Structural Realism and First Contact With Alien Species

Introduction

"I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world." — U.S. President Ronald Reagan, Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 42nd Session, September 21, 1987

As the epigraph above indicates, even national leaders have recognized the potential for first contact with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species and its implications for humankind. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute has been actively scanning the heavens for the past three decades, and many scientists and even theologians believe that it is only a matter of time before humanity finally establishes contact with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species. Whether this first contact takes the form of a beamed message or a so-called "close encounter" in which humans actually meet aliens, this historic event would fundamentally transform humanity's views about the existing geopolitical order — particularly if such an encounter is perceived as a threat.

This paper provides an explanation of structural realism and social constructivism and examines how these theoretical perspectives can be applied to such a seminal event in order to predict the most likely outcomes. An evaluation of these theoretical perspectives follows, assessing the extent to which they complement or overlap each other and which provides the more convincing prediction. The paper concludes with a summary of important findings concerning the application of structural realism and social constructivism to the first contact with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species.

Structural Realism and the International System

According to Jakobsen, Kenneth Waltz's structural realism "starts from a simple set of assumptions [and] seeks to explain how states, in particular the most powerful ones, behave, and how they interact with each other on the international arena" (2013, p. 2). Structural realism as originally proposed by Waltz is so termed because "realism [or] science describes the world as it really is" and "structural because the realities identified are not kinds of stuff or objects, but structures" (Goldin 2016, p. 697). The "structures" involved in structural realism relate to the "anarchic nature of the international system" and are regarded as "the single most important factor affecting all other behavior" (Vasquez 1997, p. 901).

There are two core issues in Waltz's conception of the structures of the international system:

First, the international system's ordering principle is anarchy. This means that there are no higher authorities than sovereign states in the international system — that is, there is no single world government in charge. Second, there is the distribution of capabilities (or power) across the units inhabiting the international system. States differ dramatically in their capabilities or power, and these differences influence the manner in which they behave (Jakobsen 2013, p. 4).

These two notions highlight the realist origins of structural realism concerning the perceived "realities" of the units and structure of the international system as understood by human actors. According to Buzan and Little, three basic issues reflect structural realism's realist traditions: a continued insistence on the primacy of the political sphere; a focus on the state as the most important defining unit of the international system; and the acceptance of Waltz's basic definitional framework for international structure (1993, pp. 10–11).

Waltz's basic definitional framework holds that structures are generated through the continuous interactions between the units that comprise them — in this case, sovereign states (Buzan & Little 1993). From a structural realist perspective, there is always a struggle over scarce resources between sovereign states, and the integrity of national borders must be protected with appropriate defensive measures; otherwise, nations risk threatening their very survival. As Frieden, Lake, and Schultz report, "Realists claim that, in anarchy, states compete with other states for power and security. The nature of the competition is viewed in zero-sum terms; in other words, more for one actor means less for another" (p. 21).

Because there are finite amounts of resources available, the zero-sum assertion carries force — but the potential always exists for states to cooperate in mutually beneficial ways rather than compete over scarce goods. Nevertheless, the historical record contains countless examples of states going to war over scarce resources and arbitrary national boundaries drawn only on human-made political maps.

Social Constructivism and International Relations

Social constructivists hold that some, if not all, aspects of the human condition are socially constructed (Kukla 2000). As Ghica reports, "The main tenet of social constructivism is that international actors, like humans, develop in a socially constructed world, hence the label" (p. 234). Like structural realism, social constructivism builds on other past theories and traditions. Roberts-Miller notes that, "Initially associated with Thomas Kuhn in philosophy of science, social constructivism is a response to the correspondence theory of truth, and the autonomous self presumed by various traditions in Anglo-American philosophy, especially positivism" (2002, p. 97).

From a social constructivist perspective, the international system is shaped by socially constructed — which is to say, arbitrary — concepts that exert a powerful influence on the behavior of sovereign states. As Frieden et al. point out, "According to constructivist philosophy, the social world is not a given: it is not something 'out there' that exists independently of the thoughts and ideas of the people involved in it" (p. 211). In other words, it is the social construction of reality, rather than reality itself, that is the main feature of the international system. As Frieden et al. emphasize, "Constructivists… argue that the most important aspect of international relations is social, not material" (p. 209). In sum, social constructivism represents a useful framework for gaining a better understanding of the "hows and whys" of international relations between sovereign states.

Applying Structural Realism to First Contact

There has been increasing interest on the part of the scientific community concerning the very real potential for first contact with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species (hereinafter alternatively "ET"), as well as growing concern among national policymakers in many countries about what form this first contact would assume. Although there is no consensus about what approach to first contact would be best for humanity, there is general recognition that even a benign first contact would have enormous implications for the human race (Brin 2010). More troubling, of course, is the potential for ETs to have conquest in mind when encountering a less-developed species. The historical record is replete with examples of civilizations that fell to the stronger military might of other civilizations, and the possibility of the same scenario playing out in a first-contact situation is very real.

