HOME | UP |
IT’S ONLY HUMAN NATURE
Alan Dent
To be even mildly right-wing is to celebrate division. The Right
often evokes “human nature” but always to imply self-interest,
unfairness, distinctions and to deny universality. The history of
this distorted version of what it means to be human is very long,
but for our purposes what matters is how it’s employed to prop up
the moral vacuity of capitalism. One of the Right’s favourite
theorists is Adam Smith who, they claim, was a free marketeer
avant la lettre when he argued the self-interest of the butcher,
the brewer and the baker provides our dinner and evoked the magical
“invisible hand” which smooths capitalism’s wrinkles. In fact, Smith
uses the term hardly at all and on the couple of occasions he does
so, with the opposite intent of the free-marketeers. What he’s
saying is there is a natural sympathy between human beings which
intervenes, like an invisible hand to prevent the triumph of
evil. Also, Smith believed the world was ruled by a beneficent God
who would not permit total evil. Therefore, evil could be only
“partial” and the apparent evils of capitalism (poverty, degradation
of workers etc) would be attenuated by the prevailing goodness of
God’s universe. That may be a bad argument, but it’s nothing like
the argument of the neo-liberals.
In The Wealth of Nations, Smith terms the pursuit of personal
wealth “a delusion”. He didn’t call his book The Wealth of
Individuals. His concern was rational: how do communities defend
themselves against want? He spoke of “the vile maxim of the masters
of mankind: everything for ourselves, nothing for anyone else.” Does
that sound like Thatcher, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Blair or Starmer?
Before The Wealth of Nations, Smith wrote The Theory of
Moral Sentiments whose first sentence is: “How selfish soever
man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his
nature which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their
happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except
the pleasure of seeing it.” Can you imagine that on a Tory leaflet
or in a speech by Starmer? The Wealth of Nations is
understandable only in the light of the previous book: it’s because
Smith has the classical liberal’s faith in the mutual beneficence of
human nature that he has no fear of the self-interest of the
butcher, brewer or baker. It is limited by our natural endowment and
God’s oversight. Had he witnessed the twentieth century he would
have re-written his masterpiece.
Smith’s friend David Hume also had faith in human nature, which he
conceived as broadly benign. The contemporary Right takes the
opposite view: capitalism is the expression of our human endowment
which is self-interested, manipulative, conniving, forever in
pursuit of advantage, inclined to invidious comparison and
essentially amoral. At the heart of neo-liberalism is the notion the
market is morally neutral: it does what has to be done, and
if millions are left going to food banks, no one is to blame. Von
Hayek peddles this: people are biased, they will be unjust and
authoritarian, while the market is exempt from such baseness. It’s
reminiscent of Anatole France’s famous quip: “The law, in its
majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to beg in the street
or sleep under bridges.”
The conundrum lies in uncovering what human nature is; no small
matter and almost certainly running up against the limits of our
understanding. However, there are some serious clues. If we are a
product of nature, which is self-evidently true, then our species
capacities have been endowed by biology, which can’t be held
responsible for the existence of classes. We aren’t workers or
capitalists or slaves and slave-owners by nature. Yet in right-wing
ideology there has to be the suggestion we are. Social categories
correspond to natural endowment. Trump is a billionaire because of
his extraordinary prowess in business. The poor blacks of America
are, the hidden suggestion is, deserving of their poverty (or
incarceration).
For the past five hundred years the world has been dominated by
conquest based on white supremacy in pursuit of lucre. The supremacy
rests on a flawed concept of “race” which is biologically without
meaning. As Richard Lewontin put it “Differences are biological,
distinctions social.” “Race” is a cultural category. Believing skin
colour is a marker of some essential biological distinction is as
absurd as thinking the same of eye colour or hair colour. These are
superficial differences which imply no social distinction. In order
to do violence to others, to make use of their labour, to enslave
them, to use them or our advantage, there has to be some excuse.
Hence, the Right’s ideology of distinction.
Yet why does there have to be an excuse? Why don’t capitalists
simply declare: “We want to be rich and powerful and we’re going to
use your labour. Shut up and do as we say or we’ll employ the forces
of the State against you” ? The
explanation for their need to appear moral, is probably that,
somehow, they know morality is unavoidable. Did Columbus know his
behaviour towards the Tainos was morally despicable? Probably, but
he rationalised: European monarchs need the wealth; these people are
“savages”; God intended us to slaughter and exploit them. Every
dictator needs a moral excuse. |Hitler was rescuing the German
people from humiliation. Putin is defending Mother Russia from
fascists. Imagine if Hitler had declared in the early 1930s: “Elect
me and I’ll exterminate 5 million Jews and bring cataclysmic war to
the world.” There always has to be a moral cover because we are
moral creatures by nature.
