival in evolution. They have enjoyed an absence of competition from gorillas (bonobos only live south of the Congo River, while gorillas only live on the north side of the river), high-quality foliage for food, and dense forest, which reduced vulnerability to ambush and thus, it is thought, the utility of aggression in males.168,169 Accordingly, bonobos may not be a good model for understanding human behavior, for reasons of both phylogenetic history and shared ecology. He is missed. Due to the legacy of our evolutionary past, the anarchic state system is not required to obtain offensive realist behavioronly humans are. The way this framework affects the conceptualisation of power in Mearsheimer's realism will be examined first through the examination of his . Note that the table captures key patterns, not universal behavior. In addition to fighting over resources, we can now fight over ideology as well. Hierarchies may be weak or strong, and alpha males may sire nearly all offspring or just more than others. Second, critics of offensive realism point to countering factors such as the democratic peace or international institutions. In some species, reproductive access is settled by coercion, in which the strongest male defeats rivals to dominate a harem. For an excellent general analysis of the genetic origins of aggression and its chemical mediators in humans such as the hormone testosterone, its derivative dihydroxytestosterone (DHT), neurotransmitters such as serotonin, and some of the differences in behavior caused by these factors in men and women, see William R. Clark and Michael Grunstein, In this respect, too, international politics resembles animal behavior. In 2003 he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Eric Labs captured this logic in his argument that, a strategy that seeks to maximize security through a maximum of relative power is the rational response to anarchy.38. Pomeroy, Caleb Clearly, not all individuals or businesses or states act the same way all the time or in all circumstances. Major realist theories and their predictions,154 plus predictions from human evolution. Some of these date from the split with our last nonhuman primate ancestor at the beginning of the Pliocene, around 5 million years ago. Offensive realism holds that states are disposed to competition and conflict because they are self-interested, power maximizing, and fearful of other states. Will a male from the outgroup present competition for mates, or will his presence threaten the ingroup males position in the extended family or group? While biological group selection in humans is possible in theory, there have not been any published empirical examples. Second, our argument makes two contributions to the theory of offensive realism: We ground the theory in human evolution (instead of the international system), and we extend it into new domains (beyond the interaction of states as units of analysis). Animals do not constantly fight. PDF | Previous research has found emotion interpretation biases in individuals with social anxiety (SA) when emotions are ambiguous. Note that we do not intend to make the full case forthe role of evolution in human behavior. A couple of times a month, groups of males would venture stealthily and deliberately into the periphery of their neighbors territory and, if the invaders found males wandering there alone, they brutally beat them to death. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/59922#eid5780558, http://edge.org/conversation/steven_pinker-the-false-allure-of-group-selection. We are positively biased toward our own groups and negatively biased toward other groups. 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. Haldane thus quipped that he would give his life to save two of his brothers (each sharing half of his genes) or eight of his cousins (each sharing one-eighth of his genes).Reference Haldane89,90 Inclusive fitness provides a biological basis for the common intuition that individuals favor those who are close genetic relatives.Reference Betzig91. 2022. 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. However, an overtone of this argument is that power or domination is distasteful for leadersthat they tolerate it only for the sake of their states security. We find that these precise traits are not only evolutionarily adaptive but also empirically common across the animal kingdom, especially in primate and human societies. Waltzs core concept in Theory of International Politics is the anarchy that reigns in world politics. The fact is that evolution explains and predicts both (under the relevant circumstances). Second, even if group selection does occur, it can only increase altruism within groups. Email: Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2016, For an analysis of offensive realism and defensive realism, see. Our theory is also unlimited in domain, explaining behavior wherever there are human actors and weak external constraints on their actions, from ancestral human groups, ethnic conflict, and civil wars to domestic politics, free markets, and international relations. 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. Updates? Evolutionary theory can also explain dominance. However, what is striking is the prevalence and potency of dominance in social organization, despite variations in the specifics. 21 June 2016. They can only be regional hegemons. However, if unconstrained from having to fit evolutionary insights into any particular existing school of thought, evolutionary theory may offer its own, unique theory of international relations that shares features of offensive realism (and perhaps other theories too) but is distinct from them all. Evolution is sometimes argued to operate on groups rather than individuals (group selection). Whatever ones personal views on evolution, the time has come to explore the implications of evolutionary theory for mainstream theories of international relations.Reference Neumann51,Reference Johnson52. Corrections? Offensive realism based on evolutionary theory makes the same predictions for state behavior, but the ultimate causal mechanism is different: human evolution in the anarchic, dangerous, and competitive conditions of the late-Pliocene and Pleistocene eras. Theorists have had to explain how cooperation could occur in the face of significant individual self-interest, the difficulties of collective-action, and the free-rider problem.Reference Boyd175,Reference Olson176,Reference Ostrom177 Special conditions are needed for cooperation to emerge and remain stable among unrelated individuals.178,Reference Sigmund179 Typically, those special conditions are ones that make helping advantageous to the genes responsible for the behavior. Debate continues as to whether modern states actually do, or should, behave in this way, but we are struck by a different question. For example, among wolves, lions, and chimpanzees, when members of rival groups are found alone, they are extremely vulnerable and risk being killed.140,141,142 We discussed intergroup killing in chimpanzees earlier, but the pattern is notable among social carnivores, too: Studies of undisturbed wolf populations in Alaska have found that 39 to 65 percent of adult deaths were due to intergroup killing.Reference Mech, Adams, Meier, Burch and Dale143, Of course, the ability to assess threats is much more complex in humans than it is in other animals, and human intelligence gives us a greater repertoire of behavior. The impressive design, by Tom Piper, comprises two very tall ladders, and . Mearsheimer's theory operates on five core assumptions. Rathbun, Brian C. The anarchic state of the international system means that states cannot be certain of other states' intentions and their security, thus prompting them to . This is not to deny that they miscalculate from time to time. We thank Robert Jervis for bringing this point to our attention. By contrast, as rational actor theorists would expect, hunter-gatherers are averse to the risk of fighting symmetric battles with roughly equivalent numbers on each side.82 Importantly, sustained instances of imbalances of power over evolutionary history would have led to the selection of contingent aggression. Behavior under anarchy in different domains. 