
Anarchists, far from ignoring âhuman nature,â have the only political theory that gives this concept deep thought and reflection. Too often, âhuman natureâ is flung up as the last line of defence in an argument against anarchism, because it is thought to be beyond reply. This is not the case, however.
First of all, human nature is a complex thing. If, by human nature, it is meant âwhat humans do,â it is obvious that human nature is contradictoryâlove and hate, compassion and heartlessness, peace and violence, and so on, have all been expressed by people and so are all products of âhuman nature.â Of course, what is considered âhuman natureâ can change with changing social circumstances. For example, slavery was considered part of âhuman natureâ and ânormalâ for thousands of years. Homosexuality was considered perfectly normal by the ancient Greeks yet thousands of years later the Christian church denounced it as unnatural. War only became part of âhuman natureâ once states developed. Hence Chomsky:
âIndividuals are certainly capable of evil . . . But individuals are capable of all sorts of things. Human nature has lots of ways of realising itself, humans have lots of capacities and options. Which ones reveal themselves depends to a large extent on the institutional structures. If we had institutions which permitted pathological killers free rein, theyâd be running the place. The only way to survive would be to let those elements of your nature manifest themselves.
âIf we have institutions which make greed the sole property of human beings and encourage pure greed at the expense of other human emotions and commitments, weâre going to have a society based on greed, with all that follows. A different society might be organised in such a way that human feelings and emotions of other sorts, say, solidarity, support, sympathy become dominant. Then youâll have different aspects of human nature and personality revealing themselves.â â Chronicles of Dissent, pp. 158
Therefore, environment plays an important part in defining what âhuman natureâ is, how it develops and what aspects of it are expressed. Indeed, one of the greatest myths about anarchism is the idea that we think human nature is inherently good (rather, we think it is inherently sociable). How it develops and expresses itself is dependent on the kind of society we live in and create. A hierarchical society will shape people in certain (negative) ways and produce a âhuman natureâ radically different from a libertarian one. So âwhen we hear men [and women] saying that Anarchists imagine men [and women] much better than they really are, we merely wonder how intelligent people can repeat that nonsense. Do we not say continually that the only means of rendering men [and women] less rapacious and egotistic, less ambitious and less slavish at the same time, is to eliminate those conditions which favour the growth of egotism and rapacity, of slavishness and ambition?â [Peter Kropotkin, Act for Yourselves, p. 83]
As such, the use of âhuman natureâ as an argument against anarchism is simply superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to think. âEvery fool,â as Emma Goldman put it, âfrom king to policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature. Yet how can any one speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?â Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system. For this reason, anarchism âstands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.â For â[f]reedom, expansion, opportunity, and above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature and all its wonderful possibilities.â [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]
This does not mean that human beings are infinitely plastic, with each individual born a tabula rasa (blank slate) waiting to be formed by âsocietyâ (which in practice means those who run it). As Noam Chomsky argues, âI donât think its possible to give a rational account of the concept of alienated labour on that assumption [that human nature is nothing but a historical product], nor is it possible to produce something like a moral justification for the commitment to some kind of social change, except on the basis of assumptions about human nature and how modifications in the structure of society will be better able to conform to some of the fundamental needs that are part of our essential nature.â [Language and Politics, p. 215] We do not wish to enter the debate about what human characteristics are and are not âinnate.â All we will say is that human beings have an innate ability to think and learnâthat much is obvious, we feelâand that humans are sociable creatures, needing the company of others to feel complete and to prosper. Moreover, they have the ability to recognise and oppose injustice and oppression (Bakunin rightly considered âthe power to think and the desire to rebelâ as âprecious faculties.â [God and the State, p. 9]).
These three features, we think, suggest the viability of an anarchist society. The innate ability to think for oneself automatically makes all forms of hierarchy illegitimate, and our need for social relationships implies that we can organise without the state. The deep unhappiness and alienation afflicting modern society reveals that the centralisation and authoritarianism of capitalism and the state are denying some innate needs within us. In fact, as mentioned earlier, for the great majority of its existence the human race has lived in anarchic communities, with little or no hierarchy. That modern society calls such people âsavagesâ or âprimitiveâ is pure arrogance. So who can tell whether anarchism is against âhuman natureâ? Anarchists have accumulated much evidence to suggest that it may not be.
