mearsheimer's 5 assumptions of realism

Wranghams and Glowackis work has also established empirical support for the evolutionary logic in the patterns of intergroup conflict. 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. 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. However, there is, of course, considerable variation in egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias. 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. 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. Efforts to make positive political change may be more effective if we view humans as offensive realists and intervene accordingly. We recognize that many factors may affect the behavior of states, including bureaucracies, types of government, culture, international institutions, or the international system itself, but we also recognize, as traditional theories of international politics have from the time of Thucydides, that humans affect state behavior as well.Reference Levy202 Many factors come between an individual leader and the behavior of a state, but that does not mean leaders have no effect at all. 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. Aggression is not a cultural accident, but an evolutionary adaptation for acquiring and securing resourcesjust as it is for other species. Ethological studies have shown that hierarchical dominance systems within a primate groups social network can reduce overt aggression, although aggression increases again when the alpha male is challenged.Reference Knauft116,Reference Flack, Girvan, de Waal and Krakauer117,Reference de Waal118. Culture Bound Assumptions in Behavior Intention Models | ACR 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. Conventional offensive realism cannot explain such events well. PDF 241-256 IRE 104637 - John Mearsheimer Thus far, we have emphasized a state of anarchy in evolutionary history, in which there was no overarching power to provide protection from predators, rivals, or other threats. In some species, reproductive access is settled by coercion, in which the strongest male defeats rivals to dominate a harem. We recognize that a challenge to the theory of offensive realism is the empirical mix of cooperation and conflict in the real world. The first assumption is that there is anarchy in the international system, which means that there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can guarantee limits on the behavior of states (Mearsheimer 2001, 30). 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. 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. 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. 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. That choice, I argue in this article, creates three problems for his theory. 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. Omissions? Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. Third, by acknowledging that the social and natural sciences are both necessary to understand human behavior, we advance consilience. Behavior intention models, for example, assume people have: a linear time orientation (the future has meaning), an internal locus of control, and the ability to think in probabilistic terms. Therefore, to advocate group selection over individual selection does nothing to reduce predictions regarding human conflict or aggression. 15, No. Far from the original view of chimpanzees as boisterous but peaceful human cousins, researchers in recent decades have uncovered that these primates have a systematic tendency to kill males from rival groups.Reference Wilson, Boesch, Fruth, Furuichi, Gilby, Hashimoto, Hobaiter, Hohmann, Itoh, Koops, Lloyd, Matsuzawa, Mitani, Mjungu, Morgan, Muller, Mundry, Nakamura, Pruetz, Pusey, Riedel, Sanz, Schel, Simmons, Waller, Watts, White, Wittig, Zuberbuhler and Wrangham2,Reference Wrangham3,Reference Manson and Wrangham4 As primatologist Richard Wrangham put it, violence between groups of chimpanzees is like a shoot-on-sight policy.Reference Wrangham5 The strategic rationale is very simple: to eliminate rivals and increase territory. However, what is striking is the prevalence and potency of dominance in social organization, despite variations in the specifics. 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). 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. Mearsheimer does use his theory to predict the future of great power "Mearsheimer's WorldOffensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay" International Security 27:1 (2002): 149-174; Let us begin, therefore, by situating offensive realism in the realist paradigm moregenerally. 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. Nationalism and the Nation-State in Structural Realism: John Similarly formidable obstacles to cooperation exist in international relations. This collective benefit points to the special and much more significant role of anarchy at a higher levelanarchy between groups. 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. Anarchy allows Waltz to argue that states must behave much the way Morgenthau expected, but for different reasons. Mearsheimer's main innovation is his theory of 'offensive realism' that seeks to re-formulate Kenneth Waltz's structural realist theory to explain from a struc-tural point of departure the sheer amount of international aggression, which may be hard to reconcile with Waltz's more defensive realism. 