| THE INTEGRITY PAPERS | Genre Group - Buchanan | ceptualinstitute.com |
COMER Columns
Articles published in "Economic Reform"
the Journal of the 'Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform'COMER Column #8 Vol. 13, No. 4, April 2001.
Systems and Human Nature
Most people have some practical understanding of human nature - perhaps incomplete, but usually adequate for their own particular purposes. Something more than this is required for wise social and economic policy and the management of public affairs.
Notions about human nature do not loom large in the thinking of most economists. They do appear as notions of rational man, on the one hand, and the irrational exuberances of fear and greed that move markets on the other. In the absence of a more comprehensive or systems approach it is perhaps difficult to reconcile such views, yet they surely are but aspects of a larger picture, one that includes the relation of economics to human life and its values.
While most professions see their purposes and ultimate justification in relation to the benefit to individuals and society, many economists seem to see their role as service to states and corporate entities on behalf of abstract notions of "economic man" applying theories not adequately grounded in facts of human existence. To this extent they overlook the realities of human need, and of the challenges and responses which are the real engines of societies. (I am generalizing to make a point; there are unquestionably many thinkers in economics to whom these criticisms will not apply!)
A systems approach is first of all comprehensive in its search for relevant evidence - and is not content with data that merely happens to be available. Moreover the systems criteria for relevance must be in terms of needs, objectives and results. Much economic thought, in contrast, is driven by ideology or special interests, where what is relevant is seen as what serves those interests. The result of serving many masters in this way is a certain fragmentation and failure of understanding. Economists often profess great uncertainty in the face of onrushing events and too often conceal ignorance with mere tautological explanations (e.g. "the market turned up because it had bottomed"). Certainly the realities of human nature are complex and difficult. But they do powerfully affect the goals and methods of economics.
Sometimes factors which are outside our usual range of attention are actually more important than those we keep in focus. It is worth considering some of these hazards.
For instance, it is human nature to be sometimes satisfied and ruled by simplistic myths. The function of a myth is to offer an explanation, which allows the continuation of attitudes and practices which are supported by the myth. Many widely accepted myths have been and continue to be useful, but some are very damaging. The belief in man as an incarnation of divine rights who has been given dominion over the earth is still with us. When such inherited habits and beliefs are treated as sacrosanct ideals, not open to question, problems will follow as the night the day. So all myths need to be open to evaluation.
Another example: The notion of human nature as shaped entirely by competitive struggle for basic survival threatens to increase risks for all of us. The reality is that human societies are shaped and maintained by cooperative attitudes that are also part of human nature. Arbitrary beliefs of whatever kind will always put obstacles in the way of communication and
social cooperation.
With respect to myths to live by, we may have choices - although conscious choice requires that we understand our own beliefs, options and consequences. For example, to assume that human nature is evil, i.e. that destructive traits are inherent, may rob us of possible choices and be a self-confirming prophecy, with potentially tragic consequences. Destructive behaviours may be the result of learning and therefore subject to preventive measures; there is some obligation by society and/or its agents to ascertain what may be the case. But to assume that change is not possible is self-defeating and leads to social strife. It is within human capacities to learn to recognise such problems and learn new ways of coping. But a broad and inclusive perspective is always needed.
Human nature is seen by the sciences of man as grounded in biology, nurtured and developed in family life, organised in complex ways, but also evidencing integrative and creative capacities. Moreover, human existence is more complex and subtle than we ordinarily perceive; there are always realities that escape our explanations. While some insist on looking for absolute answers, such an attempt must fail, since absolute truths are not within human powers to discern. What can make a decisive difference for survival, however, are existential factors e.g. resourcefulness in the face of uncertainty, integrity of purpose, and the vitality and courage needed to manage and overcome anxiety.
It is far from clear that science has established correct answers to the most important questions concerning human nature. There are a variety of contenders for a theory of human nature, each with different implications. We may consider two major contenders - (1) Sociobiology; and (2) Social (or Radical) Constructivism.
(1) Sociobiology: Harvard Professor Edward O. Wilson in various publications (1) has taken the view, based in the sciences of biology, that objective truth is possible and that the underlying order of the world is being revealed, but only through the natural sciences. Wilson represents those who would see the answers to all questions as flowing from scientific inquiry. On this view, human nature and society is grounded entirely in the material world as pictured by science, and we can know of what this consists.
(2) Radical Constructivism: A systems oriented view sees science not as ultimately self-sufficient, but subject to all the conditions and limitations of human thought and perception, and in important ways a creative human accomplishment. Proponents of this view include the cyberneticists von Foerster, Maturana ("Everything that is said is said by somebody"), and others. George Soros probably belongs to this group.
According to this view, each individual constructs his or her own understanding of self and the world on the basis of inborn capacities as these develop through experience in and of the world. Moreover, the views we have of the world, and of the people in it, while based upon real experiences, cannot be more than "constructions" or working models. The world "in itself" we cannot know directly.
In summary, most scientists tend to see the world as existing "out there", "as it really is", quite independent of human perception. On the other hand, for constructivists the deeper reality is that human beings are part of a larger picture, and make a creative contribution to the world as they perceive and adapt within the larger encompassing whole, the outer boundaries of which lie beyond our view.
A constructivist view of human nature includes all the possibilities of science, but allows for more, and avoids any final judgment. From both a systems and an ethical perspective, an open system is to be preferred, since it allows for more options, and is sensitive to feedback, permitting responsibility for choices made.
At least we may realise that appeals to fear and greed, or to pleasure and prestige, are far from an adequate account of the shape or impact of human nature on economic life. Certainly human nature has its superficial aspects, like waves on the ocean. The concerns of an adequate economics will be more radical, and consider the currents beneath.
References
(1) E.O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Knopf (1998)
Note: For readers who may be interested in a reasonably authoritative summary of Cybernetics, systems science and constructivist epistemology, a new review by Heylighen and Joslyn for the Encyclopaedia of Physical Science & Technology may be found at:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Cybernetics-EPST.pdf