What’s the mainstream theory of human nature? Why does Steven Pinker think it’s old-fashioned and, thus, misguided?
Throughout most of the 20th century, the mainstream intellectual view of human nature was that humans are benevolent blank slates, with immaterial souls distinct from their physical bodies. But, according to cognitive psychologist and public intellectual Steven Pinker, this view is mistaken.
Keep reading to learn what the theory is and how it falls short.
The Mainstream Theory of Human Nature
We’ll start by outlining the mainstream theory of human nature that Pinker criticizes. According to Pinker, this theory is composed of three key ideas:
- Empiricism, which says that humans have no innate traits or knowledge
- Romanticism, which says that humans are innately good
- Dualism, which says that the mind is immaterial
Empiricism
The core of the prevailing theory of human nature is empiricism. Pinker explains that, according to this doctrine, humans are a “blank slate” whose psychology and behavior are shaped only by their environment.
This theory—famously trumpeted by 17th-century English philosopher John Locke—holds that any differences between two people are a byproduct of different environments, rather than any traits they’re born with. For example, you might think that some children are naturally agreeable and others are naturally disagreeable, but empiricism claims otherwise: Some children become disagreeable through their environments, while others become agreeable through different environments. For example, children raised by gentle, even-tempered parents might become friendly, while those raised by rude, emotionally volatile parents might become asocial.
According to Pinker, the upshot of empiricism is that any undesirable social conditions—for example, high crime rates, poverty, and illegal substance use—stem from shortcomings in our environment. For instance, high crime rates are considered a byproduct of a flawed society or upbringing, and gender disparities in different careers are blamed on the ways that society treats men and women differently.
Romanticism
Although empiricism is the cornerstone of the mainstream intellectual theory of human nature, Pinker contends that it’s typically accompanied by romanticism. According to romanticism, humans are innately benevolent and altruistic, while our environments are responsible for our unsavory traits, like greed and aggressiveness.
This view, which is most commonly associated with 18th-century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, suggests that individuals who develop free from corruptive societal pressures will remain perfectly good. Pinker reports that, for this reason, romanticism generally opposes authoritarian approaches to government and raising children, since both can corrupt otherwise good-natured people.
Dualism
The third aspect of the mainstream theory of human nature is dualism. Pinker relates that dualism is the view that the body is entirely physical while the mind is entirely non-physical.
Popularized by 17th-century French philosopher René Descartes, dualism implies that the mind can’t be understood using the mechanistic laws of physics, since those laws only apply to physical objects. On the contrary, dualists believe that the mind is an eternal soul that outlives the body and isn’t bound by the laws of nature.
The Alleged Benefits of the Mainstream Theory
Having explored what the three components of the mainstream theory of human nature are, we’ll now examine why this view became mainstream by assessing three of its primary benefits. Academics claim that empiricism provides a strong argument against discrimination, dualism makes a compelling case against determinism, and romanticism makes individual and social progress possible.
Benefit #1: Empiricism Prevents Discrimination and Oppression
Pinker contends that the mainstream view’s first benefit concerns social justice. According to its proponents, this theory of human nature acts as a bulwark against discrimination and oppression because it makes discrimination unfounded.
According to Pinker, proponents’ reasoning behind this view is straightforward: Because empiricism is true, all humans are identical and only differ due to their environments. So, no discrimination is justifiable since we’re all essentially identical. For example, because members of all races are identical at their core, racial discrimination is irrational.
By contrast, if empiricism were false, social scientists worry that discrimination and oppression would be legitimized. For instance, if one racial group scored higher than another on an intelligence test, that would appear to be grounds for discrimination against the group with lower scores. These differences could provide grounds for tolerating oppressive practices because group differences in society could be blamed on inherent differences. For example, wealthy people might not sympathize with the poor, claiming they have inherently less work ethic or competence.
Pinker’s Response
However, Pinker argues that this benefit is moot because discrimination is unjustifiable regardless of whether there are innate differences between people. He explains that discrimination would be unfounded because of the basic moral truth that it’s wrong to judge individuals on the basis of average traits of groups. For example, even if members of one gender committed crimes at a higher-than-average rate, it’d still be prejudiced to make negative judgments about individual members of that gender, since that would amount to condemning people for a trait that they can’t control—in this case, their gender.
Benefit #2: Romanticism Enables Progress
Advocates of the mainstream theory of human nature discuss the benefits of romanticism. According to Pinker, many intellectuals embrace romanticism because it makes individual and social progress possible.
Let’s explore these proponents’ reasoning. To understand the connection between romanticism and progress, imagine that romanticism were false, meaning humans weren’t naturally benevolent and altruistic. If humans instead had a natural predisposition toward (say) greed, violence, and dishonesty, it would appear futile to work toward progress. After all, if society is full of inherently immoral people, any hope of creating a just society seems ill-founded. Likewise, any hope of individual moral progress seems bound to fail.
Pinker’s Response
However, Pinker argues that this line of reasoning stems from a shoddy inference. Contrary to the above argument, Pinker writes that humans don’t have to be incapable of altruism even if they aren’t naturally altruistic. It’s far more reasonable to think that humans are complex beings whose naturally problematic desires are tempered by abilities like self-restraint and reason. Consequently, progress is possible even if romanticism is false since humans can learn to conquer their desires.
Benefit #3: Dualism Explains Free Will
Advocates of the mainstream view also argue that it explains an essential part of human nature: free will. Pinker relates that, according to these advocates, dualism recognizes that we have free will because dualism entails that our actions aren’t bound by deterministic laws of nature.
According to many dualists, if dualism were false, then our minds would be physical objects (likely our brains) governed by the laws of nature. Then, Pinker clarifies, we’d seem to lose the defining feature of free will—the ability to choose otherwise. For example, if a criminal’s decision to rob a bank was predetermined by the laws of nature, it seems that they had to rob the bank, meaning they didn’t act freely. However, if that criminal’s mind were non-physical, their decision to rob the bank wouldn’t have been constrained by the laws of nature, meaning they could’ve acted freely.
Pinker’s Response
Pinker, however, argues that this opposition to determinism hinges on a fallacy—the inference that fully explaining the causes of behavior amounts to showing the behavior wasn’t free. In the case of the bank robber, for example, someone might infer that because the robber’s actions were caused by forces outside their control (such as their genes and environment), their decision to rob the bank wasn’t free.
But Pinker argues that this inference isn’t valid because the alternative is that only unexplained actions can be free. Unexplained actions, however, are byproducts of random chance, and it’s clear that random actions aren’t free—for instance, if all our decisions were the result of a random coin flip, that wouldn’t qualify as free will. Thus, Pinker concludes that free will must be compatible with determinism’s comprehensive explanations of our behavior.
