In a world teeming with conflict and upheaval, the ancient wisdom of Thucydides rings startlingly true today: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” Too often, those in power place self-interest above ethical considerations, leaving the powerless to endure the consequences. This theme echoes through the works of influential realist thinkers, who identify humanity’s drive for domination as a root cause of conflict and injustice. Recent advances in neuroscience and related fields offer novel insights into this timeless human drive, famously termed animus dominandi by Hans Morgenthau, one of the major 20th-century figures in the study of international relations and leading analysts of the role of power. It is time for realism to evolve further and look beyond disciplinary lines to integrate empirical findings into a more nuanced understanding of human nature and its impact on international relations. This article goes beyond traditional realist discourse by embracing a transdisciplinary approach that sheds novel light on a variety of realist concepts, from Thucydides’s Trap to the Hobbesian state of nature. In doing so, I seek to offer a fresh and illuminating perspective on a perennially relevant yet unsolved question: how can we mitigate the destructive effects of animus dominandi on international relations?

Why We Need to Update Realism

While realist theories have historically offered valuable insights into conflict and global politics, they are increasingly inadequate in addressing the complexities of today’s international landscape. For realism to remain relevant, it must evolve further in two critical ways.

First, realism must be updated to reflect the evolving dynamics of today’s international system. Traditionally, realism has emphasised a narrow set of factors, often prioritising state-centric analyses and power dynamics. However, the transformed global landscape demands an expansion of realism’s analytical framework to incorporate the multifaceted realities of the contemporary world. The international system can no longer be understood solely through the lens of global anarchy. Instead, any meaningful analysis of international relations must equally consider the growing interdependence and instant connectivity of the modern world, along with transformative forces such as rapid technological advancements, the expanding influence of non-state actors, or the rise of novel strategic domains such as cyberspace or outer space.

Second, and despite the pivotal role of human nature in political theory and international processes, IR theories often rely on speculative assumptions about human behaviour. This shortcoming is partly due to the predominance of social science methodologies in IR scholarship. While these methods are useful for analysing aspects of human nature, they often fail to capture its more elusive and complex dimensions. Integrating methodologies and insights from the empirical sciences could enable IR scholars to develop a more nuanced and precise understanding of human nature and its impact on international dynamics. In fact, a transdisciplinary approach has the potential to uncover new pathways for improving interstate relations. Transdisciplinary research goes beyond simply incorporating views from various disciplines and helping thinkers straddle the worlds of academia and policy-making. It goes a step further by forging deeper connections among researchers and practitioners and unifying diverse disciplinary perspectives to conceptualise ideas in novel ways.

Through a transdisciplinary approach, my theory of "Symbiotic Realism" seeks to address the shortcomings of mainstream realism. Drawing on empirical insights from fields such as neuroscience, neurobiology, and neuroimaging, it not only updates the realist worldview to align with contemporary realities but also provides a scientifically grounded and nuanced understanding of the animus dominandi. In addition, it proposes strategies to tame this drive, drawing on empirical evidence that shows how human predispositions influence both conflict and pathways to peace. Developing a nuanced understanding of the predispositions of human nature is increasingly critical, as our innate tendencies profoundly influence how we manage interstate relations, leverage emerging technologies, and confront global risks like pandemics and climate change. Symbiotic Realism offers a transdisciplinary framework to analyse how human nature shapes state behaviour in relation to the major dynamics of the 21st century, from disruptive technological advancements to the rise of novel theatres of geopolitical competition. Recognising the realities of human nature and the dynamics of the contemporary international system, Symbiotic Realism strives to bridge the gap between the “is” and the “ought” in managing international relations. It grounds its approach in an empirically founded understanding of what facilitates sustainable progress, given human predispositions. In other words, rather than normatively prescribing an idealised vision of how humans should behave or how global systems should function, it focuses on describing their current state and identifying pragmatic, actionable pathways to achieve sustainable progress within these existing parameters.

