It is almost with great reluctance that I write about this topic. So, why am I so unwilling? Those at the stall know me to be sociable – but is that due to my nature, or the nurture I have received? This is where we come to the rub of the situation. I think it is extremely hard to decide between the two options. Humans are extremely complex and diverse in their social etiquette, for example. Any anthropologist will tell you that. However, when we analyse the human body, we see that due to natural selection we have developed certain characteristics. Our eyes, placed at the front of our faces, would suggest that we are predators. If this is the case, why do we find that individuals, and entire societies, eat a diet that doesn’t contain meat? I mean, surely this goes against human nature, right?
Well, perhaps we should
think again. When dealing with the world in a scientific sense, we
have to accept that there are a lot of variables within any given
situation. It seems that ‘human nature’, a term which is taken
for granted, is not as simple as we would like to think. What does
the phrase human nature mean, anyway? A ‘human’,
scientifically, is an animal that belongs to the genus Homo
Sapiens – meaning wise man. Does that mean, by definition, that
it is in our nature to be wise? And what of the term ‘nature’?
Well, as Wittgenstein will tell us, words mean different things in
different contexts. However, in the context of the phrase, the word
‘nature’ can be defined as follows: “as a result of inborn
or inherent qualities; innate.”
Peter Singer – a
famous Australian philosopher, lauded by Dawkins as “the most moral
man” he knows -- however, wouldn’t say that this makes someone
human. It’s certainly an interesting question, isn’t it? What
qualifies someone as a human? A lot of the people at our market stall
say the ability to communicate, which, as far as we know, is the most
developed amongst any species, makes us human. Also, our ability to
think is more pronounced than any other species, too.
Nevertheless, Singer
says it is our ability to think in an autobiographical sense that
differentiates us from non-human animals. However, I think other
examples are more interesting; literature, for instance, is unique to
humans. And Chekhov, a famous Russian dramatist once declared,
“Man will become better when you show him what he is like.”
But how can man know what he is like, until he knows what he
is?
Of course, when
examining humanity, we have to remark about human diversity. A narrow
way of looking at this is to examine the differences between men and
women, for instance. Men have more testosterone than women. That is a
scientific fact. As we know, this sex hormone leads to behavioural
differences between men and women, in general. Though this is
not analogous, we see horses with higher levels of testosterone to be
more muscular, faster, and even more aggressive. However, and
there always seems to be a however, why do we see societies, even
male-dominated ones such as the Amish, that don’t have a single
recorded murder amongst them?
The reason is due to
what evolutionary psychology’s great thinker, Henri Tafjel, would
call social identify theory (this is better known as in
group out group psychology). It is important to note, and please
don’t think I’m trying to get you fantastic intellectuals to suck
eggs here, that psychological experiments study many humans to
validate their claims. Thus, it can come as no surprise that
psychology analyses trends, rather than absolutes. This makes my
claim, the main theme of this humble piece of philosophy, relative,
rather than absolute.
I believe that the
nurture/nature debate is a little tired. Personally, I think we see
differences in different countries/ societies due to human nature,
rather than nurture. Nurture, for me, is a bubble within human
nature, and please let me explain why, before rolling your eyes.
Social identify theory proposes the idea that humans do the
following:
“Tajfel proposed
that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which
people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem.
Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to
the social world...
...to increase our
self-image we enhance the status of the group to which we belong. For
example, England is the best country in the world! We can also
increase our self-image by discriminating and holding prejudiced
views against the out group (the group we don’t belong to). For
example, the Americans, French etc. are a bunch of losers!”
Different tribes have
different social conventions, or invent them, to differentiate
themselves from other tribes. That iss why we have different
etiquette, that’s why we have such a variety of different customs,
cultures, values, and languages throughout the world. As humans, we
are obsessed with our identity; whether you like it not, that is the
one common feature of humanity. As this longing for identity
transcends nurture, and is true of all societies, this conclusion,
ultimately, must be true.
I’m not going to
apologise for being so forthright. It’s in my nature, after all –
and Nietzsche would say that my nature is determined by my “innate
order of rank” due to my lineage. So, who would I be, as humble as
I am, to argue with him?
Samuel Mack-Poole
The Philosophy Takeaway
'Open topic' Issue 40
