10

HUMAN NATURE

AND WORLD POLITICS

Rethinking ‘man’^1

Neta C. Crawford

The ideas about human nature that have dominated theories of world politics are
largely those held by the classic realists: humans are assumed to be naturally
aggressive, power-seeking, fearful, and rational. Our ontological assumptions and
commitments determine not only our epistemology, but also our theories. Our
theories then help us construct a world political reality in line with these assumptions
and help shape the policies that we develop to cope with world political reality. It
is vital, therefore, to make the assumptions and commitments of our ontology
explicit. My focus here is on the assumptions about human nature that have shaped
international relations theory.
Myargument proceeds in three steps. First, through a focus on the work of
Kenneth Waltz, I outline the assumptions about human nature that are common to
realists and structural realists. To the extent that those assumptions are right, they
help us understand international politics and make better foreign policies. Second,
by attending to research in biology, in particular on the neuroscience of fear, I show
that the dominant assumptions about human nature are at best incomplete and at
worst mistaken. These assumptions have led to a self-fulfilling prophesy, where
our assumptions about human natures have led us to make the very structures
and practices that characterize Waltz’s international system. The nature/nurture
dichotomy – where human nature is understood as basic biology, and nurture, as
social institutions and practices – is reformulated in favour of a more complete
and complex understanding of homo politicus. Third, I then suggest an alternative
interpretation of human nature and international politics. I have little space here to
develop these arguments. Thus, this chapter simply gestures at what is possible.