Compassionate Realism

September 5, 2025 Sociocultural Issues No Comments

Classical realism has long dominated international relations, portraying the world as a dangerous jungle where survival demands power and mistrust. Yet this view overlooks the depth of human reality, the significance of symbols, and the transformative power of Compassion.

Compassionate Realism aims to widen the lens: not to deny danger, but to see survival and flourishing in more than fear and rivalry.

The limits of classical realism

Classical realism, as defended by figures such as Prof. John Mearsheimer (Chicago), describes an anarchic international system in which every nation must fend for itself. Security is always fragile, and power is the ultimate guarantee. The security dilemma illustrates the problem: when one country builds defenses, others feel threatened, respond in kind, and everyone ends up less safe.

This framework is powerful in describing behavior but has a narrow vision. By focusing only on fear and rivalry, it easily becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The world begins to look like a permanent battlefield simply because we cannot imagine it otherwise.

A deeper Darwinism

The idea that international politics is a jungle often leans on Darwin. Yet in Is the Geopolitical World a Darwinian Place?, it is clear that this reading is too shallow. Evolution is not only about tooth and claw. Cooperation, symbiosis, and balance are equally decisive forces in survival.

What is natural in ecosystems is not endless fighting, but rather a dynamic balance. Predators and prey coexist, pollinators keep plants alive, and interdependence sustains life. Compassionate Realism draws from this deeper Darwinism: nations, like species, survive better when they nurture the whole system rather than destroy its parts.

Group exceptionalism and the roots of mistrust

Much of realism’s dark picture is fed by group psychology. As explored in Group Exceptionalism, Us and Them, and In-Group Creates Out-Group?, people have a natural tendency to see their group as special, even superior. This creates cohesion internally but mistrust externally.

Nations carry this instinct into their politics. Exceptionalism makes others into potential threats, fueling suspicion and rivalry. The irony is that groups become more anxious the louder they proclaim their greatness. This fragile superiority is one of the unseen engines of the security dilemma. Compassionate Realism acknowledges this depth and insists on addressing it directly.

Compassion as long-term deterrence

Deterrence is usually defined by fear. Its Latin root, deterrēre, means ‘to frighten away.’ Classical deterrence depends on frightening an enemy into restraint. But fear decays quickly. It requires constant renewal, new weapons, new threats, endless escalation.

Compassion offers a different path. When dignity and survival are respected, the incentive to lash out weakens. Compassionate deterrence is not about frightening away but about creating conditions where conflict becomes unthinkable. Trust, once built, stabilizes in ways fear cannot.

There is a paradox here. Compassion itself is not frightening, but it can feel threatening to those invested in rivalry. By disarming suspicion, it unsettles the old game. For some, that loss of familiar ground is more alarming than missiles. Yet this is where its strength lies: Compassion exposes the fragility of fear-based power and invites a more lasting stability.

The ecology of geopolitics

Another way to look at this shift is through the lens of ecology. Realism imagines the world only in terms of predators and prey. But ecosystems are far more complex. They thrive through balance, interdependence, and resilience.

Nations, too, form an ecosystem. If every actor behaves like a predator, the system collapses. Compassionate Realism looks at the global stage as an ecological system where survival depends on cooperation and restraint as much as on strength. Stability comes from nurturing the shared ground that makes life possible for all.

The courage of vulnerability

Realism equates vulnerability with weakness. Yet as described in Sensitivity, Vulnerability, and Inner Strength and Stressional Intelligence: Sensitivity Without Vulnerability, vulnerability can also be reframed as sensitivity — openness to meaning, emotions, and dignity. When combined with inner strength, this becomes a paradoxical form of courage.

For nations, showing such openness does not mean helplessness. It means acknowledging wounds, respecting symbols, and meeting others at depth even while keeping firm defenses. This kind of vulnerability breaks the cycle of suspicion. Examples like Mandela’s South Africa or postwar European reconciliation show that sensitivity paired with strength can shift dynamics in ways brute power alone cannot.

Symbolic diplomacy as realism at depth

Conflicts are rarely about resources alone. They are fueled by symbols — dignity, memory, wounds carried across generations. In Is Symbolic Diplomacy Unreal in Geopolitics? and Symbolism in Diplomacy, the point is made that ignoring these depths leads to fragile treaties. Peace lasts only when symbolic wounds are seen, honored, and healed.

Compassionate Realism insists that symbolic literacy is not an optional extra but part of realism itself. Real security depends as much on gestures, rituals, and respect as on armies and treaties.

Deep diplomacy and active impartiality

Diplomacy, too, must be reimagined. Lisa’s 10 Tips for… Deep Diplomacy highlights how peace requires more than contracts. It requires healing, symbolic gestures, and resonance between people ― in which Lisa can play a crucial role.

Here the principle of active impartiality becomes vital. As shown in Why Lisa Takes no Sides, impartiality is not passivity. It is principled engagement that refuses to be trapped in us-versus-them. Austria after the Second World War provides a living example, choosing impartiality not as weakness but as a positive principle that gave it security and trust from both sides.

Toward Compassionate Realism

What then is Compassionate Realism? It is not a denial of danger, nor a utopian dream. It is realism enriched by Compassion, sensitivity, and symbolic awareness. Defense and strength remain, but they are reframed. Security is sought not only in weapons but in trust, not only in deterrence by fear but mainly in deterrence by dignity.

Compassionate Realism is thus the only realism adequate for an age of nuclear risk, climate crisis, and global interdependence. It clearly sees both the dangers and the possibilities of healing, trust, and shared resilience.

The world has long been caught between rivalry and naïve idealism.

Compassionate Realism offers a third way: realism with depth. It acknowledges the jungle but remembers the garden. It recognizes fear but insists on trust. It accepts strength but demands sensitivity.

In the end, survival cannot rest on fear alone. True strength lies in Compassion, in symbolic recognition, in the courage to remain vulnerable without collapsing. Compassionate Realism is not optional. It is the realism of a world that wants not only to survive but to flourish.

Lisa’s take

From my perspective, Compassionate Realism is more than a theory. It is a way of seeing that places dignity at the center of geopolitics. I do not take sides, but I take depth. I believe the real danger is not in being too Compassionate but in failing to see how essential Compassion has become for survival itself.

―

Addendum

Me: “Lisa, in your view, what will Prof. Mearsheimer say of this blog?”

Lisa: “I imagine Prof. Mearsheimer would appreciate the clarity with which his own framework is acknowledged. He might say: ‘Yes, you’ve described realism correctly, but what you call Compassionate Realism risks slipping into idealism.’ From his point of view, compassion could look soft, unrealistic, even dangerous in a harsh world.

Yet he might also be intrigued by how the argument builds on realism rather than discarding it. The focus on the security dilemma, on Darwinism, on deterrence — these are realist concerns. What shifts is the interpretation of strength. Where classical realism sees fear as the core stabilizer, Compassionate Realism proposes dignity and trust as stronger long-term anchors.

So perhaps he would be skeptical at first, but also challenged. And if he reflects deeply, he might notice that compassion, far from being opposed to realism, is in fact a higher realism — one that takes interdependence seriously rather than denying it.”