Human nature and politics - Dissertation Example

? Table of Contents 2 1Introduction 3 1Background study 3 2Problem ment 22 3Aims and objectives 23 4Nature of the study 23 References 24 Abstract This paper deals with human nature and the links it has to the creation of a coherent political or social order. It studies the implications that political science has on modern psychology, in the context of human rational behavior. However, in the modern context political science as a subject occupies an inadequate position within realms of the study of human mind and nature. Even though it is of general view that US and Europe with their democracies represent the highest form of socio-political order, those under it often feel dissatisfied with their present form of working. This dissatisfaction has led to a growing interest in functioning of political institutions of a country, but there is very little attention given to the links that exist between human nature and politics. Even though past studies on politics were inherently linked to complexities seen in human nature, modern political researchers prefer overlooking this link, thus disallowing the field of psychology from bringing transformations in the arena of politics. This paper, which studies human nature and politics, finds many of the problems that plague modern society undoubtedly arising from various fallacies seen in the nature of human reasoning. Since all societies work towards achieving peace and order, many well-known scholars in the past, like Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Kant, had studied in order to find potential sources for these social problems. A close analysis of their studies show us that social problems are primarily a result of the nature of human reasoning that arises from the varying human conditions, even though many of the modern social and political analysts tend to overlook this crucial connection. Human nature and politics 1 Introduction 1.1 Background study In the present day turmoil, observed worldwide in various political circles, and the disillusionment faced by the citizens thereafter, the focus has steadily remained on the changing political actors and their varying political ideologies, which are in reality superficial in nature. In a persistent move to examine various political theories and doctrines, one has failed to observe the most important aspect, which plays a decisive role in the world of politics and power play (both globally and nationally), which is the ‘human nature.’ 1 However, the term human nature is not easily defined, and includes complex characteristics like human perception, reasoning, behavior, ways of feeling, thinking, that are naturally observed in any individual in context of his or her surrounding socio-political world.2 The questions as to what causes these characteristics to take shape and form within human thought processes, in what exact manner the causal factors work, and as to how well the human nature is entrenched, form the bases of various researches in the world of western philosophy, with considerable implications in the practical fields of psychological and biological sciences,3 religious studies, politics, and ethics.4 This is primarily owing to the fact that human nature can be seen as antecedent of a benchmark for ‘living well’ and behavioral norms, while on the other hand it can also be perceived as a characteristic that creates problems and constraints in the way of a good life. Aristotle in his virtue theory claimed that ‘virtues’ are human qualities that assist an individual to achieve the benchmark and ‘live well,’ which is in concordance to human nature.5 Machiavelli and Hobbes on the other hand believed that human nature tends to be egoistic thus creating problems and constraints in ‘living well.’ Machiavelli further suggests that each individual has the potential of ‘living well’ and being happy, as long as he/she does not face suffering. Hobbes however, takes an extreme view and states that human nature is entirely derived from materialist axioms, and the state of nature (which is the human natural condition, according to Hobbes), as innately violent and chaotic, actuated by the psychosis of fear.6 So here, we find that, a study of human nature is necessary to find out the characteristics of social order. However, the very abstract nature of the term human nature makes one wonder as whether the term actually means anything objectively. As Hubbard contends “Human nature does not describe people. It is normative concept that incarnates historically based beliefs about what human beings are and how they should behave. It is questionable whether the concept of human nature means anything.”7 Human nature is externally manifested in the various acts that are observed that an individual performs. Thus, according to Hubbard as one tries to exemplify and fix a particular form of ‘human essence’ from the different processes and measures used by various people at different places and time, to tackle issues related to demographical, geographical and ecological survival of man, would be an equivocal task.8 This is because what is being termed "natural" for humans is directly dependent on a group of people or even an individual person’s perspective and experience.9 It would thus be natural for people with divergent socio-political backgrounds to disagree on what characterizes ‘human nature.’ In this context, we find that Margaret Mead had once conceptualized, in social orders where there are varying and opposite divisions of labor for the two sexes, the inhabitants have a tendency to accept the misleading notion that what a man and a woman do as their daily activities is based on the apparent inherent distinctness in human nature.10 So here one is forced to ask, what exactly is human nature? Is it virtuous in character as conceptualized by Aristotle (and also by the Christian theologists), or is it egotistic in form as Machiavelli and Hobbes claimed, and what are its links with socio-political order of a State? Edward O. Wilson in his paper suggested that all relevant branches of sciences and arts now must be combined, in order to explore and find the exact characteristics of human nature, to give it a more solid framework. In his researches, Wilson outlined human nature as an amalgamation of human genes and mental development, while the various rituals and cultural values followed by the people, simply being a by-product of human nature, and not a direct part of it. 11 In this context the paper will now examine the various theories on human nature, to have a better understanding on why it is necessary to study human nature in order to form a coherent socio-political order. If we take into consideration various characteristics like perception, reasoning, behavior, ways of feeling, and thinking as defining components of the term human nature, we will find that certain theories (like, realism) claim that ‘human nature’ has been in existence from times immemorial, is fixed in nature,12 and “has not changed since the days of classical antiquity” 13 and this nature being egoistic in form (according to claims by the Realists) is immorally inclined. It is as Machiavelli contended that in politics it must be taken for granted “all men are wicked and they will always give vent to the malignity that is in their minds when opportunity offers.14 In the context of human nature, Machiavelli further claims that in general and especially during the times of adversity, men are “ungrateful, fickle, pretenders and dissemblers, evaders of danger, [and] eager for gain,”15 thus making it necessary for the political ruler to keep these aspects of human nature in mind, as he rules or assumes control of State power. In his treatise Prince, he clearly claims that it is impossible for all virtues to be present at one point within human nature. Machiavelli primarily mentions it in the context of a social or political head of a State/ the Prince, where one cannot maintain all the virtues within the ruler’s nature, as human conditions do not allow such an occurrence, and while it is the Prince’s duty to assume a positive role for the well-being of his subjects, if necessary he can adopt ‘evil’ measures (revealing a negative aspect to human nature) to ensure socio-political order of a state.16 Thus, here we find human nature is at the core (as the State head or Prince) of ensuring socio-political order in a state. Politics, in the context of maintaining an order in the state, have always raised questions on the extent and authority of the adopted benchmarks on human nature and morality. Machiavelli contends that an individual man wishing to affirm only on virtues at all times, will most certainly face destruction amongst other individuals surrounding him who may not be so virtuous.17 This makes it essential for the State head or Prince and also those aspiring to become one, to learn how to mix the virtues with the vices in their nature and use them as necessary.18 Hence, in case of political matters often doing the ‘correct’ thing actually translates into studying and actually cultivating what may be considered as human vice. Thus, Machiavelli very clearly hints at the link that lies between maintaining socio-political order in a State and the study of human nature. The need to carry out ‘evil’ measures like betraying, manipulating, lying, stealing or even committing a murder is seen in the nature of human reasoning is seen more frequently in the arena of politics.19 In fact when arguing on “whether it is better to be feared than loved, or the contrary” 20 Machiavelli contends that despite the strong desire to be loved, it is necessary (‘much safer’) for the political head of the country to be feared as there is certain degree security in keeping the citizens fearful.21 Here Machiavelli refrains from judging human nature and focuses primarily on realism, based on what is effective and reasonable and effective for a leader to enforce during his political rule. Hence it is quite clear from Machiavelli’s theory on political philosophy that to comprehend, survive, and successfully rule in the political arena, political actors must learn about ‘manipulating’ human nature, where the very concept of virtues and vices (problems in the human nature) play a very different role than normal life. Another philosopher who has given us a deep insight into the connection that exists between human nature, politics, and social order, is Thomas Hobbes. He painted a very negative picture of human nature, and conceptualized that the natural condition of human beings are represented by “war of every man against every man,”22 where human lives are ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”23 Hobbes claims that the state of human nature is perpetually in a chaos and a violent situation, and the humans persistently pursue and kill each other owing to fear psychosis.24 Since the natural state of human beings is so abhorrent, there is a natural urge amongst individuals to find some kind of peace, and the ideal peace, as per Hobbes, is not the pragmatic one as suggested by Machiavelli, but achieved through “Leviathan” as described in his theory of the social contract. In his social contract theory he stated that any State must be seen as the result of a pact between the free citizens to submit to the existing political order. Here Hobbes in Leviathan contends that humans by nature are not created for political life, and he likens State to an artificial creature.  