Here you will find a summary of my DNL philosophy class in english related to “politics”, including such notions as the State, Justice, Freedom, Society.
Why is life so complicated for humans
We can divide all the animal reign in two categories: solitary and social animals. Among the social species we find humanity of course, but also ants, bees, wolves, chimpanzés, etc.. Let’s start with insect societies, like anthills and beehives. Here individuals are fully devoted to the group. the real being is not the individual, it is the group. An ant, or a bee has no difficulties to sacrifice itself for the group. The consciousness of their own individuality is closed to zero. In that case we are talking about a social instinct.
It is very important to distinguish instinct and urges or impulses so that we can understand the specificity of human societies compared to insect ones. An instinct is much more than a simple urge. An urge, is the impulse that pushes the animal to make a move. Hunger, thirst, sexual desire are examples of urges. An instinct is an hereditary response to that impulse, an automatical behavior, a mechanical behavior that is triggered in order to fulfill the needs. this video of a fish building its net is a very good example to understand the difference between simple natural urges (here sexual impulse) and complex natural instincts (the building of the net).
If we want to understand the specificity of human societies, we first have to understand this: insect societies do NOT need laws and constitution, and States, and chiefs, because their societies are ruled by their instincts. But we, humans, are not ruled by instinctive behaviors ! Our behaviors do not rest on instinctive mechanisms. We are not ruled by our nature. We have to set up our own rules in order to live a society life ! We are FREE from instincts. And this is the core of human freedom: humans need to rule themselves !
Every society is based on cooperation. The final aim of that cooperation is to persevere in the existence, to stay alive. Every society implies, consequently, an organisation, and the submission of every individual to that organisation.
That submission is not a problem in insect societies, because the individuals have no consciousness of their own being. They are fully devoted to the group.
That submission is much more complicated for social animals with a big brain that bring them a consciousness of the self. In that case, the social behavior is not anymore instinctive, mechanical. They have to choose what they want to do. Here arises what Immanuel Kant named the unsocial sociability.
Unsocial sociability of humans
We are humans, living in societies. Every human that has lived on this earth so far lived in a society. But this evidence is also a problem. Our societies are not peaceful. They are also related to conflict, exploitation, oppression and even annihilation. Just take a look to the history of the last centuries, and you will notice slavery, slaughter, genocide, violent social conflicts, dictatorship, discrimination and so on. No animal is more organized than we are. None is more violent ! Here remains a mystery, and the first step we will take is to understand what we mean exactly when we say that we are social animals.
Freud has a very special theory about human nature. In this text he says basically that violence and aggressiveness are natural to humans, and that love, kindness, affection, are not natural to us, but only cultural, a product of civilization. Deep inside our pulsions are completely anti-social. The core of ourselves is mean, very mean, oriented not only towards egoism, but towards sadism. The intimate desire of humans is related to exploitation, torture, rape, and murder.
If we don’t show this true nature of us to the others, and even to ourselves, it is because education forced us to refrain it so deeply that it is, in most of us, unconscious. Our conscience has been educated, through culture, in order to repell in the depths of our psychology this evil monster. That’s why Franz de Wall calls this theory the veneer theory. Culture is like a veneer that covers and contains our true awful nature.
Freud gives examples, but they are not very convincing: whether we think about the soldiers of Gengis Khan, the soldiers of World War two or one, the soldiers of the crusade, none of them used violence in order to express their inner nature. At the contrary, they did it so because they were forced (WW2 or WW1) or strongly invited to BY the main institutions of their time ! So the examples do not show an innate violence, but a violence build by society, education, orders… and this is no natural violence, but a cultural one. What does science says about that ? As Spinoza said, every living species persevere in its existence because it developed a way to do so. This idea is one of the main thesis of Darwinism, the theory of evolution. As a consequence, if we find a tendency in human nature, this tendency must have brought to our species a natural advantage to persevere in its existence. That is why we must eliminate the point of view of Freud: The idea of Freud is not relevant: we have no predominant “sadistic” urge inside our nature. It is not deniable that we have a problem with violence, as shows our history. But we don’t have a predominant appetite for violence. Actually, our violence is not due to an innate sadistic tendency, but to an innate and very strong appetite for power. Humans are power hungry.
And two centuries before biologists, a philosopher, Hobbes, depicted this appetite for power. We have a strong impulse to be at the top of the social organization, and that is the reason why this organization take the form of a pyramid. Why do we all crave for power ? Because of three passions : competition, difidence, and the appetite for glory. Humans are not sadistic, they are in competition with the others, and this competition may burst into violent actions. Humans are not sadistic, they fear their fellow men, and that fear may burst into violent actions. Humans are not sadistic, they want to be loved and admired, and desire may burst into violent action. Those three passions are not firstly related to an appetite for violence, but to the desire to persevere in their existence, as Spinoza said.
