Obviously, socialism, anarchy, etc., each assume something distinctly different about "human nature".

I'm woefully ignorant of contemporary thought on this subject. Way, way back in 1st yr. college, I read Freud's essentially pessimistic view in Civilization and Its Discontents (written, I think, after WWI) in which he theorized that we need wars, border skirmishes, etc., in order to release pent up anxieties due to the constricting effects of civilization. He went on, I believe, to comment on the suitability of various political arrangements in terms of how well they served the needs of his view of "human nature". Of course, his views preceded--or perhaps ignored--concepts like patriarchy, which feminists brought to our attention.

Then, later, we are educated into the aspects of our society and culture which are not normally picked up by rote; it is here that we experience the cultural gestalt which governs our interactions with our families, neighbors, cities, and governments.

"Human nature" is thus molded by a combination of genetics, learning, and interaction with others and society as a whole.

It may be observed that selfishness is a continuum, not an either/or thing. Some of us are unfailingly altruistic. Some of use are unfailingly selfish bastards.

And the majority are somewhere in the middle - placing self above others at times; placing others above self at different times.

So, you have extreme selfishness (which is expressed as competition, greed, dishonesty) at one end of the spectrum; extreme altruism (expressed in co-operation, helping, sharing) at the other. Each individual is born with some degree of predisposition to both traits. An infant is selfish, because its own needs and sensations is all that it knows. Its temperament may be evident right away, but its predispositions won't be obvious until around age 5, when a child can act and communicate independently.

A predisposition is only that - it's not the finished character. It can be trained, disciplined, modified. Parents do this, according to the mores of their society. These mores evolve in response to the society's needs.
In harsh environments; in scarcity and danger, co-operation tends to be the chief rule. In great plenty, competition tends to dominate.

here endeth today's snippet (before the bloody server cuts me off again - i'll fix spelling later).

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

Aggression comes in here. It's innate and possibly ineradicable, but NOT unmanageable.

In scarcity, there can't be overpopulation, so the clan, tribe, whatever, is all related. They need one another and are keenly aware of this. Such a group would therefore encourage altruism - within the group. But, they must compete for resources with other groups. So they can't afford to suppress aggression. What they must do is put natural aggression to the service of the tribe, rather than allowing it free rein, which would be destructive to the tribe.
Therefore sports: to channel the aggression and competitiveness; to hone physical skills which may be required at any moment in defence of the group; to allay boredom; to give idle warriors an outlet for their energy - and incidentally gain approval and attract girls.

Would this be sufficient? Probably not. Conflicts will arise among members of the group. That's why we need law and some form of enforcement and arbitration. Religion, in its most primitive form, serves to teach right and wrong and to unite the group. Ceremonies and festivals help, too: they're unifying and emotionally (aesthetically) satisfying (and usually quite physical - steam-venting).
Most religions, incidentally, include rituals of atonement and reconciliation. People have been aware of their own nature for quite some time, and made provision for various aspects of it.

Manipulation and perversion of basic human traits is more complicated: that comes with civilization and surplus. TBC

(damn typos)

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

"Great", refers here to qualities which inspire and move others to similar action, ultimately, on behalf of more than small self.

Lao Tsu, the great sages of India, Pythagoras, Ghandi, Martin Luther King are greater or lesser exemplars of this. To such as these, selfishness and altruism are not in conflict at all. It is all a matter of what one identifies oneself with. Selfishness can very well encompass others as self and alignmet with community or even humanity.

Recognize this forgotten secret, make the mandate of our society to foster in each the emergence of their greatness, and support each in walking their unique paths towards their potential, and everything will change in a positive direction quite naturally.

quote:

---

in place of the old Bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we wilol have an assiciation in which free development of each will be the condition for the free development of all

---

quote:

---

So do you think there's such a thing as "human nature"? If so, how does that view inform your politics? How is your idea of "human nature" being distorted or encouraged by the political landscape?

---

The first question was answered reasonably well, except that we didn't get around to the universal human need for companionship (even hermits have a pet spider or something). This is important: we need to live in some form of community: need affection, attention, approval; an opportunity to be needed in return.