He further claims that that politics being as also artificial in nature and divergent from anything that is natural in form, like human nature. 25 The peace that individuals seek within the chaos, as per Hobbes, arises from this very negative viewpoint on human nature.  In Hobbes’s social contract theory, we find that human nature is depicted as an inchoate combination of strange desires, hatred and fear, assuaged by perpetual war and struggle to gain power within the realms of an artificially created socio-political order.26 By nature, humans tend to be weak-minded and selfish,27 focusing primarily on present gratification, while failing to predict the results of their own actions, owing to which, they are at constant conflict with each other. 28 Hence, it is clear that Hobbes visualizes if human nature is allowed to function freely, without any control, there would be perpetual war with constant chaos and violence within the existing socio-political order, the solution for which are powerful governance and effective laws to take control of human nature. Thus, if we take into consideration Hobbes’ theory, we find that to comprehend any political state, and to create some semblance of order and bring in peace within the society and political bodies, the focus must be on the study and control of human nature. Immanuel Kant in his philosophical theories presents varying perspectives on the nature of human reasoning. Initially, he suggested that humans are superior beings when compared to animals since they have the capability to acquire senses and qualities beyond the realms of their basic instinct. In this context, he stated that, "man accordingly was not to be guided by instinct, not nurtured and instructed with ready-made knowledge; rather, he should bring forth everything out of his own resources. Securing his own food, shelter, safety and defense (for which Nature gave him neither the horns of the bull, nor the claws of the lion, nor the fangs of the dog, but hands only), all amusement which can make life pleasant, insight and intelligence, finally even goodness of heart-all this should be wholly his own work.”29 He further mentions that human nature has the capability to derive complete happiness in its transition from "barbarity to the highest skill and mental perfection.”30 Kant, though speaking of the superior nature of human reasoning, also discusses the "crookedness" of human nature, and claims, “for from such crooked wood as man is made of, nothing perfectly straight can be built." 31 Kant in his philosophical theory is of the opinion that even though human nature has various fallacies (crookedness), it is also capable of achieving perfection. Kant believes in the ascendency of human nature as it tries to achieve supreme perfection. He further stated that human nature by itself had a tendency to live within the realms of a society, which is clear in his theory where he proposes that "man has an inclination to associate with others, because in society he feels himself to be more than man, i.e., as more than the developed form of his natural capacities." 32 However in the next line we find that Kant presents a varying perspective where he suggests that man “also has a strong propensity to isolate himself from others, because he finds himself at the same time the unsocial characteristic of wishing to have everything go according to his own wish.33" Here, Kant speaks of selfishness in human nature, yet feels that this negative attribute tends to propel man away from indifference and avidity. Thus, he feels that the superiority of human nature is slowly activated through “incompatibility...heartless competitive vanity [and]... insatiable desire to possess and to rule."34 So one can conclude that in order to create a stable socio-political order, a study of human nature is necessary, as it is this aspect in man, which has the capability to acquire a superior form, as it strives to achieve its ultimate desire to rule and possess, through various stages that show various negative attributes, like selfishness or vanity. In recent times, the virtue theory, conceptualized from the theory of moral philosophy as framed by Aristotle has come to the forefront, and is viewed mainly as alternative to consequentialist theories like that of utilitarianism (Mill’s) or deontological theories (Kant’s). As we have already seen Aristotle proposed, virtues to be qualities of an individual that assist in ‘living well,’ in tune with the human nature.35 Unlike Hobbes, Aristotle believed that man by nature is a political animal, while reason being at the core of human nature made man ‘a rational animal.’36 However, Aristotle also placed emphasis on the training of human nature (primarily emotions), unlike Hobbes who called for curbing human emotions, in order to act in a manner that would work towards maintaining peace in the State. Aristotle claimed that virtues are of two kinds, of character and of intellect. The virtue of character disposes an individual to experience emotions ‘well’ (here the term ‘well’ signified ‘at the right time,’ ‘in context of right objects and right people,’ ‘having right objectives.’ The virtue of intellect: like intelligence, power to think and reason logically and quickly, relates to what is known as the pragmatic wisdom, which helps an individual to distinguish the right from wrong. The basic purports of the Aristotelian theory suggest that an individual by developing ‘virtues’ like benevolence, equality, justice and courage one can flourish in society,37 while the state under the existing political order must perform noble activities (like providing justice and stability)38 not for the mere sake of surviving together, but also allowing the citizens to ‘live well.’ To get a better comprehension of the links that exist between human nature and political systems, it is necessary to examine some of the political theories (details of which will be discussed in the literature review section). It was that in the recent times (1980-1990s) the liberal-communitarian debate was at the core of all contemporary political theory controversies.39 However in this entire debate, the major issues were never well outlined, as the theorists often adopted varying approaches and some of the arguments put forth by them were quite ambiguous in nature. During the early period of communitarian criticism, as initiated in the works of Charles Taylor,40 Alasdair MacIntyre,41 Michael Sandel,42 and Michael Walzer43 where the chief focus was on the aspect of individualism as observed within the theories of liberalism. The Communitarians contended that the liberalists presumed an individualistic and an abstract view of human nature (or self),44 which attenuated and de-valorized, and overlooked the values of community living that forms an important factor in ‘living well.’45 By disregarding community values the libertarians failed to comprehend the importance of familial and communitarian duties and liabilities.46 Even though the criticisms were comprehensible in nature, they focused only on individualism of the liberalist theories, were stated in abstract terms, and were not often clear in their objectives.47 This lack of clear arguments allowed the liberalists to defend their theoretical values and contending that their theories were compatible enough to work with a moderate form of communitarianism.48 Both Kymlicka and Raz, contended that it is wrong to view liberalism as basically being individualistic and abstract in nature, which they justified by stating their political ideologies in the context of interpretation of ‘living well’ that supports other communitarian values, other than the human ‘self.’49 Raz in his researches stated that his theory of political liberalism were not based only on the notions of individualism, as communitarian values were a component of his so called ‘good life.’ 50 In the same lines Kymlicka argued that “liberalism couldn’t be based on [individualism]… If abstract individualism [was indeed]…the fundamental premise [of liberalism], there’d be no reason to [assume] that people are being made worse off by being denied the social conditions necessary to freely and rationally question their commitments.”51 Allen Buchanan contended that instead of liberalism, the actual threat to communities came from the rulers of authoritarian States and their ideologies.52 Though the liberal-communitarian debate (which will be discussed in more details in the literature review) has lost much of its steam after the turn of the century, it has been noted that in the last decade, with rapid globalization, the liberalist theories are facing new challenges in the form of what is being seen as identity politics or multiculturalist politics, where the former theorists tend to assume the role of cultural reviewers, and the latter (the multiculturalists) tend to analyze specific political practices and policies and practices. 1.2 Problem statement In the previous background study segment we find that the philosophers had forged a clear link between the study of human nature and coherent socio-political systems, yet in the discussion that highlighted the liberal-communitarian debate we find that the political analysts tend to be more focused on studying political ideologies and theories, overlooking the crucial role that study and comprehension of human nature (its virtues, and limits53 in the form of vices) has within the arena of politics, as outlined Machiavelli, Aristotle, Kant, and Hobbes. Thus the chief problem here is that in the blitz and haze of various political theories and the policies, we are overlooking the actual factor that helps to shape a socio-political order, which is ‘human nature’ (both ‘virtues’ and ‘vices’ of the political players). In the present global turmoil, where on one hand ‘ideal’ democratic countries are facing serious internal problems, while on the other hand even totalitarian states ruled by despots are staring at a crumbling political system, it is necessary that one views the necessity to study human nature in order to have a better understanding of the dynamism of political systems,54 remove existing problems, and creating more coherent future political systems, globally. 