Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:42:16.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anarchy and identity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Jonathan Mercer
Jonathan Mercer
Affiliation:
A Social Science Research Council-MacArthur Foundation Fellow on Peace and Security in a Changing World and a Visiting Fellow at the Center for International Security and Arms Control at Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Get access

Abstract

Is there escape from a self-help system? Realists say no. They assume states are egoistic actors in anarchy; this means states must either look out for themselves or risk destruction: structure generates a self-help system. Constructivists think escape is possible. Because identities are made, not given, we should not make a priori assumptions of state egoism: process generates self-help. Process could also generate an other-help security system. This article introduces a third approach that uses social identity theory to argue that interstate relations are inherently competitive. Thus, for cognitive and motivated—rather than structural or social—reasons, competition, which can be coercive or cooperative, characterizes international politics.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , Spring 1995 , pp. 229 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The clearest neorealist statement is that of Waltz, Kenneth in Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979)Google Scholar. Also see Grieco, Joseph, “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988), pp. 485–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The constructivist position is clearly presented by Wendt, Alexander, in “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46 (Spring 1992), pp. 391–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Onuf, Nicholas, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

2. Wendt, , “Anarchy is What States Make of It,” p. 400Google Scholar.

3. Waltz, , Theory of International Politics, p. 91Google Scholar.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., p. 105.

6. Grieco, Joseph M., Cooperation Among Nations: Europe, America, and Non-tariff Barriers to Trade (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1990), p. 36Google Scholar.

7. See, for example, Haas, Ernst, When Knowledge is Power (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Haas, Peter, “Do Regimes Matter: Epistemic Community and Mediterranean Pollution Control,” International Organization 46 (Winter 1992), pp. 377–403Google Scholar; Kratochwil, Friedrich, Rules, Norms, and Decisions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nye, Joseph, “Nuclear Learning and U.S.-Soviet Security Regimes,” International Organization 41 (Summer 1987), pp. 371–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Risse-Kappan, Thomas, “Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Relations, Domestic Structures and the End of the Cold War,” International Organization 48 (Spring 1994), pp. 185–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ruggie, John Gerard, “International Regimes, Transactions, and Change: Embedded Liberalism in the Postwar Economic Order,” in Krasner, Stephen D., ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), pp. 195–231Google Scholar.

8. Neufeld, Mark, “Interpretation and the ‘Science’ of International Relations,” Review of International Studies 19 (01 1993), pp. 39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quotations are from p. 60.

9. See Keohane, Robert, After Hegemony (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

10. For a discussion of the relative-absolute gains debate, see Baldwin, David, ed., Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

11. This is how Wendt characterizes the issue. See his “Anarchy is What States Make of It.”

12. The debate over the “as if” assumption dates to Friedman's, Milton “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in his Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953)Google Scholar. Waltz, gives a good defense of the practice in Theory of International Politics, pp. 10 and 88–93Google Scholar.

13. For example, Dessler objects to Waltz's ontology because it does not allow, even in principle, for the system to be anything other than self-help. See Dessler, David, “What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate,” International Organization 43 (Summer 1989), pp. 441–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14. Oyama, Susan, “Innate Selfishness, Innate Sociality,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (12 1989), pp. 717–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quotation is from p. 717.

15. Snyder's useful distinction between “defensive” and “aggressive” realism illustrates different realist strategies available in a self-help system. See Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991)Google Scholar. For further discussion, see Wohlforth, William, “The End of the Cold War and Five Problems of International Theory,” in Wohlforth, William, ed. Witness to the End of the Cold War (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

16. Snidal, Duncan, “International Cooperation Among Relative Gains Maximizers,” International Studies Quarterly 35 (12 1991), pp. 387–402 and pp. 400–401 in particularCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17. Waltz, , Theory of International Politics, p. 71Google Scholar.

18. Wendt, , “Anarchy is What States Make of It,” p. 401Google Scholar.

19. See Darley, John, “Altruism and Prosocial Behavior Research: Reflections and Prospects,” in Clark, Margaret, ed., Prosocial Behavior (London: Sage, 1991), p. 326 n.1Google Scholar; Staub, Ervin, Positive Social Behavior and Morality (New York: Academic Press, 1978)Google Scholar; and Schroeder, David, Penner, Louis, Dovidio, John, and Pilliavan, Jane, The Psychology of Helping and Altruism, McGraw-Hill Series in Social Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

20. Sandholtz, Wayne and Zysman, John, “1992: Recasting the European Bargain,” World Politics 42 (10 1989), pp. 95–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. Le Gloannec, Ann-Marie, “The Implications of German Unification for Western Europe,” in Stares, Paul, ed. The New Germany and the New Europe (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1992), pp. 251–78Google Scholar.

