I agree with this. I am largely responsible for this tangent. It is just
that appeals to human nature to legitimate political ideology irritate
me so. They are so awful because they commit the naturalistic fallacy and
because they are hurtful. They are typically used by conservative and
liberal ideologues to legitimate arguments about how we can't make the
world better because of negative characteristics embedded in human nature
(and then support systems which enhance these alleged characteristics). I
always make it a point to attack an argument that holds this premise. So
when I saw this argument presented here, I jumped on it. I believe that
the naturalistic fallacy is the most egregious mistake in argumentation.
I agree with Mihailo Markovic when he writes:
All conservative advocates of law and order derive the legitimacy
of a coercive state machinery from the view of human begins as
naturally egoistic, aggressive, acquisitive, primarily interested
laissez-faire agree with Malthus that men are "really inert,
sluggish, averse from labor, unless compelled by necessity. As
liberalism gradually gives way to state-bureaucratism, domination
and hierarchy are more and more stressed as central genetic
characteristics of the human species. According to Desmond Morris
(1967): "As primates we are already loaded with the hierarchy
system. This is the basic way of life."
of this skepticism is reluctance to endorse any structural change
because there are animal instincts in human beings which must not
be unleashed.
of those who hope to restore historically obsolete structures of
domination, the gloomier and more cynical its view of human beings,
who are considered basically evil (lazy, aggressive, egoistic,
greedy, acquisitive, even brutish). The worse their image, the
less hope for any project of social improvement, the more
justification for restrictions of freedom.
Markovic takes a jab at some radicals, as well, writing that they "tend
to be very optimistic in their conceptions of human nature."
I posit neither an optimistic nor pessimistic nature. We are neither good
natured nor original sin. And we aren't both at birth, either. We are
socialized to be who we are. This is our "nature." Humans socially define
these things. We construct the belief systems which give birth to these
concepts and make them meaningful in the everyday lifeworld. The social
world molds out thoughts and behaviors, and we in turn, determine the social
world though our activities. As a Marxist, I would love to rely on an
optimistic view of a naturally-good natured human being. But this would
be falsely legitimating my argument by an appeal to nature.
I appreciate everyone's patience with all this.
Andy
P.S. I recommend Genes and Gender VI: On Peace, War, and Gender, edited
by Anne E. Hunter 1991. This book does a fair job at demolishing
sociobiological theories.