Mankind's goodness
The beginning here, is the same : We are humans, living in societies. Every human that has lived on this earth so far lived in a society. But the way Spinoza analyses this fact is very different from Freud and Hobbes’s point of view. Social life is based on cooperation, and this cooperation helps one and another to fulfill their needs. Specialization improves our everyday life. I, as an individual, wouldn’t be able to fill efficiently my needs if I lived alone in nature. So many things to do ? At the contrary, living in a society, I am not alone anymore, and I can rely on the work and abilities of my fellow citizen. Physicians, bakers, policemen, teachers, drivers, etc, etc… I am surrounded by dozens of people who, because of their activity, better my own life.
Spinoza is not an idealist. He perfectly knows that there is a lot of truth in what Hobbes says about the appetites of men and their tendency to competition, diffidence, appetite for glory. But he refuses to confine human nature to these antisocial dispositions. We are really deeply able to join our forces.
Primatology asserts clearly that our nearest cousins (Chimpanzees and Bonobos) are not only “red in tooth and claws”. They are not only determinated by a sellfish inclination which drives them to use frequently violence. He gives many examples that prove the existence of a strong pro-social inclination. For example they help wounded fellows or elders that are to weak to feed themselves. Actually those animals are driven by two contradictory inclinations: a selfish one, and a pro-social one. De waal insists that the second one – the prosocial – is essential to the perpetuation of those species. “getting along with others is a critical skill because survival chances outside the group are dismal”.
Here after I invite you to watch this video that prooves that many animals have a tendency to empathy and reciprocity.
Specificity of human societies : we are political animals
Finally, are we good, or bad ? The answer of Kant is… neither and both. Actually, it is a question of education. Men have urges, as every animal does. Men have prosocial urges, like every social animal does, and he has also a sellfish tendency. Kant found a very interesting expression to summarize that: the unsocial sociability of our species.
The central issue here is education. Education has three pilars: nurture, discipline and instruction.
1) Nurture is essential for our species because human babies are weak being, and they need to be taken care of for a very long time. Biologistes call this neoteny: if you compare a human baby with a baby giraffe : a few minutes after its birth, the baby giraffe walks… and it takes two years for a baby boy or girl. We are weak. But this is also our strength: we are weak because we have a brain that takes time to mature.
2) the second step is discipline: We have to learn the rules in order to behave ourselves. Discipline turns the little child’s savagery into human nature. Animals don’t need discipline because they are mastered by their instinct. Man is the only free being, because his urges are not driven by instinctive regulation. We have to learn how to rule ourselves, and its starts with the learning of discipline. Parents educate their child by imposing him prohibitions (“this you can do”, “this you cannot”). Hence discipline teaches the difference between good and bad, allowed and prohibited. Discipline helps us to move from nature to culture, from minority to majority, from savagery to responsibility.
3) finally comes instruction: the child learns to think, developp his intelligence.
The final result of instruction is citizenship, explained by Aristotle. Once we become adults, we are able to interrogate the norms, laws, and values that were transmitted to us. Mankind is endowed with the faculty of speech. Our voice is not like the voice of animals. Animals don’t speak, they produce sounds and are able to communicate emotions, and if they feel good or bad. They can also warn their fellows of a danger.
But they are not able to interrogate the value of their actions. Is what I did fair… or unfair ? Is what I did good… or bad ? Humans are able to make the difference and that is the reason why we are political animals: moreover, thanks to the words, we are able to exchange our ideas, to debate, and to reach a common agrement. Hence, it’s our responsibility to determine the laws that everyone should follow to become one united and peacefull community. We are the only true political animals.
All free and equals ?
This text is one of the most important for us this year. The key word here is the verb “to rule”. Animals are ruled, according to Rousseau. They are ruled by instinct and we explained that previously (see session 1). But humans are not. We are not ruled by nature. We have to rule ourselves. That is the reason why Rousseau draws a sharp line that differentiate humans and animals. Animals may be domesticated and submitted to the will of a man, because they are not free anyway. But a human being cannot be legitimately submitted by another one, because it would destroy his humanity. To be human is to be free. Take away his freedom to a human, and you’ll take away his humanity. Rousseau has been one of the first thinkers to argue against slavery. Slavery is barbarian because the essence of human nature is human freedom and the consciousness of this freedom. To deny this is to degrade human nature. It is a crime against humanity.
Does it mean that humans know what to do with their freedom ? No, answers Rousseau. “a man deviates from the rule of nature often to his detriment.” Humans drink to much, eat to much, humans are tempted by their desires, that is true. And nevertheless, it doesn’t justify the denial of human freedom. And what if a human attacks another one ? Shouldn’t we deprive him from is liberty, put him in jail ? Yes, of course, in that case, we shall imprison him, but not in the name of the victim. The criminal should be imprisoned in the name of the common law, made to protect his freedom as much as the freedom of the others. The only law that is just, according to Rousseau, is what he calls the “general will”. If the law is the expression of a king’s choice, it is not just, but arbitrary. The only good laws must be the expression of the general will of all the citizens. Only in this way a society is really democratic.
Locke is very closed to Rousseau on th.at point: lets imagine a situation where there is no State, there are no laws, every human is alone in the nature. He calls this situation “the state of nature”. Well, this situation, says Locke, would be a situation of complete freedom. This situation must be recognized also as a situation of complete equality of rights. The basis of the political theory of J. Locke is here: men are free in the state of nature, and if we want to build a good and fair political community, we will have to preserve the natural freedom of every human involved in this community.