Animus Dominandi in IR Thinking

The desire for dominance has been analysed by numerous IR theorists, each offering distinct perspectives on the nature and implications of this drive. Classical realism, rooted in the works of Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Morgenthau, examines human nature as reflected in history, portraying individuals as fundamentally self-serving and focused on self-preservation and maximising power and profit. Thucydides, often referred to as the father of realism in international relations, explored this theme in his Melian Dialogue, where the Athenians express humanity’s inherent urge to dominate: “by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can.” This power-seeking impulse drives leaders to pursue control over other states. In Thucydides’s depiction of the debate in Sparta, the Athenians emphasise that self-interest takes precedence over morality, asserting that concerns of right and wrong rarely prevent those with superior strength from exploiting opportunities for gain.

Similarly, Niccolo Machiavelli considered human nature to be intrinsically self-interested, driven by a passion for domination. For Machiavelli, effective rulers embrace this passion, recognising the critical role of power and influence in maintaining stability and authority. According to Machiavelli, the essential goal in politics is the acquisition and preservation of power. Influenced by his direct experience with the Florentine government, Machiavelli regarded virtue and morality alone as inadequate for securing and retaining political power, as reflected in his treatise, The Prince. Instead, Machiavelli suggested that the possession of power inherently grants the right to command. 

Thomas Hobbes found in Thucydides’s insights a reinforcement of his own view of human nature. Writing during the turmoil of the English Civil War in the mid-17th century, Hobbes developed a vision of human nature as inherently self-interested, driven by self-preservation, and inclined toward conflict. In Leviathan, he famously described a hypothetical state of nature where, in the absence of a central authority to enforce order, individuals are trapped in a perpetual struggle for survival. To escape this intolerable condition – an inevitable outcome of human nature in an anarchic state – Hobbes argued that people must submit to a sovereign authority, embodied by the state, to ensure order and security.

Hans Morgenthau, viewed politics primarily as a struggle for power. In this assertion, Morgenthau clearly echoed the philosophies of Machiavelli and Hobbes. He used the Latin term animus dominandi (i.e. "spirit of dominating") to refer to the universal human urge to dominate, which he saw as the driving force behind the perpetual power struggles among states. The impulse to dominate others, according to Morgenthau, permeates every level of human society – from domestic politics to the international arena. In the realm of international relations, Morgenthau emphasised that when statesmen exercise power, they operate in a sphere where no overarching authority or international police force can constrain their actions or prevent them from imposing their will. For Morgenthau, a state’s primary interest lies in expanding its power and preventing others from gaining power over it. This relentless pursuit of power, he argued, ultimately explains why conflict has been a defining force throughout the history of international relations.

Reflecting Nietzschean influence, Morgenthau invoked the term will to power to describe the relentless craving for power. Despite Morgenthau’s intellectual debt to Friedrich Nietzsche, Nietzsche’s will to power fundamentally differs from Morgenthau’s concept of animus dominandi. Morgenthau’s view assumes a subject – a state or individual – consciously seeking power over others, while Nietzsche’s will to power represents a fundamental, all-encompassing life force that transcends the physical and political realms, extending to intellectual, artistic, and spiritual dimensions. 

George F. Kennan was another classical realist and influential diplomat warning of the innate human craving for domination and criticising an unchecked pursuit of domination. He formulated the concept of containment, which proposed that the United States should limit Soviet expansionism without resorting to, or threatening, the use of force to overthrow the communist regime. 

Kenneth Waltz is widely recognised as the pioneer of the neorealist or structural-realist school of thought, which marked a major departure from classical realism. Waltz contended that states seek power not from an intrinsic desire for dominance but as a rational strategy to ensure their security in a world lacking a central authority to maintain order. This shift highlights the importance of the international system’s structure in shaping state behaviour, suggesting that security concerns, rather than ambitions for dominance, primarily drive states. According to Waltz, “bipolarity,” or a balance between two great powers, represents the most stable system.

John Mearsheimer’s Offensive Realist approach begins with similar assumptions as Kenneth Waltz’s defensive realism theory but diverges on the critical question of how much power states desire. Unlike defensive realists, who see the international system as incentivizing states to preserve the existing balance of power, Mearsheimer argues that the international system encourages states to aggressively exploit opportunities to enhance their power relative to rivals whenever the potential benefits justify the risks. 

