The Classical Foundations of the Realist Worldview: The State of Nature, Human Nature, and International Relations

1
The Classical Foundations of the Realist
Worldview The State of Nature, Human Nature, and
International Relations

• PO 201 Introduction to International Studies and
  Political Science

2
Revisiting Hobbes and Machiavelli

• The readings for today reiterate what was learned
  earlier about Machiavelli and Hobbes (and, in
  some cases, are a repeat of previously assigned
  reading)
• We seek to apply the lessons of Machiavelli and
  Hobbes largely derived in relation to human
  nature and the state of nature to the study of
  international politics
• In doing so, we place the work of these classic
  authors into the levels of analysis context
  developed last lecture

3
What do Tom and Nick Have in Common?

• Each believes that man possesses inherent
  qualities that are less than attractive from the
  perspective of justice
• Machiavelli Men are ungrateful, fickle,
  pretenders, dissemblers, eager for gain
• Hobbes Men are consumed of a relentless desire
  for power they love competition, and are full of
  mistrust, ambition, and the willingness to hurt
  others
• Each seeks to determine how useful governments
  can be made by embracing, not denying, these
  natural traits
• Machiavelli Glorious rule under the virtuous
  Prince
• Hobbes Construction of common power
  (Leviathan)

4
Effectual Truth as the Basis of Realism

• Thus, as noted in the theory section, each of
  these authors
• Begins their explanations of state and interstate
  activity at the individual level of analysis
• Does not attempt to make suggestions and conduct
  political inquiry on the basis of what should
  be, but on the basis of what is
• This latter approach serves as the basis for the
  most important and longest-standing theory of
  international politics, REALISM

5
Machiavelli in IR Perspective

• Machiavellis Prince, in dealing with his
  subjects, places greater value on fear over love
  on respect over hatred on projecting the image
  of virtue over actual virtue. Why?
• Human beings, who say they want moral leaders,
  are actually deterred and awed by strength, and
  see actions geared toward justice and equity as
  indicative of weakness (result of human nature
  wanting to appear moral, but acting immorally)
• The crimes that Princes commit must be
  necessary engaging in violence for its own
  sake results in hatred, which must be avoided
• Thus, wise Princes often find it necessary to
  act contrary to charity, contrary to humanity,
  contrary to religion if he wishes to sustain
  his government
• Machiavelli therefore calls on Princes to forsake
  goodness when the circumstances dictate one must
  lie and punish to maintain control, because other
  men would (and will) do the same (Lion and Fox)

6
Machiavelli in IR Perspective

• How does this view of how Princes should run
  domestic affairs translate into how Princes
  should run foreign affairs? Almost perfectly.
• Focusing on war at all times keeping physically
  fit, constantly reviewing strategy, eschewing
  pleasure for preparedness results in fear and
  respect domestically
• As all men are essentially the same, the Princes
  of other states will find virtú the glorious
  exercise of the Princes courageous ambition
  as awesome and fearful as do subjects
• For Machiavelli, the Prince IS the State by
  securing himself from other Princes (through fear
  and respect), the Prince, by extension, secures
  his own state
• In general, Machiavelli considers the very
  qualities that ensure domestic obedience to be
  crucial to success in international affairs
• Do not attempt to change the behavior of other
  states, or convince them of your justice play
  the game better than they do (respect for
  effectual truth)

7
Machiavelli in IR Perspective

• In sum, Machiavelli claims that
• Princes can only hope to achieve international
  goals through the effective manipulation of human
  nature otherwise, just as in domestic affairs,
  they will be rendered irrelevant
• The system is comprised of individual Princes
  who, for the good of their own states (and
  dominion over them), act to project strength and
  gain respect kindness and morality are ignored
  when necessary

8
Hobbes in IR Perspective

• Hobbes largely shares Machiavellis views on
  human nature indeed, he is even more damning
  (man is antisocial)
• However, Hobbes rather clearly links the
  cravenness of humanity to the anarchic state of
  nature
• Man is full of mistrust, ambition, and the desire
  for power and to hurt others because humans are
  forced to obtain finite resources that are in
  great demand
• I.E., no such thing as injustice in the state
  of nature, and no utmost aim on the greatest
  good humans must fend for themselves to avoid
  death from insufficient resources or (more
  importantly) the struggle for those resources
• In fact, Hobbes explicitly claims that, if
  allowed, humans would prefer lives of ease

9
Hobbes in IR Perspective

• On the domestic level, Hobbes proposes the
  Leviathan as the means by which personal security
  can be established (and death avoided)
• All things even personal liberty can and
  should be bartered for peace via the
  establishment of a common power
• But what happens at the interstate level? For
  Hobbes, the interstate system is comprised merely
  of a collection of Leviathans
• Just as for Machiavelli, domestic political
  issues (predicated on individual nature and
  goals) translate almost perfectly to
  international political issues

10
Hobbes in IR Perspective

• Leviathans, like the original man for whom they
  provide protection, exist in a state of anarchy
• However, unlike for the original man, there is
  no chance for these Leviathans to form a larger
  common power
• Maintenance costs are too high, interests too
  diverse, and power too evenly distributed no one
  state can or wants to serve as Leviathan for all
  others
• No prospects of any overarching arbiter
  ESPECIALLY one based on morality
• Thus, the state of anarchy persists at the
  international level
• Predisposition towards war of all against all
• Leviathans can be (and are likely to be)
  destroyed by other Leviathans, and, perhaps,
  their inhabitants with them

11
Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Realist Worldview

• Taken together, how do Machiavellis and Hobbes
  treatises allow for the development of a
  realistic theory of international relations?
• The state, constructed by individuals, reflects
  the aggregate nature of humans as part of a
  system of like polities, the state suffers the
  same plight in the state of nature as do humans
• The world is as it is, not as it should be.
  Individuals find it difficult to fend for
  themselves, and thus create (or assent to)
  domestic institutions for protection.
• However, it is impossible to create an
  overarching institution to govern the affairs of
  states that seek security for their peoples
• Thus, ANARCHY prevails and will always prevail
  in the relations amongst states (anarchy as
  law)
• This means that morality or any assessment of
  how just relations can be established is all
  but absent in any realistic consideration of IR
  (more so for Hobbes than for Machiavelli)

12
Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Realist Worldview

• Since there is no Leviathan or global Prince
  in the anarchic international state of nature,
  POWER the ability to get others to do what you
  want them to do, or to otherwise refrain from
  doing what they would becomes the final arbiter
  in the relations amongst states (just as it would
  in the absence of the Leviathan/Prince in
  domestic affairs)
• This also means just as in the anarchic state
  of nature amongst individuals mistrust,
  animosity, and violence are omnipresent
  characteristics of the international system
• Power and the mistrust of others, stemming from
  the individual level of analysis, thus become the
  basis for the realist explanation of action at
  the systemic level