I didn't know about Mearsheimer and Realism. The statement "...all states - regardless of culture, religion, social hierarchy or political system - will act in the same way because they all prioritize survival and security above all else" is in fact a gross denial of reality. No. #1, all states and cultures are different from one another…
I didn't know about Mearsheimer and Realism. The statement "...all states - regardless of culture, religion, social hierarchy or political system - will act in the same way because they all prioritize survival and security above all else" is in fact a gross denial of reality. No. #1, all states and cultures are different from one another and are always changing; No. #2, the situations which face each state are complex and dynamic, and the state's actions will be conditioned by a subjective view of those situations and of the potential impact of the responsive actions to them; #3, the motivations of the states are dependent on who has power within them and that can change drastically at any time - as an example, a Trump admin vs. a Biden admin. Is the Biden admin really interested in survival and security of the U.S.? Could have fooled me.
It seems as if the critic of Mearsheimer might have set up his straw man, to paraphrase all states regardless of who they are act the same way with regard to the same problem. Perhaps they all focus on their survival and well being when they have good leadership. But who they are and where they have come from historically informs their thinking. And where they are. My sense of Mearsheimer’s discussions of these things, without extensive review, is that he gives a lot of weight to what he thinks is the perspective of other nations. When discussing Russia he brings up their perspective as communicated by Putin over the years. Perhaps I misunderstand Realism: is it an effort to understand the history, culture, and beliefs of other nations in an effort to see how all of this affects their goals when it comes to foreign affairs?
I didn't know about Mearsheimer and Realism. The statement "...all states - regardless of culture, religion, social hierarchy or political system - will act in the same way because they all prioritize survival and security above all else" is in fact a gross denial of reality. No. #1, all states and cultures are different from one another and are always changing; No. #2, the situations which face each state are complex and dynamic, and the state's actions will be conditioned by a subjective view of those situations and of the potential impact of the responsive actions to them; #3, the motivations of the states are dependent on who has power within them and that can change drastically at any time - as an example, a Trump admin vs. a Biden admin. Is the Biden admin really interested in survival and security of the U.S.? Could have fooled me.
It seems as if the critic of Mearsheimer might have set up his straw man, to paraphrase all states regardless of who they are act the same way with regard to the same problem. Perhaps they all focus on their survival and well being when they have good leadership. But who they are and where they have come from historically informs their thinking. And where they are. My sense of Mearsheimer’s discussions of these things, without extensive review, is that he gives a lot of weight to what he thinks is the perspective of other nations. When discussing Russia he brings up their perspective as communicated by Putin over the years. Perhaps I misunderstand Realism: is it an effort to understand the history, culture, and beliefs of other nations in an effort to see how all of this affects their goals when it comes to foreign affairs?