Human Nature and World Politics: Rethinking ‘Man’

Central Thesis: The paper critiques the assumptions of realism and neorealism about human nature and argues for a more nuanced understanding informed by biological research.
Realists vs. Neorealists: While realists like Morgenthau ground their theories of world politics in human nature, neorealists, such as Kenneth Waltz, minimise human nature's role, instead emphasising systemic forces.
Human Nature Assumptions: Realists assume humans are fundamentally aggressive, power-seeking, and rational—qualities that lead to distrust and the pursuit of self-interest.
Argument Structure: The argument unfolds in three steps:
1. Outline the assumptions of realism and neorealism through Waltz's work.
2. Critique these assumptions using findings from biology, particularly neuroscience.
3. Propose an alternative interpretation of human nature in the context of international politics.

Human Nature: Historical assumptions in world politics are categorised as aggressive, fearful, and rational.
Neorealism: A theory that attributes the behaviour of states more to structure than human nature.
Ontology and Epistemology: Discusses how foundational beliefs about human nature inform knowledge creation and policy-making in international relations.

Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations: Establishes that politics is governed by laws rooted in human nature, suggesting humanity’s aggressive tendencies drive international relations.
Characteristics of Human Nature:
- Aggressiveness: Fundamental to political behavior.
- Fear: Drives distrust in an anarchic system, necessitating power dynamics.
- Fixed Nature: Morgenthau posits human nature hasn’t changed since ancient philosophies.
Political Implications: This fixed nature leads to consistent power dynamics in international relations.

a. Waltz’s Neorealism:

Structure vs. Individual Human Nature: Waltz believes structural factors, especially anarchy, explain the behavior of states better than human nature.
Nuanced Perspectives: Although he downplays human nature, he implicitly suggests a fixed human nature affects structuring world politics.
- Human Nature:
- Fixed Characteristics: Distrust of others and rational calculations drive state behavior.
- Implications of Waltz's View: Evolutionary theorizing about state competition and survival, echoing the struggle for power.

Neuroscience Findings: Neuroscience challenges the simplistic understandings of human behavior and suggests complexity in how humans interact with each other and their environments.
Nature vs. Nurture: Proposes a co-constitutive model where biology and socialization intersect.
Human Variability: Emphasizes humans can adapt and change behavior based on experiences, complicating fixed assumptions.

Complex Human Capacities: Humans are capable of both aggression and cooperation. They are social beings whose behaviors are influenced by emotional and cognitive processes.
Revisiting Assumptions of Fear and Trust: Understanding fear as socially constructed and manageable through structural interactions and policies could guide better approaches to international relations.

Fear as Experience:
- Psychological and neurochemical processes occur in response to perceived threats, which also affects our political behaviors.
Institutional Fear:
- Fear can be institutionalized, creating a self-sustaining and reinforcing cycle, complicating diplomatic relations between states.
Managing Fear in Foreign Policy: Effective management of fear can mitigate conflicts and enhance international cooperation.

Old vs. New Human Nature: The paper argues for a reassessment of longstanding views on human nature that underpin numerous theories of international relations, advocating for a recognition of human malleability and the influence of social constructs in mitigating fear.
Implications for Future Policy: To foster global peace and avoid conflicts driven by unchecked fear, policies should focus on building trust and recognizing the complex human capacity for cooperation.