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. The key finding is that humans quickly adopt an us (ingroup) versus them (outgroup) worldview. Second, bureaucracies and organizations are designed, run, and led by human beings, whose own dispositions influence how they function. Reproductive access to females tends to be highly skewed, with a few males responsible for a large proportion of progeny. To summarize, a species that lives communally could have two broad forms of social organization. Why would hunter-gatherer groups fight at all? Offensive realists and other theorists of international relations may see more or less of each. The motivation for such conquests does not, of course, involve conscious planning to attain larger territories or more offspring. China V Rise: Offensive or Defensive Realism Ghazala Yasmin Jalil - JSTOR Individual differences are important because political leaders may be more likely than the average person to display egoism, dominance, and groupishness. Unsatisfied with military life, he decided to pursue graduate studies rather than become a career officer. Corrections? The theory of Mearsheimer has five basis assumptions: 1. PDF Magical Realism: Assumptions, Evidence and Prescriptions - eScholarship 17 This is why he considers the US a regional hegemon, not a global one. Offensive Realism and Maximizing Power. Evolutionary theory and the causes of war,, John Strate emphasizes the importance of defense from attack by conspecifics, other humans; he argues that it caused the growth of human societies. Neorealism (international relations) - Wikipedia Mearsheimer: International institutions Flashcards | Quizlet Indeed, cultural selection has often reinforced, not reduced, these very behaviors over human history. State as primary actor 2. 4 (December 1997), pp. 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. At worst, this perspective will make us err on the side of caution. Finally, evolution may make significant contributions to other theories of international relations. He uses and adapts on Waltz's theory to paint a much more pessimistic and altogether darker picture of International relations theory. 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. In Waltzs model the absence of an authority above states (the condition of anarchy) forces them to make alliances in order to contain the threats posed by rival powers. Note that we did not pick the traits of egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias out of a hat. 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. First, the group could eliminate or reduce consumption to make the resource last. Men, more often than women, lead states. But what was that context? The recent crises of the Euro and migration have shown in stark terms that individual states continue to exploit the opportunity to free-ride on others if they can, and even the most powerful states, such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, have been reluctant or unwilling to make sacrifices to protect other states. 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. Natural selection generates contingent behavior because it is more effective than blind aggression. After graduating from the United States Military Academy (West Point) in 1970, Mearsheimer served for five years as an officer in the air force, rising to the rank of captain. A dominance hierarchy is created competitively, often violently, and is maintained forcefully, but it can serve to prevent or reduce conflict within a group because it establishes a pecking order that is generally respected. 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 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. The role of war in the evolution of political systems and the functional priority of defense,, For an excellent review of the logic for, and evidence of, adaptations for war, see, Inclusive fitness has recently been the subject of a heated debate in the biological literature; see M. A. Nowak, Corina E. Tarnita, and Edward O. Wilson, The evolution of eusociality,, There is copious evidence from historical and contemporary times that such nepotism is a significant influence in politics. Chimpanzees with larger territories have higher body weights, and females in those territories give birth to more offspring. As Chinggis Khan is purported to have said: The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes.159 Although not usually expressed in such stark terms, the pleasure of competition and victory has been widely recognized as a feature of human nature from classical times to the present day, and success in competitive interactions and the domination of others are known to increase testosterone and dopamine responses in menthe so-called victory effect.160 Such dominance behavior is, we suggest, exaggerated among leaders because they are generally ambitious and competitive, and usually male. (PDF) The Rational Actor Assumption in Structural Realism - ResearchGate This version of realism retains the traditional realist assumption that the primary state goal is power, rather than the defensive realist assumption that states seek security. [2] The five bed-rock assumptions of Mearsheimer's theory of offensive realism are: Kenneth Waltz placed realism on a more scientific foundation by introducing a new realist theory: neorealism or structural realism. As we have stressed, the human traits of egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias are adaptations to the ecological conditions prevalent in human evolution. 