As for the charge the anarchists demand too much of âhuman nature,â it is often non anarchists who make the greatest claims on it. For âwhile our opponents seem to admit there is a kind of salt of the earth â the rulers, the employers, the leaders â who, happily enough, prevent those bad men â the ruled, the exploited, the led â from becoming still worse than they areâ we anarchists âmaintain that both rulers and ruled are spoiled by authorityâ and âboth exploiters and exploited are spoiled by exploitation.â So âthere is [a] difference, and a very important one. We admit the imperfections of human nature, but we make no exception for the rulers. They make it, although sometimes unconsciously, and because we make no such exception, they say that we are dreamers.â [Peter Kropotkin, Op. Cit., p. 83] If human nature is so bad, then giving some people power over others and hoping this will lead to justice and freedom is hopelessly utopian.
Moreover, as noted, Anarchists argue that hierarchical organisations bring out the worse in human nature. Both the oppressor and the oppressed are negatively affected by the authoritarian relationships so produced. âIt is a characteristic of privilege and of every kind of privilege,â argued Bakunin, âto kill the mind and heart of man . . . That is a social law which admits no exceptions . . . It is the law of equality and humanity.â [God and the State, p. 31] And while the privileged become corrupted by power, the powerless (in general) become servile in heart and mind (luckily the human spirit is such that there will always be rebels no matter the oppression for where there is oppression, there is resistance and, consequently, hope). As such, it seems strange for anarchists to hear non-anarchists justify hierarchy in terms of the (distorted) âhuman natureâ it produces.
Sadly, too many have done precisely this. It continues to this day. For example, with the rise of âsociobiology,â some claim (with very little real evidence) that capitalism is a product of our ânature,â which is determined by our genes. These claims are simply a new variation of the âhuman natureâ argument and have, unsurprisingly, been leapt upon by the powers that be. Considering the dearth of evidence, their support for this ânewâ doctrine must be purely the result of its utility to those in powerâi.e. the fact that it is useful to have an âobjectiveâ and âscientificâ basis to rationalise inequalities in wealth and power (for a discussion of this process see Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology and Human Nature by Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin and Leon J. Kamin).
This is not to say that it does not hold a grain of truth. As scientist Stephen Jay Gould notes, âthe range of our potential behaviour is circumscribed by our biologyâ and if this is what sociobiology means âby genetic control, then we can scarcely disagree.â However, this is not what is meant. Rather, it is a form of âbiological determinismâ that sociobiology argues for. Saying that there are specific genes for specific human traits says little for while â[v]iolence, sexism, and general nastiness are biological since they represent one subset of a possible range of behavioursâ so are âpeacefulness, equality, and kindness.â And so âwe may see their influence increase if we can create social structures that permit them to flourish.â That this may be the case can be seen from the works of sociobiologists themselves, who âacknowledge diversityâ in human cultures while âoften dismiss[ing] the uncomfortable âexceptionsâ as temporary and unimportant aberrations.â This is surprising, for if you believe that ârepeated, often genocidal warfare has shaped our genetic destiny, the existence of nonaggressive peoples is embarrassing.â [Ever Since Darwin, p. 252, p. 257 and p. 254]
Like the social Darwinism that preceded it, sociobiology proceeds by first projecting the dominant ideas of current society onto nature (often unconsciously, so that scientists mistakenly consider the ideas in question as both ânormalâ and ânaturalâ). Bookchin refers to this as âthe subtle projection of historically conditioned human valuesâ onto nature rather than âscientific objectivity.â Then the theories of nature produced in this manner are transferred back onto society and history, being used to âproveâ that the principles of capitalism (hierarchy, authority, competition, etc.) are eternal laws, which are then appealed to as a justification for the status quo! âWhat this procedure does accomplish,â notes Bookchin, âis reinforce human social hierarchies by justifying the command of men and women as innate features of the ânatural order.â Human domination is thereby transcribed into the genetic code as biologically immutable.â [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 95 and p. 92] Amazingly, there are many supposedly intelligent people who take this sleight-of-hand seriously.
