mearsheimer's 5 assumptions of realism

4 (December 1997), pp. | Find, read and cite all the research you . Will an outsider compete for the current or future resources that the insiders need to survive or expand? Egoism and dominance are important mechanisms for attaining security, but also important is attaining security from members of other groups. I, Classical Realism (3) Emphasis on traits of mankind, Core Assumptions of Neorealism aka Stuctural Realism Waltz:, Core Assumptions of Offensive Realism Mearsheimer -Fear/Self Help W While biological group selection in humans is possible in theory, there have not been any published empirical examples. 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. Depending on the time of year, visitors can enjoy a Mythological Fair in the summer (MYTHOS), a Haunted Festival & Adventure in the fall (LORE) and a Magical Christmas/Winter . Males of most mammal species are particularly competitive with each other over females. Even if this strategy is never successful, it motivates individuals to achieve the maximum possible. So, while the natural sciences recognize the remarkable sociality and mutual dependence exhibited by the human species, these sciences are also unified in recognizing the selective advantages of self-interest and power. In either case, it is females rather than males that are the limiting factor in sexual competition, making male competition for available females intense. 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. All three species descended from an (unknown) common ancestor. The fact is that evolution explains and predicts both (under the relevant circumstances). Animals do not constantly fight. Evolutionary theory would expect that intergroup conflict contributes to fitness in certain circumstances if successful defense and offense against outgroups yield resources and reduce competition in an environment defined by finite resources.60,61 A resource is any material substance that has the potential to increase the individuals ability to survive or reproduce, such as food, shelter, territory, coalition allies, and members of the opposite sex.Reference Low, Zimmerman and Jacobson62, What an evolutionary perspective allows us to understand is that the origins of warfare and the functions of warfare are interconnected. His current work focuses on evolutionary dynamics, evolutionary psychology, and religion in human conflict and cooperation. Mearsheimer explains and argues for his theory of "offensive realism" by stating its key assumptions, evolution from early realist theory, and its predictive capability. 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. However, another important source of variation is individual differencesthat is, specific people exhibit these traits to greater or lesser degrees. 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. Major realist theories and their predictions,154 plus predictions from human evolution. Wranghams and Glowackis work has also established empirical support for the evolutionary logic in the patterns of intergroup conflict. But what was that context? However, even fellow realists have found problems and inconsistencies with Waltz's structural realism. 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. See. 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. 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. 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). On the contrary, it provides or adds to the reasons why we demand and need them, and indeed why they are so hard to establish and maintain. 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. 2022. 21 June 2016. Part of the reason for its intuitive and explanatory success is, we suggest, its close match with human behavior. First, offensive realism fails to explain why costly wars sometimes occur against the interests of the states that initiate them. The most enduring theories of international relations, therefore, will be ones that are able to incorporate (or at least do not run against the grain of) evolutionary theory. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science (Northwestern University) and has written numerous articles Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. hasContentIssue false, Human evolution under anarchy: predation, resource competition, and intergroup conflict, The evolution of adaptive behavioral strategies: Egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias, Evolution and offensive realism: New insights, Criticisms and extensions of an evolutionary approach. John J. Mearsheimer, in full John Joseph Mearsheimer, (born December 14, 1947, New York, New York, U.S.), prominent American scholar of international relations best known for his theory of offensive realism. That certainly may be, as he attempts to demonstrate. Of the many features of hunter-gatherer society and organization, we focus on intergroup relations, since these are most relevant to the behaviors associated with international relations. 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. Such comparisons are not central to our argument. 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. Survival of the disciplines: Is international relations fit for the new millennium? 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. Deriving a theory of structural realism that he has famously branded "offensive realism," Mearsheimer speaks with admirable clarity: "China cannot rise . Similarly formidable obstacles to cooperation exist in international relations. To an observant international relations scholar, the behavior of chimpanzees is remarkably like the behavior of states predicted by the theory of offensive realism. 