Anarchy and Human Nature

Because I know at least 1/2 the threads in this forum will be about why human nature can't allow for an anarchist society.



http://infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca215

A.2.15 What about "human nature"?

Anarchists, far from ignoring "human nature," have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, "human nature" is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however. First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is meant "what humans do," it is obvious that human nature is contradictory -- love and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of "human nature." Of course, what is considered "human nature" can change with changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of "human nature" and "normal" for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only become part of "human nature" once states developed. Hence Chomsky:

"Individuals are certainly capable of evil . . . But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, they'd be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves. "If we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, we're going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then you'll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves." [Chronicles of Dissent, pp. 158]

​

Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what "human nature" is, how it develops and what aspects of it are expressed. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a "human nature" radically different from a libertarian one. So "when we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?" [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]

As such, the use of "human nature" as an argument against anarchism is simply superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to think. "Every fool," as Emma Goldman put it, "from king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?" Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism "stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government." For "[f]reedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]

This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by "society" (which in practice means those who run it). As Noam Chomsky argues, "I don't think its possible to give a rational account of the concept of alienated labour on that assumption [that human nature is nothing but a historical product], nor is it possible to produce something like a moral justification for the commitment to some kind of social change, except on the basis of assumptions about human nature and how modifications in the structure of society will be better able to conform to some of the fundamental needs that are part of our essential nature." [Language and Politics, p. 215] We do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not "innate." All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learn -- that much is obvious, we feel -- and that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and oppression (Bakunin rightly considered "the power to think and the desire to rebel" as "precious faculties." [God and the State, p. 9]).

These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state is denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society calls such people "savages" or "primitive" is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against "human nature"? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be.

As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of "human nature," it is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For "while our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth -- the rulers, the employers, the leaders -- who, happily enough, prevent those bad men -- the ruled, the exploited, the led -- from becoming still worse than they are" we anarchists "maintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authority" and "both exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation." So "there is [a] difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers." [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.

Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so produced. "It is a characteristic of privilege and of every kind of privilege," argued Bakunin, "to kill the mind and heart of man . . . That is a social law which admits no exceptions . . . It is the law of equality and humanity." [God and the State, p. 31] And while the privileged become corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become servile in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there is oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy in terms of the (distorted) "human nature" it produces.

Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this day. For example, with the rise of "sociobiology," some claim (with very little real evidence) that capitalism is a product of our "nature," which is determined by our genes. These claims are simply a new variation of the "human nature" argument and have, unsurprisingly, been leapt upon by the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for this "new" doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those in power -- i.e. the fact that it is useful to have an "objective" and "scientific" basis to rationalise inequalities in wealth and power (for a discussion of this process see Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature by Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin and Leon J. Kamin).

This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As scientist Stephen Jay Gould notes, "the range of our potential behaviour is circumscribed by our biology" and if this is what sociobiology means "by genetic control, then we can scarcely disagree." However, this is not what is meant. Rather, it is a form of "biological determinism" that sociobiology argues for. Saying that there are specific genes for specific human traits says little for while "[v]iolence, sexism, and general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of behaviours" so are "peacefulness, equality, and kindness." And so "we may see their influence increase if we can create social structures that permit them to flourish." That this may be the case can be seen from the works of sociobiologists themselves, who "acknowledge diversity" in human cultures while "often dismiss[ing] the uncomfortable 'exceptions' as temporary and unimportant aberrations." This is surprising, for if you believe that "repeated, often genocidal warfare has shaped our genetic destiny, the existence of nonaggressive peoples is embarrassing." [Ever Since Darwin, p. 252, p. 257 and p. 254]

Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both "normal" and "natural"). Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred back onto society and history, being used to "prove" that the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are then appealed to as a justification for the status quo! Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously.

This can be seen when "hierarchies" in nature are used to explain, and so justify, hierarchies in human societies. Such analogies are misleading for they forget the institutional nature of human life. As Murray Bookchin notes in his critique of sociobiology, a "weak, enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become an 'alpha' male, much less retain this highly ephemeral 'status.' By contrast, the most physically and mentally pathological human rulers have exercised authority with devastating effect in the course of history." This "expresses a power of hierarchical institutions over persons that is completely reversed in so-called 'animal hierarchies' where the absence of institutions is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about 'alpha males' or 'queen bees.'" ["Sociobiology or Social Ecology", Which way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 58] Thus what makes human society unique is conveniently ignored and the real sources of power in society are hidden under a genetic screen.

The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to "human nature" (or sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every ruling class needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite power -- be it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc. Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now, of course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to "human nature" and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific priesthood!

The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasn't stopped. One thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist. The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming that their new society is the "One True System" that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past systems did not.

Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the same facts -- conclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to capitalist apologists that the theories of the "objective" scientists may be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive struggle within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.

Kropotkin's classic work Mutual Aid, for example, was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of Darwinism had projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the mainstream Russian criticism of the British Darwinism of the time, Kropotkin showed (with substantial empirical evidence) that "mutual aid" within a group or species played as important a role as "mutual struggle" between individuals within those groups or species (see Stephan Jay Gould's essay "Kropotkin was no Crackpot" in his book Bully for Brontosaurus for details and an evaluation). It was, he stressed, a "factor" in evolution along with competition, a factor which, in most circumstances, was far more important to survival. Thus co-operation is just as "natural" as competition so proving that "human nature" was not a barrier to anarchism as co-operation between members of a species can be the best pathway to advantage individuals.