Stephen Walt, a prominent neo-realist theorist, extended Kenneth Waltz’s ideas by emphasising the role of perceived threats, rather than just power distribution, in shaping state behaviour. Walt introduced the concept of the Balance of Threat Theory, suggesting that states evaluate threats based on factors like power mobilisation, geographic proximity, and perceived intentions of other states. He argued that sometimes weaker states nearby may pose a greater threat than more powerful, distant ones. This theory also explains why states choose between balancing (forming alliances to counter stronger powers perceived as threatening) and bandwagoning (aligning with a potential threat for survival or strategic advantage). Walt’s approach highlights that while power is crucial, the perception of threat is often the decisive factor in alliance formation and international behaviour.

In summary, the animus dominandi has been variously interpreted as both an inherent element of human nature and a powerful systemic force shaping international relations. Proposals for taming this drive also remain divided. 

The Enduring Quest for Dominance

While not all realist arguments withstand closer scrutiny, the concept of animus dominandi captures a timeless human drive, which has historically inflicted profound suffering and continues to fuel tensions and conflicts worldwide. Driven by the pursuit of greater influence, both states and non-state actors regularly overlook the severe humanitarian impacts of their actions, as seen in the hardships endured by civilians in conflict zones such as Ukraine and the Middle East. The suffering of countless innocent children, women, and men underscores the enduring reality of the adage: “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

This dynamic is further illustrated by the fact that powerful states frequently leverage their economic and military dominance to impose their will, often coercing weaker states into unfavorable treaties or restrictive trade agreements. This imbalance perpetuates a cycle where cooperation is driven by national self-interests rather than mutual well-being. Often, cooperation becomes weaponised, with powerful states exploiting global networks of information and financial exchange to secure strategic advantages, transforming interconnectedness into a tool of domination rather than a means of equitable collaboration. Even international institutions like the United Nations, intended to embody collective governance, reflect these imbalances, as seen in the Security Council’s veto system, where the voices of a few privileged nations can override broader global consensus.

In brief, many instances of suffering and injustices across history can be linked to the animus dominandi. However, traditional realism falls short of fully capturing the complexities of the human quest for domination. Recent empirical findings provide deeper insights into the nature of this phenomenon. These findings call for a critical re-evaluation of realist theories, urging a more nuanced understanding of the human predispositions that shape international relations.

Animus Dominandi and the Emotional Amoral Egoism of States

Insights from emerging fields such as neurobiology, genetics, and neurobehavioural studies may provide further clarity on whether the animus dominandi is truly inherent in human nature or primarily a reaction to systemic pressures. The insights can also help explain how this drive might be effectively moderated. In doing so, they challenge many traditional assumptions about human nature that underpin classical paradigms of international relations, which largely rely on speculative ideas about human nature and behaviour. In the framework of Symbiotic Realism, the drive for dominance is rooted in the emotional, amoral, and egoistic predispositions of human beings. Hence, unlike many of its realist intellectual forerunners, Symbiotic Realism conceives of actors in the international system as rational egoists but also emotional and amoral egoists. In fact, extensive research shows that emotional responses can surpass rational thinking, leading states to engage in power struggles driven by emotions such as national pride, historical grievances, strategic culture or fear, rather than by calculated strategies. This insight enriches our understanding of international relations by highlighting the emotional needs of states, offering clearer explanations for state behaviour where factual explanations or rational choice theory fall short.

In this framework, morality is viewed as flexible, influenced by external pressures, group loyalties, strategic culture, historical narratives, and emotional triggers. Consequently, moral judgments frequently align more with perceived group or individual self-interests than with universal moral standards. This malleability in morality allows actors in the international system to consistently seek their own advantage, often disregarding ethical considerations, as their actions are seen as justified in pursuit of dominance.

Symbiotic Realism expands upon traditional realist views of egoism by incorporating empirical insights into how collective identities shape and modify our perceived self-interests as well as our reflexive unexamined and unfounded biases. While maintaining a focus on the central role of states, it broadens the lens to highlight the growing influence of diverse actors within the international system. These include non-state actors, large cultural collectives, international organisations, and transnational corporations. A key tenet of Symbiotic Realism is that all these actors – whether state or non-state – are fundamentally driven by deep-seated emotions as well as rational self-serving tendencies, unrestrained by rigid moral frameworks or even long-term repercussions for their own national interests. At the same time, these actors are inherently inclined to form group attachments, which significantly shape their interactions with other entities in the international system. This understanding suggests that effectively managing the animus dominandi necessitates addressing the intertwined emotional and identity-related needs, as well as the perceived (or misperceived) self-interests – both rational and emotional – that drive interactions at all levels within the international system.

