The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities (2018)

That we are primarily individuals rather than members of families is a modern liberal perspective. 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."

Grok says:

John J. Mearsheimer’s argument in The Great Delusion challenges the core assumptions of political liberalism, particularly its emphasis on individualism and universal human rights. He posits that humans are fundamentally social beings, shaped by their embeddedness in groups—families, communities, and societies—rather than autonomous individuals acting in isolation. Below, I analyze his key points, their implications, and potential critiques, while grounding the discussion in the broader context of liberalism and human nature.

1. Core Claim: Humans Are Social, Not Atomistic

Mearsheimer asserts that humans are "profoundly social beings" whose identities and preferences are molded by group membership from birth. He contrasts this with liberalism’s view of people as "atomistic actors" driven by individual reason and inalienable rights. His perspective aligns with communitarian critiques of liberalism, which argue that individuals cannot be understood apart from their social contexts. For Mearsheimer, socialization—through family, culture, and society—plays a far greater role than reason in shaping moral codes and behaviors.

• Analysis: This view draws on anthropological and psychological evidence that humans are inherently social animals. Studies like those by sociologist Émile Durkheim emphasize the role of collective norms in shaping identity, while attachment theory in psychology highlights how early relationships with caregivers form the basis of social behavior. Mearsheimer’s focus on "tribalism" reflects evolutionary biology’s insights into group survival strategies, where cooperation within kin groups enhanced reproductive success. His claim that survival depends on social embeddedness is empirically grounded—humans historically thrived in cooperative groups, not as solitary actors.
• Implication: By prioritizing social bonds over individualism, Mearsheimer challenges liberalism’s universalist aspirations. If people are primarily loyal to their groups, policies promoting global human rights may falter against local allegiances, explaining why liberal foreign interventions often face resistance.

2. Critique of Liberal Individualism

Mearsheimer argues that liberalism’s focus on individual rights ignores the social nature of humans, leading to flawed assumptions about behavior and politics. He sees liberalism’s universalism—its belief that everyone shares the same inherent rights—as a driver of ambitious, often overreaching foreign policies. These policies, he suggests, underestimate the power of group loyalty and cultural differences.

• Analysis: Mearsheimer’s critique resonates with realist international relations theory, which he is known for. Realism emphasizes state interests and power dynamics over ideological crusades like spreading democracy or human rights. His argument that liberalism treats people as "atomistic" echoes critics like Charles Taylor, who argue that liberal theories (e.g., John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice) abstract individuals from their communal ties, creating an unrealistic model of human agency. The liberal focus on human rights, as Samuel Moyn notes in the quote, has indeed become a global rallying cry since World War II, shaping institutions like the United Nations. Yet Mearsheimer sees this as disconnected from the reality of human tribalism.
• Implication: This perspective suggests that liberal interventions—such as U.S. efforts to promote democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan—may fail because they assume universal values override local social structures. It also questions whether human rights can truly be "inalienable" if they are secondary to group-based identities in practice.

3. Socialization Over Reason

Mearsheimer elevates socialization above reason in shaping human preferences, arguing that by the time individuals develop critical faculties, their values are already deeply ingrained through family and society. He also notes that innate sentiments further constrain rational choice, leaving individuals with "limited choice" in forming moral codes.

• Analysis: This aligns with research in developmental psychology, such as Jean Piaget’s work on cognitive development, which shows that children internalize social norms before fully developing abstract reasoning. Studies on moral psychology by Jonathan Haidt also support Mearsheimer’s view, suggesting that moral intuitions (shaped by culture and biology) often precede and guide rational deliberation. However, his dismissal of reason as the "least important" factor may overstate the case. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant or modern cognitive scientists argue that reason, while influenced by socialization, can still critically reshape inherited values—evidenced by social progress like the abolition of slavery or women’s suffrage, driven by rational critique of norms.
• Implication: If socialization dominates, efforts to promote universal values through education or dialogue may struggle against entrenched group norms. This could explain resistance to liberal reforms in deeply traditional societies. However, Mearsheimer’s view risks undervaluing human agency, as individuals can and do challenge their socialization through reflection or exposure to new ideas.

4. Strengths of Mearsheimer’s Argument

• Empirical Grounding: His emphasis on social embeddedness is supported by evidence from multiple disciplines, making it a robust counterpoint to liberal individualism.
• Realist Lens: By linking human sociality to international relations, he offers a coherent explanation for why liberal foreign policies often fail—group loyalties trump universal ideals.
• Critique of Universalism: His argument highlights the tension between liberalism’s global ambitions and the persistence of cultural particularism, a relevant concern in an era of rising nationalism.

5. Potential Critiques

• Overemphasis on Tribalism: Mearsheimer’s focus on "tribalism" may oversimplify human behavior. Modern societies are complex, with individuals navigating multiple, overlapping identities (e.g., national, professional, ideological). His binary of group loyalty versus individualism ignores hybrid identities.
• Undervaluing Reason: By downplaying reason, he risks portraying humans as overly determined by socialization, neglecting cases where individuals or societies radically rethink norms (e.g., Enlightenment-driven reforms).
• Neglect of Liberal Successes: While he critiques liberal foreign policy failures, he sidesteps liberalism’s domestic successes, like expanding individual freedoms in Western democracies, which suggest that individualism and rights can coexist with social bonds.
• Static View of Socialization: His model implies socialization is largely fixed in childhood, but lifelong learning and cultural exchange can reshape values, as seen in global movements for gender equality or climate action.

6. Broader Context and Relevance

Mearsheimer’s argument is particularly relevant in 2025, as debates over individualism versus collectivism intensify. Rising populism and nationalism globally underscore group loyalties, challenging liberal universalism. Yet, movements for universal human rights—such as responses to authoritarian regimes or climate migration—show that individualism and rights-based frameworks remain potent. His work invites us to balance these forces: recognizing humans’ social nature without dismissing their capacity for reasoned change.

Conclusion

Mearsheimer’s analysis offers a compelling critique of liberalism’s individualistic bias, grounding human behavior in social structures and evolutionary imperatives. His emphasis on socialization over reason explains much about group loyalty and resistance to universalist policies. However, his argument risks underestimating human agency and the dynamic interplay between individual and collective identities. Ultimately, his work challenges us to rethink liberalism’s assumptions while acknowledging that both social bonds and individual rights shape the human experience. If you’d like, I can dig deeper into any specific aspect—like the psychology of socialization or liberalism’s foreign policy record.