Against this backdrop, structural realism is particularly well suited for assessing the effects of first contact with ETs because it focuses on the implications of external threats to national security. As Frieden et al. observe, "Realist theory operates according to the assumption that, domestically, the problem of order and security is largely solved. However, on the 'outside,'… insecurity, dangers and threats to the very existence of the state loom large" (p. 21). Traditionally, these external threats have related to other sovereign nations and, more recently, to non-state actors such as terrorist organizations (Clunan & Trinkunas 2010). In this context, national security relates to "the effort state officials take to protect their national interests, usually understood to be physical survival, territorial integrity, and continuation of the political regime and economic system" (Clunan & Trinkunas 2010, p. 282).

Purely human-forged concepts of "territorial integrity," however, would lose their meaning entirely if the whole human race were faced with an extraterrestrial threat. This type of scenario has become the focus of policymakers at the superpower level. As President Reagan's speech to the United Nations made clear, geopolitical boundaries would likely evaporate virtually overnight, and the diverse peoples of Earth would come together as one — at least until the alien threat was successfully countered or repelled. This same type of collective reaction to a common invader has been witnessed throughout history, and as recently as Afghanistan, where warlords stopped fighting each other long enough to repel foreign invaders. Indeed, even if first contact with ETs were ultimately determined to be beneficial to humankind in some fashion, the entire human race would be positioned to compete for the greatest share of alien technologies — which could include limitless energy, faster-than-light travel, and cures for deadly diseases — rather than allowing a single nation to monopolize such benefits.

In addition, when applied to the threat from ETs, structural realism suggests that the international community would likely band together to protect Earth and all its inhabitants, regardless of geopolitical borders. As Frieden et al. point out, "Defensive realists emphasize that if any state becomes too powerful, balancing will occur. Specifically, the other great powers will build up their militaries and form a balancing coalition that will leave the aspiring hegemon at least less secure, and maybe even destroy it" (p. 80). The logic of balance-of-power theory applies with equal force when the external threat originates not from a rival state but from beyond the planet itself.

Conclusion

Although the potential for actual first contact with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species still appears to remain remote, the implications of such an event transcend current planning processes and demand more attention from the international community in order to develop appropriate responses should such an event actually occur. From a structural realism perspective, such an encounter would inevitably require a unified response from the international community, including military intervention if deemed absolutely necessary to ensure the survival of humankind. By contrast, from a social constructivist perspective, a first encounter with a sentient extraterrestrial alien species would first need to be recognized as a verified reality before demanding an appropriate collective response.

Irrespective of which school of thought is subscribed to, the research is consistent in showing that such a first encounter would fundamentally transform the existing geopolitical balance and require a new conceptualization of what it means to be human in an infinite galaxy of possibilities. Given the growing seriousness with which scientists and policymakers are beginning to treat the question of extraterrestrial intelligence, both theoretical frameworks deserve continued scholarly attention as analytical tools for anticipating and managing this unprecedented class of global risk.

References

Brin, David. "The Dangers of First Contact: The Moral Nature of Extraterrestrial Intelligence and a Contrarian Perspective on Altruism." Skeptic, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 28–31.

Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

Clunan, Anne L., and Harold A. Trinkunas. Ungoverned Spaces: Alternatives to State Authority in an Era of Softened Sovereignty. Stanford, CA: Stanford Security Studies, 2010.

Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Ghica, Luciana A. "Beyond Regional Integration? Social Constructivism, Regional Cohesiveness and the Regionalism Puzzle." Studia Politica: Romanian Political Science Review, Vol. 13, No. 4 (October 1, 2013), pp. 733–736.

Goldin, Owen. "Aristotle, the Pythagoreans, and Structural Realism." The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 69, No. 4 (June 2016), pp. 697–699.

Goldman, Alvin I. Pathways to Knowledge: Private and Public. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Jakobsen, Jo. "Neorealism in International Relations — Kenneth Waltz." Popular Social Science, 2013. Available: http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2013/11/06/neorealism-in-international-relations-kenneth-waltz/

Kukla, Andre. Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge, 2000.

Neal, Mark. "Preparing for Extraterrestrial Contact." Risk Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 63–87.

Roberts-Miller, Patricia. "Post-Contemporary Composition: Social Constructivism and Its Alternatives." Composition Studies, Vol. 30, No. 1 (2002), pp. 97–101.

Vasquez, J. A. "The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative vs. Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition." American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, No. 4 (December 1997), pp. 899–904.