The Five Motivators of State Behaviour and the Animus Dominandi

Symbiotic Realism not only reframes the animus dominandi as deeply rooted in human predispositions, it also challenges the exclusionary primacy of power alone and instead identifies five primary motivators of this drive, as well as state behaviour more broadly. These are: power, profit, pleasure, pride, and permanency, collectively termed the Neuro P5. Motivation, the driving force behind our actions, originates in our neurobiology and, more specifically, in a neural architecture commonly known as the mesolimbic reward centre. It is important to distinguish between our basic physiological motives (for food and reproduction, for example) and our cognitively more complex longing for so-called neurochemical gratification, which is delivered by immaterial rewards. The Neuro P5 are major purveyors of neurochemical gratification. By identifying the five key sources of neurochemical motivation, this theory provides a clearer picture of the underlying objectives that fuel dominance-seeking behaviour, in both humans and states. Power is its overarching goal and the quintessential instrument by which to gratify all other human desires. Profit represents the material advantages (be it land, manpower, resources, or money) gained through dominance; pleasure is the reward felt through exceptionalism and influence; pride is the sense of self-worth and social recognition that dominance brings; and permanency reflects the desire for preservation, sustainability, lasting impact and legacy, safeguarding sovereignty, national and cultural assets, as well as symbolisms. Symbiotic Realism thus reframes the animus dominandi as a complex drive seeking multi-faceted fulfillment, with power and profit as its most potent motivators.

Rethinking Power: Neurobiological Substrates and Policy Implications

Why does the animus dominandi lead to so much suffering? The answer lies in its ultimate goal – power – and the profound impact it has on those who wield it. While theories of international relations often consider power as a central factor, none emphasises it as heavily as realism. Yet, within realism itself, scholars differ in their interpretations of power’s profound nature and significant consequences. Seeking a clearer perspective, Symbiotic Realism incorporates recent empirical findings, particularly from neuroscience, to examine how power affects behaviour in global politics. As previously mentioned, power plays a crucial role in enabling the pursuit of other sources of neurochemical gratification, collectively referred to as the Neuro P5. By granting individuals or groups the ability to influence outcomes and control resources, power allows them to secure economic advantages, enjoy luxuries, enhance their social standing, and ensure a prosperous and stable future for future generations.

Power can enhance qualities that drive success, but higher levels of power are also linked to overconfidence and self-centeredness – traits that can erode empathy. Ironically, as psychologist Dacher Keltner points out, effective leadership depends on understanding and addressing others’ needs, a skill that deteriorates once power is secured, resulting in a decline in empathy and social awareness.

History offers countless examples of leaders succumbing to the corrupting influence of power. Yet not all wielders of power act immorally. Research shows that neurochemical and sociocultural factors influence susceptibility to or resilience against power’s corruptive effects. There is ample evidence that by restricting the scope and duration of an individual’s power, we can mitigate the brain’s susceptibility to power’s addictive allure. Checks and balances, transparency, accountability as well as diverse expert consultative structures and mechanisms have been found to be key to counteracting power’s corrupting effects.

It is also worth noting the important distinction made by psychologist David McClelland, who identifies two distinct faces of power: the negative, personal face centered on control and domination for self-interest, and the positive or socialised face of power motivated by the welfare of the group or society. Individuals with a personal orientation toward power are more likely to engage in destructive behaviour, especially in environments where power is unchecked and unlimited.

