In Thayer’s article, he makes an attempt to incorporate Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory into the international security studies. The article tries to answer a central question that what are the implications of Evolutionary theory to realist theory of international security and in what way can peace be achieved if warfare is part of human nature? This paper agrees with Thayer that Evolutionary theory provides a scientific theory foundation for realism and is an ultimate cause for war and ethnic conflicts, as well as the assumption that origin of war is intrinsic in human nature as part of their evolution history. This paper will also suggest that a balanced structure of the world could contribute to temporary peace. But it need to be noted that the theory is also limited since Evolution theory could not fully explain many other forms of security problems like civil wars and terrorism. To review Thayer’s article, first, the paper will briefly explain how Evolutionary theory act as an ultimate cause for realist theory in terms of two human traits: egoism and domination. Following that, the paper will discuss the implications of Evolutionary theory to international relations. This paper will also evaluate the theory by comparing it with Waltz’s and Gleditsch’s theory on peace and war. Finally, it will conclude the paper by summarizing main points.
Thayer seeks to understand Evolutionary theory as the ultimate cause of realism. In Evolutionary theory, humans like other animals have to evolve to survive and reproduce from natural selection, which develops two basic human traits: egoism and dominance (Thayer, 2000, p.130). In order to survive and for fitness, an organism tends to places its security over the others and according to Evoluti...
... middle of paper ...
...dens the understanding of international relations and correspondingly broadens the understanding of security. Built on Thayer’s and Waltz’s theory, the paper suggests that structure of the international system is central to international security and to achieve peace, suitable strategies are necessary to balance the power relations. While it should not be ignored that the Evolution theory still falls within realism realm with many other forms of complex security problems unexplained.
Reference:
Gleditsch, N. P. (1999). Peace and democracy. Encyclopedia of Violence,
Peace and Conflict, 2, 643-652.
Thayer, B. A. (2000). Bring to darwin: evolutionary theory, realism and
international relations. International Security, 25(2), 124-151.
Waltz, K. N. (1988). The origins of war in neorealist theory. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, XVIII(4), 615-628.
War is commonly defined as an armed conflict between two entities, one that dates back to the beginning of mankind’s very existence. During this time many have attempted to explain the complex nature of war, its actors, and its origins. There are two authors in particular who have made critical analysis on the topic of war within the international system, more specifically the nature of balanced power and hegemonic war and the role that perception plays in conflict. Glipin asserts that disequilibrium will result in a hegemonic war due to inferior civilizations striking falling civilizations. Whereas Jervis asserts that misperception is the driving cause of war. I argue that it is not an inferior civilization, but rather different economies
Through an understanding of natural selection, I have come to accept that all creatures currently in existence are equal. However, for the purposes of this paper, I am limiting my question to the relevance of equality for human beings. I am narrowing my categories because morality is a human created concept couched in language, the use of which differentiates humans from other organisms. Dennett claims:
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
The article “On Instinctive Human Peace Versus War” by professor David P. Barash seeks to find a connection between human genetic inheritance and their aggressiveness or/and peacefulness level. Author is attempting to confront the previous research results of all the scientists and scholars claiming that human beings are instinctively war prone. Professor Barash is not endeavoring to oppose their argument by stating that all humans are peaceful creatures. He emphasizes that we are as inclined to war, as we are inclined to peace. The main purpose of the text is mostly to prove that humans are not inherently violent species as considered by many and that they are able to negotiate and perfectly
Mingst, Karen A., and Jack L. Snyder. Robert Jervis, Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma. Essential Readings in World Politics. N.p.: n.p., n.d. N. pag. Print.
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
Once the reluctant revolutionary, Charles Darwin, published his scientific findings in his book, On the Origin of Species, he forever changed and for centuries later shaped the world we live in. One of Darwin’s theories, supported by a large amount of evidence, which he published in this book, was that humans, along with all other living species, over time, are subject to evolve and change. This theory would later give birth to an entire new field, evolutionary psychology. Today, evolutionary psychology is an emerging, and still growing, field. Darwin’s evolutionary theory provided the framework to develop a new perspective, and thus field, in psychology. By applying Darwin’s approach and theories to psychology, we have created a new way at looking at the evolution of humanity and human behavior
“Realism emphasizes the constraints on politics imposed by human nature and the absence of international government. Together, they make international relations largely a realm of power and interest” (Donnelly 2000, 9). This concentration on power and lack of international government puts the focus on the States and their relation to each other. This is often summed up as the three Ss: Statism, Survival, and Self-Help (Lamy, et al. 2011, 66-67). States are considered the primary and only real players in the global arena and in International Relations themselves. It is assumed that these states will act only on their best interests and to perpetuate their own survival. Very few if any domestic issues actually impact the global level of international politics based on this theory. As Peter J. Katzenstein is quoted, for Realists, “culture and identity are, at best, derivative of the distribution of capabilities and have no independent explanatory power” (van Ham 2010, 46). Instead the global system structure is considered the prime and nearly only force that determines the state of politics and the actions available.
Anyone with even a moderate background in science has heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Since the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, Darwin’s ideas have been debated by everyone from scientists to theologians to ordinary lay-people. Today, though there is still severe opposition, evolution is regarded as fact by most of the scientific community and Darwin’s book remains one of the most influential ever written.
Long debates outlined two confronting approaches, of traditionalists and wideners, first adherents of the realist school of thought, define security as a freedom from any objective military threat and security studies is defined, for example, by Stephen Walt as “the studies of the threat, use, and control of military force”. Tradi...
Evolutionary theory throws humans into a tizzy. Driven by the need to amass knowledge, we find ourselves surging forward into the exploration of a story where the more we know, the less we can feature ourselves. Eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr contends that anthropocentrism and belief in evolution by natural selection are mutually exclusive (Mayr 1972). In other words, the Darwinian story of biological evolution rejects the notion of progress and replaces it with directionless change, thereby subverting the conception of human superiority on a biological scale toward perfection. Evolution by natural selection undermines the idea that humans are the culmination and ultimate beneficiaries of all nature. However, to say that anthropocentrism necessarily dissolves in the rising tide of evolutionary theory is to ignore the ways in which human centered humanness plays an intriguing role in evolution.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
To conclude, indeed there are veracities in Waltz arguments, but also there are limitations which cannot totally explain how the international system interacts with actors from different levels. The features of the world after the Cold War do not resemble what the world is today. Phenomenon such as integration, interdependence among states and the creation of international instruments are the result of states' behavior which are constantly shaping the world politics. Therefore, one theoretical ideology by itself will not fully explain the progressive changes in the international system, taking into account that states do influence in the international system.
Realism prioritizes national interest and security over ideology, moral concerns and social reconstructions. Realists arrived at basic condition of anarchy because there are no general measures which all countries can utilize to guide their conduct (Donnelly,2000). But, a state must constantly be alert of the activities of the states around it and use a realistic approach to resolve the problems. The development of modern warfare and depletion of resources also consolidate the fundamentals of realism. The realists reached this theory by making various assumptions (Richard,1981). They assume that international system is in a steady state of disorder. There is no actor higher than the states that is able of controlling their relations; states must maintain their associations with other states by themselves. Realists suppose that states must endeavour to conquer as many resources as achievable for their national security. Realists believe that interactions between states are decided by their might based on their militaries and financial strength. Further, assumption that there is a common distrust of long-standing collaboration or coalition leads to their fundamental political condition of Anarchy.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).