Is there "a nature" of "human nature"?

[Guest]

On the "Faces" thread, SM said:

... As to anthropology. I believe the paradigm has gone some way towards cultural relativism and denying the existence of a "human nature" per se.
In short - there is no human nature (neither is there a human nurture). Humans are complex social organisms, whose specific characteristics are determined to such an extent by culture and socialization that disentangling the genetic from the social is utterly impossible - hence, there can be no fixed human nature.

So I said:

SM: that's one of the most interesting thoughts I've read here in some time. Don't want to go off this thread so would you start one, or may I quote you? Offhandedly I thought, "Existentialism might be the only human nature."

and he said OK.

I really do wonder if the expression "human nature" has any substantial meaning outside the usual vernacular intents, e.g., it's human nature to fight for life, or be possessive, or be egocentric, etc.

Now that Summer A.M. has caused me to think on this, I find it as exciting as thinking on the meaning of self identity (which I believe is the most elusive aspect of being human). What do you think?

Perdita

 

[destinie21]

I think that human beings in their vanity assume there's a human nature just as we assume we're on the top of the chain (both food and evolutionary) I don't believe there's an inborn nature so much as a nature that we adopt as society allows

 

[Guest]

Dest, thank you so much, I love your response! more to think on. P.

 

[curiousphantaC]

Hiya P, thanks for keeping all these great threads coming, I like the ones that make me think...

I believe that my personality is the effect of my genes filtered through every experience I've ever had. I find it absurd to deny the existence of human nature - there are so many things that we share, as humans, that give us a collective nature. For example, caring for young, eating lots of different types of food, taking a long time to grow up...

or perhaps I've missed the point somewhere?

Humans are complex social organisms, whose specific characteristics are determined to such an extent by culture and socialization that disentangling the genetic from the social is utterly impossible

I disagree with this - I don't think it's true at all. Studies have been done on identical twins that have been separated at birth and grown up in completely different environments, yet still share the same characteristics.

"Existentialism might be the only human nature."

Can you say more on this? I'm not really with you. Tx,

dl

 

[neonlyte]

We probably are 'comfortable' with assuming human nature as an ideology, a concept. I suspect each individual culture, or ethnicity, cushions and molds each of us to such an extent that underlying 'human nature' will remain subliminal to our individual cultural identies.

However, within each culture are traits essential to the maintence of that cultures traditions and ethnicity, possibly adherence to the differences in cultures speaks more of human nature than we allow.

Intersting topic, will think on this.

NL

 

[destinie21]

Not to enter a debate or anything curiousphantaC but none of what you listed is human nature )not IMO you see) Nature is automatic but every human doesn't posess an intrinsic nuturing ability so it's not reall human nature to care for the young (or old for that matter.) Society only deems it proper and so we list it under human nature

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I believe there is such a thing as human nature. I think of it as the common divider, the inner core of humanity. The thing that makes us, despite upbringing, class, color, gender, religion, etc, act in SIMILAR ways in SIMILAR situations.

Like, most human beings have an instinct to defend babies against harm. Most human beings become depressed when they have been unable to find a new job for over 2 years. Most human beings feel upset when facing injustice.

We're the type of animals who like to live in small herds. We work similarly because deep, deep down, under all the cultural nonsense about ethnicity and cultural differences, we're all of the same race.

Just as all flowers are flowers, and all dogs are dogs.

 

[Guest]

But Flicka, animals defend their young too, and if they do not fit into their social circle (e.g., having a 'job') they die. Humans are animals, and I don't think it's merely a biological distinction. But yeah, we're not flowers, we don't need the sun for reproduction.

Perdita

 

[Svenskaflicka]

But do animals feel the urge to defend others' children as well as their own? M always teases me for being so protective of her son.

And even though animals need to fit into a social circle or get cast out, they don't really get depression syndromes, do they?

 

[destinie21]

*HUGS for Svenska I'm sorry you're depressed it's hellish.

And yes in certain species of animals the herd protects the young but it's a survival instinct to be sure if the young die off before coupling well then the species is sort of doomed isn't it. Wolves would be an example.

 

[Guest]

But do animals feel the urge to defend others' children as well as their own? M always teases me for being so protective of her son.

Yes, I know that lions and elephants look out for those whose mothers have died. Jane Goodall wrote about chimps who abandon their babies and another female adopts it.

As for depression, I don't know about the science of it but I have seen animals (mostly in zoos) whom I would swear were depressed.

P.

 

[Guest]

I say this without backup, i.e., based only on my experience, but I think if anything is human nature it might be violence. Aren't we the only species that kills for sport, or for no reason?

 

[Guest]

But do animals feel the urge to defend others' children as well as their own? M always teases me for being so protective of her son.

And even though animals need to fit into a social circle or get cast out, they don't really get depression syndromes, do they?

Yes, some animals have shown signs of depression and stress. Extensive research has been done on the effects of captivity on wild animals. Stressed primates, in particular, are a common finding.