The drive to dominate for domination's sake, often leads to suffering because it fundamentally transforms those who wield power, making them increasingly prone to harmful, exploitative, paranoid and unethical behavior. Furthermore, the addictive nature of power intensifies the animus dominandi, creating a vicious cycle in which the thirst for dominance only grows, leading to ever-greater disregard for others and escalating harm. Neuroscience has debunked previous realist assumptions that states, as well as their leaders, are driven exclusively by rationality. Neuroanatomical and neurochemical studies demonstrate that emotions and emotionality play a central role in decision-making and the emotionality of states. This means that a neuroscience-based theory of human nature – as inherently emotional, amoral, and egoistic – can be extended onto our understanding of international relations, the power dynamics of states and their urge to dominate. 

Rethinking State Motivations: The Drive For Economic Hegemony and Profit

 

Our world is becoming increasingly interdependent, not least due to the unprecedented exponential growth of highly disruptive, intrusive and transformative technologies and the global web of financial networks. This carries significant benefits but also serious risks. History teaches us that states are capable of weaponising everything they can in the pursuit of economic extractive/exploitative/manipulative hegemony. That is why we cannot ignore neuroscientific findings about the emotionality, amorality, and egoism of human nature and state behaviour. Profit, like power, serves as a potent driver of the animus dominandi exhibited by states, corporations, and other international actors. Historically, this drive for economic gain spurred colonialism and imperialism. Today, it frequently leads to a hegemonic drive and competitive struggle for control over essential energy resources, rare earth metals and strategic supply chains. 

Dr. Hans Breiter used fMRI to image and monitor neural responses to the anticipation and experience of monetary gains and losses. They found that the craving for money activates the same brain regions as cravings for cocaine, sex, or other intense pleasures. In essence, the addictive mechanisms associated with the pursuit of power similarly apply to money. Dopamine is most effectively triggered by novel experiences – stimuli we have not encountered before – which fuels a desire to replicate those sensations. However, as the brain acclimates, the same amount of money fails to produce the same dopamine response. This reduction in neurochemical gratification drives the pursuit of increasingly larger profits, ultimately leading to greed that overwhelms rational judgment, risk assessment and ethical empathy.

Research highlights that greed stems from an inability to delay gratification. When presented with immediate rewards, the brain’s limbic system – responsible for dopamine release – dominates, whereas delayed rewards activate regions associated with cognitive and deliberative processes. Consequently, the desire for instant gratification often suppresses awareness of longer-term consequences, facilitating unethical behaviour. Additional studies, including work by researchers from Harvard and the University of Utah, suggest that even subtle exposure to money-related cues can increase the likelihood of compulsive behaviour, sustained by dopamine surges from immediate rewards and perpetuating a cycle of greed and its associated behaviours.

Thucydides’s Trap and Fear-Induced Pre-Emptive Aggression

The addictive nature of power and profit makes the prospect of losing them appear especially dire. As a result, established powers, accustomed to their privileged positions, often view the rise of new powers not merely as challenges, but as existential threats. This perception intensifies the animus dominandi, which in turn fuels aggressive and often pre-emptive actions aimed at stifling the ascent of these emerging powers. My concept of "fear-induced pre-emptive aggression" helps to explain why the dynamic of Thucydides’s Trap emerges. This term describes a recurring historical pattern where the ascent of a rising power instils a profound sense of threat in an established power, increasing the likelihood of conflict between the two. Popularised by Harvard professor Graham T. Allison, this term is derived from Thucydides’s observation during the Peloponnesian War, stating that the rise of Athens inspired fear in Sparta, which made war inevitable.

In his book, Destined for War, Graham Allison Graham Allison argues that Thucydides’s Trap provides the best lens for understanding U.S.-China relations in the twenty-first century. He posits that historically, when a rising power challenged an established one, conflict has been the tragic outcome in the majority of cases. He supports his argument by identifying sixteen such scenarios over the past five centuries, with twelve escalating to war. 

Mitigating a Relative Hobbesian State of Nature Through Multipolarity and Geopolitical/Geo-economic Near-Parity

How can we effectively counteract the dangers associated with the animus dominandi and a hobbesian state of nature, in the absence of a peaceful and representative overarching international order? As mentioned before, the balance of power theory suggests that peace is achievable when no single state or coalition can dominate, whereas the hegemonic stability theory posits that peace is best maintained by a dominant global hegemon, capable of enforcing order. Which theory holds more truth in the real world? History demonstrates that when power is concentrated unilaterally, the temptation for overreach and dominance becomes greater, often leading to conflicts. As explained above, this tendency is backed by neuroscientific research, which suggests that unchecked power can be inherently addictive, callous and miscalculating, presenting significant risks when a single hegemon is unopposed by equal forces.