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. 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. However, once again, the potential for cultural group selection does not change or challenge our argument. Egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup distinctions have previously been attributed to variables such as culture, economics, or religion.148,149 For example, Karl Marx and his followers identified egoism as a result of capitalism and called for its suppression and the triumph of class consciousness. Much of Thayers scholarship centers onlife-sciences insights into political-behavioral topics, including the origins of war and ethnic conflict and the dynamics of suicide terrorism. Offensive realism, more than other major theories of international relations, closely matches what we know about human nature from the evolutionary sciences. Again, the political world mirrors nature: Not everyone can be the alpha male. Of course, humans are not the same as chimpanzees, although we are close relatives and share a common ancestor around 5 million to 6 million years ago. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors. Although Mearsheimer recognized war as a legitimate instrument of statecraft, he did not believe that it was always justified. All three species descended from an (unknown) common ancestor. Mearsheimer outlines five assumptions or premises comprising his theoretical . First, neorealism does not rely on noumenal ultimate causation, and, second, it explains and predicts variations in the likelihood of war in international politicsparticularly among great powers. First, offensive realism fails to explain why costly wars sometimes occur against the interests of the states that initiate them. Render date: 2023-05-01T12:27:54.717Z Humans may pursue self-interest and power by many means, including, for example, patience and reciprocity as well as coercion and violence. Thus, if theories of international relations are to accurately account for human nature, they must acknowledge how human behavior has been shaped by the ancestral environment, rather than (or as well as) contemporary international politics. When the stakes are high and ones livelihood or survival is threatened, the traits of egoism, dominance, and fear of outgroups come to the forea conclusion we can draw from any number of conflicts in the Balkans, Northern Ireland, Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, India, and elsewhere. 6,No. Both laboratory experiments and real-world observations have identified empirical differences between men and women in a range of social behaviors, not least that men tend to have relative-gains, or zero-sum motivations (wanting to get ahead at the expense of others), whereas women tend to favor payoff-maximization, or variable-sum motivations (content to do well even if others also do well in the process).Reference Lopez, McDermott and Petersen106,Reference Ellis, Hershberger, Field, Wersinger, Pellis, Hetsroni and Geary107,Reference Taylor, Klein, Lewis, Gruenewald, Gurung and Updegraff108,Reference Van Vugt and Spisak109, It is well established that dominance and status-seeking behaviors in humans are based on many of the same biochemical and neurological processes as in other mammals, such as the secretion and uptake of testosterone and serotonin, which modify status-challenging behavior.110,111 However rational we may like to think we are, our judgments and decision-making are nevertheless influenced by cognitive mechanisms and biochemicals circulating in our bodies and brains that relate to dominance behavior.Reference McDermott112,Reference Damasio113,114,115, Dominance hierarchies need not only benefit those at the top. However, offensive realism is one of the most compelling current theories for explaining major phenomena across the history of international politics, such as great power rivalries and the origins of war. Mearsheimer argues that anarchy is the fundamental cause of such behavior. A larger, more powerful community from Ngogo launched a systematic campaign of aggressive and lethal attacks against its neighbors. 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. II, Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History, Five rules for the evolution of cooperation, 16 common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans, Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behaviour and the Quest for Status, Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, King of the Mountain: The Nature of Political Leadership, Teeth, horns and antlers: The weapons of sex, States in mind: Evolution, coalitional psychology, and international politics, Sex Differences: Summarizing More Than a Century of Scientific Research, Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight, Sex differences in leadership emergence during competitions within and between groups, The feeling of rationality: The meaning of neuroscientific advances for political science, Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain, Violence and sociality in human evolution, Policing stabilizes construction of social niches in primates, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes, Managing ingroup and outgroup relationships, What we know about bias and intergroup conflict, problem of the century, Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression, The coevolution of parochial altruism and war, Groups in mind: The coalitional roots of war and morality, Human Morality and Sociality: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives, Meeting at Grand Central: Understanding the Social and Evolutionary Roots of Cooperation, The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive biases, Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion, Presidential Leadership, Illness, and Decision Making, Political Psychology in International Relations, The Winner Effect: How Power Affects Your Brain, Chimpanzees and the mathematics of battle, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Why Nations Cooperate: Circumstance and Choice in International Relations, Divergence population genetics of chimpanzees, All Apes Great and Small.

John Dillinger Last Words, Mariloup Wolfe Conjoint 2021, Chicago House Ac Player Salary, Nicanor Abelardo Piano Concerto, Articles M