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. The theory of Mearsheimer has five basis assumptions: 1. Dominic Johnson is professor of international relations at the University of Oxford. The particular socio-ecological setting in which humans evolved meant that egoism, dominance, and groupishness were important behavioral adaptations, irrespective of the traits found in related species. In 1982 he became a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he was appointed the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science in 1996. John Mearsheimer is one of these theorists. Although it is not our intention to resolve offensive realisms theoretical lacunae, an evolutionary account can help to explain them. 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. What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta.. The constraints on biological group selection, such as significant differences in a given trait between groups and low migration, are relaxed in the case of cultural traits, since groups actively promote cultural distinctions and have many mechanisms to prevent flows between them.Reference Richerson and Boyd190 Therefore, it is not just likely but quite apparent that many cultural traits have evolved out of group-level competitionsometimes referred to as memes, as opposed to genes. As evolutionary economist Robert Frank has explained, Evidence suggests that we come into the world equipped with a nervous system that worries about rank. 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. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/59922#eid5780558, http://edge.org/conversation/steven_pinker-the-false-allure-of-group-selection. Second, we introduce key evolutionary concepts that explicate the human behaviors upon which offensive realism depends. In general, humans cooperate where we can (e.g., within groups or within alliances deriving mutual benefit), but the anarchy of international relations is a hostile environment that, like the one in which humans evolved, tends to trigger our egoism, dominance, and group bias. Moreover, the very acquisition and exercise of power itself is known to inflate dominance behavior further.161. Incorporating ideas from the life sciences into the social sciencesrich in the study of culture and institutions and other influences on political behaviorwill help scholars base their theories in rigorous scientific principles and subject their assumptions to empirical testing.Reference Wilson20,21 Our approach draws heavily on evolutionary anthropology, which recognizes that human behavior is in large part the result of evolved cognitive, physiological, and behavioral mechanisms designed to solve recurrent problems confronted by our ancestors in the environment in which we evolved. Omissions? 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. Hierarchies may be weak or strong, and alpha males may sire nearly all offspring or just more than others. Gat, 2006, p. 427; see also Elizabeth Knowles, ed.. See, for example, the recent articles and responses here: Steven Pinker, The false allure of group selection. Between groups, group selection would do the opposite, maintaining or even exacerbating conflict.187 Because the premise is that selection operates at the level of groups, altruistic traits can only spread if altruism helps spread the genes responsible for it at the expense of other genes, and that must occur via intergroup competition or conflict. 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). 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. Evolutionary theorists now recognize, following William Hamiltons concept of inclusive fitness, that egoism has complexities. We are also yet to see how European states will cooperate or compete when the U.S. security umbrella is removed. Something inherent in our biological makeup motivates us to try to improve, or at least maintain, our standing against those with whom we compete for important positional resources.Reference Frank94 In the context of evolutionary theory, dominance usually means that particular individuals in a social group have priority of access to resources in competitive situations.Reference Milinski, Parker, Krebs and Davies95 A wide variety of animals exhibit a form of social organization called a dominance hierarchy, in which members of a social group each have a status rank descending from the alpha male down through all the other individuals to the lowliest subordinates. A comparison among alternative realist theories. Our evolutionary theory of offensive realism is unlimited in time, explaining behavior from the ancestral environment to the present day, whereas offensive realism is conventionally inapplicable prior to 1648, when the Treaty of Westphalia established the European state system. Footnote 16 In summary, Mearsheimer's realism is influenced profoundly by this core theoretical commitment to structural realism and its modification to include the rational actor assumption. Some decried the work as conspiratorial or factually weak, whereas others applauded its authors for having the courage to raise an important policy issue. Corrections? However, a key insight from evolution is that the primacy of self-help, power maximization, and outgroup fear does not necessarily condemn individuals or groups to competition and conflict; rather, these traits can in themselves give rise to cooperation and alliances. ABSTRACT -. This perspective does not deny the importance of institutions, norms, and governance in international politics. For Waltz, anarchy provides the ultimate cause of state behavior, but he also uses a structuralist analysis in his argument. 