Conversely, a multipolar world, where several states possess comparable power as well as geopolitical and geo-economic capabilities, encourages a system of checks and balances. The parity (or near-parity) among great powers fosters diplomatic engagement and necessitates temporal-cooperation, manifested as non-conflictual competition on global governance issues, as no single state can unilaterally impose its will without facing significant repercussions.

The Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967 is a pertinent example illustrating this principle of near-parity. At a time when both the United States and the Soviet Union had the capability to place weapons of mass destruction in orbit, the mutual recognition of each other’s retaliatory capabilities led to a strategic decision to cooperate, culminating in the OST. This treaty, which prohibited the placement of nuclear weapons in space and required the peaceful use of celestial bodies, showcases how near-parity in terms of military capabilities can lead to significant international agreements, out of necessity and self-preservation, even if states would rather not have them. Similar dynamics have influenced various nuclear arms control agreements on Earth, where the destructive potential of nuclear weapons has compelled superpowers to negotiate and adhere to treaties that cap or reduce nuclear arsenals.

Parity or near-parity is crucial not only between states but also across other areas, such as in economic sectors. In economic contexts, preventing any single entity from monopolising the market is key to ensuring healthy competition, which in turn drives innovation, enhances efficiency, and typically results in better prices and quality of products and services for consumers. Moreover, when a balance of power is maintained, it becomes challenging for any single state, group of states, or companies within a market to exploit others. This balance helps promote a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities, ensuring a fairer playing field for everyone.

Symbiotic Realism and the Future of International Relations: Core Tenets

Having employed Symbiotic Realism to deepen our understanding of the animus dominandi, Thucydides’s Trap, the relative Hobbesian state of nature, and the preconditions for peace, let me briefly recapitulate the key propositions of Symbiotic Realism.

Symbiotic Realism is a transdisciplinary analytical approach to International Relations, drawing from:

1. neuroscience-based, non-speculative views of human nature;

2. neurobiological/neurobehavioural insights into the interplay of emotionality and rationality at the human and state level;

3. an integration of life sciences with realist theories;

4. the acknowledgement of technologically mediated instant connectivity and deepening interdependence, which can both foster genuine non-conflictual competitive collaboration and understanding or be exploited for manipulation and control;

5. identification of seven current and future global and interdependent forces influencing the international system on Earth and in outer space, including:

1. disruptive, exponential, and game-changing advancements in technologies (e.g., AI, Quantum Computing & Synthetic Biology);
2. the changing role, independence, threats, and capacities of non-state actors
3. the emergence of novel-strategic domains (e.g., in cyberspace and outer space);
4. the rise of collective civilizational frontier risks (e.g., supply chain disruptions, pandemics, synthetic biology runaway Generative-AI, climate change, transnational crime, food and water scarcity);
5. Weaponization-of-economic-interdependence;
6. intensification/unmasking of sub-/supra-national transcultural-historical-narratives/schisms;
7. new neuroscientific insights in understanding human predispositions, coupled with advances in their manipulation, which have the potential to influence the previous six forces in profound ways.

Symbiotic Realism also explains that the behaviour of political actors in the existing structure of the anarchic self-help international system, is governed by:

1. state emotionality (personal, political, economic, cultural, historical, ideological);

2. state amorality (focus on national interest goals regardless of ethical or moral standards)

3. state egoism (rational or perceived national interest)

Symbiotic Realism also explains the motivations of states behaviour through what I have called the Neuro P5:

1. power (in all state capacities, including political, economic, military, scientific and technological spheres)

2. profit (generated through endogenous innovation and capabilities, or through exploitation through extractive/exploitative manipulation, or weaponized economic interdependence);

3. pleasure (derived from independence, freedom, or progressive, prosperous, and sustainable high living standards);

4. pride (often tied to national, patriotic, cultural, or historical narratives, which may be exaggerated, skewed, inaccurate, exclusionary or condescending);

