- Home
- Government
- Anthropolitics: a treatise on the relationship between government policy and human nature
Anthropolitics: a treatise on the relationship between government policy and human nature
- By Robert DePaolo
- Published 09/22/2009
- Government
- Unrated
Anthropolitics: a treatise on the relationship between government policy and human nature
ANTHROPOLITICS:
A Treatise on the Relationship between
Government Policy and Human Behavior
By Robert DePaolo
Abstract
The following article purports to develop parallels between political systems and human nature, and more specifically to consider whether it would be possible for a system of government to coincide so closely with the human psyche as to maximize creativity, productivity and social equanimity. This article does not argue for the possibility, let alone the creation of a “Utopia,” in part because conflict, imperfections, dissonance and duress are, despite their negative connotations, prerequisite to the human need for closure. It does draw parallels between human nature and politics, specifically in terms of existing governmental forms.
____________________________
One would think it axiomatic that government systems, which after all, were created by human beings, would coincide with the functions of the human psyche, and that rather than featuring persistent conflict among and within nations, history would have been a more harmonious process. Obviously, such is not been the case. This is most clearly discernible by the fact that, while human nature has many features, history has produced only a few governmental forms. To an extent those forms probably reflect something about human nature, since, after all, they were created by people, but perhaps not enough to completely coincide with who we really are, what we really need and to what sets of circumstances we most enthusiastically respond.
Trying to conceive of a political system based on around human behavioral traits, ie. a homocentric system would be difficult under any set of circumstances, and particularly so during the times when current systems were devised, prior to advent of behavioral science.
Yet the intellectual quest to find parallels between politics and human nature was always in play. For example John Locke’s notion of a social contract described man as a tabula rasa, or blank slate, whose ultimate fate would be determined by learning. That idea not only gave impetus to the American concept of a meritocracy but also became the fundamental premise behind behavior theory, as developed through the research and writing of Pavlov, Skinner, Spence and Clark Hull during the early and middle twentieth century.
Beyond that, Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on human nature, particularly regarding the issues of race and intelligence. Indeed he had a rather lively written debate with French philosopher Comte de Buffon over the question of European “ethnic superiority.”
Interestingly enough, Buffon’s argument was that climate and geography are prime determinants of human intelligence and adaptability. To Jefferson’s astonishment, Buffon argued that all the inhabitants of North America, including its people lived in a faulty, excessively dry climate and unyielding terrain that could only produce inferior flora, fauna and people.
Others were concerned with the juxtaposition of government on human nature. For example Voltaire’s writings on politics were often quite anthro-political as well. In commenting on the American Revolution, he suggested that the normal prototype human social structure consisted of small groups, and that any attempt to build a large, diverse entire nation built on an egalitarian foundation would lead to the rise of factions and ultimately fail. Meanwhile Benjamin Franklin proposed a theory of evolution that was not quite as comprehensive as that of Darwin, Wallace or Huxley but reflected his desire to think in terms of the relationship between government and human nature as well.
Unfortunately, political models were typically developed, not in an intellectual context but in response to urgencies, threats and economic pressures. Also, to the extent that trying to manage vast numbers of people with diverse interests in any given culture is a complex matter, simple systems were needed to make life comprehensible (as occurred with the Anglo-Saxon creation of common law).
Still, one of the challenges faced by all nations and cultures over time, seems to have been the search for a political system that could both accommodate and inspire, both rein in and liberate individuals and groups. In more concise terms, discovering a means by which to inhibit and excite the masses in proper proportion so as to maximize productivity and minimize discord. Despite the various motivations behind Marxism, Capitalism, Democracy and Socialism, that process might, as well as anything else, describe the quintessential pattern in human history.
Political Evolution
A multi-disciplinary glance at human history suggests that political forms evolved over time, from systems that were essentially “primate” to those that were based more on laws and egalitarian concepts – in other words from dominance to reason. Kings were the original alpha males, ruling at times wisely, at other times whimsically and always to some extent, pragmatically. Since even kings needed soldiers, workers and representatives to make the nation-state go, there was a practical need to please more than himself. In that sense, the sheer complexity of human society, even dating back to the early Sumerian settlements, created a natural checks and balances system on the monarchy. It also left the door open to oppression against those who weren’t all that “necessary,” or who, by their actions could be deemed counterproductive with respect the
needs of the kingdom.
Over time the alpha male (monarchic) format yielded diminishing returns, and ironically, led to numerous insurgencies. This is not surprising. Having one central figure made the monarch a central target, leaving no possibility of a dispersion of anger among the people. Thus a king, despite his ostensible power, had to be very good, very likeable or very controlling to survive. This was true even within the fledgling Hebrew nation. For example, a book written by the prophet/guardian Samuel entitled “The Regulations on Kingship” was in effect, an early constitution limiting the powers of King Saul. Somehow, inherently, people have always found it unreasonable that one person could be wise enough to decide on behalf of an entire nation, even with the blessing of bishops and popes.
The length of this article precludes going into depth with regard to historical progressions. Suffice it to say, monarchies were always a tentative proposition. As a result it wasn’t long before the Greeks, early observers of the hits and misses of the Egyptian empire, created an entirely new emphasis – the state, which they regarded as a spiritual entity. To them it was the state that protected people, fostered cultural advancement and provided a defense against one’s enemies. Therefore, despite their proto-democratic leanings, the Greeks espoused (as Socrates demise demonstrated) that state sovereignty supersede the importance of either the individual or any specific group.
