Monday 10 May 2010

Theories of Human nature: Biological, Social and Christian perspectives


After a conclusively inconclusive election, I thought it best to avoid politics for a little while. Instead and in keeping with my original remit for this blog, I intend to upload one or two of my own philosophical essays - written during my time in Sweden. This short essay below is an analysis of "The rise and fall of Socio-biology" by Augustine Lawler.

- By Christopher Landau


The subject of this essay is the ongoing debate over the fundamental form of Human Nature and how this manifests itself. There are many differing theories, but for the purpose of this essay I will focus on three of the most prominent concepts. Firstly, the synthesis of scientific disciplines collectively termed “Socio-Biology” which I will compare and contrast with the exponents of the “Social Constructionist” world view. These two schools of thought are both connected to and distinct from a third view. Or rather an overarching project, “Biotechnology”. Not as a belief system, but as a mechanism, one which involves using our knowledge of human biology and our improving technology, to try and improve the quality and length of human life. In “The rise and fall of Socio-Biology” Augustine Lawler starts by examining these three contrasting views of the relationship human beings have with their nature. He begins his essay by briefly laying out the foundational premises of these models.

In summary, Lawler states that socio-biology is the concept that humans have their own intrinsic value, their own nature, and a natural purpose to fulfil. In this world view Lawler says that our nature and purpose makes sense within the context of Darwinian evolution and could lead one to conclude that we are in fact not so different from the other animals. The conflicting Social Constructionist model takes the view that the idea of human nature itself is irrelevant. It is our Society, Culture and Institutions, that are responsible for defining how we perceive ourselves and thus define our nature. Human nature under this view is not already set by biological factors, as all our ideas of Human Nature are open to change at the whim of our society, culture, taught values, upbringing etc.

Lawler says that these contrasting belief systems should be seen as offering us a significant, yet necessarily reductionist account of Human Nature. As Lawler writes: “Each presents part of the truth about being human by disfiguring the whole.” The third part of the picture involves one point of human distinction from the other animals; namely our ability to use scientific knowledge to marshal the forces of nature under human control. Human technology is not a more sophisticated version of primate tool-making, but rather our technology is distinctly human. As Lawler puts it, “it is a response to the dilemmas and possibilities of being the only moral, rational, and death-haunted animal.” The reason that Lawler offers this mechanism as an alternative to the socio-biology and social constructionist concepts is that many see Bio-technology as having the potential to completely re-define what it means to be human. Not as a definition of human nature then, but as a means of changing it.

Any debate about Human Nature is necessarily complex and the scope and range of thought that fall under the headings Socio-biology or Social Constructionism is such that the models outlined above should be seen as a fairly narrow interpretation. This contentious subject is still fiercely debated amongst academics and politicians as it touches many potentially controversial historical and contemporary issues. Lawler writes “Each of these views is more an ideology than a science, more a program for human reform than a truthful account of the way things are”. Without wanting to create a Straw Man, Lawler states that neither of the views outlined above, can give a whole account of human nature. The question does not become cliché; “nature or nurture?”, but to what extent do we have a nature at all? And if we accept that we have some sort of nature, how much of it is formed in our genes and how much in our society?

In his essay Lawler focuses on the rise and fall of socio-biology in terms of a scientific dogma, explaining its usefulness and its weaknesses. Arguing that he application of socio-biology to humans was immediately controversial. The late Stephen Jay Gould for example, said that socio-biology was intrinsically biologically determinist and open to manipulation. Just as similar ideas had been used in the past to justify the status quo, Gould feared a certain understanding of human nature could only further entrench the ruling elites in place in certain societies, thus legitimizing authoritarian political and social programmes. It could be argued that this fear has indeed been realised, manifesting itself in the form of various atrocities, such as the genocide of Jews under the Nazis. The socio-biological account has also been viewed as taking away the ‘meaning’ from life, nature offering us only a short, contingent existence as individuals. Lawler thinks this view “is unlikely to halt or limit our desperate turn to biotechnology in pursuit of the happiness that nature by itself does not seem to give us.” The exact nature of our denied happiness is not elaborated upon by Lawler, however I don’t see why we must assume that a “meaningless” existence is any less important or potentially enjoyable than a “meaningful” one. Can I not be a good person, living a happy and fulfilled life without a purpose? I think so, and I belief so does Lawler, who finds it not at all contradictory when he concedes that it is possible for socio-biology to be consistent with the view that human nature can be created out of nothing (social constructionism) or remoulded to a particular end (biotechnology). If this is true, then it seems there would be little problem taking the socio-biological view to the extent that we accept Darwinian evolution and we accept that we have no pre-determined path, but at the same time we can not only construct our own meaning and purpose in life adaptively if we want to, but can exist just as existentially satisfied without one at all.

