![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Social sciences elective...
Sep. 6th, 2010 06:51 pm"Violence and Human Nature:"
An Incomplete Argument by Howard Zinn
In his text, “Violence and Human Nature”, Howard Zinn makes the argument that human nature is not one that is inherently violent, but rather becomes violent through the influence of the societies we have allowed to be built. Zinn provides a persuasive case that the prevailing opinion on our species’ genetic predisposition for violence, as stated by Freud in response to Einstein's letter about war that “‘man has in him an active instinct for hatred and destruction’” (Zinn, p. 23), lacks any scientifically verifiable basis. Specifically, Zinn points to the misguided invocation of history as “proof” of their position by some of the luminary thinkers of the 20th century such as Einstein, Freud, E. O. Wilson, Robert Ardrey, and Desmond Morris (Zinn, p. 23, 25). As Wilson stated in his book On Human Nature, “‘Throughout history, warfare, representing only the most organized technique of aggression, has been endemic to every form of society, from hunter-gatherer bands to industrial states’” (Zinn, p. 23).
Zinn further goes on to suggest, referring to the conclusions of Milgram that “‘It is the extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority that constitutes the chief finding of the study ... This is, perhaps, the most fundamental lesson of our study: ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process’” (Zinn, p. 25), that is the actual cause of wars, not an innate predisposition to violence. Unfortunately, after convincingly tearing down the purported common wisdom, Zinn fails to provide an equally persuasive case that humans must be pushed to violence by “ruling elites in every culture, who become enamored of their own power and seek to extend it”, by the “greed ... of powerful minorities in society who seek more raw materials or more markets or more land or more favorable places for investment”, and “a persistent ideology of nationalism” (Zinn, p. 26). Instead, he turns to history himself, both from the literature and his personal experiences, to try to illustrate his point. He succeeds in illustration, but fails to meet the standards he himself has judged other arguments by – the fields of “genetics, anthropology, psychology, and zoology” (Zinn, p. 26). Rather, he turns to anecdotal and even fictional accounts of those who have gone into battle to show that wars are conducted by people “where the habit of following orders and the dinning into their ears of the rightness of their cause can overcome the fear of death or the moral scruples of murdering another human being” (Zinn, p. 27). As Zinn himself states uncategorically, “Whenever someone says, ‘history proves...’ and then cites a list of historical facts, we should beware” (Zinn, p. 26).
No less ideological and unscientific, but more compelling than the writings of Zinn, is the discussion of “The Basic Tenets of Socialism” from Mindscapes: Political Ideologies Towards the 21st Century by Roger Gibbins and Loleen Youngman. Here, a complex and developed philosophy of society is presented that seems to directly address the issues raised by Zinn in a comprehensive manner. Contrasting the two sets of ideals, and making the supposition that Zinn is correct in his analysis, socialism as described would, if implemented and sustained for generations, presumably reduce the amount of violence within and between societies. As stated in the text, “The socialist believes that given the right conditions, humans are socially oriented beings who have the potential to be cooperative, rational and community-interested” (Gibbins/Youngman, p. 38). This is a view certainly shared by Zinn when he relates, “The differences in behavior Turnbull found were explainable, not by genetics, not by the ‘nature’ of these people, but by their environment, or their living conditions. The relatively easy life of the forest people fostered goodwill and generosity. The Ik, on the other hand, had been driven from their natural hunting grounds by the creation of a national game reserve into an isolated life of starvation in barren mountains. Their desperate attempt to survive brought out the aggressive destructiveness that Turnbull saw” (Zinn, p. 25). Both viewpoints place an emphasis on “environment” as being a prime determinant of social outcome.
Even more explicitly in support of Zinn’s views is the statement that “Socialists ... seek to uncover our true selves, the compassionate and cooperative beings who are presently buried beneath and within dysfunctional institutions” (Gibbins/Youngman, p. 38, emphasis in original). As Leon Baradat explained, “‘Socialism is much more than an economic system. It goes far beyond the socialization of the economy and the redistribution of wealth. It foresees a completely new relationship among individuals based on a plentiful supply of material goods. Its goal is a completely new social order in which human cooperation is the basis of conduct and productivity’” (Gibbins/Youngman, p. 38). What is compelling about the argument for socialism in support of Zinn’s premise of “nurture” is that it’s more than just a single person’s opinion, which is Zinn’s weakness – that it involved the thought and guidance and practice of millions of people throughout history to refine it to its current state as “a complex body of economic principles, political theories and assumptions about human nature” (Gibbins/Youngman, p. 44).
Another strength that the ideologies of socialism bring to the table in support of Zinn’s arguments is a clear definition of the cause of the social dysfunction that leads to violence and war. As explained by Anthony Wright, “‘It is the assault on individualism, the ideology of capitalism, that has been the common ground of socialist arguments. This ideological veneer concealed the character of capitalist exploitation. Its competitive, self-regarding values thwarted human cooperation and fraternity. It stunted the individual personality and destroyed the possibility of real community. It elevated private greed and ignored public need.’” (Gibbins/Youngman, p. 41). Indeed this closely mirrors Zinn’s statements above on “ruling elites” and “greed”, but he does not seem capable of transcending his own social upbringing to reject the foundations of the culture he has spent so much of his life supporting, and he could not make the final leap to complete his thought process. In fact, Zinn cannot shed all of the “nationalism” that he indicates is one of the cornerstones of systematized violence, and socialism itself when put into practice in any significant manner also seems to fall too easily prey to nationalism as a necessary tool to achieve localized implementation of its ideologies (a subject not discussed in “The Basic Tenets of Socialism”). So despite its shortcomings, Zinn’s “Violence and Human Nature” provides a realistic view backwards, through its criticism that the widespread “logic” that humans have an “instinct for violent aggression” is “wrong” and “dangerous” (Zinn, p. 23). “Wrong, because there is no real evidence for it” and “Dangerous because it deflects attention from the nonbiological causes of war and violence” (Zinn, p. 23). It also provides a viable framework within which we can ask the question: if there is not a “genetic determinism” (Zinn, p. 29) to violent human conflict, then how can we continue to morally justify our failure to reform our societies to eliminate this scourge of our own making?
References
Zinn, Howard, “Violence and Human Nature” (Coursepack #2)
Gibbens, Roger and Youngman, Loleen, “Basic Tenets of Socialism” (Coursepack #3)
