Repressive Society

[andrewducker]

I believe that people have most of their social functioning built in at a genetic level. I recommend reading Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" or John Gray's "Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and other Animals" for an overview of this take on things.

Because of this, I think that much of people's wants and needs is intrinsically part of them. I believe that most cultures try to funnel these inbuilt feelings in ways which protect the society. We take people's natural feelings on (for instance) sex and teach people that these feelings are wrong, or sick or dirty. Now, sometimes there are good reasons for the social structures to exist, and strong historical causes for them, but the fact remains that they are socially imposed on top of the instincts that people have. Frequently the mismatch causes psychological dysfunction, sometimes of a severe nature.

Now, the more free people feel from cultural pressure, the less attention they will pay to the attempts to change their intrinsic nature. Historically speaking, it has only been possible to be free if you were at the top of the heap - and even then you're obviously raised in the midst of the society and strongly imprinted by it. Look at the behaviour ot the Greeks and Romans at their height, or the nobility of Medieval times. More recently, as the general wealth of the populace has gone up, more and more people have been able to free themselves from their fellow man.

Now, obviously, there's been negative sides to that freeing: not knowing who your neighbours are, a feeling of isolation and anomie, no community culture. Of course, to those people who felt hemmed in by their surrounding society this is a good thing. And without those societal rules holding us back, we're more free to act as we wish and follow our instincts.

Of course, I'm overegging this somewhat - we're all very much influenced by our societies, picking up our basic beliefs and our "starter pack" of morals and tastes from there. But it is startling how much society has changed over the last century. Believe it or not, 100 years ago a woman could be arrested in London for wearing trousers in public. 30 years ago they were still using electroshock therapy to try and cure homosexuals in the UK. Now, both of those ideas seem ludicrous. But they only seem ludicrous because we see other people as independent. And people are much more indepedent nowadays because they can be self-supporting.

Comments

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I haven't read all of Pinker's book, but I've read excerpts and more than one article by him and I'm far from impressed. Not only has no one managed to find any definite proof of genetic determinism of human behavior, but a careful examination of the multitude of human cultures fairly clearly shows that there is a vast possible diversity of ways that humans can related to one another. Factors that influence this include technology, groups size, cultural norms, environment, and possibly genetics.

However, saying that most or even any significant portion of human social behavior is genetically determined is currently a statement of belief that has no basis in fact. If this were not true, then we would most certainly not be adaptable enough to have the truly astounding range of human cultures all be lasting and functional.

Also, arguments about genetic determinism of human behavior are almost never politically neutral - many (if not most) such arguments eventually devolve down to either an attempt to prove that modern Euro-American Society is in some way the most "natural" way for humans to live (especially in terms of supporting some form of bigotry or inequality currently found in Euro-American Culture)

Also one fact that dismays me most with the vast majority of arguments about genetic determinism of human behavior is that the proponents know next to nothing about cultures very different from their own. There was a book published 15 or so years ago called Human Universals where some anthropologists compiled and discussed all of the truly universal human behaviors they could find. The list is not terribly long.

One topic I've followed quite closely has been arguments about genetic determinism of sexual preference. Any cross-cultural study at all clearly reveals that that any genetic contribution to sexual preference is at best very small. Rates of homosexuality in various cultures are vastly different.

For other info on that particular topic, Take a look at thissite - click on the various articles listed under Critiques of "Gay Gene" Studies.

Similar critiques exist for all of the other claims about genetic determination of behavior. An analysis of the political history of such claims (which are clearly connected to the Eugenicist movement of the late 19th and early 20th century) is also useful.