By the end of the 20th century, influential anthropologists embraced the reigning “postmodernist” theories, and peremptorily rejected the very idea of a “human nature” as reactionary “essentialism.”
Yet, Homo sapiens, a species derived from its mammalian/primate roots, obviously requires certain socio-psychological conditions consonant with its nature. (Indeed, the eminent anthropologist Weston La Barre characterized the human species as “hyper-mammalian”: prolonged dependency, intensified mother-child bond, etc.). Such a universalist doctrine, based on the demonstrable facts about evolved human behaviors, could have scientifically bolstered the global human rights agenda—for example, as it focused on the real, bio-psychological needs of children everywhere.
Indeed, such findings of trans-cultural anthropology and comparative psychology (e.g., Bowlby’s UN research on maternal care, attachment, and mental health) are still critical to the recognition that human nature is de-limited, defined by specific psycho-social needs, and subject to suffering and pathology if these needs are denied or ignored. To recognize such fundamental, relatively intractable psycho-social needs is also to fundamentally challenge politically repressive institutionalized structures.
What he is calling "human nature" as a scientific concept is not "essentialism" in that it is naturalistic, based on biological similarities and their measurable effects that human share as a species beneath anthropological and sociological differences that result from setting and nurture.
The philosophical concept of human nature, on the other hand, was a secular and rationalistic substitute for the "soul" of theology.
The naturalistic concept bears no resemblance to this, and to compare the two is to commit a category mistake.
And it is much more difficult to ground human rights on the naturalistic concept than the philosophical or theological ones. The former entails a utilitarian justification, whereas the latter is categorical. The words of the US Declaration of Independence,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,
are categorical. The beginning of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,is also categorical, its self-evidence being presumed.
These fundamental principles are to key to the historical debate, and this short post is worth reading for an elucidation of conflicting contemporary views of cultural anthropologists and biological/evolutionary (physical) anthropologists, with the implications for universalism.
Dissident Voice
William Manson
3 comments:
If we are going all around saying "we are created equal" (and we are not...) then should we be surprised when we see those opposed to socio-economic justice saying things like "try harder.." "you must just be lazy...", "you can't compete...." , etc...
This Randian view is based on the foundational belief the we are "created equal"... so they think since we are "created equal" then those who go on to have trouble are simply making the wrong free will choices and this ends up putting them behind financially, materially, etc... so they should make better free will choices and then they wouldn't have all the problems they have, etc...
I dont think Randism/libertarianism/social Darwinsim could exist if no one believed we were "created equal"... how could it without this foundational belief ?
If we all believed we were not created equal, then we would (I expect) make economic adjustments for the least among us accordingly... if we also had a better understanding (ie no more "we're out of money!") that we have the authority to impose this type of socio-economic justice...
The theory of human rights and civil liberties is based on the idea that human beings share the same nature as members of the same species while they differ markedly as individuals. This was grounded in the notion of the soul in Christian theology, which is a combination of the Greek idea of soul (psyche) and the Hebrew concept of ruach, translated into Greek as pneuma and into Latin as spiritus. All these terms signify breath, which the ancient took to be life force. They correspond to Sanskirt prana, Chinese chi, and Japanese ki.
These ancient ideas were adapted to natural explanation at the time of the Enlightenment and Age of Reason. But the essential of universality was imported and the explanation was intuition or self-evidence.
After Darwin, the scientific explanation took over and a naturalistic explanation was sought. Btw, Darwin was a racist in the sense that he thought that there was a gradation in the genus homo and that the white Europeans occupied that top of the scale. He expected the other races to disappear eventually.
Matt, you are correct that Randism — and Libertarianism in general — are based on the traditional metaphysical belief of human universality, which grounds methodological individualism in ontological individualism. But they do not go on to draw the conclusion of human rights from this, as do libertarians of the left. Rather than use it to deny cultural and institutional influences, for example, as well as anything else that accounts for social cohesion and social fabric other than voluntary association.
Conservatives and authoritarians, on the other hand, hold that humans are not all equal and therefore some are better then others. In Orwell's terms, "some animal are more equal than others." One of the indicators of rightist extremism is considering ethnic stocks other than one's own as either less human or less than human.
What is at stake in the equality (egality) in liberty, equality, and solidarity or community (liberté, egalité et fraternité) is the rational basis for human rights.This is an ongoing debate, and it is very much complicated now by the intersection of traditional, modern, post-modern, and scientific inputs. There is little agreement yet, and for a lot of folks it is foundational.
Post a Comment