This can be seen when âhierarchiesâ in nature are used to explain, and so justify, hierarchies in human societies. Such analogies are misleading for they forget the institutional nature of human life. As Murray Bookchin notes in his critique of sociobiology, a âweak, enfeebled, unnerved, and sick ape is hardly likely to become an âalphaâ male, much less retain this highly ephemeral âstatus.â By contrast, the most physically and mentally pathological human rulers have exercised authority with devastating effect in the course of history.â This âexpresses a power of hierarchical institutions over persons that is completely reversed in so-called âanimal hierarchiesâ where the absence of institutions is precisely the only intelligible way of talking about âalpha malesâ or âqueen bees.’â [âSociobiology or Social Ecologyâ, Which way for the Ecology Movement?, p. 58] Thus what makes human society unique is conveniently ignored and the real sources of power in society are hidden under a genetic screen.
The sort of apologetics associated with appeals to âhuman natureâ (or sociobiology at its worse) are natural, of course, because every ruling class needs to justify their right to rule. Hence they support doctrines that defined the latter in ways appearing to justify elite powerâbe it sociobiology, divine right, original sin, etc. Obviously, such doctrines have always been wrong . . . until now, of course, as it is obvious our current society truly conforms to âhuman natureâ and it has been scientifically proven by our current scientific priesthood!
The arrogance of this claim is truly amazing. History hasnât stopped. One thousand years from now, society will be completely different from what it is presently or from what anyone has imagined. No government in place at the moment will still be around, and the current economic system will not exist. The only thing that may remain the same is that people will still be claiming that their new society is the âOne True Systemâ that completely conforms to human nature, even though all past systems did not.
Of course, it does not cross the minds of supporters of capitalism that people from different cultures may draw different conclusions from the same factsâconclusions that may be more valid. Nor does it occur to capitalist apologists that the theories of the âobjectiveâ scientists may be framed in the context of the dominant ideas of the society they live in. It comes as no surprise to anarchists, however, that scientists working in Tsarist Russia developed a theory of evolution based on cooperation within species, quite unlike their counterparts in capitalist Britain, who developed a theory based on competitive struggle within and between species. That the latter theory reflected the dominant political and economic theories of British society (notably competitive individualism) is pure coincidence, of course.
Kropotkinâs classic work Mutual Aid, for example, was written in response to the obvious inaccuracies that British representatives of Darwinism had projected onto nature and human life. Building upon the mainstream Russian criticism of the British Darwinism of the time, Kropotkin showed (with substantial empirical evidence) that âmutual aidâ within a group or species played as important a role as âmutual struggleâ between individuals within those groups or species (see Stephan Jay Gouldâs essay âKropotkin was no Crackpotâ in his book Bully for Brontosaurus for details and an evaluation). It was, he stressed, a âfactorâ in evolution along with competition, a factor which, in most circumstances, was far more important to survival. Thus co-operation is just as ânaturalâ as competition so proving that âhuman natureâ was not a barrier to anarchism as co-operation between members of a species can be the best pathway to advantage individuals.
To conclude. Anarchists argue that anarchy is not against âhuman natureâ for two main reasons. Firstly, what is considered as being âhuman natureâ is shaped by the society we live in and the relationships we create. This means a hierarchical society will encourage certain personality traits to dominate while an anarchist one would encourage others. As such, anarchists âdo not so much rely on the fact that human nature will change as they do upon the theory that the same nature will act differently under different circumstances.â Secondly, change âseems to be one of the fundamental laws of existenceâ so âwho can say that man [sic!] has reached the limits of his possibilities.â [George Barrett, Objections to Anarchism, pp. 360â1 and p. 360]
For useful discussions on anarchist ideas on human nature, both of which refute the idea that anarchists think human beings are naturally good, see Peter Marshallâs âHuman nature and anarchismâ [David Goodway (ed.), For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice, pp. 127â149] and David Hartleyâs âCommunitarian Anarchism and Human Natureâ. [Anarchist Studies, vol. 3, no. 2, Autumn 1995, pp. 145â164]
Source: Awsm.nz