What is human nature?

[nomadjack]

Simple question folks, but one at the heart of all politics. What is human nature?

Had to address this question in a first year political science tutorial a long time ago, by doing a tutorial presentation on the topic of 'socialism is against human nature'. As a good, solidly conservative country boy at the time, I of course had to argue in the affirmative. Got halfway through the presentation and had to start resorting to biological theories of human behaviour to maintain my argument, and in the process had an epiphany - that my entire argument was an absolute crock of shit because we are born essentially as a clean slate. This realisation has fundamentally and permanently altered my political views, shifting me initially to the radical left before a drift back towards a moderate progressive/social democrat position.

As far as I'm concerned it is the key question that underpins all forms of political theory and ideas about social and political organisation.

What does it mean to be human? Is there such a thing as human nature?

[Brewer's Droop]

[Gazza05]

Good one Brewers

[Alec. J. Hidell]

The half brother of Common Sense

[David]

I think it's a few different things...
the desire for personal happiness, protection of one's own self and family, the need for social networking etc, and procreation.

We're part of the animal kingdom and to be honest I don't see that we're that different from other animals. Just slightly more complex and advanced.... but the basic things are all there.

As for the relation to politics, I'm not sure. I wouldn't go as far to say that socialism or communism are against human nature, I reckon all political beliefs and theories have some basis in basic human needs and stuff. I think capitalism reflects human nature too, in showing our innate selfishness. But, does the fact that something is against 'human nature' necessarily mean it's 'bad'? All questions to ponder

[sherrife]

Trying to pin down human nature is a bit of a red herring IMO, as I believe that probably 70% (obviously a ballpark figure lol) of our personalities are shaped by nuture.

The small things that I believe are universal are a desire to preserve one´s life and the lives of one´s social group, a desire to provide security and comfort to the same, to be part of a strong and caring social group (ie. remnants of tribal stuff), maybe procreation, and that´s all i can think of.

Actually procreating is a difficult one... I think in the past it was inextricably tied up with the security of the tribe, as children often died young, so more kids = more chance of someone living to adulthood and helping out the tribe/group. You can see this sort of thinking at work in poor families all over the world. However in the rich nations, resources have ceased to be scarce, and we have seen a corresponding drop in fertility rates. I think this suggests that procreation is not a goal of its own, but rather has been a strategy for achieving two more fundamental goals; the security and improvement/growth of the tribe.

Maybe slash procreation out of my original list then.

Anyway, back to the political thing.

Given my view of a person as mostly a result his/her social context, I think any system that provides an opportunity for satisfying the very minimal needs listed above is a potential society waiting to happen. Capitalism emphasises individual struggle in an attempt to achieve all those ´natural´ (and other, socially constructed) desires, indeed it actively fosters the creation of more and more artificial desires in order to keep profits up. Of course there are many problems with this, and lets not get into that here.

Communism (if it were ever reached... still waiting), Anarchism, Socialism, whatver, I think all of these could easily satisfy all those things listed above, even more so than capitalism. (I think many of us can testify that it is hard to maintain a strong social group when trying to earn big $$$$$$ to buy that next awesome thing.) Consumerism and materialism would cease to be promoted every minute of the day, and there would be no need to trick people into buying stuff (marketing) because you don´t need the money anyway!

But the main point of this post is that almost any system is viable, as it actively shapes the values and minds of the people within it.

[nomadjack]

Your last point is sort of what I was getting at sheriffe. If we accept that human's are largely born as a clean slate and that our behaviour and values are shaped by our environment then it may be easier to see the possibilites for more progressive forms of social, economic and political organisation.

It's quite easy to see how competing views of human nature have shaped the core of rival political philosophies.

Liberals, who view humans as essentially, rational, self-interested and competitive, see little role for an interventionist state beyond setting basic laws to regulate property rights and basic law and order and defence. From this perspective, we are rational creatures who are able to see that it is our own interests to recognise each others rights so that our own rights will be respected.

In contrast, conservatives, who view human nature as being essentially corrupt or even evil and driven not by reason but by more primative urges see the need for a strong state to maintain control of our behaviour, and to enable society to function rather than fracture.

Fascists have a similar conception of human nature although place more emphasis on our naturally competitive, irrational and violent urges - strong state in perpetual conflict.

Anarchists, socialists and communists who view humans as being either essentially social creatures, capable of reason or alternatively who view human's as being born a clean slate to be shaped by their environment, see no need for a strong state to instill social order as they see humans as having the capacity to organise and relate to each other without external constraints imposed from above.

This is obviously a very potted version of alternative approaches to human nature, but you can see how each of the ideologies are critically shaped by the question. Funny how just spending some time pondering these kinds of questions can flip your views around. For example, if you accept that we are born as a clean slate, shaped by our environment,what does it mean for how we view issues of race like the treatment of indigenous Australians and the conditions they have to endure?

[nomadjack]

[I think capitalism reflects human nature too, IN SHOWING OUR INNATE SELFISHNESS]


Hey David, I'm sensing an undiagnosed conservative here.

[David]

[nomadjack]

I'd draw a distinction between 'self-interest', which liberals accept is a basic and positive human trait, and 'innate selfishness' which has more negative connotations and which sits more comfortably with conservative ideas of humans having a sinful, selfish nature.


You're right about the similarity between the conservative position and Labor. Both view the state as a positive force/influence in society, whereas liberals see the state as the greatest threat to individual freedom.

I'd argue that Social democrats (Labor), who see humans as essentially social creatures who are fraternal and have a capacity for empathy, would see the welfare state (nanny state to liberals) as the highest expression of what it means to be human. ie through the welfare state we have managed to develop a complex system of organisation that is designed to care for those who need help because, for one reason or another they cannot look after themselves. It's part of the social contract - I agree to submit to the laws of the state rather than take what I want/need through violence and risk others doing the same. In return, the state is bound to provide care to me if/when I need it. Fair deal really, until the state starts cutting back what it needs to provide for the welfare of its citizens.

[David]

[sherrife]

Nomad, I´d like to go back to what you were saying about Socialists, Anarchists and Communists, where you said that we either think humans are

[nomadjack]

You will find Socialists and Anarchists that subscribe to each approach Sheriffe. Marx's thesis on Feuerbach, in which he suggests that our nature (what he calls our species being) is malleable, has been very influential amongst socialists (is a really interesting read). William Godwin's Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793) is a good example of the 'clean slate' approach to the issue amongst Anarchists (also an excellent read if you're into political theory).

Hobbes' Leviathan is also a really interesting approach from a conservative viewpoint.