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. As we have explained, there are several mechanisms by which altruistic or helping behavior can (and have) evolved because of the benefits of helping others that accrue to oneselfnot least, altruistic behavior among kin, reciprocity, and reputation formation. Due to the legacy of our evolutionary past, the anarchic state system is not required to obtain offensive realist behavioronly humans are. He received a D.Phil. Likewise, many other religious and utopian theorists attribute egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias to special, or at least changeable, circumstances. 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. Historically, evidence has often supported this hypothesis.199,200,201 However, we take the position that, on average, state leaders personal interests have significant and genuine overlap with national security interests, not least of which is the survival and prosperity of the state for themselves and their progeny. 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. Of particular note regarding the impact of dominance on human behavior are the roles of both phylogeny (a species ancestral lineage) and ecology (its adaptations to local conditions). Up to now, our claims have focused on traits that are common to all humans. Heis the author of Darwin and International Relations: On the EvolutionaryOrigins of War and Ethnic Conflict (University Press of Kentucky, 2004). We thank Robert Jervis for bringing this point to our attention. 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. In Matt Ridleys words, to prefer group selection over individual selection is to prefer genocide over murder.Reference Ridley188 Group selection can promote cooperation and altruism, but only within the group. 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? 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. In the Pleistocene era, this strategy could have been an option with some resources but not others. Major realist theories and their predictions,154 plus predictions from human evolution. The ultimate causation offered by Morgenthau, the major theorist of classical realism, is noumenaloutside the realm of what science can investigate and demonstrate.Reference Morgenthau23,Reference Morgenthau24 Morgenthau argued that an animus dominandi (desire for power) motivates humans, but he did not explain how such a spirit may be derived logically from his theory or how his theory could be tested scientifically. 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. Third, it is important to remember that the empirical observation of altruism in nature does not imply or demand group selection. These traits help to explain why humans (including political leaders) will behave, in the proper circumstances, as offensive realists expect them to behave. 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. 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. In fact, interactions with people from other groupsunrelated others that may not have shared interestsmay be especially costly or lethal compared to within-group interactions. 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. Starting with biology, or with human evolutionary history, has never been typical in international relations scholarship, but this approach is now less exotic than it once seemed as innovators in a range of social sciences, including economics, psychology, sociology, and political science, pursue this line of inquiry.Reference Fowler and Schreiber54,55,56,57 International relations stands to gain from similar interdisciplinary insights. Neorealism points to international anarchy, a phenomenon we can evaluate, as the ultimate cause of state behavior. 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. 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. However, another important source of variation is individual differencesthat is, specific people exhibit these traits to greater or lesser degrees. The origins of warfare are rooted in the imperative to gain and defend resources necessary for survival and reproduction in dangerous and competitive conditions. 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). Where extensive international cooperation does occur, it is often only by virtue of a hegemon willing to sustain it, and cooperation quickly breaks down if core interests and security are put at risk. Second, even if group selection does occur, it can only increase altruism within groups. Indeed, cultural selection has often reinforced, not reduced, these very behaviors over human 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. This realist assumption, however, is incorrect . That choice, I argue in this article, creates three problems for his theory. In this article, Clearly, not all individuals or businesses or states act the same way all the time or in all circumstances. No theory is perfect. Note that we do not intend to make the full case forthe role of evolution in human behavior. 6,No. First, as with other realist theories, Mearsheimer assumes that the . Offensive realists can thus explain more than the behavior of states or great powers. 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 Offensive realism holds that states are disposed to competition and conflict because they are self-interested, power maximizing, and fearful of other states. He argues, like Waltz, that the anarchic international system is responsible for much troublesuspicion, fear, security competition, and great power warsin international politics. First, we explain the theory of offensive realism and the place of anarchy in that theory. He subsequently became Content Manager at PressReader. Moreover, it argues that statesare obliged to behave this way because doing so favors survival in the international system. However, offensive realism is one of the most compelling current theories for explaining major phenomena across the history of international politics, such as great power rivalries and the origins of war. Mearsheimer'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 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. It is not just that we lack a global Leviathan today; humans never had such a luxury. PDF | Previous research has found emotion interpretation biases in individuals with social anxiety (SA) when emotions are ambiguous. At worst, this perspective will make us err on the side of caution. In sum, evolutionary theory offers realist scholars a natural-scientific behavioral foundation for offensive realism. 