Whilst it is Lawler’s opinion that neither the socio-biologists nor the social constructionists give us a complete, or even nearly complete, account of our nature, he accepts that “We have animal natures, which are not fundamentally different from the other animals in being determined to some degree by our evolutionary genetic inheritance”, he calls this the partial truth of socio-biology. What is particularly interesting about this point is made clear later when he also says that: “the truth of socio-biology is an unstable middle position between unscientific ignorance and biotechnological wilfulness. Socio-biology is true until we know it is true.” What he means here is that once we have understood how human nature works on an evolutionary and biological level, we are empowered by this knowledge with a capacity for improvement and change in this very nature itself. This seems to be the paradox of Socio-biology and if true, Lawler is right to look for a more encompassing explanation of our nature than merely, our genetic inheritance.

In “Human Nature after Darwin” Janet Richards contributes to this ongoing debate by focusing on the implications of the Darwinian revolution for understanding our own nature. She explains that although the term Socio-biology represents a coherent set of beliefs it has become a somewhat tainted term in academic discussion. Perhaps due to the earlier alluded to political and social implications of some of its ideas. Many critics make a connection between socio-biology and the biological determinism of the early 20th century. This is still relevant because many believe the Darwinian “revolution” is not yet played out in terms of its potential, especially in combination with the development of bio-technology. The potential of bio-technologies not only raises the value-driven science debate in terms of the driving ideology behind future technology, but if actualised, could raise moral questions previously consigned only to the realm of Science-fiction. Richards asks in this extract, whether there really are serious implications, to the theory of Darwinian evolution, and if so, are they of a biological or perhaps even metaphysical nature. One such implication that scientists, such as Richard Dawkins see; is that Darwinian materialism leaves no room for God. Even as an atheist I tend to believe that this is not the case. At least I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why an understanding and acceptance of evolution is anything other than merely consistent with an atheistic view. If I was to accept consistency as enough evidence for the non existence of God, then conversely I would have to accept that the Fine-tuned universe oft cited as consistent with theism, was evidence for the existence of God, which is clearly nonsense.

Metaphysical questions aside, criticisms of the scientificity and moral/political purpose of socio-biology can and certainly have been made towards various social constructionist projects as well. Lawler takes the examples of the Marxist and Feminist movements, explaining that the Utopian visions of the social constructionists are typically conceived on the premise that we lack a real reason to maintain many of our beliefs. Including that we as humans share certain responsibilities, independent of our society and culture, and that those human responsibilities connect us implicitly with birth, love, and death. These social constructions which we take for granted as part of being empathetic emotional beings have, according to the constructionists, been fitted into the routine of human life without biological mandate and therefore can be removed.

Lawler disagrees with these sentiments when he states: “while social constructionism is right to see that human beings are distinct from the other animals, it errs in believing that our distinct quality is total freedom from nature.” What I believe is starting to become evident as I read more of Lawler, is that he believes in a synthesis of the three views discussed above; building first on the foundation of mechanistic Darwinian evolutionary principles, whilst accepting the need for certain cherry picked, social constructionist concepts that we might use to address the imbalances within our society. A good example of this synthesis can be seen if we look at the Feminist movement I briefly mentioned earlier. Lawler states that they absolutely failed in their radical attempt to remove traditional gender roles from society, but that they succeeded in many parts of the world, to quite an extraordinary degree, in creating a fairer, more egalitarian environment for women. This seems to support the view that the two contrasting ideas of socio-biology and social constructionism can be combined and integrated without contradiction or need to accept one or the other.

So where does this leave us in terms of defining our own nature? Lawler concludes that in the end, although Bio-technology is important, it is not the game-changer that many believe it to be. It is not ever going to satisfy us entirely, because the tantalizing possibilities of progress will always remain in one form or another in our future. We also cannot accept the Ultra Darwinian view of our nature that excludes the importance and need for individual and culturally determined human constructions and excepts merely a crude materialism. Instead Lawler argues, we need a: “richer, more truthful account of human nature, one that comprehends the excellences and passions, the joys and miseries, of being the only animal who knows, loves, and thinks about death”. I think that Lawler’s broader point here is correct. Both the socio-biologists and the social constructionists have described human nature in reductionist terms which should be avoided if possible. We should instead embrace a far more comprehensive view of our nature. Incorporating the great benefits we have gained from a better understanding of evolutionary biology whilst at the same time accepting there limitations and the need for further understanding of our distinctly human characteristics which are often so hard to quantify.

Whilst some will not be convinced by anything other than an all encompassing, materialist understanding of evolution. Those of us that accept our Darwinian ancestry as part of our nature can be even more greatly rewarded, when we realise that there is no destiny that we are being driven towards. We are formed by our genes, but we are not merely a blank slate to write on and we have the capacity to define ourselves by our own actions and beliefs (even if we are only too aware that Darwin was right on the stamp of our lowly origins). Its best I think to accept that we are part of the natural order, that we are not a specially created species with unique privileges. Because bleak as it may seem to some, it doesn’t mean we have to live without irony, humour, solidarity or any other of the things that make human life bearable and indeed possible. C