Select one of the stories listed and evaluate/explain how your “reading” is affected or influenced when you consider the text under the lens (or filter) of each of our three approaches (formalist, gender, biographical)
Nathaniel Hawthorne
-Young Goodman Brown
-The Minister’s Black Veil
Sample Solution
Human nature in itself does not solely explain patterns of conflict and cooperation within international politics, however it is the basis upon which all other forces of these patterns can be explained. Many will claim that interactions between ethnicities, pursuits of national interests or protection of a stateâs citizens also allow for an explanation of state-to-state interactions, but what they fail to recognize is that human nature allows each of these factors to take shape. As such, this essay will focus on realismâs view of human nature and primarily on defensive and offensive realism, as both go beyond the realm of classical realism in explaining why states behave the way they do. In order for this explanation to make sense, one must first analyze the duality of views of international politics within realism and neorealism. After this is addressed, one can then begin to examine how any other rationalization of patterns of conflict and cooperation is inevitably reliant on human nature, no matter which side of realism is used to understand it. Realism is an interesting political theory in that it encompasses several disciplines rather than just one rigid and specific explanation of the interactions of political states. These subdivisions of realism are necessary to understand before explaining how realism is able to go beyond just human nature as a justification for conflict and cooperation. To begin, classical realism infers that human nature, which coincides with the behavior of an individual state, is based solely on the desire for power. This was first described by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan in which he lays out four main explanations of why humanity acts the way it does in this conquest for power. These four assumptions of human nature are that all humans seek glory and pride, that humanity fears death, that humans are all equally vulnerable, and lastly, that humans are not always rational but are, in fact, always capable of rationality (76-77). The initial desire for power is what leads classical realists to believe that human nature is in a consistent state of competition, that human nature is inherently greedy and power hungry (Walt, 31). However, a new wave of reali>
Human nature in itself does not solely explain patterns of conflict and cooperation within international politics, however it is the basis upon which all other forces of these patterns can be explained. Many will claim that interactions between ethnicities, pursuits of national interests or protection of a stateâs citizens also allow for an explanation of state-to-state interactions, but what they fail to recognize is that human nature allows each of these factors to take shape. As such, this essay will focus on realismâs view of human nature and primarily on defensive and offensive realism, as both go beyond the realm of classical realism in explaining why states behave the way they do. In order for this explanation to make sense, one must first analyze the duality of views of international politics within realism and neorealism. After this is addressed, one can then begin to examine how any other rationalization of patterns of conflict and cooperation is inevitably reliant on human nature, no matter which side of realism is used to understand it. Realism is an interesting political theory in that it encompasses several disciplines rather than just one rigid and specific explanation of the interactions of political states. These subdivisions of realism are necessary to understand before explaining how realism is able to go beyond just human nature as a justification for conflict and cooperation. To begin, classical realism infers that human nature, which coincides with the behavior of an individual state, is based solely on the desire for power. This was first described by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan in which he lays out four main explanations of why humanity acts the way it does in this conquest for power. These four assumptions of human nature are that all humans seek glory and pride, that humanity fears death, that humans are all equally vulnerable, and lastly, that humans are not always rational but are, in fact, always capable of rationality (76-77). The initial desire for power is what leads classical realists to believe that human nature is in a consistent state of competition, that human nature is inherently greedy and power hungry (Walt, 31). However, a new wave of reali>
