What is human nature? That seems to be the big question. Is it good? Is it bad? Is it both? Or nothing at all?
In the 9th grade i came to this "realization" that the whole point of human existence was just to make babies and everything else people did was just to fill the time in between, except the whole eating, sleeping and pooping part, which is necessary to living (unless you've miraculously evolved beyond that). But anyhoo, maybe 9th-grade me was right, or at least as right as anyone else theorizing on the nature of humans. Maybe "human nature" is simply our base functions (eating, sleeping, pooping, fucking--not necessarily in that order, & hopefully hygiene is in there, too, somewhere), and everything else is up to chance. How we go about fulfilling our basic needs and otherwise occupying our time is determined by the conditions of our environment.
But maybe not, since that would basically be saying that we're all nurture, pretty much, and that's just as false an assumption as saying we're all nature. However, i do think that there is a benefit to the wholly nurture argument, because it leaves the possibility open for change. If circumstances made me one way, then it stands to reason that different circumstances can make me another way. I'm not stuck the way I am forever. Which is good because if i turnout like an incompetent ass-hat it's nice to know that i don't have to be that way until my dying days. Whereas the nature argument does just that, it naturalizes whatever characteristic it defines as "natural." And nature has this connotation of constancy, of immutability, like a mountain that can't be swayed. If it is my nature to go around being an incompetent ass-hat then i'm stuck that way. I can't help it anymore than that tree outside can help growing blossoms in the spring and loosing all its leaves in the winter. We're both just a part of nature, living out our existence in the preordained manner that "nature" has determined that we should.
On somewhat of a side note, though, this is obviously as false conclusion, because nature is constantly changing. We have relatively short lives, so to us our environment may appear as a constant. But that mountain out there, even the very continents that we live on once looked very different and may do so again in not too very long. The Atlantic grows as the Pacific shrinks, and mountains rise and fall as time goes by. Nature is constantly evolving, changing. So to say that something is natural can actually be taken to mean that it is constantly evolving.
But back to human nature, more specifically. What is it? Between the eternal dichotomy of good and evil where do we lay?
Hobbs would say that we are the latter and without a strict authority the world would descend into chaos, anarchy, or whatever you want to call it. Heart of Darkness, which we kicked off the semester with, reiterates this theme. And in doing so, lays the groundwork for imperialization.
But can't civilization be just as evil as its uncivilized counterpart? It all depends on how you define it, what discourse you use. (situated knowledges and all that jazz) After all, just as we define Iraqis as violent and evil, do not they define us in just as unsavory terms? So isn't t just as likely that it is society that begets evil in people, not what staunches it? That would be what Marx and other structuralists say.
So whose right? What is human nature? You tell me.
4 comments:
Nature and Nurture lines blur. But it seems to me that they are eternally connected. If Nurture is a result of sets of conditions that form and shape, then too Nature is also a result of conditions and environmental surroundings that have shaped and formed all aspects of nature from earth science to human science. Nature evolves and changes and adapt for survival. Human nature is also a result of the conditions and production of knowledge from all aspects of science, culture , education that is produced over time in different spaces.
Hobbs theorizes that nature and culture are foundational to who we are and war is inevitable because of our violent human nature. But can it be that violence is in human nature because it was produced overtime to become who we are and what we know. Freud similarly connects violence and aggression to our nature, and coming from a science man makes the connections to our instinctual propensity to aggression psychologically . Although he gives hope that there are possibilities to ending the violence of wars by suppressing our inner propensity for destruction... scientifically it also can be a learned nature that has evolved over time as our brains adapt to learned behaviors. Mead argues there is distinct possibilities to change, that war is not inevitable and not a natural phenomenon because it is part of a learned behavior. Though indirectly she still connects violence to the nature of people, I think her basic argument that the violence of war is a learned behavior that can be changed. Ghandi proved that violence does not have to be a part of war. By radically changing the notion of war and thus violence, I think he showed the world that violence and war are not an innate part of human nature. I guess I would argue too that nature is nurtured by our historical knowledge and acceptance of violence as a part of war and a means to an end. It does not have to be, but it is all we know.
Jessica, I definitely agree with you when you say that the acceptance of war “does not have to be but it is all we know.” That goes back to what Meade was saying; war is just an invention. However, this invention has to derive from something, which Meade overlooks since she seems to be trying real hard to avoid saying that this violence is in human nature. But it is…we all have violence in us, we’re not sinless people. Violence is inherently in humans, but to what degree? Definitely not the way we see it today. I think the invention of war just amplified and glorified this human characteristic, and it has now encompassed our society because this is all we know now. Like Freud and Meade say, the only way to stop this perpetual war is to find another way to challenge this violence. People are not going to give up war because this type of violence has been ingrained in society, not until some other way to channel this violence can.