22. For tit-for-tat strategies, see Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984)Google Scholar. Keohane, Robert discusses diffuse reciprocity in “Reciprocity in International Relations,” International Organization 40 (Winter 1986), pp. 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an introduction and review of Robert Trivers's idea of reciprocal altruism, see Taylor, Charles and McGuire, Michael, “Reciprocal Altruism: Fifteen Years Later,” Ethology and Sociobiology 9 (07 1988), pp. 67–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. The quotation is Bobbi Low's. See p. 14 of Low, Bobbi, “An Evolutionary Perspective on War,” in Zimmerman, William and Jacobson, Harold, eds. Behavior, Culture, and Conflict in World Politics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), pp. 13–55Google Scholar.

24. Wendt, , “Anarchy is What States Make of It,” pp. 401–2Google Scholar.

25. Ibid., p. 407.

26. For a critique of harmony assumptions in international relations theory, see Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919–1939 (New York: Harper and Row, 1964)Google Scholar; and Waltz, Kenneth, Man, The State, and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954)Google Scholar.

27. Wendt, , “Anarchy is What States Make of It,” p. 404Google Scholar.

28. Ibid. pp. 401 and 405.

29. Mead, George Herbert, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934), p. 326Google Scholar. See also Stryker, Sheldon, Symbolic Interactionism (Reading, Mass.: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., 1980), pp. 37–38 and 62Google Scholar.

30. See Berger, Peter, “Identity as a Problem in the Sociology of Knowledge,” Archives Européennes de Sociologie, vol. 7, no. 1, 1966, pp. 105–15 and p. 111 in particularCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Mead notes that initial communication with Martians would be impossible. See Mind, Self, and Society, p. 257.

31. Stryker, , Symbolic Interactionism, p. 62Google Scholar

32. Franks, David, “Notes on the Bodily Aspect of Emotions: A Controversial Issue in Symbolic Interaction,” Studies in Symbolic Interaction 8 (1987), pp. 219–33 and p. 220 in particularGoogle Scholar. Borrowing from Adam Smith and David Hume, Mead viewed sympathy as critical to identifying with others. See Mead, Mind, Self, and Society, p. 366; Stryker, Sheldon, “Symbolic Interactionism: Themes and Variations,” in Rosenberg, Morris and Turner, Ralph, eds., Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives (New York: Basic Books, 1981), pp. 3–29 and p. 5 in particularGoogle Scholar; and Stryker, , Symbolic Interactionism, pp. 19 and 62Google Scholar. Because empathy is a relatively new word-for example, “empathetic” was not used until after Mead's death-it is not surprising that he did not use it in his writings. Staub notes that many writers consider role taking and empathy to be identical. See Staub, , Positive Social Behavior and Morality, p. 44Google Scholar.

33. Mead's emphasis on the importance of sympathy (or empathy) to identify with others is well-supported in the social psychology literature. For a review, see Batson, C. Daniel and Oleson, Kathryn, “Current Status of the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis,” in Clark, , Prosocial Behavior, pp. 62–85Google Scholar.

34. See Sherif, Muzafer and Sherif, Carolyn, Groups in Harmony and Tension (New York: Harper, 1953)Google Scholar; and Coser, Lewis, The Function of Social Conflict (New York: Free Press, 1956)Google Scholar.

35. Sherif, Muzafer, Group Conflict and Cooperation: Their Social Psychology (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), p. 85Google Scholar.

36. See Diab, Lutfy, “A Study of Intragroup and Intergroup Relations Among Experimentally Produced Small Groups,” Genetic Psychology Monographs 82 (08 1970), pp. 49–82Google Scholar; and Rabbie, Jacob, “The Effects of Intergroup Competition and Cooperation on Intragroup and Intergroup Relationships,” in Derlega, Valerian and Grzelak, Janusz, eds., Cooperation and Helping Behavior: Theories and Research (New York: Academic Press, 1982), pp. 123–49 and p. 125 in particularCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37. Kelman, Herbert, “Social-Psychological Approaches to the Study of International Relations,” in Kelman, Herbert, ed., International Behavior: A Social-Psychological Analysis (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1966), pp. 3–39Google Scholar. The quotation is from p. 5.