Ironically the trend toward statism began in Athens and over time it too ran into difficulties; in part because the idea of “the state” is an abstraction, and intended to be so by the spiritual Greeks who, in the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition, were more interested in abstract, ethereal forms than concrete experience. Yet it eventually became clear that the idea of a state in the abstract cannot address the experience of the people, other than by some sort of summary process, e.g the greater good, the general will or the commonwealth. As a result more modifications occurred, for example through compromise doctrines as purveyed by Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.
Machiavelli felt, in accord with Athenian tradition, that the state was so important to human welfare that “The Prince” should have considerable latitude in how he dealt with the political matters. He insisted that while forcing the people to pay higher taxes would benefit the state, it would ultimately benefit the people as well. As with the Greeks, Machiavelli’s thesis was too abstract and theoretical to address the concrete here-and-now experiences of commoners. His rationale that there could be no tyranny, only net-reciprocity between the state and the people was a miscalculation subsequently repeated by George III prior to the American Revolution.
Recognizing the need for a major revision, Thomas Hobbes took it one step further without abandoning the notion of statism. He believed commoners were important and that their trials and tribulations should be factored into the political equation. He also felt people needed to be protected and nurtured, and that only government could do that. Thus his concept of the Leviathan was big government personified. Yet Hobbes took it one step further, and perhaps unintentionally created a populist revolution that was a first step on the road to modern democracy. Rather than insisting people simply let government run the show, as had Machiavelli, he proposed that people voluntarily assign government a protective role, as though waiving their rights in a quasi-contractual arrangement so that government could work to their benefit. The contractual element implied in Hobbe’s thesis was not purveyed out of the goodness of his heart. It was the invention of a gadget which in his own words “enabled the weakest to kill the strongest” that forced his hand. The gadget he was the handgun, the technological “mother of necessity” creating the urgent need for populist politics. (This might explain the fervent association in modern times between the right to bear arms and the concept of freedom). In effect, Hobbes was espousing a model by which to acknowledge commoners without giving them any real power.
John Locke on the other hand, had no qualms about fomenting outright social revolution or a populist influence on government. He felt a more substantial revision was required, specifically by viewing the relationship between the individual and the state as contractual, with no room for waivers, ifs, ands or buts. Describing it as a bold initiative might be an understatement. It was more of a Pandora’s box.
In contract law, certain elements are required, including a clear understanding of the terms by both parties (a meeting of minds) a performance element, whereby both parties are expected to carry out certain activities to the benefit of the other, a compensation element clarifying what each should be paid or what service they should be provided, and a time frame, indicating when the desired outcome would be reached.
Most modern democracies purport to be Lockian, though varying degrees of statism still exists in many socialist-democratic societies. The USA is arguably the purest Lockian entity, yet even its foundation has been altered at various times, for example during periods of social unrest, economic decline or in times of war. Since Jefferson and Madison were Lockians Americans should be able to witness into perpetuity, a nation built upon the four elements mentioned above. Whether or not American history will actually play out that way is another question. In any event, having described in brief terms the process of political evolution, it might now be appropriate to compare those systems with some facets of human nature to determine how closely they match up.
Homo Sapiens
First, it is, and has always been extremely hard to define human nature, but that doesn’t mean the task is impossible, particularly if one begins with a solid foundation. Due to the depth and complexities of Psychoanalytic theory, which included evolutionary, social, moral, developmental and emotional themes one can turn to Freud for guidance. His central thesis was that the human animal was, like all systems and organisms in nature, primarily constructed for purposes of obtaining and maintaining energy reserves. With that as a pivot point Freud went on to say that the mechanisms used to orchestrate the expenditure and conservation of psychic energy were the id (which provides the energy, albeit in the context of primal behaviors), the superego (which is less concerned with energy dynamics than with social/moral probity and is arguably ergonomically inefficient), and the ego (which moderates the ongoing battle between the two, and ensures that the social probity required in organized societies can co-exist with and the id-fomented energy needed for creativity in all its forms).
Freud’s description of the psyche was based on the driving force of conflict. In anthro- political terms, that would mitigate against the possibility of anything resembling Utopia or even long standing happiness in either human society or in individual minds. It also argues against the notion of the state as the best arbiter of human need.
Without completely accepting the Freudian thesis, I’d like to propose a somewhat derivative theory that encompasses not just nature, society and morality but also the neurological complexity of the human brain. Here too, conflict is seen a driving force but in slightly different terms.
A Paradigm/Paradox of Human Nature
Taking into consideration the emotional, social, evolutionary and neuro-behavioral aspects of human behavior might lead one to consider that we are a walking, talking paradox. For example, due to our primate-hierarchical roots we tend to be competitive. That makes the capitalist format in free market societies seem on-point with regard to our essential makeup. On the other hand, due also to the ultra-social roots of primate and human evolution we are also deferential and cooperative by nature – which might provide comfort to the socialists. Beyond that we are, once again due to our evolutionary origins, hierarchical by nature. Movie stars, leaders, alpha males and females – we’d be lost without them. On the other hand, the broad extension of human skills and roles needed to sustain complex societies, and human intelligence itself (which favors self aggrandizement, invention, cunning and plotting) often leads us to overthrow leaders, seek weaknesses in our alpha-persons, and to harbor the feeling that all of us are just a roll of the dice away from reaching alpha status ourselves.
Beyond that, we seem to be both aggressive and compassionate, in need of individual achie
vement and status (in part because status leads to mating opportunities in the primate and human world) and in need of group affiliation (which aids in both individual and group survival). We are a habitual species, for whom change can produce considerable duress. Yet we are also exploratory creatures constantly in need of change. In effect the same animal that remains in his home despite earthquake threats or fires is also inclined to travel to the moon.
