Given the prominence of the concept in present-day international relations theory, it is striking that anarchy only took hold as a central feature of scholarship in recent decades, since the publication of Kenneth Waltzs Theory of International Politics in 1979. Part of the reason for its intuitive and explanatory success is, we suggest, its close match with human behavior. Fourth, we have argued that evolutionary insights closely match offensive realism among existing theories of international relations. Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. 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). 21 June 2016. While relations within groups might be characterized by coordination and cooperation (although internal conflict was important too), relations between groups were characterized by competition and conflict (although external cooperation and trade was also possible). for this article. Mearsheimer follows on the premises of Kenneth Waltz's theory by deriving the behavior of states from the "structure" of the international system. Some of these date from the split with our last nonhuman primate ancestor at the beginning of the Pliocene, around 5 million years ago. Scholars often argue over whether historically humans experienced a Hobbesian state of nature, butwhatever the outcome of that debateit is certainly a much closer approximation to the prehistoric environment in which human brains and behavior evolved.48,Reference Buss49,Reference Mirazn Lahr, Rivera, Power, Mounier, Copsey, Crivellaro, Edung, Maillo Fernandez, Kiarie, Lawrence, Leakey, Mbua, Miller, Muigai, Mukhongo, Van Baelen, Wood, Schwenninger, Grn, Achyuthan, Wilshaw and Foley50 This legacy heavily influences our decision-making and behavior today, evenperhaps especiallyin the anarchy of international politics. The way this framework affects the conceptualisation of power in Mearsheimer's realism will be examined first through the examination of his . We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Debates about evolved human propensities have often centered on whether human behavior more closely resembles the behavior of common chimpanzees or that of bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees that live in central Africa and are somewhat less aggressive than common chimpanzees). We do not need to resort to group selection unless altruism cannot be explained by more conventional mechanisms based on individual selection. Hostname: page-component-75b8448494-spc8s First, such studies would complement and critique the present study. First, the preferences of individual citizens are, at least to a degree, represented in those elected toor tolerated inoffice, and those preferences may also be seen in the goals of the state. 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. Updates? This recurrence of behavioral patterns across different taxonomic groups suggests that the behaviors characterized by offensive realism have broad and deep evolutionary roots. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors. 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. 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. Wranghams and Glowackis work has also established empirical support for the evolutionary logic in the patterns of intergroup conflict. Humans survived (and note that several other Hominin species did not) by virtue of evolved behavioral traitsamong them egoism, dominance, and the ingroup/outgroup biaswhich were adaptations to competitive ecological conditions. First, offensive realism fails to explain why costly wars sometimes occur against the interests of the states that initiate them. 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 . In international politics, the bigger problem may be aspiring hegemonsstates that do not need to cooperate to obtain what they want. Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article (requires login). In either case, it is females rather than males that are the limiting factor in sexual competition, making male competition for available females intense. He was later a research fellow at the Brookings Institution (197980) and a research associate at Harvard University (198082). Reckless States and Realism John J. Mearsheimer Abstract Kenneth Waltz opted to reject the rational actor assumption in developing his theory of international politics. 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. 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. Additionally,. In this section, we have presented standard biological arguments that egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias are deeply rooted behavioral adaptations common among mammals in general and primate species in particular. 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. Humans may pursue self-interest and power by many means, including, for example, patience and reciprocity as well as coercion and violence. Mearsheimer notably advocated the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Europe, arguing that their presence there was irrational, as no state currently threatened to dominate the continent. Older versions of evolutionary theory sometimes presented strategies and behaviors as fixed or hard wired. Modern biology stresses the contingent, context-dependent nature of behavioral adaptations, which generates finer predictions for when we should expect to see different types of behavior.Reference Davies, Krebs and West155 This is an important point to which we will return. We realize international cooperation is prevalent, but that does not mean such cooperation is easy to obtain. 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. However, the European project was set up precisely to respond to centuries of European powers competing and fighting for power at great cost. His current work focuses on evolutionary dynamics, evolutionary psychology, and religion in human conflict and cooperation. Defensive realism - Wikipedia Correspondence: Dominic D. P. Johnson, Alastair Buchan Professor ofInternational Relations, Department of Politics andInternational Relations, University of Oxford, St. Antonys College, 62 Woodstock Road, Oxford OX2 6JF, United Kingdom. Mearsheimer: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics The core idea of offensive realism is that a state most reliably ensures its security by maximizing its power. The most obvious challenge that evolutionary theory presents to international relations concerns our understanding of human nature. Up to now, our claims have focused on traits that are common to all humans. 