38. Hogg, Michael, “Group Cohesiveness: A Critical Review and Some New Directions,” in Stroebe, Wolfgang and Hewstone, Miles, eds., European Review of Social Psychology, vol. 4 (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1993), pp. 85–111 and p. 92 in particularGoogle Scholar. For further discussion, see Turner, John, Rediscovering the Social Group (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1987)Google Scholar; and Doise, William, Levels of Explanation in Social Psychology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

39. For a valuable discussion of methodological individualism and reductionism, see Little, Daniel, Varieties of Social Explanation (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1991), pp. 183–201Google Scholar. For a spirited structuralist critique of methodological individualism in social psychology and American sociology (including symbolic interactionism), see Mayhew, Bruce, “Structuralism Versus Individualism: Part 1, Shadowboxing in the Dark,” Social Forces 59 (12 1980), pp. 335–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40. Sociologists and psychologists both claim their own brand of social psychology. Sociological social psychology tends to view the individual and society as inseparable and codetermining units; psychological social psychology tends to focus more on social cognition, affect, and motivation in individuals. For an introduction and further discussion, see Stephan, Cookie White and Stephan, Walter G., eds., Two Social Psychologies, 2d ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1990)Google Scholar; and Rosenberg and Turner, Social Psychology.

41. Hogg, Michael and Abrams, Dominic, Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes (New York: Routledge, 1988), p. 3Google Scholar.

42. Elsewhere, I use attribution theory to examine when individuals are likely to give others reputations for being resolute or irresolute. Scholars usually use attribution theory at the interindividual level of analysis, but it also has been used to examine intergroup attributions. See Mercer, Jonathan, Reputation and International Politics (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

43. Kelman, Herbert, “The Question of Relevance,” in Kelman, , International Behavior, pp. 597–98Google Scholar.

44. For the first minimal-group experiment, see Tajfel, Henri, “Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination,” Scientific American 223 (11 1970), pp. 96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Billig, Michael and Tajfel, Henri, “Social Categorization and Similarity in Intergroup Behaviour,” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 3, no. 1, 1973, pp. 27–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45. Tajfel, Henri and Turner, John C., “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” in Worchel, Stephen and Austin, William G., eds., Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2d ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986), pp. 7–24 and p. 14 in particularGoogle Scholar.

46. Fisher, Ronald J., The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990), p. 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Condor and Brown note that the preference for relative gains is reliable “even if this involves a forfeit in absolute ingroup gains.” See Condor, Susan and Brown, Rupert, “Psychological Processes in Intergroup Conflict,” in Stroebe, Wolfgang, Kruglanski, Arie W., Bar-Tal, Daniel, and Hewstone, Miles, eds., The Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988), pp. 3–26 and p. 10 in particularCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47. Hogg, and Abrams, , Social Identifications, p. 49Google Scholar. Billig and Tajfel also found in-group favoritism when the groups were explicitly arbitrary and the subjects knew their group identification was due to chance. See Billig and Tajfel, “Social Categorization and Similarity in Intergroup Behaviour.”

48. Tajfel, and Turner, , “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” p. 15Google Scholar. For the argument that these findings are artificial, see Gerard, H. B. and Hoyt, M. F., “Distinctiveness of Social Categorization and Attitude Toward Ingroup Members,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 (06 1974), pp. 836–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a response, see Tajfel, Henri, “The Achievement of Group Differentiation,” in Tajfel, Henri, ed., Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (London: Academic Press, 1978), pp. 77–98Google Scholar.

49. Sidanius, James, “The Psychology of Group Conflict and the Dynamics of Oppression,” in Iyengar, Shanto and McGuire, William, eds., Explorations in Political Psychology (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1993), pp. 183–219Google Scholar. The quotation is from p. 189.

50. See Berry, John W., Poortinga, Ype H., Segall, Marshall H., and Dasen, Pierre R., Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 303–4Google Scholar. Fletcher and Ward hold a similar view. See Fletcher, Garth and Ward, Coleen, “Attribution Theory and Processes: A Cross-Cultural Perspective,” in Bond, Michael Harris, ed., The Cross-Cultural Challenge to Social Psychology (London: Sage, 1988), pp. 230–44Google Scholar.

