In a previous post to this list about Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" I jumped straight to hot-button issues concerning innate differences among humans without laying out his more fundamental observation, which is that we humans have profound innate similarities. I liked this summary by another author of where I think the recognition of innate human nature leaves us:
"We should not:
Deny the existence of human nature, nor insist that human nature is inherently good, nor that it is infinitely malleable.
Expect to end all conflict and strife between human beings, whether by political revolution, social change, or better education.
Assume that all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning. Some will be, but this cannot be assumed in every case.
We should:
Accept that there is such a thing as human nature, and seek to find out more about it, so that policies can be grounded on the best available evidence of what human beings are like.
Reject any inference from what is 'natural' to what is 'right'.
Expect that, under different social and economic systems, many people will act competitively in order to enhance their own status, gain a position of power, and/or advance their interests and those of their kin.
Expect that, regardless of the social and economic system in which they live most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation.
Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends.
Stand by the traditional values of the left by being on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed, but think very carefully about what social and economic changes will really work to benefit them."
I also thought this was apt:
"Wood carvers presented with a piece of timber and a request to make wooden bowls from it do not simply begin carving according to a design drawn up before they have seen the wood. Instead they will examine the material with which they are to work, and modify their design in order to suit its grain. Political philosophers and the revolutionaries or reformers who have followed them have all too often worked out their ideal society, or their reforms, and sought to apply them without knowing much about the human beings who must carry out, and live with, their plans. Then, when the plans don't work, they blame traitors within their ranks, or sinister agents of outside forces, for the failure. Instead, those seeking to reshape society must understand the tendencies inherent in human beings, and modify their abstract ideals to suit them."
The quotes above are from a short book by Peter Singer, "A Darwinian Left" (1999). Although I do not agree with everything he stands for, I thought those passages were excellent.
Adding my own take on one key point, I would note that Darwin and evolutionary science say not one iota about how things ought to be, only about how they are. It's very hard to know the ultimate source of our values and goals; they are the product in some fashion of our culture, our history, our ideas, and our human nature. But it is neither correct nor desirable to give "human nature" any special status in that list. Where "human nature" matters a great deal is when we contemplate transforming our society. It lets us estimate the chances of success in meeting our goals, allowing us to make wise compromises between what we would like and what is possible.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Local peace vs Global peace
Over the years I have heard a variety of proposals and strategies for achieving a more peaceful and harmonious world. I have worked for some of them, and I can't think of one I have been opposed to. Yet I find myself with some critical thoughts.
Violence covers a spectrum from what goes on between friends and family, up through larger groups to the question of violence between nations. There is a widespread sense that this constitutes a single thing, an aspect of life that calls for a single approach. Between family and friends, within workplaces, within a group such as FUSN, the proper methods to eliminate violence include personal ones. Adopting a more peaceful inner state is important. Teaching nonviolent conflict resolution, learning about appropriate ways to manage anger, and empathy with others' points of views -- all are important.
But people often say that these transformations are the way to work towards nonviolence in the world of international relations. "Peace: Let it begin with me." "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
I disagree. At the level of national and international politics, these are not what matter. The idea of a Department of Peace perplexes me, and I feel ambivalent about the draft UU proposal: "Should the Unitarian Universalist Association reject the use of any and all kinds of violence and war to resolve disputes between peoples and nations and adopt a principle of seeking just peace through nonviolent means?" Does the journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step? Or are we trying to reach the moon by climbing a mountain?
As I left grad school in 1982, I was deeply concerned about the possibility of war, in particular nuclear war between the US and the USSR. In an attempt to take action, I became impressed with the late Randall Forsberg, and worked for her for three years. Randy was a principal author of the Nuclear Freeze, a movement which swept the nation and forced Reagan to take a more peaceful approach to the USSR than he otherwise would have. Randy was a radical, passionately committed to peace and justice, but the Freeze proposal was very moderate: not to forswear all violence or even military action, but simply to stop building new nuclear weapons if the USSR would agree to do the same. Her genius was to find a moderate first step that ordinary folks could embrace. That's the kind of proposal we need to find. The ordinary person is, I am afraid, left scratching his or her head and looking puzzled at those who want to forswear all violence, now.
The way to international peace is by a series of steps in the real world, the peaceful resolution of one conflict, and then perhaps another. With luck, this will transform the world into a place which Americans perceive as somewhat less dangerous, allowing them to consider a less violent posture or solution to the next crisis. Few Americans like war, they just feel it may be necessary to stay safe.
A personal commitment to a more profound nonviolence is useful for the goal of eliminating the (often fairly subtle) violence within FUSN and our own families, but if intended as a way to international peace, it is mostly a distraction.
Violence covers a spectrum from what goes on between friends and family, up through larger groups to the question of violence between nations. There is a widespread sense that this constitutes a single thing, an aspect of life that calls for a single approach. Between family and friends, within workplaces, within a group such as FUSN, the proper methods to eliminate violence include personal ones. Adopting a more peaceful inner state is important. Teaching nonviolent conflict resolution, learning about appropriate ways to manage anger, and empathy with others' points of views -- all are important.