Those conflicting aspects of human nature are just the tip of the iceberg. For example we are both spiritual and pragmatic, at once praying for the cure of a loved one and seeking science-based medical treatment for the same purpose. We seek security yet we also seek dissonance so we can resolve it in a somewhat incongruous, two-sides of-the-same-coin experiential sequence. As Leon Festinger has suggested we seem to need both confusion and resolution because the nature of information dynamics mandates that one cannot exist without the other.
We are also familial. Due to a genetic predisposition to protect the local gene pool we tend to treat strangers different than family. On the other hand we are often altruistic beyond tribal parameters, as exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth, Abraham Lincoln and more recently, a group of young Jewish civil rights workers en route to the American south proved half a century ago. Finally we are both moral and immoral, espousing fidelity while often lapsing into acts of infidelity.
If human nature consisted merely of an ongoing dialectic of opposite traits we’d probably be intellectually and emotionally stagnant creatures incapable of creating anything resembling art, politics, science, law and faith. Obviously there’s more to us than that. The question is, what entity (analogous to Freud’s modulating ego) resolves those paradoxical traits and enables us to do all the wondrous things we do? I would like to suggest that such an entity resides and operates within the neural configurations of the human brain, particularly the cerebral cortex.
A Binary Balancing Act
One needn’t go into great detail about brain function to discuss how the brain deals with conflict. Two factors provide all the information needed. First, for all its complexity, the brain has two kinds of neuronal patterns; excitation and inhibition. That means it is essentially binary, with stop and go functions either allowing or disallowing impulses to pass through to adjacent circuits. Without that mechanism we’d be unable to discriminate between objects and people or to summon any sort of coordinated behavior - not exactly what God or Darwin had in mind. A binary system asks… which of two possibilities in the correct choice. It is always reactive and can only operate in response to a question. Therefore the human brain can never be in fixed states of happiness or security. It can only feel the pleasure derived from conflict resolution. That in turn suggests mankind’s social equanimity depends on having problems to solve, issues to discuss, explorations and discoveries on which to embark. Thus a homocentric society equates with an intellectually robust society.
The second factor is proportionate aggregation. This refers to the fact that clusters of neurons must be brought together to perform certain functions. For instance to speak, we must activate auditory, vocal-motor, gestural-motor and ideational (associative) circuits in the brain. In order to do this requires some mechanism by which to apportion influence among these circuits to create the desired outcome. If, for example, the auditory circuit was predominant, others would certainly be able to hear what we say but it might be somewhat loud and the ideas conveyed within the language would be muted or fragmented. If, on the other hand, the circuits providing ideas were enhanced beyond proportion, we might be ready to say profound things but perhaps in a voice too cacophonous for others to understand.
So the brain is both a binary instrument and an apportioning instrument. The dual tendencies to seek and resolve questions, and to apportion experience permeates all we do and ultimately seeps into our thought process, our moral codes, our social behavior – and our politics.
A Homocentric Government
Based on the above theoretical conclusions, it might be possible to discuss, in a purely academic context what a homocentric political system might entail. First, let’s toss out the notion of Utopia. As discussed above, humans need conflict because it precedes the resolution-seeking that is both a cause and an effect of our large brain and vast intellect. In fact, a human-friendly political system would actually provide conflict, albeit reasonable, resolvable conflict where people could and should be challenged to the threshold of their abilities.
Thus if a Utopian were to say, “People are struggling, dissatisfied, unhappy and feel pressured. Our system is not working and we need to eliminate discontent”…the anthro-political scientist might reply, “Dissatisfaction is only a bad thing if it cannot be rectified by the individual’s own skills and motivations. In other words, don’t complain unless you are rendered helpless.” By the same token, a homocentric government would be able to systematically define the parameters of helplessness and be prepared to provide either skills training or support to those who lack capacity.
Second, let’s toss out the notion of elitism. It turns out Jefferson and Locke were quite right in that respect, while Hobbs, Machiavelli and Nietszche were at best presumptuous. The people are capable of self governance. Whether or not one believes they are endowed with inalienable rights, they are most certainly endowed with a cerebral cortex that enables, indeed implores them to sniff out extremes, make moral judgments and decide on their own fate based on a questioning, apportioning mechanism within the central nervous system. That doesn’t mean all people are balanced thinkers, but if one takes into account the population as a whole, the vast majority, on whom society hangs it hat, will have that capability.
That same capacity for proportionate thinking lends support to the idea that the relationship between citizen and government might best be contractual. A contract is an agreement based on proportion. Both parties understand the terms, agree to the terms, are required to engage in some sort of action with pre-specified outcomes. Both benefit from the contract, and either can void the contract or seek remedy when the other party refuses to comply with the terms. A social contract is a resolution with a binary antecedent, to wit: who should decide on matters of importance in people’s lives, the state or the people and in what proportion?
With regard to governmental policies that has broad ramifications, both for social unrest and for social equanimity. If, for example taxation is viewed in a Lockian context, then mere representation is not enough. To simply say congressman X was elected by the people, and voted for tax proposal Y as part of his responsibility does not comprise anything like a contract. For it to be contractual, the reason for the tax, the outcome of the tax increase (say to help reduce poverty or improve educational achievement) the benefit to the citizen as a party in the contract (for example that the tax will improve education which will benefit the citizens’ children or community) must be stipulated up-front. It must then be evaluated, as per some pre-determined time frame, to see if the outcome is the one desired by both parties as per the initial agreement. If it is not: if, say, education results are not as projected, the citizen (s) should have the right to declare the tax, ie. the contract null and void. As radical as it might seem, a homocentric system would hold that people can stop paying specific taxes or portions of taxes if the terms and/or outcomes are not met or achieved by government.
