Human nature

Human nature also something that pops up a lot in political and economic theory. If there is a certain way that humans are wired to behave, then you won't be able to make a good theory unless you take that into account. For example, if humans are greedy, then you won't be able to design a workable economic or political system unless it somehow relies on, or tempers, the inherent human behaviour of greed. Or perhaps humans are lazy, or cooperative, or violent.

But, like other concepts, human nature is a discourse. It's a certain way of talking about humans that defines what is possible and what is justifiable. So I think that in hte development of a theory of politics or democracy, it is worth having a closer look.

"Human nature" is a discourse

There are a lot of different discourses on human nature. For example, Edmund Burke thought that people were largely driven by their passions, which could override their rationality, while John Stuart Mills and Adam Smith appealed to the idea that humans are fundamentally rationally self-interested. Emma Goldman, on the other hand, proposed that people were naturally cooperative (and that the various institutions we have built have disrupted that nature), while Hobbes thought they were likely to go to war with each other. My point isn't to delve deeply into any of these positions, but to suggest that a lot of people over a long period of time have been telling various stories about what people are fundamentally like.

One problem with trying to discern if there is a "real" human nature that everyone shares is that it is difficult to extract people's behaviour from the context of their environment. People are greedy in a system that motivates them to be greedy, but how can we assess whether those same people would be altruistic in a system that doesn't motivate them to be greedy? It's very hard to get enough humans embedded in different contexts so that we can thoroughly check. (And it is probably not a moral idea to do so, either.)

It doesn't matter how hard we try, what we say about human nature is going to be a discourse of some sort (including the things I say about human nature in my writing on gift-giving), and it's worth being at least a little wary about what discourses we are inhabiting. So I want to spend the rest of this article looking at some of the problems.

"Human nature" is permissive

A discourse often constructs two opposing categories, the Self and the Other. The Self is usually considered natural, normal, moral, and perhaps superior. The Other is often considered unnatural, abnormal, amoral (or immoral) and perhaps inferior. So when there is a discourse about human nature, there is going to be a category of things that are natural for humans (the Self), and a category for things that are not.

The things that are natural are the things that are to be expected. Humans are like that. Humans can't really, genuinely not be like that. These are the facts that we need to work with. So if we want to build a society, it needs to be designed to take these things into account. (This is an argument I have heard in support of markets, for example - that tey cater to human nature because humans are self-interested.) These are the things that need to be accepted about humans.

The problem is, however, that this means there is some level of permissiveness about people being this way. If we say that human nature is greedy, for example, then even if we don't like that people are greedy or want people to be greedy, we have to be accepting that people are greedy. "That person selfishly took as much as he could and didn't leave anything for anyone else." Yes, but what did you expect? That's what people are like.

This is more problematic when the discourse is about violence. Humans are violent, humans are conflict driven - so when conflict occurs, there is an element of permissiveness because that's what people are like. Maybe these two people shouldn't have fought each other, but we won't condemn them because that's their nature.

What's constructed in these instances is space for these things to happen. These discourses make space for people to think to themselves, "This is okay to do, because it's normal and natural." It makes space for violence, or greed, or whatever quality of human nature the discourse defines. And it makes space for the people situated around this behaviour to take no action. If a person is hit, we may say, "What did you expect?" or "You shouldn't have put yourself in danger - you know there are violent people about."

Human un-nature

Discourses on human nature also have an Other. This is the category of human behaviour is that considered unnatural, abnormal, and amoral or immoral. And these different qualities become entangled: things that are considered unnatural can easily become considered immoral.

Take almost any sexual attitude or preference, for example: some group of people inhabit a discourse where it is unnatural, and because of this it is also considered immoral. In some places it is considered unnatural for people to change their place in the world, to conquer certain challenges, to eat certain things or to like certain things. The response is often suspicion, condemnation, and disgust.

Discourses are ways of talking and thinking about the world that justify certain types of things. In this case, defining human nature in a particular way justifies that people are allowed to certain things (say, violence), while at the same time justifying that people can be condemned for doing other things (for example, liking people of the same sex) - and sometimes that condemnation comes with violence.

Human nature delineates possibilities

Similarly, discourses define what is possible and what is impossible. Human nature is usually presented as the way that humans are, as a fact of psychology or biology or evolution or something else, such as the condition of the spirit. The very point of making a claim about human nature is to claim that all humans are a certain way and that it cannot be changed. Human nature implies an impossibility.

So if humans are violent, then not only do we need to give people a bit of a pass when they are violent sometimes, but it is also impossible to stop them from being violent from time to time. There is no idea, no system, no strategy that will ultimately prevent violence - just defer, delay or redirect it. This is a discourse that is often used to define the nature of men: we have to accept them being violent sometimes, because nothing will ever stop it, and if a man doesn't engage with violence from time to time there's probably something wrong with him.

So a lot of different ideas will be rejected due to these sorts of discourses. If people believe that humans are greedy, they will reject any idea or strategy that requires they are not. If people believe humans are violent, they will reject any idea or strategy that requires they are not. And that restricts the sort of ideas that are taken seriously, and the opportunities that those ideas present.

Defining human nature gives a lot of power

This is all extra significant because discourses don't come from nowhere - they are often the products of powerful people who are trying to reinforce their power. So when there is a discourse on human nature, it is worthwhile trying to consider who might benefit from that particular conception of human nature. For example, it might be the case that greedy people gain a benefit from a discourse that conceives of humans as naturally greedy, or that people who have an excess can justify their excess by having people believe the story that people are greedy and there's nothing to be done about it. People who rule by violence will probably want to justify violence - not necessarily that it is a good thing (though this is sometimes the story they tell), but that it is an inevitable thing that needs to be engaged with reluctantly but comprehensively.

Similarly, if there are people who are considered unnatural, there are probably people who benefit from excluding them from society, or deterring people from that behaviour. Perhaps being too inquisitive is unnatural, which is convenient for people who rule by keeping people loyal and ignorant. Or perhaps a very masculine figure uses a discourse to justify his masculinity as power, which has the side effect of condemning more feminine men and provides a convenient scapegoat and outlet for the natural violence of men.

The point is that we need to be wary of discourses as ways that are used to control people, and as things that justify power and violence, which can be done, in a way, whether the content of the discourse is "true" or not.