in to his theory of international politics. In sum, realist and neorealist (and many
liberal) theories of world politics assume that,
- There is a sharp distinction between nature and nurture; the influence of nature
onnurture is one way – from nature to institutions. - Human nature is fixed; we can do little to modify our basic natures.
- This human nature is characterized by the tendency to be hostile, aggressive,
fearful and distrustful. We are rational power-seekers who are both tribal (saving
our love, cooperation, and the occasional altruistic act for fellow members of
narrowly defined in-groups) and slow to forgive. The conclusion is that this
fixed human nature determines our culture and our political institutions. We
are unlikely to moderate our aggressive natures for long.
This view of human nature has become so taken for granted that it is hardly
questioned as the rock bottom of world politics.^33 There is very little research on
‘human nature’ in world politics because most of us think we know all we need to
know. Policy-makers structure our institutions, including states, and policies, such
as deterrence, in line with these taken-for-granted assumptions. Yet, as I suggested
above and argue below, these assumptions are both inadequate and mistaken and
therefore the theories and policy prescriptions that they imply may also be
inadequate at best, and mistaken and dangerous at worst.
An alternative view of human nature
I suggest three alternative propositions about ‘man’ that both challenge the dominant
neorealist view and suggest alternative foreign policy conclusions. These proposi-
tions, rooted in a reading of research in biology, neuroscience and psychology, revise
the traditional assumptions.
- There is no sharp dichotomy between nature and nurture at a biological and
social level. Biology and social institutions are co-constitutive. Moreover,
simple genetic determinist arguments must be regarded with scepticism. The
expression of any one gene is affected by both the other genes we inherit, and
the epigenetic environment in which the genes are expressed. Indeed, the
relationship between ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ is so intertwined on a biological/
environmental level as to be nearly indistinguishable. Single genes rarely
determine our fates. - Humans (and other animals) are variable and revisable at a biological level:
experiences can and do rewrite the biology of our individual brains. - It is not advisable to talk about human nature as a singular cluster of mostly
negative orpositive characteristics. Just as much as our biology can foster
behaviours that are hostile, aggressive, fearful and distrustful, we can be gentle,
cooperative, loving and trusting. Further, we are not simply self-interestedly
rational or irrational/emotional: humans are reasoning. In other words,
Rethinking ‘man’ 163