Obviously that’s easier said than done. Making governmental actions part of a contractual process would be complicated, requiring pristine and lengthy communication between both parties. Yet over time, such a process might be generally perceived as fair and proportionate, perhaps ultimately leading to a more trusting, possibly even communal outlook by citizens.
Social Competition
Meanwhile, the need to ascend the pecking order – the hierarchical social imperative as it were - must be factored into the equation. Here, however a free society runs into difficulties. For those aspiring unsuccessfully to ascend the hierarchy life will become frustrating. Frustration typically leads to aggression. Criminal behavior, fomented by lack of status within the group will proliferate. Therefore, only by a constant emphasis on facilitating achievement, pursuit and realization of goals, can this trend be ameliorated.
That means the education and vocational environments must be broad and fruitful, suiting the talents and desires of as many people as possible according to the normal distribution of abilities (another inexorable factor in human nature) as opposed to advocating that everyone go to college.
Control
As Martin Seligman, Daniel Berlyne and countless others have suggested, a binary and apportioning brain with a closure seeking instinct has an inborn need for control. Thus the human need for control must also be factored into the political equation. In simple terms, when behavior leads to positive feedback, it is an exalting experience. Conversely, when behavior yields no results or when positive outcomes are provided in the absence of behavior, apathy, depression and general social anomie can result. Thus, as Freud maintained, work is crucial. Everyone must work because it is consonant with human nature to do and then receive. That in turn suggests a close correlation between human nature and the implementation of a true, honest and solid meritocracy.
This extends to economic concerns. Ideally there would be a sustainable, healthy tension between buyer and seller, so each feels some degree of control over product, price and use. Helplessness either on the part of the businessman or consumer will lead to an economic decline and remove the impetus for growth and improved living conditions that otherwise result from optimism fueled by a sense of control over one’s circumstances.
Finally, as exploratory creatures, we require resolution, which can come in many forms, both helpful and destructive. Creating a climate encouraging the search for new vistas, inventions and ideas is crucial. Indeed a homocentric political system would encourage and/or support such endeavors regardless of whether or not they provide economic or practical benefit. Concrete benefit per se is not the point. In line with Jefferson’s rather interesting phrase, pursuit of happiness, nothing inherent in politics rules out an existential responsibility on the part of the state. Arguably any society that does not feed the intellectual appetite of its citizens will set the stage for self-created dissonance, which could take the form of diffuse oppositionalism, paranoia and social disengagement. In other words, given the human need for conflicts to resolve, the old saw… idleness is the devil’s workshop might apply. Exploration is what took our predecessors out of the forest into the grassland and out into the cosmos. Therefore “the quest” is self-explanatory, self-evident, self sufficient and potentially pro-social and patriotic. In other words, conflict is as given. Whether it is manifest as irritability or fascination has a lot to do with the existing socio-political system.
The aspects of brain and behavior discussed here imply that a nation need not define itself as being “free” to please and inspire the people. The system merely has to be honestly, fairly and reciprocally contractual. No decisions without consultation, a meeting of minds, prescribed outcomes, mutual benefit and responsibilities within the framework of the agreement. While emotionally liberating and in line with American tradition, the word freedom is abstract, and can be proffered hypocritically and whimsically. Conversely a contractual format is concrete, holds all parties to their agreement, leads to observable results, creates a forum for nullification and presumes that both parties are on equal footing from the outset.
Arguably, no society has quite met Locke’s standard, let along Jefferson’s notion of a government of “first grade purity.” Representation government is certainly convenient but it entails the possibility of loopholes, ambiguity and opportunities for deception. Furthermore, nothing in it necessarily espouses a code of honor. As discussed above, it is not humanly possible to conjure up a perfect society. On the other hand continued evolution along the lines espoused by Locke, the framers and researchers in the behavioral and brain sciences toward an even more anthro-political format might in the future make life a bit easier for us all.
____________________________________________
REFERENCES
Berlyne, D.E. (1978) Curiosity and Learning, Motivation and Emotion (2) 97-115
Buffon, Georges-Louis Leclerc. Comte de. (2000). Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Biography. H.W. Wilson Co
Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, (1957) Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press.
Freud, S. Civilization and its Discontents and Other Essays (reissue edition) Random House 1994.
Gay, P. (1959) Voltaire’s Politics: The Poet as a Realist. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Thomas Hobbe’s Leviathan, 1998) Edited by JCA Gastin, Oxford Press
Hull, C.L. (1943) Principles of Behavior. New York, Appleton-Century Crofts.
Locke, J. (1963) The Second Treatise on Civil Government, In Somerville, J & Santoni, R (Eds) Social and Political Philosophy. New York, Anchor Books p. 169
Machiavelli, N. (1967) Discourses of the First Ten Books of Titus Livius. In Seldes, G (ed) The Great Quotations. New York. Pocket Books p. 70
Pavlov, I.P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiology of the Cerebral Cortex. Oxford University Press.
Seligman, M. (1998) Learned Optimism: New York. Knopf (reissue edition)
Spence, K. (1960) Behavior Theory and Learning; Selected Papers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall.
Todd, J.T, Morris, E.K. (1995) Modern Perspectives on B.F. Skinner and Contemporary Behaviorism. Greenwood Press.
Vitek, J.L. (2002) Mechanisms of deep brain stimulation; excitation or inhibition. Interscience. Vol. 17 (3) 69-72
Notes: Buffon’s critique of America’s “continental inferiority” was as follows: “America has not yet produced one good poet, mathematician or genius in art or science”…to which Jefferson replied: “When we shall exist as a people as long as the Greeks before they produced a Homer, the Romans, a Virgil, the French a Racine or a Voltaire, the English, a Shakespeare or a Milton, should this reproach still be true, we will inquire from what unfriendly causes it has proceeded, that the other countries of Europe and other quarters have not inscribed any in the roll of poets.” In DePaolo, R. (2004) American Evolution,: The Origin, Flaws and Promise of a Unique Society. Eclectic Books.
