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. 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. 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. Rather, as Mearsheimer points out, states do best if they expand only when the opportunity for gains presents itselfthey try to figure out when to raise and when to fold.163 Evolution has been doing this for a long time. First, such studies would complement and critique the present study. This match, in turn, should be no surprise because human behavior evolved under conditions of anarchy, which pervaded throughout our evolution as well as in international politics today. The environment in which we evolved typically implies the Pleistocene era, lasting from 2 million years ago until around 10,000 years ago. 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). https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Mearsheimer, The University of Chicago - Biography of John J. Mearsheimer. 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). John Mearsheimer's Theory and its Major Assumptions|Realism #realpolitik International Relations & Politics 13.4K subscribers Subscribe 153 2.4K views 6 months ago Talk given on December. 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. John Mearsheimer's Theory and its Major Assumptions|Realism 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. Offensive realism, more than other major theories of international relations, closely matches what we know about human nature from the evolutionary sciences. Efforts to make positive political change may be more effective if we view humans as offensive realists and intervene accordingly. ABSTRACT -. 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. 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. He was later a research fellow at the Brookings Institution (197980) and a research associate at Harvard University (198082). 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. 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. 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. 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. States do not cooperate, except during temporary alliances, but constantly seek to diminish their competitors power and to enhance their own. Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article (requires login). 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. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions. 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. Mearsheimer thus judged U.S. participation in World War II to have been entirely appropriate, since Nazi Germany and imperial Japan sought to dominate their respective regions. 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. Some decried the work as conspiratorial or factually weak, whereas others applauded its authors for having the courage to raise an important policy issue. We invoke anarchy in all situations in the table because, while our core argument is that evolved dispositions (egoism, dominance, groupishness) give rise to offensive realist behavior today even in the absence of anarchy, these evolved dispositions will be more prominent and influential where regulation is lax. Mearsheimer: International institutions Flashcards | Quizlet When grounded in evolutionary theory, offensive realism need not simplify structure to interpret behavior and can parsimoniously develop and test corollaries over the entire span of human history. However, our contention is that significant aspects of political behavior could be given a stronger foundation if we acknowledge the powerful and basic biological principles that are chronically ignored in the political science literature, as well as the conditions under which they become exacerbated or suppressed. The impressive design, by Tom Piper, comprises two very tall ladders, and . Note: The unit of analysis varies among the theories (states for defensive and offensive realism, humans for classical realism and human evolution), but all predictions are for state behavior. A comparison among alternative realist theories. 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. The most obvious challenge that evolutionary theory presents to international relations concerns our understanding of human nature. | Find, read and cite all the research you . The very existence of these phenomena, not to mention the extreme efforts and expense they continually require to function, only supports the point that international politics needs very special and powerful arrangements to prevent people from acting as offensive realistspredisposed as they are to do so. Note: In all cases, we argue, holding onto the status quo is not always good enough to ensure survival. Evolutionary theory accounts for egoism and explains why cooperation can extend to the family or close kin group but remains difficult between unrelated individuals. Aggression may be a risky strategy, but it is a more attractive option than starvation or other lethal dangers. 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. 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. Some of these date from the split with our last nonhuman primate ancestor at the beginning of the Pliocene, around 5 million years ago. Mearsheimer's theory is built on five bedrock assumptions. 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). The optimistic message of our argument is that understanding human nature will make efforts toward international institutions, democracy, and cooperation more effective. Behavior under anarchy in different domains. Of course, human behavior is not a direct extension of the behavior of other animals, but, as we have explained, the ecological setting in which our own species evolved made these same traits as or even more important for humans. 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. To summarize, a species that lives communally could have two broad forms of social organization. Our evolutionary approach predicts the same behavior as offensive realism but derives from a different ultimate cause. 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. 