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. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 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 . Note that the table captures key patterns, not universal behavior. In sum, evolutionary theory offers realist scholars a natural-scientific behavioral foundation for offensive realism. Darwin himself envisioned these nuances, even though he did not know the biological mechanisms at work. Yet, it is notable that while humans are indeed a remarkably cooperative species, history shows that we have been remarkably good at cooperating in order toamong other thingsdominate others and kill. Table1. Fourth, we have argued that evolutionary insights closely match offensive realism among existing theories of international relations. Clearly, not all individuals or businesses or states act the same way all the time or in all circumstances. By contrast, our theory posits that a tendency toward offensive realist behavior, however modulated by other tendencies, would have conferred a fitness advantage in the environment in which humans evolved and should thus have led to dispositions to seek and like power. Moreover, and lastly, cultural differences have themselves represented an additional cause and consequence of conflict. That choice, I argue in this article, creates three problems for his theory. 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. He received a masters degree (1974) in international relations from the University of Southern California, as well as a masters degree (1978) and a Ph.D. (1981) in government from Cornell University. The strength of dominance hierarchies in humans is debated and varies empirically, but such hierarchies are always evident in some form or other. However, rapid advances in the life sciences offer increasing theoretical and empirical challenges to scholars in the social sciences in general and international relations in particular, who are therefore under increasing pressure to address and integrate this knowledge rather than to suppress or ignore it. Chagnon, Wrangham and Glowacki and others have also shown that individuals, as well as the group, may gain significant reputational and reproductive advantages of participation in warfare. In short, on the basis of the family tree, there is little reason to assume that humans should be more or less like bonobos or chimpanzees. An individuals Darwinian fitness therefore includes the success of related others (hence the phrase inclusive fitness). When the stakes are high, such as in 1914, 1939, 1941, or 1962, or today in the Middle East, Ukraine, or the East and South China Seas, offensive realism does not seem so foreign. 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. Any given individuals Darwinian fitness will be increased if they can successfully seize the resources of others at sufficiently low cost.Reference Buss and Shackelford71 Of course, warfare also may be waged for defensive reasons, such as to defend critical resources from the advances of others.72 E.O. 6,No. Major realist theories and their predictions. He argues, like Waltz, that the anarchic international system is responsible for much troublesuspicion, fear, security competition, and great power warsin international politics. Hamilton used genetic models to show that, while individual organisms are egoistic, they should be less so in their behavior toward genetic relatives, especially in parent-offspring and sibling relationships.Reference Hamilton87,Reference Hamilton88 This decrease in egoism is because close relatives share many of the same genesone-half for siblings and parents, one-quarter for aunts, uncles, and grandparents, and one-eighth for cousins. Offensive realism holds that states are disposed to competition and conflict because they are self-interested, power maximizing, and fearful of other states. Looking at the environment in which our own species evolved, we find significant empirical evidence for, and a Darwinian logic favoring, intergroup aggression. 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. 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. The result was that the theory lacked, and still lacks, a scientifically describable ultimate cause. Rathbun, Brian C. Although alphas in the hierarchy tend to have the highest reproductive success, other males may benefit from group membership by gaining protection from other groups, or by biding their time for a chance to challenge the alpha male when they become strong enough or old enough. Realism, under Mearsheimer's perception, suggests states are rational since they ought to think strategically about their survival (Shadunts, 2016). They can only be regional hegemons. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. Third, we illuminate offensive realisms new explanatory power when wedded to evolution. Our evolutionary approach predicts the same behavior as offensive realism but derives from a different ultimate cause. 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. Chimpanzees, for example, will attack others when they have a numerical advantage, but they will retreat if they are outnumbered.Reference Wilson, Britton and Franks162 This behavior makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective, because a decision-making mechanism that takes account of the probability of winning will spread at the expense of a decision-making mechanism that does not. 