A Treatise on the Relationship between
Government Policy and Human Behavior
By Robert DePaolo
Abstract
The following article purports to develop parallels between political systems and human nature, and more specifically to consider whether it would be possible for a system of government to coincide so closely with the human psyche as to maximize creativity, productivity and social equanimity. This article does not argue for the possibility, let alone the creation of a “Utopia,” in part because conflict, imperfections, dissonance and duress are, despite their negative connotations, prerequisite to the human need for closure. It does draw parallels between human nature and politics, specifically in terms of existing governmental forms.
____________________________
One would think it axiomatic that government systems, which after all, were created by human beings, would coincide with the functions of the human psyche, and that rather than featuring persistent conflict among and within nations, history would have been a more harmonious process. Obviously, such is not been the case. This is most clearly discernible by the fact that, while human nature has many features, history has produced only a few governmental forms. To an extent those forms probably reflect something about human nature, since, after all, they were created by people, but perhaps not enough to completely coincide with who we really are, what we really need and to what sets of circumstances we most enthusiastically respond.
Trying to conceive of a political system based on around human behavioral traits, ie. a homocentric system would be difficult under any set of circumstances, and particularly so during the times when current systems were devised, prior to advent of behavioral science.
Yet the intellectual quest to find parallels between politics and human nature was always in play. For example John Locke’s notion of a social contract described man as a tabula rasa, or blank slate, whose ultimate fate would be determined by learning. That idea not only gave impetus to the American concept of a meritocracy but also became the fundamental premise behind behavior theory, as developed through the research and writing of Pavlov, Skinner, Spence and Clark Hull during the early and middle twentieth century.
Beyond that, Thomas Jefferson wrote extensively on human nature, particularly regarding the issues of race and intelligence. Indeed he had a rather lively written debate with French philosopher Comte de Buffon over the question of European “ethnic superiority.”
Interestingly enough, Buffon’s argument was that climate and geography are prime determinants of human intelligence and adaptability. To Jefferson’s astonishment, Buffon argued that all the inhabitants of North America, including its people lived in a faulty, excessively dry climate and unyielding terrain that could only produce inferior flora, fauna and people.
Others were concerned with the juxtaposition of government on human nature. For example Voltaire’s writings on politics were often quite anthro-political as well. In commenting on the American Revolution, he suggested that the normal prototype human social structure consisted of small groups, and that any attempt to build a large, diverse entire nation built on an egalitarian foundation would lead to the rise of factions and ultimately fail. Meanwhile Benjamin Franklin proposed a theory of evolution that was not quite as comprehensive as that of Darwin, Wallace or Huxley but reflected his desire to think in terms of the relationship between government and human nature as well.
Unfortunately, political models were typically developed, not in an intellectual context but in response to urgencies, threats and economic pressures. Also, to the extent that trying to manage vast numbers of people with diverse interests in any given culture is a complex matter, simple systems were needed to make life comprehensible (as occurred with the Anglo-Saxon creation of common law).
Still, one of the challenges faced by all nations and cultures over time, seems to have been the search for a political system that could both accommodate and inspire, both rein in and liberate individuals and groups. In more concise terms, discovering a means by which to inhibit and excite the masses in proper proportion so as to maximize productivity and minimize discord. Despite the various motivations behind Marxism, Capitalism, Democracy and Socialism, that process might, as well as anything else, describe the quintessential pattern in human history.
Political Evolution
A multi-disciplinary glance at human history suggests that political forms evolved over time, from systems that were essentially “primate” to those that were based more on laws and egalitarian concepts – in other words from dominance to reason. Kings were the original alpha males, ruling at times wisely, at other times whimsically and always to some extent, pragmatically. Since even kings needed soldiers, workers and representatives to make the nation-state go, there was a practical need to please more than himself. In that sense, the sheer complexity of human society, even dating back to the early Sumerian settlements, created a natural checks and balances system on the monarchy. It also left the door open to oppression against those who weren’t all that “necessary,” or who, by their actions could be deemed counterproductive with respect the
needs of the kingdom.
Over time the alpha male (monarchic) format yielded diminishing returns, and ironically, led to numerous insurgencies. This is not surprising. Having one central figure made the monarch a central target, leaving no possibility of a dispersion of anger among the people. Thus a king, despite his ostensible power, had to be very good, very likeable or very controlling to survive. This was true even within the fledgling Hebrew nation. For example, a book written by the prophet/guardian Samuel entitled “The Regulations on Kingship” was in effect, an early constitution limiting the powers of King Saul. Somehow, inherently, people have always found it unreasonable that one person could be wise enough to decide on behalf of an entire nation, even with the blessing of bishops and popes.
The length of this article precludes going into depth with regard to historical progressions. Suffice it to say, monarchies were always a tentative proposition. As a result it wasn’t long before the Greeks, early observers of the hits and misses of the Egyptian empire, created an entirely new emphasis – the state, which they regarded as a spiritual entity. To them it was the state that protected people, fostered cultural advancement and provided a defense against one’s enemies. Therefore, despite their proto-democratic leanings, the Greeks espoused (as Socrates demise demonstrated) that state sovereignty supersede the importance of either the individual or any specific group.
Ironically the trend toward statism began in Athens and over time it too ran into difficulties; in part because the idea of “the state” is an abstraction, and intended to be so by the spiritual Greeks who, in the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition, were more interested in abstract, ethereal forms than concrete experience. Yet it eventually became clear that the idea of a state in the abstract cannot address the experience of the people, other than by some sort of summary process, e.g the greater good, the general will or the commonwealth. As a result more modifications occurred, for example through compromise doctrines as purveyed by Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.