For people at the extreme end of the selfish spectrum, loneliness is a real problem. Therefore, we mostly stay off that extreme: at the very least, we cherish family and share our (good or ill) fortune with close kin. So, as long as a human group is related by blood, its politics are simple. The strongest leads; the weakest are protected; everyone has a place and function.

Large, unrelated populations are much more difficult to manage. To some degree, each of us carries over into a larger unit the impulses that motivate us in the family. All societies try to encourage feelings of connectedness in the whole population (if only by telling people to Shop for America). The bigger and more varied the population, the more tenuous these feelings. Thus, the politics, too, are less evident, more confusing - and therefore more easily manipulated.

It's always easier to persuade people to be selfish than to be altruistic: 'gimme' takes less thought and effort than 'let's do this together'. At its worst, a political system is geared to appeal to the infant in all of us; at its best, it engages the mature adult.

quote:

---

It's always easier to persuade people to be selfish than to be altruistic: 'gimme' takes less thought and effort than 'let's do this together'. At its worst, a political system is geared to appeal to the infant in all of us; at its best, it engages the mature adult.

---

I'd like to add a few thoughts from Singer on Darwinism here.

Human beings, evolutionary psychology argues, are innately cooperative. Just think of the many social conventions we follow. We step out of each other's way on the sidewalk and form lines at the supermarket, for example, even when it may be a personal inconvenience. By following cooperative social norms, we are all better off.

But the trouble with being innately cooperative is that we can also be taken advantage of. So an important part of our nature is the ability to detect cheating, violations of social norms, and the willingness to punish it.

In gaming theory, it's called tit-for-tat. In a first encounter you cooperate, and continue to do so unless your counterpart cheats. If he does, you cheat too, and continue to do so until he cooperates.

According to Singer, the Left has been led astray by a belief in the perfectability of man--that given the proper social structure, human beings will be perfectly altruistic--and a failure to grasp how wronged most of us feel when someone gets something for nothing ie by not paying the cost the rest of us pay for cooperating.

That is complicated in modern society because we are obliged to cooperate--through taxes and the like--with people we will never meet, and with people with whom we will have only rare social encounters. If you tit and he tats, you may never get the chance to punish the offender by tatting him back. Almost everybody becomes enraged when a perfect stranger steps in front of them in the lineup at the motor vehicle branch.

The trick, Singer argues, is to design social and economic structures that encourage cooperation, but that also give vent to our natural desire for justice, and our wish to ensure that cheaters do not prosper. Reward cooperation, in other words, but police the norms--and make sure everyone knows they're being policed.

It isn't that altruism is morally superior to selfishness, or more mature. We need a little bit of both.

quote:

---

Human beings, evolutionary psychology argues, are innately cooperative. Just think of the many social conventions we follow. We step out of each other's way on the sidewalk and form lines at the supermarket, for example, even when it may be a personal inconvenience. By following cooperative social norms, we are all better off.

---

I can agree with you there, but I also wonder if these conventions, or civilizing influences, or at least SOME types of these conventions don't simultaneously create degrees of psychological tension. Enough sometimes, that people feel the urge to do quite the opposite from compromising. Because there are so many other conditions causing stress on individuals, it's difficult to isolate exactly why people become destructive, rather than cooperative.

Consider: Canadians were polite to one another all through the 50's and 60's and 70's, with nary a riot anywhere. We got excited about hockey games and soccer games - danced in the street, got drunk and all, but didn't beat people up.

quote:

---

Our own society is sadly lacking in communal - participatory, rather than vicarious - fun, as well as solemn rituals.

---

Fodder for another thread, no?

Vancouver has a deserved nickname: "No Fun City" because of its conservative by-laws regarding organized partying, bar hours, etc. Sometimes I wonder if that's healthy--you know, a whole city lacking enough steam vents. A few yahoos cause havoc during a festival, the city shuts the whole thing down. New music concert organizers come up with elaborate security plans and still they run up against the police' Chicken Little warnings of certain chaos and destruction. So, in lieu of public, participatory, cathartic celebrations--dancing, etc.--the city's emphasis is on a few, ginormous, corporate funded, passive events. Fireworks displays. Boat shows. The Indy. (!)
"We'll let you watch, but don't anybody get too excited, now. You might start a riot!"