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 • Machiavelli’s 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 Prince’s 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 Machiavelli’s 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 Machiavelli’s 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