In his 2018 book, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, John J. Mearsheimer wrote:
My view is that we are profoundly social beings from the start to the finish of our lives and that individualism is of secondary importance… Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights. This concern for rights is the basis of its universalism—everyone on the planet has the same inherent set of rights—and this is what motivates liberal states to pursue ambitious foreign policies. The public and scholarly discourse about liberalism since World War II has placed enormous emphasis on what are commonly called human rights. This is true all around the world, not just in the West. “Human rights,” Samuel Moyn notes, “have come to define the most elevated aspirations of both social movements and political entities—state and interstate. They evoke hope and provoke action.”
[Humans] do not operate as lone wolves but are born into social groups or societies that shape their identities well before they can assert their individualism. Moreover, individuals usually develop strong attachments to their group and are sometimes willing to make great sacrifices for their fellow members. Humans are often said to be tribal at their core. The main reason for our social nature is that the best way for a person to survive is to be embedded in a society and to cooperate with fellow members rather than act alone… Despite its elevated ranking, reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences. It certainly is less important than socialization. The main reason socialization matters so much is that humans have a long childhood in which they are protected and nurtured by their families and the surrounding society, and meanwhile exposed to intense socialization. At the same time, they are only beginning to develop their critical faculties, so they are not equipped to think for themselves. By the time an individual reaches the point where his reasoning skills are well developed, his family and society have already imposed an enormous value infusion on him. Moreover, that individual is born with innate sentiments that also strongly influence how he thinks about the world around him. All of this means that people have limited choice in formulating a moral code, because so much of their thinking about right and wrong comes from inborn attitudes and socialization.
Gemini says: 1. The Biological and Evolutionary View
Mearsheimer is likely correct in asserting that humans are “profoundly social beings” and “tribal at their core.”
Evolutionary Necessity: Evolutionary biologists and anthropologists generally agree that early humans could not survive as “atomistic actors.” Survival required deep cooperation within a group and defense against out-groups. This suggests that “tribalism” is a hardware feature of the human brain, not a software bug.
The Primacy of Group Identity: Mearsheimer argues that identity is shaped by the group before the individual can assert themselves. This aligns with sociological findings that our fundamental values (religion, language, cultural norms) are downloaded from our environment long before we develop the critical thinking skills to question them. We are “situated” selves, not free-floating rational agents.
2. The Limits of Reason
Mearsheimer’s claim that “reason is the least important of the three ways we determine our preferences” (ranking below socialization and innate sentiments) is strongly supported by modern moral psychology.
Haidt and Moral Intuition: Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, argues similarly that moral intuitions (gut feelings) come first, and strategic reasoning comes second. We often use reason merely to justify what our tribe or our instincts have already decided is true.
Rationalization vs. Rationality: If Mearsheimer is right here, it explains why political polarization is so difficult to solve. Presenting “facts” (appealing to reason) rarely changes minds because the beliefs are rooted in “innate sentiments” and “socialization,” which reason cannot easily penetrate.
3. The Critique of Liberalism (The “Great Delusion”)
Where Mearsheimer becomes controversial is in his application of these facts to foreign policy. He argues that because humans are tribal, Liberal Hegemony (the US attempting to spread liberal democracy globally) is doomed to fail.
Nationalism vs. Universalism: Mearsheimer argues that when the “universal” rights of liberalism clash with the “particular” desires of nationalism, nationalism usually wins. People generally care more about their own tribe’s sovereignty than they do about abstract universal rights.
Evidence from Recent History: He points to the failures of US nation-building in the Middle East as proof. The US attempted to export “universal” liberal institutions to Iraq and Afghanistan, but these projects largely collapsed because they underestimated the power of local tribal, religious, and national loyalties. In this sense, his predictive record supports his theory.
4. The Counter-Argument: Is Liberalism a “Correction”?
Critics of Mearsheimer do not necessarily deny that humans are tribal. Instead, they argue that he misses the purpose of liberalism.