51. Some have found that girls are more discriminatory than boys. For supporting evidence and citations, see Hinkle, Steve and Brown, Rupert, “Intergroup Comparisons and Social Identity,” in Abrams, Dominic and Hogg, Michael, eds., Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances (New York: Springer-Verlag: 1990), pp. 48–70Google Scholar. The quotation is from p. 59. Also see Brown, Rupert and Smith, Amanda, “Perceptions Of and By Minority Groups: The Case of Women in Academia,” European Journal of Social Psychology 19 (01–02 1989), pp. 61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52. Tajfel and Turner, “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour.” For reviews and critiques of SIT, see Fisher, The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution; Hewstone, Miles, “Attributional Bases of Intergroup Conflict,” in Stroebe, et al. , The Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict, pp. 47–71Google Scholar; Hogg and Abrams, Social Identifications; Taylor, Donald and Moghaddam, Fathali, Theories of Intergroup Relations: International Social Psychological Perspectives (New York: Praeger, 1987)Google Scholar; Tajfel, Henri, ed., Social Identity and Intergroup Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Rabbie, Jacob M., “The Effects of Intragroup Cooperation and Intergroup Competition on In-group Cohesion and Out-group Hostility,” in Harcourt, Alexander H. and Waal, Frans B. M., eds., Coalitions and Alliances in Humans and Other Animals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 175–205Google Scholar; Rabbie, Jacob, Schot, Jan, and Visser, Lieuwe, “Social Identity Theory: A Conceptual and Empirical Critique from the Perspective of a Behavioral Interaction Model,” European Journal of Social Psychology 19 (05–06 1989), pp. 171–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Berkowitz, Norman, “Evidence that Subjects' Expectancies Confound Intergroup Bias in Tajfel's Minimal Group Paradigm,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20 (04 1994), pp. 184–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53. Hogg, and Abrams, , Social Identifications, p. 19Google Scholar. Also see Lilli, Waldemar and Rehm, Jürgen, “Judgmental Processes as Bases of Intergroup Conflict,” in Stroebe, et al. , The Social Psychology of Intergroup Conflict, p. 30Google Scholar; and Tajfel, and Turner, , “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour,” pp. 15–16Google Scholar.

54. Hogg, Michael, The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992), pp. 90–92Google Scholar.

55. On the role that self-esteem plays in SIT, see Fisher, The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict Resolution; Hogg and Abrams, Social Identifications; Crocker, Jennifer and Luhtanen, Riia, “Collective Self-Esteem and Ingroup Bias,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 (01 1990), pp. 60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56. Hewstone, , “Attributional Bases of Intergroup Conflict,” pp. 52–53Google Scholar. It also appears that low-status groups discriminate less than high-status groups. This is because the less one identifies with one's group, the less important it is to view the group favorably. See for example, Masson, C. N. and Verkuyten, M., “Prejudice, Ethnic Identity, Contact, and Ethnic Group Preferences Among Dutch Young Adolescents,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23 (01 1993), pp. 156–68 and p. 158 in particularCrossRefGoogle Scholar. For another study that tests hypotheses on ethnocentrism from SIT, see Grant, Peter, “Ethnocentrism in Response to a Threat to Social Identity,” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, vol. 8, no. 6, 1993, pp. 143–54Google Scholar.

57. Taylor, and Moghaddam, , Theories of Intergroup Relations, p. 78Google Scholar.

58. Hogg, Michael and Abrams, Dominic, “Social Motivation, Self-Esteem and Social Identity,” in Abrams, and Hogg, , Social Identity Theory, pp. 28–47Google Scholar. The quotation is from p. 46.

59. Hinkle, and Brown, , “Intergroup Comparisons and Social Identity,” p. 68Google Scholar.

60. For an extension of SIT to cover “social emotions,” see Smith, Eliot, “Social Identity and Social Emotions,” in Mackie, Diane M. and Hamilton, David L., eds., Affect, Cognition, and Stereotyping: Interactive Processes in Group Perception (New York: Academic Press, 1993), pp. 297–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61. Wilder, David, “Cognitive Factors Affecting the Success of Intergroup Contact,” in Worchel, and Austin, , Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 49–66 and p. 50 in particularGoogle Scholar.

62. For a normative explanation of the minimal-group paradigm, see Tajfel, Henri, Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., and Flament, Claude, “Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour,” European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 1, no. 2, 1971, pp. 149–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63. For discussion and citations, see Hogg and Abrams, “Social Motivation, Self-Esteem, and Social Identity.”

