What constitutes bad behavior? Can one point to some sort of behavior and
say, yes, people should not behave that way?
How about violence? Is violence
immoral, per se? The biologist, Robert Sapolski,[1] cites violence
as an example of a behavior one thinks as immoral, but upon reflection, recognizes
that people pay to see it – prize fighting, cage fighting, American style
football, etc. – and judge it to be not only good, but a source of honor.
Yes, there is,
along with good violence, bad violence.
Generally, the bad type includes those instances when violent acts,
outside competitive arenas, hurt other people.
Even there, there are exceptions – violence conducted in self-defense –
but such violent acts should be avoided. There are various social theories or
models that claim humans are prone to violence.
Even Sigmund Freud, in his model, states violence or aggression to be a
basic human drive. Sapolski is
interested in the biology involved with this behavior, suggesting there is a
natural angle to violence.
He supports that
claim; that there is a natural basis for human violence, aggression, and
competition. Of course, any cursory review
of history would find recurring instances of violence. The wars, the violent crimes, the domestic
abuse, and the school yard bullying seem to plague generation after generation. There is no hope that a future will find the
way to avoid such events.
Another
writer, Jonah Goldberg,[2] makes
the argument that this bent toward violence and aggression is the natural
disposition people have for each other, particularly if the perpetrator sees
the victim as being a “them,” a member of another group. That other group can be another family,
another neighborhood, another state, another country, another race, another
class, another religion, on and on. He attributes
the establishment of institutional peace as “The Miracle;” the miracle emanating
from the development of capitalism – it allowed for win-win interactions
between and among humans.
One person has
an apple and wants money; another person has money and wants an apple. Capitalism allows an exchange – win-win – instead
of either party – usually the bigger party – slapping the other to attain
either the money or the apple wanted – win-lose. That institutional means – which usually
takes on a much more complex form – was extensively developed in the 1700s. Yes, there was trade before, but during that
century trade, production, and distribution took on its modern form and that
form is known as capitalism.
But there is another side to that
coin. People hurt one another, but they
also care for one another and that care need not be based on a person being
part of the “us.” And writers from the same
1700s, such as Francis Hutchinson and Thomas Reid, saw this inclination as also
being natural. Original versions of
natural rights or natural liberty were based on an ability or freedom to pursue
this “natural” disposition.
Helping others was/is recognized as
causing good feelings. Hence, and from
another eighteenth century writer, John Locke, one can determine people will
seek that pleasure, since all behavior is motivated by the seeking of pleasure. One can postulate, that more “friendly”
disposition leads to the civility or, at least, civic behavior that allows
markets to exist and flourish.
This writer is a former faculty
member at a state university. That
tenure had the opportunity of hearing the then provost of the university, a
natural scientist by training, say that the social sciences should count more
on natural science literature. He
reported on just reading some social science study that made some claim that was
standard fare in the biological field.
His point: any cursory review of
that biological literature would have already made the point being “discovered”
in the study.
Well, this writer has taken the bait
and his biological guru – given his interests – is Sapolski. And what does that biologist have to convey
given the above topic? Here is a
sampling:
[Y]ou can’t begin to understand
things like aggression, competition, cooperation, and empathy without biology …
But just as important, second, you’re just as much up the creek if you rely only on biology … [T]hird point … it
actually makes no sense to distinguish between aspects of a behavior that are
“biological” and those that would be described as, say, “psychological” or
“cultural.” Utterly interwind … [H]uman
behavior … is indeed a mess, a subject involving brain chemistry, hormones,
sensory cues, prenatal environment, early experience, genes, both biological
and cultural evolution, and ecological pressures, among other things.[3]
Yes, a mess indeed, but one that needs to be studied. For some, this is not a drudgery, but an
exciting adventure. Civics’ teacher-preparation
programs should ask of those who are about to enter the profession of teaching
secondary students such concerns: Does
this stuff excite you?
[1] Robert M.
Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
(New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2017).
[2] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West: How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism,
Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York,
NY: Crown Forum, 2018).
[3] Robert M.
Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst,
4-5 (Kindle edition). Emphasis in the
original.
No comments:
Post a Comment