Liberalism as a Safety Valve: Liberal theorists might argue that precisely because humans are naturally tribal and violent, we need liberal institutions (individual rights, rule of law) to constrain those instincts. They would argue that accepting Mearsheimer’s view as “inevitable” leads to a more violent, chaotic world.
The Capacity for Change: While socialization is powerful, critics argue Mearsheimer underestimates human agency. History is full of individuals who used reason to break away from the “value infusion” of their societies (e.g., dissidents, reformers) to expand the moral circle. If socialization were as absolute as Mearsheimer suggests, moral progress would be impossible.
John Mearsheimer is descriptively right about the “raw material” of humanity. Modern science supports the view that we are tribal, emotional, and socialized creatures, not the cool-headed, atomistic rationalists that some liberal economic theories imagine.
However, whether he is politically right depends on your goal. If the goal is to predict how nations will react to foreign intervention, his focus on nationalism and tribalism has proven highly accurate. If the goal is to define how we ought to live, his critics argue that his realism is too pessimistic and surrenders too much to our baser instincts.
LF: Is this right? “Liberalism downplays the social nature of human beings to the point of almost ignoring it, instead treating people largely as atomistic actors… Political liberalism… is an ideology that is individualistic at its core and assigns great importance to the concept of inalienable rights.”
Gemini: Whether this statement is “right” depends on whether you view liberalism through the lens of its methodology (how it builds its theories) or its sociology (how liberals actually live).
Mearsheimer is describing a specific, widely accepted critique of liberalism known as the Communitarian Critique. In the context of political theory, his characterization is considered largely accurate regarding how liberal philosophy is constructed, though liberal defenders would argue it misses the point of why it is constructed that way.
Here is a breakdown of why Mearsheimer’s description holds weight, and where it is contested.
1. The Methodological Truth: Liberalism Does Start with Atoms
Mearsheimer is correct that the foundational texts of liberalism theoretically strip humans of their social context.
The “State of Nature”: Thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes began their theories by imagining humans in a pre-social “state of nature.” In this thought experiment, people are solitary individuals (“atoms”) who then choose to form a society via a social contract.
The Veil of Ignorance: Modern liberals like John Rawls continued this tradition. To decide what is fair, Rawls asked us to imagine we are individuals behind a “veil of ignorance,” stripping away our families, communities, and histories.
The Verdict: Mearsheimer is right that liberal theory treats people as atomistic actors. It derives rights from the individual, not the tribe.
2. The Communitarian Critique: The “Unencumbered Self”
Mearsheimer is echoing philosophers like Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor, who argue that liberalism operates on a false anthropology.
Thick vs. Thin Identities: As you noted with the TV show Blue Lights, most humans have “thick” identities (bound by history, religion, and kin). Liberalism assumes a “thin” identity—that the “self” is free to choose its own ends and attachments.
The Blind Spot: Mearsheimer argues that because liberalism assumes this “thin” self is universal, liberal policymakers are baffled when they invade a country like Iraq and the people act based on “thick” tribal loyalties rather than embracing individual voting rights.
The Verdict: Mearsheimer is right that liberalism often underestimates the power of pre-rational, social bonds in global politics.
3. The Liberal Defense: It’s a Feature, Not a Bug
Liberals would push back on Mearsheimer by saying he confuses a protection for a description.
Protection from the Tribe: Liberals might say, “We know humans are tribal. That is exactly why we need individual rights.” They would argue they don’t deny social nature; they fear its dark side (coercion, ostracism, mob rule).
Voluntary Association: A liberal would argue that they value society, but it must be voluntary society (clubs, churches, groups you join) rather than ascriptive society (castes or tribes you are forced into at birth).
The Verdict: Liberals would say Mearsheimer is wrong to say they ignore social nature; rather, they deliberately build walls against it to protect the minority from the majority.
Mearsheimer is correct in his diagnosis of liberal ideology’s blind spot. By focusing so heavily on the individual, liberal states often fail to understand how the rest of the world works—where the family, the clan, and the faith (the “social nature”) are far more important than the individual vote. This “atomistic” view explains why liberal foreign policy often fails to account for the stubbornness of tribal and national identities.