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. This foundation permits us to reach realist conclusions about international politics, such as the importance of power in interstate relations, without having to believe in Morgenthaus animus dominandi. Again, the political world mirrors nature: Not everyone can be the alpha male. While biological group selection in humans is possible in theory, there have not been any published empirical examples. Even where dominance hierarchies are actively suppressed, such as in more egalitarian small-scale societies, suppression itself is evidence of the competition for status that simmers beneath the surface.Reference Boehm99 In historical and contemporary societies, competition for power is all too obvious, and the quest for status, dominance, and leadership is ancient and ever present.Reference Mazur100,101,Reference Ludwig102,Reference King, Johnson and Van Vugt103. As we would expect, this leads to sex differences in the desire for status. However, he criticized post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy for overestimating the countrys military power and its capacity to project that power at will. View all Google Scholar citations Indeed, there is a considerable literature on animal and human adaptations for cooperation.Reference Fehr and Fischbacher170,Reference Dugatkin171,172 However, while cooperation is frequent and widespread, this empirical observation does nothing to dent the evolutionary logic that cooperation helps the helperit evolved to occur only where it brings return benefits.Reference Trivers173,174 This is precisely why the cooperation literature has remained so heated. In short, you do not need group selection to explain altruism. It is not just that we lack a global Leviathan today; humans never had such a luxury. Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer) Flashcards | Quizlet Neorealism therefore works from realism's five base theoretical assumptions as outlined by offensive neorealist scholar John J. Mearsheimer in "The False Promise of International Institutions". This perspective does not deny the importance of institutions, norms, and governance in international politics. We argue that evolution under conditions of anarchy has predisposed human nature toward the behaviors predicted by offensive realism: Humans, particularly men, are strongly self-interested, often fear other groups, and seek more resources, more power, and more influence (as we explain in full later). 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. We do not propose a nave transplant of nature red in tooth and claw (to quote Tennyson) into international politics. One reason why an evolutionary explanation of egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias is useful is because alternative explanations for these empirical traits have failed. We see several reasons why human behavior is an important predictor of state behavior in the context of this article. The preeminent evolutionary theorist J.B.S. The Yanomamo among whom I lived were constantly worried about attacks from their neighbors and constantly lived in fear of this possibility. However, there is, of course, considerable variation in egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias. 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. Additionally,. 2022. As Mearsheimer and others acknowledge, power maximization may not always be a good strategy and, indeed, it has led a number of states into disaster. This collective benefit points to the special and much more significant role of anarchy at a higher levelanarchy between groups. Second, bureaucracies and organizations are designed, run, and led by human beings, whose own dispositions influence how they function. For Waltz, anarchy provides the ultimate cause of state behavior, but he also uses a structuralist analysis in his argument. See. What is more important is the ecological differences and similarities that we shared with the two species. The strength of dominance hierarchies in humans is debated and varies empirically, but such hierarchies are always evident in some form or other. Two theories of offensive realism. 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. None captures all salient issues. Mearsheimer follows on the premises of Kenneth Waltz's theory by deriving the behavior of states from the "structure" of the international system. The theory might thus be extended to explain the behavior and actions of many phenomena: the Roman Empire, warfare among Papua New Guinean or Native American tribes, the European conquest of South America, the race for the American west and the failed Mormon and Confederate secessions, the imperialist scrambles over African colonies, institutions like the medieval Catholic Church, commercial organizations from the East India Company to Coca-Cola, the struggles of rival ethnic groups the world over, and the ruthlessness of electoral campaigns. If our hypothesis is correct, then evolutionary theory offers the following: (1) a novel ultimate cause of offensive realist behavior; (2) an extension of offensive realism to any domain in which humans compete for power; and (3) an explanation for why individual leaders themselves, and not just states, seek power. However, an evolutionary perspective is particularly useful here because it predicts that behavior is contingent, not fixed. . In short, offensive realism may really be describing the nature of the human species more than the nature of the international system. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. We understand that this assertion may be a point of contention and look forward to engaging with our critics on this matter. 17 This is why he considers the US a regional hegemon, not a global one. Table3. Who wants power? And, even then, these arrangements often fail to work. The fact that these evolved behaviors are not always beneficial today does nothing to undermine their evolutionary logic or empirical presence. Indeed, the competition for mates is subject to a special type of evolutionary selection processsexual selection, as opposed to standard natural selection. Evolutionary theory can also explain dominance. John Mearsheimer's Theory of Offensive Realism and the Rise of China The legacies of this long evolutionary history exert powerful influences on our behavior, including our political behavior, even today in large settled societies and in the global arena.
Spin Class Theme Ideas, Reagan High School Baseball Roster, How Many Murders In Wichita, Ks 2020, I Am Honored To Be Your Friend Quotes, Florida First Responder Bonus 2022, Articles M