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. Second, the evolutionary approach helps make a given theorys assumptions about human nature explicit, exposing them to empirical validation. In some species, reproductive access is settled by coercion, in which the strongest male defeats rivals to dominate a harem. Despite realisms long history as a theory of international politics and its widespread use by scholars and policymakers such as E.H. Carr, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, and Hans Morgenthau, the traditional realist argument rests on weak foundations. John Mearsheimer's Theory and its Major Assumptions|Realism However, it is important to make clear that humans did not descend from either species. PDF | Previous research has found emotion interpretation biases in individuals with social anxiety (SA) when emotions are ambiguous. Will the outsider be a threat to oneself or to ones family? The Ngogo group annexed their newly captured area, increasing their territory by more than 20 percent.Reference Mitani, Watts and Amsler1. Deriving a theory of structural realism that he has famously branded "offensive realism," Mearsheimer speaks with admirable clarity: "China cannot rise . 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. What is more important is the ecological differences and similarities that we shared with the two species. 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. 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. 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. First, group selection is a controversial hypothesis, which has been rejected by many prominent evolutionary biologists.186 While selection at the level of groups is possible in principle, it requires special conditions to overcome what are generally agreed to be the much more powerful forces of competition and selection acting on individuals, and these forces are always in play whether groups are in competition with each other or not. An evolutionary foundation offers a major reinterpretation of the theory of offensive realism and permits its broader application to political behavior across a wide range of actors, domains, and historical eras. 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. Individuals fight when benefits are expected to exceed costs (on average), and not otherwise. 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. Unsatisfied with military life, he decided to pursue graduate studies rather than become a career officer. In other words, since imbalances of power offer systematic opportunities for low-cost aggression over time, we should expect human groups to have developed a disposition to act aggressively against others when the opportunity arises, because opportunistic aggression is a strategy that pays off on the average. Behavior under anarchy in different domains. Indeed, the competition for mates is subject to a special type of evolutionary selection processsexual selection, as opposed to standard natural selection. That certainly may be, as he attempts to demonstrate. The Yanomamo among whom I lived were constantly worried about attacks from their neighbors and constantly lived in fear of this possibility. 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. 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. The remainder of the article proceeds as follows. Neorealism points to international anarchy, a phenomenon we can evaluate, as the ultimate cause of state behavior. (PDF) John J. Mearsheimer: An offensive realist between - ResearchGate Under an iron fist, even the most egotistical, dominating, and xenophobic actor will be prevented from realizing his or her goals. Other recent work has been an International Security paper, with Monica Toft, Grounds for War: The Evolution of Territorial Conflict, which explores the behavioral origins of fighting over land. This parallels the primatologists argument that the efforts of chimpanzees to seek territorial expansion and as much power as possible represents an adaptive strategy to ensure survival and promote the success of future generations. 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. 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. Note that the table captures key patterns, not universal behavior. Destined for War gets its Thucydides wrong, but its intentionsto warn that China and the US are on course to stumble into an unwanted warare noble. However, another important source of variation is individual differencesthat is, specific people exhibit these traits to greater or lesser degrees. Examples of offensive realism include John J. Mearsheimer, "Back to the Future: Instability inEurope after the Cold War,"International Security, Vol. PDF 241-256 IRE 104637 - John Mearsheimer Moreover, the very acquisition and exercise of power itself is known to inflate dominance behavior further.161. 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. Omissions? 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 recognize that a challenge to the theory of offensive realism is the empirical mix of cooperation and conflict in the real world. 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. However, the Ngogo group and their neighbors are chimpanzees. 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. He argues, like Waltz, that the anarchic international system is responsible for much troublesuspicion, fear, security competition, and great power warsin international politics. What is the logic for risking life and limb in engaging in violent aggression against other groups? Third, it is important to remember that the empirical observation of altruism in nature does not imply or demand group selection. 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. Evolution is sometimes argued to operate on groups rather than individuals (group selection). The key observation is that bonobos are less aggressive than chimpanzees. 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. 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. Cooperation is extremely hard to achieve and requires special conditions. Corrections? Offensive Realism and Maximizing Power. The origins of warfare are rooted in the imperative to gain and defend resources necessary for survival and reproduction in dangerous and competitive conditions. 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?