64. Tajfel, Henri and Billig, Michael, “Familiarity and Categorization in Intergroup Behavior,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10 (03 1974), pp. 159–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Branthwaite, Alan, Doyle, Susan, and Lightbrown, Nicholas, “The Balance Between Fairness and Discrimination,” European Journal of Social Psychology 9 (04–06 1979), pp. 149–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Turner, John, “Fairness or Discrimination in Intergroup Behaviour? A reply to Branthwaite, Doyle, and Lightbrown,” European Journal of Social Psychology 10 (04–06 1980), pp. 131–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For additional evidence on the strength of fairness norms, see Diekmann, Kristina, Samuels, Steven, Ross, Lee, and Bazerman, Max, “Self-Interest and Fairness in Problems of Resource Allocation,” manuscript, Kellogg School of Business, Northwestern University, 1994Google Scholar.

65. Wetherell, Margaret, “Cross-Cultural Studies of Minimal Groups: Implications for the Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Relations,” in Tajfel, , Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, pp. 207–40 and pp. 220–21 in particularGoogle Scholar.

66. Wendt, , “Anarchy is What States Make of It,” p. 401Google Scholar.

67. Turner, Rediscovering the Social Group. See also Lorenzi-Cioldi, Fabio and Doise, William, “Levels of Analysis and Social Identity,” in Abrams, and Hogg, , Social Identity Theory, pp. 71–88Google Scholar.

68. For a discussion of the influence of intragroup and interpersonal norms in the minimalgroup experiment, see Turner, “Fairness or Discrimination in Intergroup Behaviour.” For additional evidence of the prosocial orientation of Polynesian children, see Graves, Nancy and Graves, Theodore, “The Cultural Context of Prosocial Development,” in Bridgeman, Diane, ed., The Nature of Prosocial Development (New York: Academic Press, 1983), pp. 243–64Google Scholar.

69. Brewer, Marilynn and Schneider, Sherry, “Social Identity and Social Dilemmas: A Double-Edged Sword,” in Abrams, and Hogg, , Social Identity Theory, pp. 169–84Google Scholar.

70. Triandis, Harry, Bontempo, Robert, and Villareal, Marcelo, “Individualism and Collectivism: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Self-Ingroup Relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (02 1988), pp. 323–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quotation is from p. 335.

71. Edgerton suggests that “ethnocentrism is as widespread and virulent today as at any time in history.” See Edgerton, Robert, Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony (New York: The Free Press, 1992), p. 55Google Scholar. For a review of theoretical explanations for ethnocentrism, see Levine, Robert and Campbell, Donald, Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1972)Google Scholar.

72. Ross, Marc, “The Role of Evolution in Ethnocentric Conflict and its Management,” in Journal of Social Issues vol. 47, no. 3, 1991, pp. 167–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quotation is from p. 177.

73. Hinkle, and Brown, , “Intergroup Comparisons and Social Identity,” pp. 69–70Google Scholar.

74. Al-Zahrani, Saad Said and Kaplowitz, Stan, “Attributional Biases in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures: a Comparison of Americans with Saudis,” Social Psychology Quarterly 56 (09 1993), pp. 223–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quotation is from p. 231.

75. Howell, Signe and Willis, Roy, “Introduction,” in Howell, Signe and Willis, Roy, eds., Societies at Peace (New York: Routledge, 1989), pp. 1–28 and p. 10 in particularGoogle Scholar.

76. Brewer, Marilynn and Campbell, Donald, Ethnocentrism and Intergroup Attitudes: East African Evidence (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1976)Google Scholar. See also Brewer, Marilynn, “The Role of Ethnocentrism in Intergroup Conflict,” in Worchel, and Austin, , Psychology of Intergroup Relations pp. 88–102Google Scholar; and Horowitz, Donald, “Group Comparison and the Sources of Conflict,” in Ethnic Groups in Conflict (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), pp. 141–84Google Scholar.

77. Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations, 3d ed. (New York: Knopf, 1962), pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

78. Wendt, , “Anarchy is What States Make of It,” p. 405Google Scholar.

79. Ibid., p. 407.

80. This is called the actor-observer difference. See Jones, E. E. and Nisbett, R. E., The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of the Causes of Behavior (Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

81. Stinson, Linda and Ickes, William, “Empathic Accuracy in the Interactions of Male Friends Versus Male Strangers,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (05 1992), pp. 297–315CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. The quotation is from pp. 787–88.