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. Psychologists argue that the ingroup/outgroup distinction develops from a need for social identity. Where these conditions are tempered, such as in the modern peaceful democracies of Western Europe, these cognitive and physiological mechanisms are likely to be more subdued. 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. Major realist theories and their predictions. However, it is important to make clear that humans did not descend from either species. 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. 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. Given group selections theoretical constraints, it should be a last-resort explanation (subject to empirical testing), not a first point of call. Realism, under Mearsheimer's perception, suggests states are rational since they ought to think strategically about their survival (Shadunts, 2016). The brain may be responding exactly as it was designed to do, given informational inputs from the environment. This seemingly straightforward idea is controversial, not least among realists themselves. The rest of the 500-plus page book more closely outlines. Fourth, we have argued that evolutionary insights closely match offensive realism among existing theories of international relations. 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 Indeed, the possibility of even more intense security competition in the Sino-American relationship, between India and Pakistan, and in the Middle East highlights the importance of making the theorys logic explicit and revealing and testing its foundations. In either case, it is females rather than males that are the limiting factor in sexual competition, making male competition for available females intense. Third, exploring how evolution intersects with other theories of international relations would advance the goal of consilience, fusing theoretical and empirical knowledge drawn from both the social and natural sciences. 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. This article is dedicated to the memory of Rafe Sagarin, an exceptional ecologist, colleague, and friend who devoted much of his life to bridging the gap between the life and social sciences. Our theory is also unlimited in domain, explaining behavior wherever there are human actors and weak external constraints on their actions, from ancestral human groups, ethnic conflict, and civil wars to domestic politics, free markets, and international relations. As we would expect, this leads to sex differences in the desire for status. 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. The fact is that evolution explains and predicts both (under the relevant circumstances). Mearsheimer's theory is built on five bedrock assumptions. Rathbun, Brian C. As we have stressed, the human traits of egoism, dominance, and ingroup/outgroup bias are adaptations to the ecological conditions prevalent in human evolution. 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. Will the outsider be a threat to oneself or to ones family? We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Mearsheimer, The University of Chicago - Biography of John J. Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer outlines five assumptions or premises comprising his theoretical . We are positively biased toward our own groups and negatively biased toward other groups. 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. 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). We recognize that a challenge to the theory of offensive realism is the empirical mix of cooperation and conflict in the real world. Mearsheimer's theory is a spin-off of Kenneth Waltz's neorealism, also known as structural or defensive realism. Chimpanzees do at least have some important ecological similarities to humans. A comparison among alternative realist theories. Aggression is not a cultural accident, but an evolutionary adaptation for acquiring and securing resourcesjust as it is for other 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. He also frequently participated in public debates by contributing op-ed articles to the The New York Times and other national newspapers. Sexual selection is typically responsible for the hierarchical nature of group-living animal species, including humans, as males fight for rank and the reproductive benefits in brings. The fact that all prior utopian visions have failed to come to fruition does not prove that current ones will fail too. 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). When the stakes are high enough, individuals as well as states all too easily revert to egoism, dominance, and fear. And, even then, these arrangements often fail to work. The imperative for survival in a hostile environment also requires that an individual organism places its survival, especially in a time of danger or stress, above the survival of others. 4 (December 1997), pp. 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. 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. The environment in which we evolved typically implies the Pleistocene era, lasting from 2 million years ago until around 10,000 years ago. The central issue raised by our theory is what causes states to behave as offensive realists predict. 15, No. These types of adaptations not only consume precious time and energy but can also decrease survival in other, nonreproductive domains of life (for example, the plumage of male peacocks limits their ability to fly). 2018. Andr Munro was an editor at Encyclopaedia Britannica. Each season at Evermore Park brings new adventures, fit for all ages. He was later a research fellow at the Brookings Institution (197980) and a research associate at Harvard University (198082). 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 structural point of departure the sheer . Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article (requires login). Reproductive access to females tends to be highly skewed, with a few males responsible for a large proportion of progeny. 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. 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.