Please, if you'd be so kind as to R&R this essay, I'd appreciate it. There are appropriate citations as well, but I really didn't feel like doing all the coding that would be needed to post them and have them look correct. If you really want to see my citations, PM me.
The Nature of the Human Species
indentWhen Charles Darwin first published On the Origin of Species in 1859, the world was shocked and outraged at the thought that humans could be somehow related to such lesser beasts as apes. After all, aren’t we as humans far more advanced than the common beasts? After all, we use them to do work for us. Surely, this must indicate that we’ve become better than common animals. Well, as human beings, we may not be as advanced as we would like to think. In fact, deep down in the dark corners of the ancient mammalian brain lurk instincts that evolution hasn’t quite managed to shed yet. So, the question must be asked: in a state of nature, what instincts would human beings show? What are our most basic motivations? Throughout history, it has become clear that at least part of our natural instinct, if not the whole of it, is for humans to be in a constant state of conflict. In fact, human beings are all members of a vast, complex “pack” where the goal is to become the alpha – the leader of the pack, by fighting all the way to the top.
indentThe idea that human beings are in a constant state of conflict was not a strange one to the ancient Greeks. In fact, Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War gives not only a clear view of this war-like tendency among humans, but also of our attempt as humans to pretend that war is glorious, rather than simply a part of our essential nature. In “Peracles’ Funeral Oration” for example, Peracles, an Athenian citizen, states that “steadfastness in his country’s battles should be as a cloak to cover a man’s other imperfections; since the good action has blotted out the bad.” (Thucydides, 11) Later on in his speech, he describes the death of a cowardly man as “immeasurably more grievous than the unfelt death which strikes him in the midst of his strength and patriotism!” (Thucydides, 12) From these statements, it is clear that war should be viewed as glorious, rather than just something instinctual. Rather than glorifying conflict as a part of human nature, Peracles glorifies it as a means to preserve and celebrate the Athenian society.
indentHowever, later on in his history, Thucydides describes a very different view of warfare when he recounts the events that occur during the Melian Conference. At this conference, the Athenians have sent envoys to the island of Melos to try to convince them to ally themselves with Athens. If the Melians refuse, the Athenians are already in place for an invasion. During this conference the Athenians, who seemed in Peracles’ speech to value war only as a means to protect their culture, repeatedly say that it is their right to make war on the weaker island of Melos simply because they are more powerful. According to Thucydides, the Athenian envoys inform the representatives of Melos that in the case of war “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” (14) In other words, a person, group, or nation has the right to take whatever they can, as long as they are able to hold onto it. When they are not speaking to their own people, the Athenians seem to have a very different idea – and probably a more accurate one, as well – of what warfare is truly about.
indentA more modern example of this human tendency towards conflict can be found in the writing of W.E.B. Du Bois. In “Of Our Spiritual Strivings” from The Souls of Black Folk, Du Bois examines conflict on two different levels. First, of course, there is the conflict between African Americans and Caucasian Americans, and the struggle over equality. But Du Bois sees a deeper, more essential conflict at work behind this more obvious one. This second conflict occurs within each African American person: a fundamental struggle between being black and being American. Du Bois describes it as having “two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.” (54) It is clear that Du Bois, like Thucydides, understands that it is human to be in conflict, but Du Bois’ perception of the form this conflict takes is very different from Thucydides. Du Bois understands that a human tendency to conflict doesn’t need to mean open warfare between men. Often, the conflict that we recognize the least is our own internal war.
indentAnother classic example of this human tendency towards conflict can be found in William Golding’s book, Lord of the Flies. On the surface, this is the survival story of a group of young boys stranded on a deserted island after a plane crash. However, Golding uses this setting to make an essential point about human nature. At first, in the absence of adults to enforce the rules of their society, things continue more or less as they would if the boys were still in school, or the rest of the world that they’re used to. However, as time progresses things deteriorate to the point where all that matters to most of the boys is hunting—both for food, and for anyone who disagrees with them. There are even deaths on the island as the boys become more and more primal. For example, Golding writes about Roger, one of the most savage boys: “Roger gathered a handful of stones and began to throw them. Yet there was a space round Henry, perhaps six yards in diameter, into which he dare not throw. Here, invisible yet strong, was the taboo of the old life. Round the squatting child was the protection of parents and school and policemen and the law.” (qtd. in Sparknotes) Golding illustrates plainly that without some kind of authority, we revert to this natural state of conflict. The threat of authority is all that restricts, or redirects, our warlike tendencies.
indentHowever, it isn’t only in literature that we see the idea of human beings in a state of conflict in the absence of some kind of strong leadership. A similar situation can be found today in the country of Myanmar. When Myanmar (then called Burma) was a British colony, it was one of the wealthiest countries in Southeast Asia. However, Myanmar has been one of the poorest countries in the world since it became free from British rule in 1948. In fact, Myanmar’s GDP, which grows at a rate of 2.6% per year, is now one of the lowest and slowest-growing GDPs in its region, and the high inflation rate in the country (50-60%) causes the country to be “ranked…the most corrupt country in the world, tied with Somalia,” (“Myanmar”) by Transparency International. This has lead to economic instability, multiple political regime changes, and most recently a series of political and economic protests starting in April of 2007. When their leader—the British Empire—was taken away from them, the Burmese settled into a state of conflict, as would be expected in a state of nature without government, and as predicted by Golding.
indentAre humans the only animals that naturally exist in a state of conflict? The answer is: most definitely not. Survival of the fittest may be a fairly recent idea, in the grand scheme of things, but Nature has been using that very idea for billions of years. We can see it all around us, every day. The creatures that are able to compete the best, and survive long enough to pass their DNA on to the next generations, are the winners. The ones that don’t are regarded as failures, or losers. Even bacteria, which are one of the simplest forms of life, compete amongst each other, and not all of them manage to survive, just like us. So, it’s hardly surprising that we humans act the way we do, when finite resources have been causing other forms of life into conflict since life first came into being. It seems that we’re just operating under a principle that has been in place for so long that it’s as natural to us as breathing.
indentWhy is conflict such an essential part of our existence as human beings? This could be seen as a difficult question to answer, especially for those people who see humans as somehow superior to the so-called “natural world.” However, if we think of humans as just another kind of animal, though we are a kind of animal with a more complex brain than most, it becomes much clearer. The person who dies with the most stuff wins, and there’s no extra credit for trying hard but coming up short. It looks like Darwin’s controversial theory of natural selection doesn’t only apply to evolution. It is also clearly connected to the most basic instincts of every species, including humans. Perhaps the human race isn’t as separate from the rest of nature as we’d like to think we are.