As a consequence, if I live in an unjust society, where the laws are not made for the common good, where some humans are deprived of their basic rights, it is my natural right to rebel against the authority.
Why would we need a State ?
The definition of the State Weber gave to us is one of the most famous definition of the State. The State is an institution that is able to rule a country because it claims for itself the legitimate use of violence in the limits of a determined territory.
Let’s analyse the definition of the State item by item. First the State is not the society. A State is an institution that overlooks the society and imposes laws on this society. The key word here is the expression “rule of law”. The State enforces the laws, and henceforth creates order and peace in the society. But how can it create that ? Because it concentrates in its hands the “monopoly of physical force”. The laws are respected because if someone doesn’t and if the State finds out, this person will be forced to respect the laws and eventually punished.
But the monopoly of violence is not sufficient. The State needs that all the individuals of the society accept its authority. It needs to be recognized as the legitimate enforcer of the law. It is important here to make a clear distinction between legality and legitimacy. Legality defines the domain of laws. Legitimacy defines the face that the citizen recognize the domination of the State. The power of the State then is recognized as the authority. [/su_spoiler][su_spoiler title=”When there is no need for a State to enforce the law: The Guayakis” icon=”arrow-circle-1″] Pierre Clastres is a French Anthropologist who studied a South American people, the Guayakis. They are a people who lived in the tropical forest, in groups of a few dozens of individuals. Their social order is anarchic. They don’t have a chief, they are under no domination. There is a chief of the village, actually, but he has no power, no right to use violence. There is no State, no structure of domination, because the chief doesn’t possess “the legitimate use” of violence.
But these societies are not lawless. At the contrary, traditions are very important, and every individual behavior has to stay in the limits of what tradition allows. Isn’t it strange ? No chief, no violence, and nevertheless the social order is solid ! The clue is here: in these societies, there are strong beliefs in a spiritual order. Spirits of the forest, and of the ancestors are believed to be natural forces. Actually, those people are placed under a very strong rule of laws: the rule of traditions.
Main political ideologies
Itt fully accepts the capitalist system of production and emphasize on freedom and formal equality. Every one should be set free to do whatever he or she wants. Equality is fundamental, but only formal equality, that is to say equality of rights. The same rights for everyone and all the social inequalities that result from this point of departure are fair. The State must play a role of guardian of social peace. Police, army, a system of justice are the only fundamental institutions of the State. The taxes must be strongly limited to what is strictly necessary in order to fund this minimal State.
Strength: it emphasizes freedom. It sets free cupidity and so liberates the human energy. “Get rich or die trying” (50 cents).
Limits: it focuses on formal equality but has no concern about material inequality.
It is a reformist movement. It recognizes capitalism (the private property of the means of production) as the basis of the productive system. It accepts the “party” logic, and participate to the political game, trying to win the elections and to govern the State. Its mains goal is to have a tight control of the capitalist system, specially though an important tax system on the benefits. This taxes are meant to permit a social redistribution of the national wealth through public education and social welfare. The State power goes far beyond police, army, and justice system. Education, Welfare, must be public and funded by an important level of taxes. Inequality is permitted, but maintained in tight limits, so that it benefits to everybody, and specially the poorest. In a few words, social-democracy is capitalism accepted but tightly regulated by redistribution.
Strength: it is operational. It doesn’t imply a revolutionary transformation of society.
Limits: accepting capitalism is accepting the huge economical power of the owners of the means of production, and the risk that eventually this power could take real control of politics.
As anarchism, it is a revolutionary way of seeing the society. It tends to abolish the State and the private property of the means of production in order to reorganize entirely the society. The main difference between anarchism is that it doesn’t believe in the capacity of individual and spontaneous gatherings and organization to conduce this revolution. Communists constitute a political party in order to win power and use the centralized State to change entirely its structures. Communism intends to liberate the people from its alienation, its submission, but asserts that it is possible only through an interim period of dictatorship of the proletariat. This dictatorship will be necessary to create a communist society and destroy the capitalist structure of society. Violence is inevitable because of the resistance of the owners who will intend to stop the revolution.
Strength: communism is potentially very powerfull because of its party organization.
Limits: USSR is a good example. Dictatorship of the proletariat could extend indefinitely in a simple dictatorship that forgets its social project, like Stalinism did.
As communism it is a revolutionary ideology. It tends to abolish the State and the private property of the means of production in order to reorganize entirely the society. It would become an aggregation of self organized communities freely built by the voluntary gathering of individuals. And instead of submitting to a State, these communities would gather together in a federation of communities. The idea is to eliminate every kind of oppression. This change implies a workers and farmers revolution: the people must get rid of the ancient system of domination, get rid of the State. This revolution have to remain a global revolution, without any Party to lead it and organize it. Anarchism refuses political parties because it refuses power itself. Anarchism is not specially non violent. It refuses organized violence, but advocates for direct action and general strike.
Strength: horizontal movement, respecting every individual, refusing domination.
Limits: organization. For example, if an anarchist community is confronted to a State with an army hierarchically organized, what is its resistance capacity ?