Machiavelli felt, in accord with Athenian tradition, that the state was so important to human welfare that “The Prince” should have considerable latitude in how he dealt with the political matters. He insisted that while forcing the people to pay higher taxes would benefit the state, it would ultimately benefit the people as well. As with the Greeks, Machiavelli’s thesis was too abstract and theoretical to address the concrete here-and-now experiences of commoners. His rationale that there could be no tyranny, only net-reciprocity between the state and the people was a miscalculation subsequently repeated by George III prior to the American Revolution.
Recognizing the need for a major revision, Thomas Hobbes took it one step further without abandoning the notion of statism. He believed commoners were important and that their trials and tribulations should be factored into the political equation. He also felt people needed to be protected and nurtured, and that only government could do that. Thus his concept of the Leviathan was big government personified. Yet Hobbes took it one step further, and perhaps unintentionally created a populist revolution that was a first step on the road to modern democracy. Rather than insisting people simply let government run the show, as had Machiavelli, he proposed that people voluntarily assign government a protective role, as though waiving their rights in a quasi-contractual arrangement so that government could work to their benefit. The contractual element implied in Hobbe’s thesis was not purveyed out of the goodness of his heart. It was the invention of a gadget which in his own words “enabled the weakest to kill the strongest” that forced his hand. The gadget he was the handgun, the technological “mother of necessity” creating the urgent need for populist politics. (This might explain the fervent association in modern times between the right to bear arms and the concept of freedom). In effect, Hobbes was espousing a model by which to acknowledge commoners without giving them any real power.
John Locke on the other hand, had no qualms about fomenting outright social revolution or a populist influence on government. He felt a more substantial revision was required, specifically by viewing the relationship between the individual and the state as contractual, with no room for waivers, ifs, ands or buts. Describing it as a bold initiative might be an understatement. It was more of a Pandora’s box.
In contract law, certain elements are required, including a clear understanding of the terms by both parties (a meeting of minds) a performance element, whereby both parties are expected to carry out certain activities to the benefit of the other, a compensation element clarifying what each should be paid or what service they should be provided, and a time frame, indicating when the desired outcome would be reached.
Most modern democracies purport to be Lockian, though varying degrees of statism still exists in many socialist-democratic societies. The USA is arguably the purest Lockian entity, yet even its foundation has been altered at various times, for example during periods of social unrest, economic decline or in times of war. Since Jefferson and Madison were Lockians Americans should be able to witness into perpetuity, a nation built upon the four elements mentioned above. Whether or not American history will actually play out that way is another question. In any event, having described in brief terms the process of political evolution, it might now be appropriate to compare those systems with some facets of human nature to determine how closely they match up.
Homo Sapiens
First, it is, and has always been extremely hard to define human nature, but that doesn’t mean the task is impossible, particularly if one begins with a solid foundation. Due to the depth and complexities of Psychoanalytic theory, which included evolutionary, social, moral, developmental and emotional themes one can turn to Freud for guidance. His central thesis was that the human animal was, like all systems and organisms in nature, primarily constructed for purposes of obtaining and maintaining energy reserves. With that as a pivot point Freud went on to say that the mechanisms used to orchestrate the expenditure and conservation of psychic energy were the id (which provides the energy, albeit in the context of primal behaviors), the superego (which is less concerned with energy dynamics than with social/moral probity and is arguably ergonomically inefficient), and the ego (which moderates the ongoing battle between the two, and ensures that the social probity required in organized societies can co-exist with and the id-fomented energy needed for creativity in all its forms).
Freud’s description of the psyche was based on the driving force of conflict. In anthro- political terms, that would mitigate against the possibility of anything resembling Utopia or even long standing happiness in either human society or in individual minds. It also argues against the notion of the state as the best arbiter of human need.
Without completely accepting the Freudian thesis, I’d like to propose a somewhat derivative theory that encompasses not just nature, society and morality but also the neurological complexity of the human brain. Here too, conflict is seen a driving force but in slightly different terms.
A Paradigm/Paradox of Human Nature
Taking into consideration the emotional, social, evolutionary and neuro-behavioral aspects of human behavior might lead one to consider that we are a walking, talking paradox. For example, due to our primate-hierarchical roots we tend to be competitive. That makes the capitalist format in free market societies seem on-point with regard to our essential makeup. On the other hand, due also to the ultra-social roots of primate and human evolution we are also deferential and cooperative by nature – which might provide comfort to the socialists. Beyond that we are, once again due to our evolutionary origins, hierarchical by nature. Movie stars, leaders, alpha males and females – we’d be lost without them. On the other hand, the broad extension of human skills and roles needed to sustain complex societies, and human intelligence itself (which favors self aggrandizement, invention, cunning and plotting) often leads us to overthrow leaders, seek weaknesses in our alpha-persons, and to harbor the feeling that all of us are just a roll of the dice away from reaching alpha status ourselves.
Beyond that, we seem to be both aggressive and compassionate, in need of individual achie
Those conflicting aspects of human nature are just the tip of the iceberg. For example we are both spiritual and pragmatic, at once praying for the cure of a loved one and seeking science-based medical treatment for the same purpose. We seek security yet we also seek dissonance so we can resolve it in a somewhat incongruous, two-sides of-the-same-coin experiential sequence. As Leon Festinger has suggested we seem to need both confusion and resolution because the nature of information dynamics mandates that one cannot exist without the other.