I think Meade’s concept that war is just an invention is really interesting. However, I don’t think that this invention spread solely because some violent group saw some other violent group do it, and then followed this example as a way to channel their violent nature (that’s kind of how I interpreted her explanation of how this idea spread). Another human characteristic that keeps popping up in the readings is the idea of manliness and honor-seeking (Gandhi, Hobbes, Meade to name a few). Meade (you can probably tell by now that I’m pretty fascinated with her article) discusses briefly how war is an invention of prestige-seeking. It’s a way to “display certain skills and certain values”.
I think it can be argued in 2 ways:
1. You can claim that humans aren’t inherently violent, but rather turn to violence to seek honor or prove their manliness. The birth of warfare starts by some prestige-seeking group, then other groups also seeking this honor want to be viewed as manly too and follow suit.
2. You can claim that humans have both biological characteristics which lead to the same result- the invention of war.
Either way, history backs up both these claims. The Cold War wasn’t just military tension; it was an I-can-make-more-technological-advances-than-you-because-my-nation-is-better conflict. It was an honor-seeking, “I’m more manly so I need better nuclear arms” affair.
Now I’m siding more with the first claim. So that makes my first paragraph about how violence is inherent totally worthless. Oh well, at least I’m learning more about my own view as I type this stream of consciousness.
Let me go back to Gandhi. He defines manliness differently, that a person is manly if they use truth-force/passive resistance. So in my first claim, the Indian civilization would be showing their manliness through passive resistance. This can back up the argument that since they are a non-violent people who are still achieving their definition of manliness, then violence is not inherent in humans.
However, this idea of manliness/honor would also raise the same questions that violence did (is it just a social creation, is it inherent…you know the deal).
...
Okay I just realized that we’re reading about masculinity next week..so we’ll probably just talk about this then. Whoops.
Here's a link to a talk to think on...like Justine, I think the issue of violence as a learned trait that can therefore change is a very intriguing one since it gets us beyond the dualism of nature/culture.
Gandhi was one of those people who turned this dualism on its head by realizing the capacity of people to change and see the humanity in another human being.
Here's the link...it's pretty awesome I think
http://www.ted.com/talks/vs_ramachandran_the_neurons_that_shaped_civilization.html
I feel it's kind of the chicken and the egg question/debate, but then again I think someone may have figured that out by now with all our "science" and what not.
My point is, that it's a tough question. I myself always wonder, in my twisted logic, that if we are part of nature, then it validates everything we do as humans, that we have simply evolved as nature intended and that we do things the way we do simply because we do as our biology intends us to do, whether it means going from tribes to governments, or riding horses to cars, it is part of the human evolution.
That as humans we socially construct ourselves out of that nature by trying to make it a dichotomy, two mutually exclusive parts. Always trying to conquer and overcome that nature.
Yet the thought that what we do as humans is simply because we are part of nature and are "animals" just like any whale or lion also makes me think twice. Since humans do so many horrendous acts of violence, I would like to think that we are not part of "nature," as an apple tree who has no other option but to produce apples, but that we have agency and the capacity to change the human discourse into one of community and love of humankind and all that great stuff. Perhaps that is more an effort to reason my way out of nature but I think that humans are part of nature like any plant or animal, and that it is nurture that shapes whether we turn out "nice" or "bad."
The problem is that just because we criticize others for their violent acts, that does not mean we ourselves are not capable of such actions under similar circumstances.
I think nurture is part of nature, a sort of subsection of nature, that they are not separate but rather nurture a product of nature. I think that nature pre-disposed us to certain tendencies but that nurture was the one that allowed us to carry those things out or not. I think that nature gives you a body, mind and genetic information and nurture is the result of that formulation such as culture, language, society. I think of it not so much as nature only as the physical landscape but as the biology and material bodies we are given and the DNA and brain we are given and nurture as how we react to other humans and things in our society.
For instance Einstein's story would be very different had he had my brain, I'm saying he had a different type of brain anatomy that allowed him to calculate and come up with the ideas he did. There are many biological differences in the size and shapes of our anatomies that allow us to develop differently, but in the end, we are human and keep reproducing as it is in our biology, we are wired to survive to reproduce and keep evolving. Nurture is part of what we use to fill in our time as humans, but Nature is why we are here.
This is one of those questions where today I think of the answer as this and tomorrow I may contradict myself, more than I already have. I hope that at least half of these thoughts made sense, it is more of a philosophical question, theories of how it is that we have become what we are today and why, but it is a question that will remain debated and many different interpretations will arise and will be accepted and discarded.
PS:
Article about Einstein's brain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/371698.stm
Interesting show that made me think about nature vs. nurture- how ppl are pre-disposed with certain abilities) http://www.history.com/shows/stan-lees-superhumans
Post a Comment