What is Realism?

It’s about real things, the real world, the real reality. Welcome to the world of the real. Thank you, Morpheus.

Let me introduce you to the world of realism, a collection of theories in international relations that are more popular in mainstream news than you might realize. If you ever heard of “the balance of power” or the unipolar, bipolar/multipolar world, you have been touched by realist theories that have been usually incredibly misused. While the actual realist theories differ greatly in design, purpose, and conclusion, there is a common mindset that when understood, can greatly help you approach the theories more easily. 

Today is not about introducing you to these theories, it's about understanding that realist mindset. It's like setting the mood. Lighting the candles, cooking food, and sweeping all the junk and dirty clothes under the bed for your dinner date. Except the date is with realist theories. That might not sound exciting…

“Leviathan”, a book by Thomas Hobbes written in 1651 is the mood. This book is the #realist_vibes. No one has ever read the entire book, because it's boring and the professors only give the juiciest parts in PDF files to read for class. Let us begin. 

The Natural State of Mankind

“Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body, and mind; as that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in the body, or of quicker mind then another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not considerable. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himself.”

Humans possess equal capabilities to absolutely wreck each other. Some may be stronger; some may be smarter; but no one can outsmart a bullet. So when you take all things into consideration, the differences are not meaningful because even the weakest person can kill the strongest, by tricks like poison or killing them in their sleep, or by forming alliances, made up of weaker people threatened by the strongest. 

So check yourself or wreck yourself. - Sun Tsu

From Equality Proceeds Diffidence

“From this equality of ability, ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our Ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their End, (which is principally their owne conservation, and sometimes their delectation only,) endeavor to destroy, or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to passe, that where an Invader hath no more to feare, than another mans single power; if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient Seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united, to dispossess, and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labor, but also of his life, or liberty. And the Invader again is in the danger of another.”

If we can all wreck each other, then it's a shitshow the moment two or more people want to possess the same thing. Even if one person wins, then another will fight to take his possession, leading all to live in constant fear.

From Diffidence War

“And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself, so reasonable, as Anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can, so long, till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: And this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also because there be some, that taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires; if others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be able, long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men, being necessary to a mans conservation, it ought to be allowed him.

Againe, men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great deale of griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to over-awe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him, at the same rate he sets upon himselfe: And upon all signes of contempt, or undervaluing, naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power, to keep them in quiet, is far enough to make them destroy each other,) to extort a greater value from his contemners, by dommage; and from others, by the example.

So that in the nature of man, we find three principall causes of quarrel. First, Competition; Secondly, Diffidence; Thirdly, Glory.

The first, maketh men invade for Gain; the second, for Safety; and the third, for Reputation. The first use Violence, to make themselves Masters of other mens persons, wives, children, and cattell; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other signe of undervalue, either direct in their Persons, or by reflexion in their Kindred, their Friends, their Nation, their Profession, or their Name.“ 

Oh sweet lord. Let me just paraphrase.

Because we can all wreck each other (and so, we are always afraid), that pushes us constantly to try and wreck everyone as much as we can through conquest and invasion, because the only way for the men in this world to secure themselves is by maximizing power, which means fight and kill. But everyone does this at the same time, tragically making everyone even more insecure. They cannot escape this tragedy, at least not on their own.

In such a world, personal pride takes on a different meaning. Your public image is more directly linked to your chances of survival. If people think you are weak, then they will see you as an easier target. If people think you are strong, then that allows you to coerce others more easily. Pride becomes something worth killing for. This is not that different from how some men behave in our real world unfortunately.

Everyone has the same potential to kill each other. This is a critical condition that allows the three causes of war to function.

• Competition: To maximize survival, or to gain shiny things, people fight.

• Fear: Because everyone can kill each other, the only way that seems to increase security is to kill as many people as you can. But, since everyone is in the same position, no one is safe.

• Pride: In such a world of competition and fear, your public image becomes much more important, as a way to express your power and dominance, or as a measure of how secure you can be based on others' opinions about you.

So we wreck each other for three reasons: competition, fear, and pride.

Now, this is not ideal. This natural state of man is one of constant war and insecurity. You can’t do fancy pants stuff like build buildings, draw art, create industry, or anything really. Lives are “short, nasty, and brutish”. To escape this natural state of man, because we all want security and nice things, people make a contract. The contract is to give up the natural right to use violence to get what we want. And we transfer that right to a single, monolithic entity. And that entity is the Leviathan. The Leviathan is civil authority, the government.

The government allows people to take risks, like making contracts and promises on almost everything. We promise not to kill each other because our collective security is now guaranteed by Uncle Sam through stuff like the police, and the courts. And contracts like trading bread for fish I guess, is enforced by the government. It is because of the government, that we can do civilized things, like making memes on the world wide web.

The key takeaway is that the natural state of man is what’s known as the state of anarchy, or the System of Anarchy, or the ANARCHIC System, the absence of a legitimate authority that uses overwhelming political violence to maintain political order. Without it, it's everyone for themselves.

Honestly, this is where most people stop reading. This alone will help you understand the foundations for many realist theories. Not as painful as you thought, right? Seriously, that's it. But I want to talk about one more thing before we end.

People get excited about the Hobbesian natural state of man. They quote it, and usually misquote it, to convince people that it's okay to do asshole things, especially in foreign policy. Because you know, it's the "natural state of mankind". 

Hobbes is talking more generally about how society came to be. He acknowledges that even in the 17th century England, which can’t be worse than post-Brexit England, people don't live in this natural state of man, nor does he know of any society that truly lives like that, although he did use native americans as an approximate example because he was racist and ignorant. 

The Incommodites Of Such A War

It may peradventure be thought, there was never such a time, nor condition of warre as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places, where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small Families, the concord whereof dependeth on naturall lust, have no government at all; and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before. Howsoever, it may be perceived what manner of life there would be, where there were no common Power to feare; by the manner of life, which men that have formerly lived under a peacefull government, use to degenerate into, in a civill Warre.

The state of man is a counterfactual example. It doesn’t reflect reality, but by using it as an abstract concept, we can try to explain why these individually selfish and violent humans, all capable of doing horrendous things, still manage to live in a political society of rules and contracts and laws, which is the reality. It's not meant to be used as a justification for how messed up the world is nor justify whatever messed up thing it is that you want to do. In fact, its purpose was to explain why the world is not messed up as much as we think it should be based on the passions and violent tendencies of individuals.

If you are watching this, say, from Boston, Massachusetts, and after reading this small portion of Hobbes while chomping down on lobster rolls and sipping clam chowder soup and you think to yourself: “Yeah, well... The natural order of man is war and doing whatever the hell I want. I can break any rule and promise, so long as it benefits me. The strong eats the weak.” 

Well, here is what Hobbes has to say about that (paraphrased, of course):

The Fool says that there is no justice. He claims, “is it unreasonable to break the covenant even if it serves my interests? Could I not take the throne by rebellion, and take power for myself? Could I not deceive people, and not fulfill the end of my bargain, once the other has fulfilled his? Doesn’t the end justify the means? Is this so unreasonable?" 

It’s not guaranteed that you can get what you want by breaking a promise. It's a gamble. If you are caught, you will have to face the consequences of banishment from society. Even if you manage to get away with it, you are relying on the ignorance of others, which once again, is a gamble. And should you take the throne by rebellion, that by gaining it so, others are taught to gain the same in like manner, the attempt therefore is against reason.

Justice is not contrary to reason.

Now, I will end with another quote from Sun Tsu.

Stop misquoting me. - Sun Tsu