We are also familial. Due to a genetic predisposition to protect the local gene pool we tend to treat strangers different than family. On the other hand we are often altruistic beyond tribal parameters, as exemplified by Jesus of Nazareth, Abraham Lincoln and more recently, a group of young Jewish civil rights workers en route to the American south proved half a century ago. Finally we are both moral and immoral, espousing fidelity while often lapsing into acts of infidelity.
If human nature consisted merely of an ongoing dialectic of opposite traits we’d probably be intellectually and emotionally stagnant creatures incapable of creating anything resembling art, politics, science, law and faith. Obviously there’s more to us than that. The question is, what entity (analogous to Freud’s modulating ego) resolves those paradoxical traits and enables us to do all the wondrous things we do? I would like to suggest that such an entity resides and operates within the neural configurations of the human brain, particularly the cerebral cortex.
A Binary Balancing Act
One needn’t go into great detail about brain function to discuss how the brain deals with conflict. Two factors provide all the information needed. First, for all its complexity, the brain has two kinds of neuronal patterns; excitation and inhibition. That means it is essentially binary, with stop and go functions either allowing or disallowing impulses to pass through to adjacent circuits. Without that mechanism we’d be unable to discriminate between objects and people or to summon any sort of coordinated behavior - not exactly what God or Darwin had in mind. A binary system asks… which of two possibilities in the correct choice. It is always reactive and can only operate in response to a question. Therefore the human brain can never be in fixed states of happiness or security. It can only feel the pleasure derived from conflict resolution. That in turn suggests mankind’s social equanimity depends on having problems to solve, issues to discuss, explorations and discoveries on which to embark. Thus a homocentric society equates with an intellectually robust society.
The second factor is proportionate aggregation. This refers to the fact that clusters of neurons must be brought together to perform certain functions. For instance to speak, we must activate auditory, vocal-motor, gestural-motor and ideational (associative) circuits in the brain. In order to do this requires some mechanism by which to apportion influence among these circuits to create the desired outcome. If, for example, the auditory circuit was predominant, others would certainly be able to hear what we say but it might be somewhat loud and the ideas conveyed within the language would be muted or fragmented. If, on the other hand, the circuits providing ideas were enhanced beyond proportion, we might be ready to say profound things but perhaps in a voice too cacophonous for others to understand.
So the brain is both a binary instrument and an apportioning instrument. The dual tendencies to seek and resolve questions, and to apportion experience permeates all we do and ultimately seeps into our thought process, our moral codes, our social behavior – and our politics.
A Homocentric Government
Based on the above theoretical conclusions, it might be possible to discuss, in a purely academic context what a homocentric political system might entail. First, let’s toss out the notion of Utopia. As discussed above, humans need conflict because it precedes the resolution-seeking that is both a cause and an effect of our large brain and vast intellect. In fact, a human-friendly political system would actually provide conflict, albeit reasonable, resolvable conflict where people could and should be challenged to the threshold of their abilities.
Thus if a Utopian were to say, “People are struggling, dissatisfied, unhappy and feel pressured. Our system is not working and we need to eliminate discontent”…the anthro-political scientist might reply, “Dissatisfaction is only a bad thing if it cannot be rectified by the individual’s own skills and motivations. In other words, don’t complain unless you are rendered helpless.” By the same token, a homocentric government would be able to systematically define the parameters of helplessness and be prepared to provide either skills training or support to those who lack capacity.
Second, let’s toss out the notion of elitism. It turns out Jefferson and Locke were quite right in that respect, while Hobbs, Machiavelli and Nietszche were at best presumptuous. The people are capable of self governance. Whether or not one believes they are endowed with inalienable rights, they are most certainly endowed with a cerebral cortex that enables, indeed implores them to sniff out extremes, make moral judgments and decide on their own fate based on a questioning, apportioning mechanism within the central nervous system. That doesn’t mean all people are balanced thinkers, but if one takes into account the population as a whole, the vast majority, on whom society hangs it hat, will have that capability.
That same capacity for proportionate thinking lends support to the idea that the relationship between citizen and government might best be contractual. A contract is an agreement based on proportion. Both parties understand the terms, agree to the terms, are required to engage in some sort of action with pre-specified outcomes. Both benefit from the contract, and either can void the contract or seek remedy when the other party refuses to comply with the terms. A social contract is a resolution with a binary antecedent, to wit: who should decide on matters of importance in people’s lives, the state or the people and in what proportion?
With regard to governmental policies that has broad ramifications, both for social unrest and for social equanimity. If, for example taxation is viewed in a Lockian context, then mere representation is not enough. To simply say congressman X was elected by the people, and voted for tax proposal Y as part of his responsibility does not comprise anything like a contract. For it to be contractual, the reason for the tax, the outcome of the tax increase (say to help reduce poverty or improve educational achievement) the benefit to the citizen as a party in the contract (for example that the tax will improve education which will benefit the citizens’ children or community) must be stipulated up-front. It must then be evaluated, as per some pre-determined time frame, to see if the outcome is the one desired by both parties as per the initial agreement. If it is not: if, say, education results are not as projected, the citizen (s) should have the right to declare the tax, ie. the contract null and void. As radical as it might seem, a homocentric system would hold that people can stop paying specific taxes or portions of taxes if the terms and/or outcomes are not met or achieved by government.
Obviously that’s easier said than done. Making governmental actions part of a contractual process would be complicated, requiring pristine and lengthy communication between both parties. Yet over time, such a process might be generally perceived as fair and proportionate, perhaps ultimately leading to a more trusting, possibly even communal outlook by citizens.
Social Competition
Meanwhile, the need to ascend the pecking order – the hierarchical social imperative as it were - must be factored into the equation. Here, however a free society runs into difficulties. For those aspiring unsuccessfully to ascend the hierarchy life will become frustrating. Frustration typically leads to aggression. Criminal behavior, fomented by lack of status within the group will proliferate. Therefore, only by a constant emphasis on facilitating achievement, pursuit and realization of goals, can this trend be ameliorated.
