Human Nature in International Relations: A Theoretical Investigation and Comparison (original) (raw)

The study of politics deals partially with the study of humans acting and behaving, and International Relations theories are strengthened by having a superior understanding of human nature and evolutionary theory, and thus human political behavior. One means to this end is to compare a sociobiological model of human nature, defined by E.O. Wilson as “the scientific study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior,” to the current models of human nature implicit within or assumed by the major theoretical traditions of IR. My contention is that though there are accurate elements in each of the these theories, there are crucial inaccuracies as well, and a proper model of human nature from which to base further theoretical work takes elements from each theory to build a well-rounded model of a “bipolar ape” as an acting model of human behavior in international affairs. After developing a biopolitical framework as a lens through which to analyze politics, where political behavior is seen as an evolutionarily adaptive social behavior, and that is heavily influenced by the ideas of evolutionary psychology and the modular theory of the brain, this paper will proceed to contrast and compare this model of human nature to the similar claims or assumptions that permeate IR theory. For the sake of simplicity, the broad field of IR theories can be broken down into three major theoretical traditions: Classical and Structural Realism, Liberalism and Idealism, and Marxism and Constructivism. This divide is partially based around a rough split in their views on human nature: pessimistic, optimistic, and malleable and formed through socialization. The crucial point is that each theoretical tradition is rooted in a specific assumption about human nature, and the conclusions and policy prescriptions that unwind from these assumptions in each branch of the theoretical tree are based on this specific human nature claim. Any attempts to explore and understand a knowable, investigable world of human behavior based on any extremely malleable model of human nature is no longer sustainable in light of the sociobiological and neurobiological revolutions of the last few decades. A model of human nature that is based on the prevailing evolutionary consensus is a necessary component of a larger theory if that theory wants to explain and predict human behavior.