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. He was later a research fellow at the Brookings Institution (197980) and a research associate at Harvard University (198082). Others are even older, such as the limbic system, hormones, and sexual dimorphism, which are shared by countless species extending across all mammals and beyond. To an observant international relations scholar, the behavior of chimpanzees is remarkably like the behavior of states predicted by the theory of offensive realism. Individuals bide their time, form coalitions and alliances, and cooperate with others, but they also seize power where the opportunity arises. For their exceptional advice and comments, we thank lafur Darri Bjrnsson, Dan Blumstein, Miriam Fendius Elman, John Friend, David Galbreath, Azar Gat, Matthew Gratias, Valerie Hudson, Patrick James, Robert Jervis, Robert Keohane, Charles Lees, Anthony Lopez, Curt Nichols, Rose McDermott, Steven Pinker, Michael Price, Stephen Peter Rosen, Rafe Sagarin, Dominic Tierney, Monica Toft, Peter Turchin, Mark Van Vugt, Richard Wrangham, Remco Zwetsloot, and the anonymous reviewers. Moreover, the very acquisition and exercise of power itself is known to inflate dominance behavior further.161. 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. We recognize that offensive realism remains controversial, and we would like to address three fundamental problems with the theory. While biological group selection in humans is possible in theory, there have not been any published empirical examples. Second, the group might seek an alternative for the resource, perhaps through technological innovation or by substitution. It's located in Utah Valley's Pleasant Grove, which is about 20 minutes North of Downtown Provo. Genes obviously do not want or try to spread, but the machinery of natural selection means that self-serving alleles will generally increase in relative frequency in the population over time, at the expense of alleles that are neutral or self-sacrificing for no return benefit. 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. However, an evolutionary perspective raises new doubts about the significance of such evidence. Due to the legacy of our evolutionary past, the anarchic state system is not required to obtain offensive realist behavioronly humans are. We are positively biased toward our own groups and negatively biased toward other groups. Mearsheimer's World Glenn H. Snyder Offensive Realism and the Struggle 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. This realist assumption, however, is incorrect . Given the considerable cooperation evident in the natural world, one might think that evolution provides a foundation for cooperative behavior rather than selfish, power-maximizing behavior. The ubiquity and strength of the ingroup/outgroup bias across history and across human cultures suggest it is an ingrained aspect of human nature, and evolutionary theory explains why such a mechanism would evolve.Reference Alexander125,Reference Hammond and Axelrod126,Reference Choi and Bowles127 First, considerable evidence from both archeological and ethnographic research on preindustrial societies points to intensive intergroup conflict in our past.128,129,130,131,132,133 As we noted earlier, around 15 percent of male populations in indigenous small-scale societies died in warfare (and, in some such societies, war-related mortality rates were considerably higher).134,135 War also remains a significant influence on the social organization and physical distribution of these societies even when they are not actually at war. A recurrent criticism of any theory of international relations based on the role of individuals is why we should expect individual behavior to tell us anything about state behavior. 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. The Realist Framework 1 Core Assumptions of Realism - SlideToDoc.com 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. The Stratford scenes play out before a large, A-shaped wooden structure that represents Shakespeare's childhood home. All anarchy does is remove constraints on pursuing such behavior. Defensive realism - Wikipedia and Up to now, our claims have focused on traits that are common to all humans. 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. States are much the same. If anything, group selection would tend to increase violence, since between-group competition (conflict among strangers) can be more brutal than within-group competition (conflict among kin and fellow group members). Evolutionary theory can also explain dominance. In other species, males cannot coerce females, but the females are choosy about with whom they mate, leading to selection pressures for males to demonstrate or signal their quality as attractive partners. Darwin himself envisioned these nuances, even though he did not know the biological mechanisms at work. Major realist theories and their predictions,154 plus predictions from human evolution. For example, a group seeking a fixed source of water may be unable to trade for it if the group lacks adequate resources to offer in exchange. Still, humans exhibit an instinctive fight or flight response, just as other animals do, which operates below (and faster than) conscious awareness.Reference Axelrod144,Reference Cronk and Leech145 Befriending or cooperating with a stranger may have benefits, but those benefits are uncertain and limited whereas the costs of trusting an outsider may be lethal. Hunter gatherers have recurrent tendencies, including hostility toward members of different societies, and for killing to be carried out in relative safetythat is, only when there is a strong asymmetry in power between subgroups, such as in a raid or ambush (the imbalance of power hypothesis). Of course, cooperation and helping behaviors are common in nature, but such behaviors persist only where they help the genes causing that behavior to spread. John Mearsheimer's Theory Of Offensive Realism - Bartleby By 2009, after 18 such killings, the rival group had been all but destroyed.

Christopher Berry Norwalk, Ohio, East St Louis Monitor Newspaper, Smith And Wesson 38 Revolver, Who Is Richard Barnett, Gravette, Arkansas, Lg Wt7800cw Vs Wt7900hba, Articles M