时间：2022-09-02 10:14:38
Why is it that “for two generations the … concept of human nature was officiously, if not officially, pronounced dead by many social scientists”? (Corning, 1977). Peter A Corning gave us the answer that “empirically oriented social scientists” thought the question “What is human nature?” resulted in simplistic generalizations, while “normatively oriented scholars” believed that it was inherently biased toward conservative ends to ask such questions.
Instead of asking “What is human nature?”, we ask “What are the social constructions of human nature?” that is, “What does social life have to be like so as to make a particular conception of human nature persuasive to people?”. In this way, I believe, it will be a little easy to answer it because “What is human nature?” seems too broad in sense and too general to answer.
Different conceptions of human nature maintained by people in different social relations (ways of relating to others) cannot be mixed and matched. Social relations greatly influenced views of human nature. Egalitarians, individualists, hierarchists, fatalists and hermits see human nature form their own perspectives. And the changes in the pattern of social relations cause the changes in the ways of defining human nature.
Egalitarians believe that human beings are born good but are corrupted by evil institutions. This view is nicely expressed in “man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” (Rousseau, 1762) and “God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil.” (Rousseau, 1974). From an egalitarian perspective, human nature is not only good but it’s also easily changed. Egalitarians’ view is well illustrated in “what is coming is nothing less than a new way of life and a new man.” (Reich, 1970). Just as human nature can be made very bad by evil institutions (i.e. markets and hierarchies), it can also be made very good by constructing an equal society.
This view of human nature is closely related to social relations of egalitarians. By making human beings naturally good, egalitarians can persuade each other that (1) uncooperative behavior is a product of the false consciousness that evil institutions have imposed on individuals, and that (2) a cooperative society is a viable way of organizing life. If an egalitarian were to be persuaded that human nature is relatively bad, he could hardly resist hierarchical arguments for increasing institutional limits on individuals or deny the individualists’ claim that there was no meaning in remaking human nature.
For individualists, human nature, like physical nature, is very stable, whatever the institutional settings are, individualists believe that human beings remain essentially the same: self-seeking. By making human beings self-seeking, individualists can justify a way of life which intends to encourage existing human nature rather than change it. Individualists also believe that no institutional arrangement can prevent human beings from pursuing their self-interest at the expense of the larger community. To make full use of the inevitable conflicts among self-interested individuals and groups, individualists believe that they ought to establish the political system, on the other hand, conflicts among different interest groups, are helpful to create a political system.
It is only after one accepts that human nature is self-seeking that the conclusion (a competitive political system is best) becomes persuasive. If one were to refuse the idea, as the egalitarians and the hierarchists do, the conclusion would be forceless.
Similarly, egalitarian and hierarchical institutions must teach their adherents to reject the proposition that “it is not from benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our diner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” (Smith, 1937). To accept this proposition is to accept that social relations should be based on “truck, barter and exchange”. The egalitarians and the hierarchists do not accept this social construction of human nature because it denies that pursuing the good of the collective can motivate individuals.
Hierarchists believe that human beings are born sinful, but can be redeemed by good institutions. This conception of human nature helps to keep a way of life rich in institutional limits. Hierarchy teaches its adherents to refuse the egalitarian’s view of human nature because it would gradually weaken the need for the careful regulation of human activities. Similarly, hierarchy does not agree with the individualist’s view that human nature can not be changed.
The hierarchical view of human nature is more colorful than the individualists’ view and the egalitarians’ view. The moral philosopher of the Whig party in the United States, historian Daniel Walker Howe found, “conceived of human nature as a hierarchically arranged series of powers or faculties.” (Howe,1974) It was the task of the higher powers of conscience and reason to regulate, discipline, and restrain the lower, baser passions and impulses, which, left to themselves, would escape from control and weak havoc. (Howe, 1974)
For fatalists, human nature is unpredictable. They believe that some people may be benevolent, but more are hostile. Never knowing what to expect for others, fatalists take actions by distrusting their fellow human beings. This suspicious view of human nature justifies their exclusion form the other three ways of life mentioned above.
Some diagrams that describe the myths of nature can represent these four views of human nature. Just as the individualist’s view of physical nature can be represented by a U-shape. So is their conception of human nature: no matter what efforts are undertaken to change human nature, man remains self-seeking. An inverted U, as is the case with their view of physical nature, best represents the egalitarian’s view of human nature: Man is basically good but his nature is highly susceptible to institutional influence. The hierarchical construction of human nature, paralleling that of physical nature, is shaped like a curved and flattened M: Human nature is naturally evil but can be made somewhat better with the strict limits determined by the hierarchy. A horizontal line best represents the fatalistic conception of human (and physical) nature: Human nature is so unpredictable that it is essentially random in character.
What, then, is the hermits’ conception of human（下转第214页） （上接第208页）nature? The hermits certainly believe in the inherent goodness of man, and maintain that we must not do anything to others (as the hierarchists or the egalitarians might say) to save them from themselves. To do this to another human, in our inescapable ignorance of his or her condition, would be to interfere with the proper course of his or her life. But the hermit at other times appears to believe in the inherent sinfulness of man. It was said that proudly vegetarian American Buddhists were frightened to learn form their teacher that there were weevils in the rice they were eating, and that the taking of life was unavoidable even though one did everything one could to avoid it. The hermit, however, speaks not of sin but of ignorance, and this enables him to be affected by the hierarchist’s low opinion of human nature. It is up to the individuals, not others, to do what he can to lessen his ignorance. He can ask others to help him do this so long as his request does not force them, but they, for their part, should not force their attentions upon him.
The hermit subsumes all the rival myths of human nature so that he is able to see this unique goal: the state of enlightenment in which all desire is transcended. At that moment he escapes from the wheel of suffering and from the social map.