But people often say that these transformations are the way to work towards nonviolence in the world of international relations. "Peace: Let it begin with me." "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
I disagree. At the level of national and international politics, these are not what matter. The idea of a Department of Peace perplexes me, and I feel ambivalent about the draft UU proposal: "Should the Unitarian Universalist Association reject the use of any and all kinds of violence and war to resolve disputes between peoples and nations and adopt a principle of seeking just peace through nonviolent means?" Does the journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step? Or are we trying to reach the moon by climbing a mountain?
As I left grad school in 1982, I was deeply concerned about the possibility of war, in particular nuclear war between the US and the USSR. In an attempt to take action, I became impressed with the late Randall Forsberg, and worked for her for three years. Randy was a principal author of the Nuclear Freeze, a movement which swept the nation and forced Reagan to take a more peaceful approach to the USSR than he otherwise would have. Randy was a radical, passionately committed to peace and justice, but the Freeze proposal was very moderate: not to forswear all violence or even military action, but simply to stop building new nuclear weapons if the USSR would agree to do the same. Her genius was to find a moderate first step that ordinary folks could embrace. That's the kind of proposal we need to find. The ordinary person is, I am afraid, left scratching his or her head and looking puzzled at those who want to forswear all violence, now.
The way to international peace is by a series of steps in the real world, the peaceful resolution of one conflict, and then perhaps another. With luck, this will transform the world into a place which Americans perceive as somewhat less dangerous, allowing them to consider a less violent posture or solution to the next crisis. Few Americans like war, they just feel it may be necessary to stay safe.
A personal commitment to a more profound nonviolence is useful for the goal of eliminating the (often fairly subtle) violence within FUSN and our own families, but if intended as a way to international peace, it is mostly a distraction.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Pinker's "The Blank Slate"
I have just read a book by Steve Pinker call "The Blank Slate". It was written in 2002, so it won't be news to people who follow such things. But I find Pinker's observations on our social condition to be some of the most incisive that I have read.
He treats a series of issues that he identifies as "hot buttons" (politics, violence, gender, children, and the arts). There is a great deal more to the book, but I find those parts the most interesting. I am inspired by Pinker's beliefs here, but it is possible that I am not reflecting his opinions in all respects.
He argues that greater consideration should be put on innate differences than is typical in modern culture when addressing social issues. I will take as an example the idea of innate differences in intelligence among people, though the form of the argument is similar for the other hot button issues:
In the conventional liberal view, all children start with equal intelligence, and given the proper environment we could all emerge as highly intelligent. The liberal view is also that people who disagree with that view should be condemned as racists. Their main reason is that in the past, those with morally repugnant views (such as Nazis) alleged innate differences in defense of racist policies. That is (rightly) an emotionally charged issue, which (understandably) can make it hard to move towards looking dispassionately at what the alternative suggestion actually is.
The alternative view starts with science. Nazis made allegations of innate differences without any evidence, and Cyril Burt faked data to defend his belief in the innate superiority of upper class British children. Real science has shown that those were false. But science has also given overwhelming evidence for the heritability of intelligence (more precisely, for a large chunk of the differences in intelligence between individuals within a group).
But Pinker has no patience for morally repugnant policies. He argues that our moral stance should rest on firmer ground: people all have equal value and must have equal rights and opportunities because they are people, not because they have equal (or even "as good") genetic backgrounds.
While I am impressed by Pinker's analyses, I have also learned over the years to be cautious about accepting any view until I have heard and considered the best arguments that people on the other side of the issue have to offer. My initial efforts to find opposing views on the web did not turn up anything I found very impressive, but I am interested in what others may know.
He treats a series of issues that he identifies as "hot buttons" (politics, violence, gender, children, and the arts). There is a great deal more to the book, but I find those parts the most interesting. I am inspired by Pinker's beliefs here, but it is possible that I am not reflecting his opinions in all respects.
He argues that greater consideration should be put on innate differences than is typical in modern culture when addressing social issues. I will take as an example the idea of innate differences in intelligence among people, though the form of the argument is similar for the other hot button issues:
In the conventional liberal view, all children start with equal intelligence, and given the proper environment we could all emerge as highly intelligent. The liberal view is also that people who disagree with that view should be condemned as racists. Their main reason is that in the past, those with morally repugnant views (such as Nazis) alleged innate differences in defense of racist policies. That is (rightly) an emotionally charged issue, which (understandably) can make it hard to move towards looking dispassionately at what the alternative suggestion actually is.
The alternative view starts with science. Nazis made allegations of innate differences without any evidence, and Cyril Burt faked data to defend his belief in the innate superiority of upper class British children. Real science has shown that those were false. But science has also given overwhelming evidence for the heritability of intelligence (more precisely, for a large chunk of the differences in intelligence between individuals within a group).
But Pinker has no patience for morally repugnant policies. He argues that our moral stance should rest on firmer ground: people all have equal value and must have equal rights and opportunities because they are people, not because they have equal (or even "as good") genetic backgrounds.
While I am impressed by Pinker's analyses, I have also learned over the years to be cautious about accepting any view until I have heard and considered the best arguments that people on the other side of the issue have to offer. My initial efforts to find opposing views on the web did not turn up anything I found very impressive, but I am interested in what others may know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)