Deer, foxes and other hunted (for pleasure, I say - but that's a whole other argument) animals, do show signs of being stressed. Their heart rates increase and the motor movement is affected.

Some animals have been known to pine for mates, to the point of dying, after they have lost them.

But, I do agree with you, Svenska, on the points that human nature is definitely part of what makes us who we are. Yes, nurture plays a huge role, but we are born with certain built in instinctive/natural urges and responses.

How does a baby know how to suckle at its mother's breast? It certainly isn't learnt behaviour - it is a natural instinct.

It has been found that many brutal serial killers have a particular trait in their DNA. Can't remember exactly what now, or who produced the research, but will have to look it up.

I love this kind of debate, and am sure gonna stick around for this one.

Lou

 

[SummerMorning]

I believe that my personality is the effect of my genes filtered through every experience I've ever had. I find it absurd to deny the existence of human nature - there are so many things that we share, as humans, that give us a collective nature. For example, caring for young, eating lots of different types of food, taking a long time to grow up...

I disagree with this - I don't think it's true at all. Studies have been done on identical twins that have been separated at birth and grown up in completely different environments, yet still share the same characteristics.

To the first - actually the things you list under collective nature...

1. caring for young - there appears to be no instinct to nurture among humans (there appear to be no instincts in humans period. More on that later.) - caring for young is usually so incredibly culturally dependent that it just boggles the mind. The period that a woman breast feeds or if she breast feeds at all varies incredibly. In the modern world, many women do not breast feed. Among traditional cultures there is (was) a Malay tribe that breastfed their children till the age of 3 or 4, and there were peoples that breastfed for a month or two before switching to regurgitated food.

There have been cultures that took care of their young. But there have also been numerous cultures that positively discriminated (killed) among their own young - and still do. Spartans, Romans, Chinese - the ratio of girls to boys in China is approaching something on the order of 1:2 today, which is dreadful!

2. Eating lots of different types of food - actually, again, this is not precisely true. Most people for most of history subsisted pretty much on what they could find, but what they ate was also determined by culture to a great extent (kosher, halal, vegetarianism). On the other hand, there are people who are lactose intolerant, there are peoples with different enzymes for degrading alcohol (and other things) - again, variation and specification imposed by both genetic and cultural factors. Which came first? Possibly quite irrelevant.

Does it matter if you can't drink milk because The Holy Cow says so or because you get sick if you do?

3. Taking a long time to grow up. Again problematic. "Adulthood" is a very culturally relative concept - just like childhood. In the middle ages there was no real concept of childhood. Children were treated like little adults, and whipped and burnt at stakes just like little adults. In many cultures marrying girls off at the age of 13 was perfectly normal, even today rites of passage (manhood) often happen at the age of 13.
On the other hand, modern consumerist society with its infantilization of the individual and its focus on eternal youth above all else (witness the boom of plastic surgery, cosmetics, etc.) tries to put off being grown up for as long as possible. Nowadays its "normal" to stay at home, dependant and for all purposes a child to the age of 25, 30 (40 in the case of Italian Mamoni... ).

4. Regarding the twins studies. There are several things you have to be careful of, and they mostly have a lot to do with statistics (and a bit with psychology).

First - the numbers involved in the studies were so small that the statistical significance of the results is questionable or at least low.

Second - they do not share the same characteristics, they have statistically more characteristics in common than non-monozygotic siblings that were likewise separated. However, the similarity is not such that one can wrap things up and says that genetics is the be-all and end-all of what it means to be human.

Thirdly - the researchers probably wanted to find results and thus inadvertently skewed the results, by focusing more on cases that showed what they wanted to find. This is where psychology comes in and wrecks the whole objectivity of science (along with discourse theory, but that's another kettle of turnips).




Finally - regarding human instincts. Humans are probably the only creature without an instinct for moving around (i.e. walking) - if you don't teach a baby to walk it won't learn to walk! There are other things that aren't instinctive in humans as well - like sneezing, laughing, a person's metabolism even. Yes, incredible though it may seem, how often you get hungry is actually to a great extent determined by how often you were fed as a baby (up to 1 year or so).

But for all that - I think its a wonderful thing - because it means that humans are liberated from the confines of the biological to walk the prison halls of the social, which are so much more airy and spacious!

 

[SummerMorning]

I see my typing took a long time... heck, it looks like a bleedin' essay...

 

[SummerMorning]

I believe there is such a thing as human nature. I think of it as the common divider, the inner core of humanity. The thing that makes us, despite upbringing, class, color, gender, religion, etc, act in SIMILAR ways in SIMILAR situations.

Like, most human beings have an instinct to defend babies against harm. Most human beings become depressed when they have been unable to find a new job for over 2 years. Most human beings feel upset when facing injustice.

We're the type of animals who like to live in small herds. We work similarly because deep, deep down, under all the cultural nonsense about ethnicity and cultural differences, we're all of the same race.