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 The international system is anarchic. Table4. Email: Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2016, For an analysis of offensive realism and defensive realism, see. These adaptations in turn serve as a foundation for offensive realismwhat Mearsheimer independently identified as self-help, power maximization, and fear. The core idea of offensive realism is that a state most reliably ensures its security by maximizing its power. Those conditions, according to Mearsheimer, create strong incentives for states to behave aggressively toward each other. Because states cannot know with certainty the present or future intentions of other states, he concluded, it is rational for them to attempt to preempt possible acts of aggression by increasing their military might and adopting an assertive position whenever their core security interests are at stake. 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. Mearsheimer, taking his geography argument further, asserts that stopping the power of w ater is precisely why no state can be a global hegemon. This seemingly straightforward idea is controversial, not least among realists themselves. Warfare might then be necessary for offensive purposes, to plunder resources from others. Evolutionary theory makes three major contributions to the offensive realist theory of international politics: (1) a novel ultimate cause of the primary traits of offensive realist behavior (self-help, power maximization, and fear); (2) an extension of offensive realism to any domain in which human actors compete for power (e.g., civil war, ethnic conflict, or domestic politics); and (3) an explanation for why individual leaders themselves, not just states, behave as they do. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that states behave as offensive realists predict not just because of anarchy in the modern international system but also because of the legacy of our evolution. 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. Men, more often than women, lead states. This has been done extensively many times elsewhere.Reference Barkow7,Reference Hodgson and Knudsen8,Reference Barkow, Cosmides and Tooby9,Reference Thayer10,Reference Sidanius, Kurzban, Sears, Huddy and Jervis11,Reference Alford and Hibbing12,Reference Gat13,Reference Rosen14,Reference Pinker15 Furthermore, we do not intend to make the full case for whether states do or do not act as predicted by offensive realism, which has also been done extensively elsewhere.Reference Layne16,Reference Mearsheimer17,Reference Labs18 The article focuses instead on our novel theoretical question: Do the core behavioral assumptions underlying the theory of offensive realism map onto evolved human nature? However, what is striking is the prevalence and potency of dominance in social organization, despite variations in the specifics. Indeed, the competition for mates is subject to a special type of evolutionary selection processsexual selection, as opposed to standard natural selection. Dominance behavior occurs in thousands of taxonomic groups ranging from fish and reptiles to birds and mammals. Again, the political world mirrors nature: Not everyone can be the alpha male. With regard to phylogeny, most primates and all the great apes (the group to which humans belong) have strong social dominance hierarchies, and humans are no exceptiondominance hierarchies have been extensively documented among humans in a wide variety of settings and eras.Reference Wason96,Reference Mazur and Booth97,98 With regard to ecology, dominance hierarchies are a common form of social organization in the kind of ecological settings in which humans evolved (social groups with competing interests, variation in power, and finite resources). in evolutionary biology from Oxford University and a Ph.D. in political science from Geneva University. Given group selections theoretical constraints, it should be a last-resort explanation (subject to empirical testing), not a first point of call. With regard to U.S. foreign policy, he advocated a strategy of global balancing rather than global hegemony. A superpower such as the United States, he argued, should not try to impose its rule on all continents but should intervene only when another major power threatens to rule a region of strategic importance. 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. Natural selection generates contingent behavior because it is more effective than blind aggression. Volume 1: Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas, Natural Selection and Social Theory: Selected Papers of Robert Trivers, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Punish or perish? In some species, reproductive access is settled by coercion, in which the strongest male defeats rivals to dominate a harem. 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. 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. Mearsheimers offensive realism argues that states gain power to ensure security. This recurrence of behavioral patterns across different taxonomic groups suggests that the behaviors characterized by offensive realism have broad and deep evolutionary roots. Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of power politics in international relations, sees competition and conflict as enduring features and sees limited potential for cooperation. 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.

William Shears Obituary, Indi Hartwell And Dexter Lumis Real Relationship, Why Is Rob Smith Leaving Bbc South East, I Failed My Physics Midterm, Xscape Floral Applique Gown, Articles M