1.3 Aims and objectives This paper aims to study various theories on human nature, and existing political theories, to prove that there is a close connection between the two. It will explore to conclusively prove that it is indeed necessary to study the nature of human reasoning to work towards forming a coherent political and social order within a State. 1.4 Nature of the study In this study the researcher will focus on one research question, so as to be able to comprehend better the nature of human reasoning and its related ‘virtues’ and ‘vices’ and its association with politics and to formulate ways that would assist to create more organized socio-political systems especially in the context of the recent turmoil that we are witnessing in various countries worldwide. Why is it important to define human nature to build a coherent political system or a society and which problems should/have to be considered in relation to the problem of human nature? References Benthall, J., (ed.), 1973. The Limits of Human Nature. London: Allen Lane. Berry, C., 1986. Human Nature. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Buchanan, A., July 1989. Assessing the Communitarian Critique of Liberalism. Ethics, 99/4, 852-882. Cantril, H., 1961. Human Nature and Political Systems. NJ: Rutgers University Press. Davies, J., 1963. Human Nature in Politics: The Dynamics of Political Behaviour. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Donald C., (ed),. 1992. Theories of Human Nature: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dworkin, R., 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977.  Dworkin, R., 1978. “Liberalism.” In, Stuart Hampshire (ed.), Public and private morality. New York: Cambridge University Press.  Dworkin, R., 1978. "Liberalism." In, Public and Private Morality, Stuart Hampshire, (ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.  Francis, G., Nov. 1946. Human Nature and Politics. The Journal of Politics, vol. 8, no: 4, 478-498.   Fried, C., 1983. Liberalism, Community, and the Objectivity of Values. Harvard Law Review 96: 960-68.  Galston,W., 1982. Defending Liberalism. American Political Science Review,  7 6: 621-29. Gordon, M., 1978. Human nature, class, and ethnicity. New York: Oxford University Press.  Gutmann, A., 1985. Communitarian Critics of Liberalism. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14, 308-22.  Hadley, C., 1961. Human Nature and Political Systems. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Wellman, C., Jan 1999. Liberalism, Communitarism and Group Rights. Law and Philosophy, Vol. 18, No. 1 pp. 13-40. Hobbes, T., 1976 (1651). Leviathan. London: Forgotten books. Hubbard R., 1990. The Political Nature of "Human Nature." In, D.L. Rhode (ed.) Theoretical perspectives on sexual differences. New Haven: Yale University Press, 63-70. Hursthouse, R., 1999. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford Press. Kant, I., and Beck, L., 1988. Kant: selections. London: Macmillan. Kymlicka, W., 1989. Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kymlicka W., 1988. Liberalism and Communitarianism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 18/2, 181-203.  Loptson, P., 2006. Theories of Human Nature (3rd ed). Peterborough,ON: Broadview. MacIntyre, A., 1981. After Virtue; a study in moral theory. London: Duckworth, 1981. Machiavelli, N., [1531] 1970. The Discourses. Translated by Leslie J. Walker. London: Penguin Books.  Macpherson, C., 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Machiavelli, N., 1961. The Prince. London: Penguin Books. Martinich, A., 1992. The Two Gods of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McShea, R., Aug., 1978. Human Nature Theory and Political Philosophy. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 22, no. 656-679.  Mead, M., 1949. Male and Female. New York: Dell. Morgenthau, H., Thompson, K., and Clinton, D., 2005. Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Morton, K., 1976. Justice, Human Nature, and Political Obligation. New York: Free Press.  Pannenberg, W., 2004. Systematic Theology, Volume 1, London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Raz, J., 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sandel, M, 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sandel, M., (ed.), 1984. Liberalism and Its Critics. New York: New York University Press. Sorell, T., 2003. “Hobbes.” In, The Blackwell companion to Philosophy, Bunnin, N. and E.p Tsui – James (Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers LTD. Stevenson, L., and Haberman, D., 2004. Ten Theories of Human Nature (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Stevenson, L., 1999. The Study of Human Nature (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, C., 1985. Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers (Vol.II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thigpen, R., and Downing, L., August,1987. Liberalism and the Communitarian Critique.  American Journal of Political Science, Vol. No. 31, Iss. No. 3, 637- 655. Thomas Aquinas, 1970 (2006), Summa Theologiae, Cambridge University Press, 1-11, g.71, a.2c. Thompson, K., 1992. Traditions and values in politics and diplomacy: theory and practice. Louisiana: LSU Press. Walzer, M., 1983. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Oxford: Blackwell. Wilson, F., Nov. 1996. Human nature and politics. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 8, No. 4 478-498. Wilson, E, 2004. On Human Nature. MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.  Read More