Just as all flowers are flowers, and all dogs are dogs.

The key word is MOST not ALL. Instinct means ALL. Learned, culturally determined behaviour means MOST. An important and liberating difference.

 

[Guest]

, I do agree with you, Svenska, on the points that human nature is definitely part of what makes us who we are. Yes, nurture plays a huge role, but we are born with certain built in instinctive/natural urges and responses.
How does a baby know how to suckle at its mother's breast? It certainly isn't learnt behaviour - it is a natural instinct.

Perhaps we need to better specify what we mean by human 'nature', vs. that which is biological and that we share with other animals.

An infant does learn to suckle. If you do not offer it anything to suck it does not automatically make sucking movements. My sons did not automatically know what to do with my nipples; though they caught on quick.

Leaving off the shared animal instincts, what might human Nature be? We come to our minds, our intellect, yet we know we aren't merely emotional computers.

 

[SummerMorning]

But you're absolutely right - we're all human and races are just nonexistent, imaginary (socially constructed intersubjective)* entities. There's not a single black or white person in the wall. It's all just melanin, and doesn't mean a jot.

---

*wise person sounding words

 

[SummerMorning]

Yes, I know that lions and elephants look out for those whose mothers have died. Jane Goodall wrote about chimps who abandon their babies and another female adopts it.

As for depression, I don't know about the science of it but I have seen animals (mostly in zoos) whom I would swear were depressed.

P.

Jane Goodall also wrote of a chimp mother and daughter pair who kidnapped other chimp babies and ate them...

...they were finally brought to "justice" several years later by a group of young males I believe.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

To take pleasure in hunt for hunt's sake, and to find pleasure in cruelty and torture, isn't just a human trait. It's also very common among cats.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Of course there's a human nature. We're born and live as social animals. Needing and wanting the company of others isn't learned, for God's sake.

We are social animals, and socializing is in our genes, Human beings only live and thrive as a group. The solitary human being has as much survival potential as a solitary ant or bee, no matter how big a bad-ass and how independent he thinks he is. Alone we're pretty much helpless. In groups and societies, there's nothing we can't do.

Along with our need for company comes a whole raft of inborn anciallary qualities and characteristics which make social life possible: empathy, sympathy, love, guilt, and an inborn appreciation of status and social radar, even the religious urge.

Cultures may determine how we organize our societies and which parent's last name we take, and it may be possible to change aspects of our nature, but the idea that we're born tabula rasa and that humanity is a product of culture and not vice versa is just so much crap, and insidious crap at that.

---dr.M.

 

[SummerMorning]

I say this without backup, i.e., based only on my experience, but I think if anything is human nature it might be violence. Aren't we the only species that kills for sport, or for no reason?

No, happily, no.

Not every person kills for sport or for no other reason, which counts out INSTINCT. It may be LEARNED behavior, but that's a difference.

Any creature that is intelligent enough to learn things can kill things for no other reason than fun... and torture them. Just think of those fat tabbies playing with poor little mice and birds.

 

[Guest]

Finally - regarding human instincts. Humans are probably the only creature without an instinct for moving around (i.e. walking) - if you don't teach a baby to walk it won't learn to walk! There are other things that aren't instinctive in humans as well - like sneezing, laughing, a person's metabolism even. Yes, incredible though it may seem, how often you get hungry is actually to a great extent determined by how often you were fed as a baby (up to 1 year or so).

I read your entire post with interest, and you made some very good points, but I disagree with your point here, about babies having to be taught how to walk. It's not so.

I never actually "taught" my two to walk, but they did learn. They taught themselves, through trial and error. Admittedly, with encouragement from their Dad and me, but they worked it out for themselves.

Babies begin by realising they can crawl, and haul themsleves around like that for a while. Then they realise they have little leavers (their arms), which they can use to pull themsleves up on furniture, people's legs and so on. They then realise they can let go, and take those first tentative steps on their own.

They do it themselves. I never had to show either of my children how to pull themselves up into a standing position.

Potty training, on the other hand, that's an entirely different matter.

Lou

 

[Guest]

Of course there's a human nature. We're born and live as social animals. Needing and wanting the company of others isn't learned, for God's sake.

We are social animals, and socializing is in our genes, Human beings only live and thrive as a group. The solitary human being has as much survival potential as a solitary ant or bee, no matter how big a bad-ass and how independent he thinks he is. Alone we're pretty much helpless. In groups and societies, there's nothing we can't do.

But Mab., elephants, lions, penquins, etc. are also social animals. I want to know what human nature is outside the social or whatever else we share with beasts. P.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

*HUGS for Svenska I'm sorry you're depressed it's hellish.

And yes in certain species of animals the herd protects the young but it's a survival instinct to be sure if the young die off before coupling well then the species is sort of doomed isn't it. Wolves would be an example.

*Hugs back*

Thank you. Some days are better than others.