5. permanency (drive for survival, sovereignty, preservation of social structures, economic resources, long-term stability, and safeguarding historical and cultural legacy, real or symbolic); 

In the light of the above findings, Symbiotic Realism:

1. assumes that competition is the foundation of the international system (not cooperation) but recognises the potential for temporary cooperation driven by necessity, such as through alliances or balancing mechanisms. This cooperation is typically “need-based” and thus tends to be unstable, unreliable and unsustainable over the long term;

2. discards the zero-sum logic that requires one state to lose for another state to win and sees multi-sum outcomes as both possible, achievable and beneficial;

3. posits that global peace, security and strategic stability consist of five dimensions, including: human, environmental, national, transnational (incl. outer space) & transcultural domains;

4. employs pragmatic, multi-sum, symbiotic, win-win & non-conflictual competition with absolute gains, rather than relative gains;

5. advances the view that national interests can/must be reconciled with transnational & transplanetary interests, if they are to be achieved in sustainable, cost-effective and peaceful ways;

6. concludes that as a result of the above assumptions, states are (more likely) to perceive and accept the differential strategic capacities/competitive advantages of other states – whether in the realms of economy, military strength, technological innovation, quality of life, prosperity or political influence – as non-threatening, fluid, symbiotic and open to reconciliation.

   

Symbiotic Realism and Taming the Animus Dominandi

Having outlined the key propositions of Symbiotic Realism, this article has demonstrated its utility in refining our understanding of various realist concepts, such as animus dominandi, the Thucydides Trap, and the conditions that precipitate peace or conflict. Through philosophical reflection that is informed by transdisciplinary insights into human nature, my theory of Emotional Amoral Egoism sheds light on the human predispositions that sustain the drive to dominate, allowing us to rationalise self-serving actions through a flexible moral lens. Furthermore, the animus dominandi can be understood in terms of the Neuro P5, which work through the brain’s mesolimbic reward system to encourage the pursuit of power, profit, pleasure, pride, and permanency. Related emotions, such as fear of the loss of power or profit, can induce pre-emptive aggression, a central element of the Thucydides Trap. Together, these perspectives reveal the human drive to dominate as both purposeful and deeply embedded in our nature, making it a persistent force across historical and cultural contexts. Unchecked, this drive fosters an escalating cycle of dominance-seeking behaviour, becoming more addictive as power accumulates and more corrupting as oversight diminishes. 

In addition to the Thucydides Trap, there is an ongoing clash between state egoism, which drives rational national interest, and the complexities of the 21st century. These complexities encompass what are known as “civilisational frontier risks,” including rapid and disruptive technological advancements, climate change, pandemics, and significant societal transformations. Traditional realist perspectives, which treat international relations as a zero-sum game, are inadequate for addressing these risks. In fact, if we fail to tame the animus dominandi and collaborate on these collective global challenges, we all stand to lose. In today’s interdependent world, zero-sum thinking is not only outdated but also potentially catastrophic, as threats increasingly recognise no borders and the spillover effects of crises in one area can rapidly affect the entire globe.

However, achieving parity or near-parity among several great powers offers hope for a more stable global order. In such a system, the balance of power could establish conditions for constructive dialogue and international agreements – provided the pervasive zero-sum logic gives way to multi-sum thinking. While the natural sciences offer a wealth of knowledge that can improve both our understanding and practice of international relations, persuading global leaders to integrate neuroscientific insights in their decision-making processes remains a challenge. If humanity is to overcome the destructive tendencies of unchecked dominance, embracing a science-informed International Relations paradigm like Symbiotic Realism may be our best hope to tame the Animus Dominandi and pinpoint practical and more efficacious solutions to pressing problems.

Symbiotic Realism and the International Relations of Outer Space

The challenges currently facing humanity are not limited to the threats facing our existence on Earth. Outer space, in particular, presents complex challenges that cannot be adequately understood or addressed through traditional IR frameworks. As more countries and private actors compete for resources and geostrategic positioning in outer space, conflicts could arise from overlapping claims and aims. Of particular concern is the potential militarisation of the Moon. Placing military assets on the Moon, for example, could trigger military activity by other nations and lead to a deliberate or accidental clash. The security and sustainability of outer space also hinges on a broad range of other pressing challenges, not least space debris and space traffic management, space debris removal, demilitarisation, cybersecurity threats, and the governance of space resources.

