Human Nature and the Relationship Between Nation-States - Article Example

To what extent does human nature help us to explain the relationship between nation s? The need, or else, of the is generally rooted in assumptions regarding human nature. There is often some form of connection between human nature and the relationship between nation-states. Therefore, human nature can, to a certain extent, explain the system of political relations. One may even argue that those who have supported a powerful centralising inclination in the state, and those who have supported higher authority of the state are normally those who doubt human nature. Thomas Hobbes believed that human beings are naturally self-centred and further claimed that the unavoidable key to this dilemma was total control. Gandhi upheld a contrary belief—he believed that human nature is a mixture of desirable and undesirable attributes, and human beings could become virtuous and behave conscientiously even without the intimidating, forceful mechanism of the state. The belief that human nature is permanent and has an important influence on how nation-states relate to one another is thought-provoking. If global politics is basically human nature ‘writ large’ (Sutch & Elias, 2007, p. 48) then the role of human nature in international relations should be fully understood. Realists argue that human nature is naturally self-centred which endows nation-states a predisposition to conduct war. The historical experience of political thought is replete with conflicting but convincing interpretations of human nature. The Hobbesian view of human nature that largely inspired realism is questioned in its totality by those who believe that sociability, morality, and benevolence instead of selfishness and fear are the major attributes of human nature. However, what should be taken into consideration is whether this is essentially an attribute of human nature and thus should be considered when examining how nation-states will behave in international affairs. Hans Morgenthau, a prominent figure in the field of international politics during the 20th century, identifies ‘six principles of political realism’, two of which refer to the “objective [political] laws that have their roots in human nature” and the importance of “the concept of interest defined in terms of power” (Donnelly, 2000, pp. 44-45). He views the national interest as something to be determined rather than an issue of constructed and conditional tendencies. And such impartial, objective interests inform the content of trustworthy foreign policy. Hence the second of the four core principles of international relations is that “the objectives of foreign policy must be defined in terms of the national interest and must be supported with adequate power” (Donnelly, 2000, p. 45). According to Morgenthau, a “logically required connection between interest and foreign policy” (Donnelly, 2000, p. 45) exists. Morgenthau further declares: “We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out” (Williams, Wright, & Evans, 1993, p. 66). He believes that nation-states have the natural inclination to develop foreign policies that are favourable to their interests. These generalising arguments, though, are characterised by a combination of lacklustre repetition, ambiguous and unnecessary simplifications, and obvious illogicality. It is barely contentious to argue that nation-states normally pursue their professed national interests. Arbitrary and deliberately self-destructive actions are dismissed, but such argument takes into account such undoubtedly ‘impractical’ or ‘improbable’ behaviour as associating a specific interest to ‘human interest’. Almost all nation-states are in fact intensely driven to pursue power. Pursuing interests besides the national interest identified in terms of power is threatening. However, even Morgenthau’s position for such lesser arguments is weakened by an extravagant stress on a partial explanation of human nature. According to Morgenthau, the quest for power is an unavoidable outcome of the “elemental bio-psychological drives… to live, to propagate, and to dominate [that] are common to all men” (Booth, 2011, p. 159). He further claims that “Man’s aspiration for power is not an accident of history, it is not a temporary deviation from a normal state of freedom; it is an all-permeating fact which is of the very essence of human existence” (Donnelly, 2000, p. 47). These arguments reveal a remarkably intense biological realism: “The power of man over man [is] an ineluctable outgrowth of human nature” (Donnelly, 2000, p. 47). Political issues, as well as relationship between nation-states are “projections of human nature into society” (Kis & Dworkin, 2004, p. 54). Reinhold Niebuhr even proclaims that “the will-to-power of competing national groups is the cause of the international anarchy which the moral sense of mankind has thus far vainly striven to overcome” (Donnelly, 2000, p. 48). Basing power politics mostly on human nature transforms realism into a political theory generally. If “the aspiration for power over man… is the essence of politics” (Freyberg-Inan, 2004, p. 9) then there is no division between international and national politics. Several realists embrace this assumption. For instance, Niebuhr emphasises the disastrous failure of every social