Try to stop yourself thinking. You can do so only by thinking about
not thinking. We think as naturally as we breath. Try to wipe
language from your mind. Can’t be done. We are linguistic by nature
and it’s universal. It isn’t the product of particular economic
relations, it doesn’t differ according to which continent you were
born on, what colour your skin is. Language is our common
inheritance. It’s human nature. Of course, the six thousand
languages currently in use look like the Tower of Babel and it’s
easy to be misled into thinking each language is unique. What we
know, however, is beneath the apparent chaos of language in use is
the extraordinary efficiency of the inner faculty. All languages are
underpinned by a universal grammar which functions by using a very
small number of rules (arguably just one) in a generative process to
produce an infinite number of sentences.
Chinese and English are
superficially very different, but the fundamental internal
operations which produce their sentences are identical. In a way,
it’s obvious they must be: we all have language; there must be some
universal inner process which permits that. A universal inner
process which is a product of evolution. We are linguistic by
endowment rather than by choice or circumstance.
Why shouldn’t the same be true of morality? Citing the evidence and
making the argument would be a long business, but to be abrupt :
there is a species expectation of fair behaviour. The capacity to
recognise unfairness is as universal as language. Everyone responds
positively (with maybe the exception of a few psychopaths) to a
young man who helps an old lady across the road, just as everyone
responds negatively if a young man punches an old lady in the face
and steals her purse, and this looks pretty regular across cultures.
There are often very difficult choices
and we aren’t always consistent, but there is plenty of
evidence to suggest Hume and Smith may be right: there is a natural
sympathy between people and it is a “principle” of our nature to
want to see the happiness of others. It may well be that our moral
faculty works in much the same way as our linguistic faculty: from a
predetermined small set of rules, by a generative process, a wide
and perhaps infinite array of moral decisions becomes possible.
In the ideology of the Right, morality is usually conceived as an
imposition from without: it’s a matter of obeying the Bible or the
boss. There is always
this suggestion of an external force providing the rules we must
live by. Yet, at the same time, with characteristic incoherence, the
Right puts its faith in the market on the grounds of its moral
neutrality. Recognising we are moral creatures by nature, however,
implies removing the barriers to the expression of our moral
impulses. The peril of this for the rich and powerful is obvious.
What they need is a set of rules imposed on the rest of us and which
give expression to the hypocrisy and incoherence of their position.
The constant hysteria of the media is a good example of moralism
which has no faith in people’s innate moral capacity forcing ethical
simplicities on the common folk out of fear they may decide for
themselves. Right-wing ideology always sneaks in the assumption that
the people can’t be trusted to make moral or any other kind of
serious decisions. Just as they are lacking in intellectual
capacity, so they lack moral capacity. Yet the evidence to the
contrary is persuasive.
If we are moral by nature, how do we explain dictators, injustice,
exploitation and so on? Well, evil people are always defending a
supposedly moral position. Even gangsters. In fact, especially
gangsters. Hence the well-known sentimentality of fascists and
totalitarians. In short, it takes a huge effort to drive people away
from their natural, mutual sympathy. It requires constant
indoctrination, vigilance and use of punishment of one kind or
another. In our culture, there is a high price
for not putting your own material interest first: yet witness
how people respond to others in distress, often at the other side of
the world.
The left has had an historic nervousness about a given, fixed human
nature because it has seen it as militating against the possibility
of social change; but that’s a mistake. It’s our nature to make our
history and we do so through moral choice, not because we are
buffeted by abstract
forces. We are cultural by nature just as we are linguistic. The
Right has to adopt an incoherent position: that there is a human
nature, but it isn’t universal. Thus, it’s human nature to be
self-interested if you’re a capitalist but not if you’re a trade
unionist. If there is a human nature, and self-evidently there is,
it must be universal. If it’s the self-interested, acquisitive human
nature of the Right, then they have no moral ground on which to
argue against any form
of self-interest. If it’s human nature to be benightedly
self-interested, it’s hard to find secure moral ground to condemn
theft. Honest business is morally superior to housebreaking, but
begin from the assumption that people have little or no concern for
the well-being of others and you quickly validate bad behaviour. The
Right has to invoke human
nature to justify its “vile maxim” and then deny it to condemn
workers who strike for decent pay or to get on its high horse about
law and order.
The left has everything to gain by pushing the idea of a given,
fixed human nature part of whose essential characteristics are those
put forward by Adam Smith: concern for the fortune of others and
interest in their well-being and happiness as a matter of principle.
That is, we are inescapably moral. As Shakespeare puts it in King
Lear, the idea that our destiny in the stars not in ourselves is
a “worthy evasion of whore-master man”. Our moral nature saves us
from the tragedy of injustice, which is why it’s in the interests of
the rich and powerful to deny it.
|