82. Brewer, , “The Role of Ethnocentrism in Intergroup Conflict,” p. 101Google Scholar.

83. Wendt and the symbolic interactionists recognize that perspective taking can be difficult and can result in misperceptions. See Wendt, , “Anarchy is What States Make of It,” p. 405Google Scholar; Mead, , Mind, Self, and Society, p. 256Google Scholar; and Hewitt, John, Self and Society: A Symbolic Interactionist Social Psychology (Boston: Alyn and Bacon, 1984), p. 143Google Scholar. On the importance of construal, see Ross, Lee, “Recognizing the Role of Construal Processes,” in Rock, Irvin, ed., The Legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in Cognition and Social Psychology (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990), pp. 77–96Google Scholar; and Griffin, Dale W. and Ross, Lee, “Subjective Construal, Social Inference, and Human Misunderstanding,” in Zanna, Mark P., ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 24 (New York: Academic Press, 1991), pp. 319–59Google Scholar.

84. Ross, “Recognizing the Role of Construal Processes.”

85. Cited by Cowell, Alan, “Iran Sees U.S. Aid to Kurds as Insult,” New York Times 5 05 1991, p. A18Google Scholar.

86. May, Ernest, “Capabilities and Proclivities,” in May, Ernest, ed., Knowing One's Enemies (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 503–12Google Scholar. The quotation is from p. 538.

87. John Erickson, “Threat Identification and Strategic Appraisal by the Soviet Union, 1930–1941,” in ibid., pp. 375–423.

88. The quotations are from Wendt, , “Anarchy is What States Make of It,” p. 407Google Scholar.

89. Deutsch, Karl et al. , Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957), p. 36Google Scholar.

90. See Snidal, , “International Cooperation Among Relative Gains Maximizers,” pp. 400–401Google Scholar; and Campbell, Donald, “The Two Distinct Routes Beyond Kin Selection to Ultrasociality: Implications for the Humanities and Social Sciences,” in Bridgeman, , The Nature of Prosocial Development, p. 33Google Scholar.

91. Brewer, Marilynn, “Ambivalent Sociality: The Human Condition,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (12 1989), p. 699CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Caporael et al. share this view: “We agree with Brewer that clique selfishness may be the most intractable form of selfishness.” See Linnda Caporael, Robyn Dawes, John Orbell, and Alphons van de Kragt, “Selfishness Examined: Cooperation in the Absence of Egoistic Incentives,” and “Author's Response: Thinking in Sociality,” both in ibid., pp. 683–99 and 727–39, respectively. The quotation is from p. 734.

92. Snidal, , “International Cooperation Among Relative Gains Maximizers,” p. 400Google Scholar.

93. On group cohesiveness, see Brewer and Schneider, “Social Identity and Social Dilemmas.”

94. Most psychologists doubt that individuals can be genuinely altruistic. Batson is an exception, though even he is circumspect in his claims. See Batson, C. Daniel, The Altruism Question (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1991)Google Scholar. For a more optimistic view, see Lumsdaine, David, Moral Vision in International Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

95. Caporael, et al. , “Selfishness Examined,” pp. 692–93Google Scholar.

96. Gaertner, Samuel et al. , “The Common Ingroup Identity Model,” in Stroebe, Wolfgang and Hewstone, Miles, eds., European Review of Social Psychology, vol. 4 (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1993)Google Scholar.

97. Analysts cannot agree on when contact will ameliorate rather than exacerbate intergroup conflict. For a brief review, see Mackie, Diane and Hamilton, David, “Affect, Cognition, and Stereotyping,” in Mackie, Diane and Hamilton, David, eds., Affect, Cognition, and Stereotyping, pp. 371–83 and especially pp. 378–80Google Scholar. Also see Brewer, Marilynn and Miller, Norman, “Contact and Cooperation: When Do They Work?” in Katz, Phyllis and Taylor, Dalmas, eds., Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy (New York: Plenum Press, 1988), pp. 315–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98. See Eden, Lynn, “Constructing Destruction: The Making of Organizational Knowledge About U.S. Nuclear Weapons Effects,” manuscript, Stanford University, 1995Google Scholar; Kier, Elizabeth, Imagining War: France and Britain Between the Wars (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, forthcoming)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnston, Alastair I., Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Ming China (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Klotz, Audie, Protesting Prejudice: Apartheid and the Politics of Norms in International Relations (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Risse-Kappen, Thomas, Cooperation Among Democracies: Norms, Transnational Relations, and the European Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar; and Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.