To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against "human nature" for two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being "human nature" is shaped by the society we live in and the relationships we create. This means a hierarchical society will encourage certain personality traits to dominate while an anarchist one would encourage others. As such, anarchists "do not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change as they do upon the theory that the some nature will act differently under different circumstances." Secondly, change "seems to be one of the fundamental laws of existence" so "who can say that man [sic!] has reached the limits of his possibilities." [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, pp. 360-1 and p. 360] For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of which refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally good, see Peter Marshall's "Human nature and anarchism" [David Goodway (ed.), For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice, pp. 127-149] and David Hartley's "Communitarian Anarchism and Human Nature". [Anarchist Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145-164]


Your thoughts?

 

BTW, I don't mean to just cut and paste, but infoshop.org has so much more info than myself.

 

Thanks shane this is a really valuable thread. No offence to anyone but I actually think the human nature argument against Anarchism is almost moronic and shows a complete lack of willingness to think about a complex issue in a depth greater than that of a high school student.

Or in the words of the above post:

 

I've been posting here for years.


If you're looking for any depth conversation about political thought in these forums.... good luck to ya.

Nothing but stereotypes and mudslinging.

 

I know, I have actually been depressed lately simply because of the attitudes of some people on here, but at the same time it has given me a huge insight into people.

 

Yeah, I know how that feels.

 

Don't get discouraged.
It's all an opportunity to educate.

Besides, you'd be suprised how many brothers and sisters you'll find here (including myself).

Keep on keeping on!

 

Yeah, i'm learning not to let it get to me. I'm starting to realise that the internet is a breeding ground for the ignorant and in real life there are a lot of regular people who are quite willing to listen to different ideas. I think we are approaching the time when the everyday person is disillusioned with this joke of a society. Exciting times.

 

Well if you have any ideas on how to improve things just drop me a line.

Having said that I have in the past tried to bring up political through threads and only a few got beyond one or two posts.

But you must realise that this is the web and an open site and ignorance is everywhere and the problem is that sometime we get people here with load voices but badly thought through ideas.

I think the best way to counter such things is to try and stay calm and focused, if your ideas stand up they will get listened to even if you don’t think they are.

**

PS to lying in a field

Xena was good but I did always have a thing for Gabriel, I sure that says something about me?

 

there is no 'human nature'. only that some things happen more often when other things happen first. what is interesting about some things happening more often when other things happen first, is that it does give us an opportunity to choose what we contribute to happining more and less often.

where it gets a bit 'hairry' and 'arround the mulberry bush' is that creating incentives is done by the statistical combining of all of the priorities all of us actualy live by. that's why no single one of us ever completely controls any of it, yet everything each of us does, goes into the same big pot it all comes out of, and only what all of us put into determines what comes out.

not that there aren't other forces and beings. they come by once in a while to take a taste and share the occasional after dinner, ah, well whatever each of us does in that state of gratified bliss, but it's really entirely our own doing, each and every last one of us, what each of us puts in, that determines what comes out.

=^^=
.../\...

 

if anything i think that anarchy would help human nature develope positivly... lots of people claim it wouldnt work because someone would always try to take advantage of another, but in the end thats already happening now, and since so few people are actually doing things to stop it its just getting worse... in an anarchist society, since there would be so few rules and no government, it would not provide people with the means to commit any seriouse acts of opression. other than that, to prevent people killing and stuff, you would just have to try your best to not give them reasons to... i read something interesting not long ago on how people kill out of passion a lot of the time, and even though there is law enforcement and other stuff, it doesnt stop them... so what would the difference be in anarchy? thered be less wars and less reasons to kill somone for materialistic means, so i think it would help truly develope human nature in a good way.

 

chomsky? chomsky??? ANARCHIST ????
and when was the last time you saw a middle class
friggin professor rioting against the state?
What gave you the impression chomsky was a anarchist
because someone told you he was anarchist
or you read it - thats like saying
Robert Nozick was a anarchist
because he wrote "Anarchy State and Utopia"
(another book you will only understand by reading
the back cover - and dont say thats not what you do)
THESE ARE BOURGEOIS UPPER CLASS INTELLECTUALS
FEEDING STUDENTS FULL OF AXIOMATIC CRAP SO
THEY DONT RIOT THEYRE FRIGGIN PROFESSORS NOT ANARCHISTS

 

And your anti-intellectulism is the same that keeps every riot and revolution turning into mob rule with hero worship.

Until the majority of the populace understands anarchism and the need to fight you'll never win...

A one man revolution quickly turns into a one man execution.

A person who doesn't understand the reason educating is top priority doesn't understand anarchism at all.

 

Aint that a fact

and I suppose sitting here showing people where to buy books so some fat arsed bookseller can eat tomorrow is gonna bring change

 

Since when is being humble a crime?

 

you dont get it do you?
You dont really - in all honesty -get what those people have been talking about do you?
Do you think that the theorists of anarchy just wanted a talking shop?
You think the french situationists were an intellectual excersise, dont you?
You think Hijacking the popes speech and being stabbed by the swiss guard
was nothing but food for thought!
well you really are a ....
I give up - have a nice day - life whatever
horses
water
lead

 

You're an arrogant prick.
You assume that because i take the time to discuss anarchy on a forum that i dont practice it in my life.

What the fuck do you know about hunger or oppression?
what fucking other countries have you been to?
Im guessing not alot since you have a habit of calling other peoples "peasants".
What actions have you taken?

Kiss my ass.

 

Im guessing not alot since you have a habit of calling other peoples "peasants".

thats the point you think the term "peasant" is aterm of abuse but to me - I would be honoured to serve them as their servant. I believe there is more humility and honesty in
1 peasant than in 200,000 western anarchists including you or me

 

Your own words ---- about some situationist anarchists in hamburg
Non-intellectualising non bougeois anarchists
I rest my case

 

Why do you keep assuming that just because i post about anarchism on the net i dont practice it? That im not active?