Social evolution of international politics: From Mearsheimer to Jervis
| Author | Shiping Tang |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066109344010 |
| Published date | 01 March 2010 |
| Date | 01 March 2010 |
Article
Corresponding author:
Shiping Tang, School of International Relations and Public Affairs (SIRPA), Fudan University, Shanghai 200433,
China.
E-mail: twukong@yahoo.com
Social evolution of
international politics:
From Mearsheimer to Jervis
Shiping Tang
Fudan University, Shanghai, China
Abstract
I advance an endogenous explanation for the systemic transformation of international
politics and offer to neatly resolve the debate between offensive realism and defensive
realism through a social evolutionary approach. I contend that international politics has
always been an evolutionary system and it has evolved from an offensive realism world
to a defensive realism world. Consequently, offensive realism and defensive realism are
appropriate grand theories of international politics for two different historical epochs.
Different grand theories of international politics are for different epochs of international
politics, and different epochs of international politics actually need different theories
of international politics. Because international politics has always been an evolutionary
system, non-evolutionary approaches will be intrinsically incapable of shedding light on
the evolution of the system. The science of international politics must be a genuine
evolutionary science and students of international politics must ‘give Darwin his due’.
Keywords
defensive realism, evolutionary science, grand theory, offensive realism, social evolution
To Charles Darwin, on the 150th anniversary of his Origin of Species
‘Give Darwin his Due’ (Philip Kitcher, 2003)
Introduction
In the past century, debates between major grand theories of international politics (e.g. realism,
neoliberalism) have, to a very large extent, shaped the development of study of interna-
tional politics as a science. From these inter-paradigmatic debates, two important themes
have emerged.
European Journal of
International Relations
16(1) 31–55
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066109344010
ejt.sagepub.com
32 European Journal of International Relations 16(1)
First, except for a few notable voices (e.g. Mearsheimer, 2001: 2; Waltz, 1979: 66), most
scholars would agree that the international system has experienced some kind of fundamental
transformation, although they may disagree on what had caused the transformation
(e.g. Ruggie, 1983; Schroeder, 1994: xiii; Wendt, 1992, 1999). Second, some fundamental
differences divide the different grand theories, and these differences often are derived
from some hidden assumptions, not from deductive logic.
These two themes, I argue, are inherently connected and can only be adequately
understood together. This article advances an explanation for the systemic transforma-
tion of international politics and offers a neat resolution of one of the debates through a
social evolution paradigm.
I underscore that an offensive realism world (Mearsheimer’s world) is a self-destructive
system and it will inevitably and irreversibly self-transform into a defensive realism
world (Jervis’s world) over time exactly because of the imperative of an offensive real-
ism world for state behavior.1 In an offensive realism world, a state must either conquer
or be conquered. This central mechanism of seeking security through conquest, together
with three other auxiliary mechanisms, will eventually transform an offensive realism
world into a defensive realism world. Due to this transformation of the international
system, offensive realism and defensive realism apply to two different worlds rather than
a single world. In other words, each of these two theories explains a period of human
history, but not the whole. Different grand theories of international politics are for differ-
ent periods of international politics, and different epochs of international politics actually
need different grand theories of international politics.
Before I proceed further, three caveats are in order.
First, although I focus on the evolution from Mearsheimer’s world to Jervis’s world and
the debate between offensive realism and defensive realism, my exercise is not another
effort to restate the realism case. My central goal, to repeat, is to advance a social evolution
paradigm, or, more precisely, a social evolution paradigm toward international politics.
I am not endorsing offensive realism or defensive realism, in the theoretical sense.2 Rather,
I am interested in offering a neat resolution of the debate between the two realisms.
Second, despite focusing on the evolution from Mearsheimer’s world to Jervis’s world,
I am not suggesting that the evolution of international politics starts from Mearsheimer’s
world and stops at Jervis’s world. I focus on the evolution from Mearsheimer’s world to
Jervis’s world and the debate between offensive realism and defensive realism because it
is a more convenient launch pad for my thesis. Most students of international politics are
familiar with the historical evidence of this evolutionary phase but are less familiar with
the empirical evidence for the making of Mearsheimer’s world because the evidence will
be mostly anthropological and archeological (e.g. Cioffi-Revilla, 1996; Snyder J, 2002;
Thayer, 2004).3 The same social evolution paradigm, however, can explain the making
of Mearsheimer ’s world and can offer important insights into — although not predict
— the future of international politics.4
Finally, just because international politics has evolved from an offensive realism
world to a defensive realism world does not mean that offensive realist states cannot
exist in a defensive realism world (think of Iraq under Saddam Hussein). It merely means
that the system has been fundamentally transformed and it will not go backwards.
The rest of the article is structured as follows. Section 1 briefly introduces the social
evolution paradigm. Section 2 recalls the debate between offensive realism and defensive
To continue reading
Request your trial