That means the education and vocational environments must be broad and fruitful, suiting the talents and desires of as many people as possible according to the normal distribution of abilities (another inexorable factor in human nature) as opposed to advocating that everyone go to college.
Control
As Martin Seligman, Daniel Berlyne and countless others have suggested, a binary and apportioning brain with a closure seeking instinct has an inborn need for control. Thus the human need for control must also be factored into the political equation. In simple terms, when behavior leads to positive feedback, it is an exalting experience. Conversely, when behavior yields no results or when positive outcomes are provided in the absence of behavior, apathy, depression and general social anomie can result. Thus, as Freud maintained, work is crucial. Everyone must work because it is consonant with human nature to do and then receive. That in turn suggests a close correlation between human nature and the implementation of a true, honest and solid meritocracy.
This extends to economic concerns. Ideally there would be a sustainable, healthy tension between buyer and seller, so each feels some degree of control over product, price and use. Helplessness either on the part of the businessman or consumer will lead to an economic decline and remove the impetus for growth and improved living conditions that otherwise result from optimism fueled by a sense of control over one’s circumstances.
Finally, as exploratory creatures, we require resolution, which can come in many forms, both helpful and destructive. Creating a climate encouraging the search for new vistas, inventions and ideas is crucial. Indeed a homocentric political system would encourage and/or support such endeavors regardless of whether or not they provide economic or practical benefit. Concrete benefit per se is not the point. In line with Jefferson’s rather interesting phrase, pursuit of happiness, nothing inherent in politics rules out an existential responsibility on the part of the state. Arguably any society that does not feed the intellectual appetite of its citizens will set the stage for self-created dissonance, which could take the form of diffuse oppositionalism, paranoia and social disengagement. In other words, given the human need for conflicts to resolve, the old saw… idleness is the devil’s workshop might apply. Exploration is what took our predecessors out of the forest into the grassland and out into the cosmos. Therefore “the quest” is self-explanatory, self-evident, self sufficient and potentially pro-social and patriotic. In other words, conflict is as given. Whether it is manifest as irritability or fascination has a lot to do with the existing socio-political system.
The aspects of brain and behavior discussed here imply that a nation need not define itself as being “free” to please and inspire the people. The system merely has to be honestly, fairly and reciprocally contractual. No decisions without consultation, a meeting of minds, prescribed outcomes, mutual benefit and responsibilities within the framework of the agreement. While emotionally liberating and in line with American tradition, the word freedom is abstract, and can be proffered hypocritically and whimsically. Conversely a contractual format is concrete, holds all parties to their agreement, leads to observable results, creates a forum for nullification and presumes that both parties are on equal footing from the outset.
Arguably, no society has quite met Locke’s standard, let along Jefferson’s notion of a government of “first grade purity.” Representation government is certainly convenient but it entails the possibility of loopholes, ambiguity and opportunities for deception. Furthermore, nothing in it necessarily espouses a code of honor. As discussed above, it is not humanly possible to conjure up a perfect society. On the other hand continued evolution along the lines espoused by Locke, the framers and researchers in the behavioral and brain sciences toward an even more anthro-political format might in the future make life a bit easier for us all.
____________________________________________
REFERENCES
Berlyne, D.E. (1978) Curiosity and Learning, Motivation and Emotion (2) 97-115
Buffon, Georges-Louis Leclerc. Comte de. (2000). Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Biography. H.W. Wilson Co
Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, (1957) Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press.
Freud, S. Civilization and its Discontents and Other Essays (reissue edition) Random House 1994.
Gay, P. (1959) Voltaire’s Politics: The Poet as a Realist. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Thomas Hobbe’s Leviathan, 1998) Edited by JCA Gastin, Oxford Press
Hull, C.L. (1943) Principles of Behavior. New York, Appleton-Century Crofts.
Locke, J. (1963) The Second Treatise on Civil Government, In Somerville, J & Santoni, R (Eds) Social and Political Philosophy. New York, Anchor Books p. 169
Machiavelli, N. (1967) Discourses of the First Ten Books of Titus Livius. In Seldes, G (ed) The Great Quotations. New York. Pocket Books p. 70
Pavlov, I.P. (1927) Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiology of the Cerebral Cortex. Oxford University Press.
Seligman, M. (1998) Learned Optimism: New York. Knopf (reissue edition)
Spence, K. (1960) Behavior Theory and Learning; Selected Papers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall.
Todd, J.T, Morris, E.K. (1995) Modern Perspectives on B.F. Skinner and Contemporary Behaviorism. Greenwood Press.
Vitek, J.L. (2002) Mechanisms of deep brain stimulation; excitation or inhibition. Interscience. Vol. 17 (3) 69-72
Notes: Buffon’s critique of America’s “continental inferiority” was as follows: “America has not yet produced one good poet, mathematician or genius in art or science”…to which Jefferson replied: “When we shall exist as a people as long as the Greeks before they produced a Homer, the Romans, a Virgil, the French a Racine or a Voltaire, the English, a Shakespeare or a Milton, should this reproach still be true, we will inquire from what unfriendly causes it has proceeded, that the other countries of Europe and other quarters have not inscribed any in the roll of poets.” In DePaolo, R. (2004) American Evolution,: The Origin, Flaws and Promise of a Unique Society. Eclectic Books.
Robert DePaolo
MS Clinical Psychology, author of five books and many articles on psychology, politics, science and religion, President of Film Making Company, Media Milestones
View all articles by Robert DePaolo