group to value moral issues that an individual normally does in his/her personal relationships. Frederick Schuman interpreted the national interest as basically the self-centred motives of the prevailing groups within a state. Ashley Tellis has proposed that realism must be viewed as a broad political theory rooted in a common drive for power. Morgenthau also claims that “the desire to dominate… is a constitutive element of all human associations” (Frankel, 1996, p. 243). He believes that international and national politics are but two distinct expressions of a similar trend—the pursuit of power. On the other hand, the fundamental goodness of human nature was the basis for a great deal of Liberal thinking. In order to shed light on the relationship between nation-states, Liberalism deduces up from such fundamental virtue at the bottommost of international relations to the level of the global order—human beings have no desire to fight one another without cause and if their judgments can be expressed in a democratic way to their governments, co-operation may take place at the global arena by means of global institutions. However, important questions linger: What if human nature is not good? What if human beings are hostile or confrontational? What discourages them if they want to destructively seek power? It is on this opposite idea that Realism manoeuvres. The Hobbesian international relations are not pleasant. In order to meet their collective need for security, one solution is to build states wherein individuals agree to live peacefully with one another. These states are governed by independent regimes that have the “absolute authority and credible power to protect them from both internal disorders and foreign enemies and threats” (Jackson & Sorensen, 2012, p. 71). Nevertheless, when various groups of individuals organise themselves into different states to conquer their fear of one another, then there is now the formation of a ‘state of nature between all these different states’ (Griffiths, 1992, p. 163). Where previously it was individuals worried about their own safety and way of life, it is now nation-states enduring such similar fear. This describes the security issue of classic realism—the strengthening of national security is inevitably accompanied by the emergence of insecurity at the global arena. Disorder within states is supplanted by disorder within the global arena. Whilst human beings are willing to surrender their freedom to a state government in order to obtain personal security, “sovereign states are not willing to give up their independence for the sake of any global security guarantee” (Daddow, 2009, p. 112). While realism stresses the destructive attributes of human nature, political idealism promotes a more enthusiastic and positive view of human nature. There are numerous types of idealism, but they share the common assumption that human nature is essentially good. This consequently establishes what advocates of idealism suggest as conceivable for shared manifestations of human nature, like in relationships between nation-states. In other words, realism is pessimistic, whilst idealism is optimistic. Based on this, national leaders and their lawmakers pursue certain visions of what relationships between nation-states must and could be, and they are often worried that as broad array as possible of core human requirements should be satisfied. Through this, movement towards a more and more peace-loving global order can be developed. Obviously, this objective is somewhat dissimilar from the realist objective of structuring international relations within the least of requirements needed for sheer co-existence. Basically, idealists argue that almost everybody gives importance to and desire such things as security, wealth, independence, freedom, and the likes. If most people desire such things, then theoretically no disagreement or tension should be present between nation-states, because there is fundamentally agreement of interests. So the question is where does war and hostility originate? Certainly not from basically self-centred human nature, but from nation-states structured by a rigid chaotic belief practising power politics; not like political realism that does not recognise the goodness of human nature, idealism expresses a strong confidence in the ability of people to build an ever more harmonious relationships between nation-states. Conclusions Human nature can, to a certain extent, explain the relationship between nation-states. As shown in the discussion, there are various explanations of the influence of human nature on international relations. Realists believe that since human nature is self-centred and power-driven, the relationship between nation-states is likely to be insecure, hostile, and tense. On the other hand, idealists argue that human nature is basically good and thus nation-states will desire more peaceable global affairs. Hobbes offered another argument that is more in line with the realist tradition, which states that there is a difference in the impact of ‘human nature’ and the ‘state of nature’ on international relations. Human nature pushes individuals to create a state to conquer their fear of one another, but the ‘state of nature’ discourages nation-states to surrender their sovereignty for global security. References Read More