More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of Realism to the study of international politics
Biology chapter 13 the theory of evolution
The evolution of evolutionary theory essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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.
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.
Hobbes, as one of the early political philosophers, believes human has the nature to acquire “power after power” and has three fundamental interests which are safety, “conjugal affections”, and riches for commodious lives. (Hobbes, p108, p191) From this basis, Hobbes deducts that in a state of nature, human tends to fight against each other (state of war) to secure more resources (Hobbes,
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
The purpose of this academic piece is to critically discuss The Darwinist implication of the evolutionary psychological conception of human nature. Charles Darwin’s “natural selection” will be the main factor discussed as the theory of evolution was developed by him. Evolutionary psychology is the approach on human nature on the basis that human behavior is derived from biological factors and there are psychologists who claim that human behavior is not something one is born with but rather it is learned. According to Downes, S. M. (2010 fall edition) “Evolutionary psychology is one of the many biologically informed approaches to the study of human behavior”. This goes further to implicate that evolutionary psychology is virtually based on the claims of the human being a machine that can be programmed to do certain things and because it can be programmed it has systems in the body that allow such to happen for instance the nervous system which is the connection of the spinal cord and the brain and assists in voluntary and involuntary motor movements.
The question that I sought to answer with this paper was whether humans are biologically destined to wage war on one another. Admittedly, something of a broad topic. It seemed to me from news headlines and various history classes over the years that wars, in general, are fought over race, ethnicity or religion. Obviously, often the divides that exist between two ethnic groups don't surface in the form of war or conflict until an issue such as territory comes up. Yet even in territory disputes, the conflict itself still is rooted in the distinction the two sides see in one another: "no, you can't share this lake with us because you look differently/speak differently/worship a different god". Race is not a voluntary trait; it is genetically determined. Ethnicity is, to some degree, a plastic concept; created by human perception of boundaries and distinctions. Religion is an identity that one actively assumes, it involves participation and the adoption of a belief system. From this, one can see that the nature of the distinction is not so important as the distinction itself being made. From this, it would be easy to slip into the assumption that all it takes is the presence of difference to incite violence between populations; but this, I think, does not give humanity enough credit. My goal in this paper is to present an argument that while perhaps inclined, humans are by no means destined to wage war on one another.
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
Evolutionary Psychology has been controversial since its rise in the 1990s, with critics and proponents debating its merits as a science. While critics (e.g. David Buller, Elizabeth Lloyd) have extensively criticized the fundamentals of Evolutionary Psychology, few philosophers or scientists have challenged them. Given the growing influence of the evolutionary behavioral sciences within mainstream science like Psychology and Anthropology, it is important analyze the critiques and see if the arguments against Evolutionary Psychology have merit. This paper will focus on two of the most often cited critiques of Evolutionary Psychology: the critique of the concept of the modular model of the mind and the critique of the two “signature achievements” in Evolutionary Psychology, Martin Daly and Margot Wilson’s Cinderella Effect and David Buss’s studies of male-female differences in jealousy. I will describe and respond these critiques of Evolutionary Psychology, making the case that these critiques are not valid and have little merit on scientific basis of Evolutionary Psychology.
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...
Kenneth Waltz, the founder of structural realism, conveys a theory that favors the systemic structure of a state rather than the behaviors of individuals within. He posits states as black boxes where cultural and regime differences have no bearing behind their ultimate pursuit for survival. In the Theory of International Politics, Waltz elucidates three principles of state behaviors that govern their interaction in the anarchic international system. However, in this paper I will only discuss two, ordering principle and character of units.
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.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.
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.
Today’s world subjects an individual to many different socio-religious-political influences. Out of those individuals come idealized leaders reinforcing their influences. In the increasing complexity of such memes and their interactions clarity and an understanding of evolutionary paths that is favored by nature-one that results in better survival- has become paramount. An assumption can boldly be made that violent or non violent constituents in the practice of such ideals eventually determine the desirable outcome namely the survival and success in the pursuit.
Though many people do not believe that war is right for any occasion, there are those who believe in the “just war” principles. Just war is a principle where it “seeks to transform war and peace into moral questions, to move international relations beyond the ‘realist’ concept” (Just War 1). From a realist point of view, war is normal between civilizations if there are irreconcilable national interests or polices that threaten peace of the world. However, the views of “just war” supporters differs from realist supporters. Supporters for “just war” have the belief that war is justifiable if it helps limits the destruction of war in an area.
The efforts to find new concepts and theories of security are the response to the changes in the international system after the end of the cold war. During the cold war era was the world divided into three, first the western democracies, second the communist USSR and the third world country that consist of other developing countries. According to Klauss Knorr in his book “National Security Studies: Scope and Structure of the field, traditional National security studies during the cold war were mainly based on military issues and their relation to economic, technological, political factors within the “national framework”; and the nature and distribution of power-military power, that is-, and the use of these force among other issues at the international level. This we can see from United States National Security Policy, instead of maintaining a large standing force, Truman favored mobilization of reserve forces in the traditional American fashion of “declare and then prepare” for war. Despite claiming global role for America, the national security strategy exploited only one aspect of the military as a national instrument of power, one the US ended up not being able to