As recent technological advancements propel space exploration forward, we should also be alert to the potential challenges posed by space colonisation which could, if not managed correctly, turn into the next theatre of geopolitical conflicts. To ensure that we thrive beyond our home planet  we must address the profound impacts of space on our biology, psychology, ethics and societal structures and move beyond zero-sum games and militarised competition towards fostering symbiotic non-conflictual competitive interstate relations. By focusing on multi-sum strategies, Symbiotic Realism helps reconcile competing interests that arise from different economic agendas, national objectives, or geostrategic competition. This paradigm shift recognises that in today’s interdependent world, no actor or entity can pursue long-term security, peace and prosperity in space without furthering the interests and well-being of others. 

The monumental scale of the challenges emanating from the geopolitics of outer space can be better understood using Meta-Geopolitics, a new geopolitical analysis method that focuses on seven core state capacities – sociocultural, economic, domestic, environmental, technological, military, and diplomatic. The framework enables a holistic assessment of how states can leverage their capacities, not only to secure their national interests on the Moon but also to contribute to a stable and sustainable outer space environment for all. This approach transcends the key assumptions of classical geopolitics and recognises that a diverse set of factors, beyond just geographical and state-centric ones, is pivotal in shaping political behaviour and international relations – both on Earth and in space. This is because of the global commons nature of outer space: if outer space becomes critically unsafe, it will not be selectively unsafe, but unsafe for all states, non-state actors and private corporations alike. 

The Way Forward: Symbiotic Realism and a Paradigm for a New World Order

Many analysts suggest that the global political arena is transitioning from a unipolar system, dominated by the United States, to a more multipolar, yet an unequal one, with some aspects of power increasingly dispersed among various states. If this is true, why has this shift not led to a more peaceful world? One primary reason is that despite the rise of other nations, the world remains largely unipolar in critical areas such as economic and military capabilities. The United States, despite experiencing a relative decline, continues to hold the most dominant and innovative economy, technological supremacy and military primacy globally. Meanwhile, as other nations strive to reach parity, or near-parity, with the U.S., the dynamic known as Thucydides’s Trap remains a significant source of global instability.

These dynamics highlight the pressing need for structures that can contain  these sources of instability.  Traditional realism, with its narrow focus on zero-sum outcomes, fails to provide solutions to tame the animus dominandi – a force that can quickly escalate into conflict, especially under conditions like those described by Thucydides’s Trap. What is required is a shift towards a new paradigm that is rooted in empirical evidence about human and state behaviour and insights into the preconditions of peaceful coexistence. Symbiotic Realism offers such a new paradigm. In the light of transdisciplinary findings, it advocates for competition that is productive and non-conflictual through multi-sum games. In contrast to zero-sum games, multi-sum approaches allow all participants to benefit in a fluid, symbiotic, and competitive(although non-conflictual) way, even if this is not achieved in a uniform way. 

Furthermore, Symbiotic Realism places significant emphasis on reconciling the diverse interests and addressing the dignity (in its holistic meaning, going beyond just the absence of humiliation but also the presence of recognition through nine critical, governance-relevant needs) of all actors within the international system. Extensive research supports the idea that recognising and fulfilling these needs is crucial for fostering a sustainable and equitable peaceful coexistence. Therefore, adopting human dignity-centred multi-sum strategies is vital to transitioning towards a near-parity-multipolar world and away from devolving into chaos and conflict. In our increasingly complex, uncertain, rapidly evolving and disruptive international system, national interests are more likely to be attained in sustainable and peaceful ways, if they are reconciled symbiotically yet realistically, with all other national interests, transnational collective civilisational risks and transplanetary opportunities and challenges.

***

Professor Nayef Al-Rodhan is a philosopher, neuroscientist, geostrategist and futurologist. He is the Head of the Geopolitics & Global Futures Department at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Switzerland and an Honorary Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford University. He is also a member of the Global Future Council on the Future of Complex Risks at the World Economic Forum and a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Philosophy, London. For more information on his publications here.

***