|
Dr. Mortimer J.
Adler
The Nature of
Man - Part Two
ON HUMAN
NURTURE
Weismann: Now that
we have a better understanding of the difference of
man from other animals and the difference it makes,
I would like to begin this segment of our
discussion with your assessment of the role that
nurture plays in human life?
Adler: All the
knowledge we acquire, all the understanding we
develop, everything we learn, is a product of
nurture. At birth, we have none of these. All the
habits we form, all the tastes we cultivate, all
the patterns of behavior we accumulate, are
products of nurture. We are born only with
potentialities or powers that are habituated by the
things we do in the course of growing up. Many, if
not all, of these habits of behavior are acquired
under the influence of the homes and families, the
tribes or societies in which we are brought up.
Some, of course, are the results of individual
chosen behavior.
Weismann: In the
first part of this interview you called to our
attention some profound mistakes relative to a
correct understanding about human nature. What is
your view on some of the errors that are prevalent
about human nurture?
Adler: First, I
would say that what nurture adds to nature in the
development of human beings should be so clear to
all of us that we do not make the serious mistake
that results from the failure to distinguish what
human nature is from all of its nurtural overlays.
That serious mistake has been made again and again
during the last 4,000 years. We find it still being
made in the twentieth century by those sociologists
and existentialists who deny the existence of human
nature itself because of the pluralism they find in
differently nurtured groups of human beings.
Weismann: What is
the most serious consequence of this mistake?
Adler: The answer
in short is that it consists in regarding human
inequalities that result from nurtural influences
as if they were the manifestation of unequal
natural endowments. But, to be sure this is clear,
let me reiterate the difference between human
nature and that of all other animal species. In the
case of other animal species, the specific nature
common to all members of the species is constituted
mainly by quite determined characteristics or
attributes. In the case of the human species, it is
constituted by determinable characteristics or
attributes. An innate potentiality is precisely
that--something determinable, not wholly
determinate, and determinable in a wide variety of
ways.
Weismann: Does this
mean that to a great extent man is a self-made
creature?
Adler: Yes. Given
the range of potentialities at birth, he makes
himself what he becomes by how he freely chooses to
develop those potentialities by the habits he
forms. That is how differentiated subgroups of
human beings came into existence. Once in
existence, they subsequently affected the way in
which those born into these subgroups came to
develop the acquired characteristics that
differentiate one subgroup from another. These
acquired characteristics, especially the behavioral
ones, are the results of acculturation; or, even
more generally, results of the way in which those
born into this or that subgroup are nurtured
differently. No other animal is a self-made
creature in the sense I just indicated. On the
contrary, other animals have determined natures,
natures genetically determined in such a way that
they do not admit of a wide variety of different
developments as they mature.
Weismann: But isn't
there also a genetic factor in the determination of
human nature?
Adler: Yes, but
because the genetic determination consists
behaviorally in an innate endowment of
potentialities that are determinable in different
ways, human beings differ remarkably from one
another as they mature. However they originated in
the first place, most of those differences are due
to differences in acculturation, to natural
differences. To confuse nature with nurture is a
philosophical mistake of the first order. That
philosophical mistake underlies the denial of human
nature.
Weismann: What are
the most common and serious everyday consequences
of not correcting this mistake?
Adler: I would say
the most important of all is overcoming the
persistent prejudices--the racist, sexist, elitist,
even ethnic prejudices--that one portion or
subgroup of mankind is distinctly inferior by
nature to another. The inferiority may exist, but
it is not an inferiority due to nature, but to
nurture. For example, for most of the centuries of
recorded history, the female half of the population
was nurtured--reared and treated--as inferior to
the male half, that nurturing made them apparently
inferior when they matured. To have correctly
attributed that apparent inferiority to their
nurturing would have instantly indicated how it
could be eliminated. But when it was incorrectly
attributed to their nature at birth, it is accepted
as irremediable. What I have just said about the
sexist prejudice concerning inequality of men and
women applies to all the racist and ethnic
prejudices about human inequality that still exist
among mankind.
Weismann: Are you
saying that all these apparent inequalities that we
witness in our everyday lives are nurtural in
origin?
Adler: Yes, none is
a natural inequality between one human subgroup and
another. Let me give you another example, In the
centuries prior to this one, the elitist view taken
by the propertied class about the inferiority of
the working class was similarly grounded in grave
deficiencies in the nurturing of workers who went
to work at an early age without schooling and who
often toiled fourteen hours a day and seven days a
week.
Weismann: Is this
at least in part what Thomas Jefferson meant when
he said "all men are created equal"?
Adler: Yes,
Jefferson was right in declaring that all human
beings are created (or, if you will, are by nature)
equal. They are also, in terms of their individual
differences, unequal in the varying degrees to
which they possess the species-specific
potentialities common to all. When inequalities
between human subgroups that are entirely due to
nurture are taken for natural inequalities, that
mistake must be overcome and eradicated for the
sake of social justice. The correction of the
mistake that confuses nature with nurture leads to
certain conclusions that many individuals may find
disconcerting. All the cultural and nurtural
differences that separate one human subgroup from
another are superficial as compared with the
underlying common human nature that unites the
members of mankind.
Weismann: Why would
anyone find this disconcerting?
Adler: Because
although our samenesses are more important than our
differences, we have an inveterate tendency to
stress the differences that divide us rather than
the samenesses that unite us. For example, we seem
to find it difficult to believe that the human mind
is the same everywhere because we fail to realize
that all the differences, however striking, between
the mind of Western man and the mind of human
beings nurtured in the various Eastern cultures
are, in the last analysis, superficial--entirely
the result of different nurturing.
Weismann: Should a
world, cultural community ever come into existence,
do you think it will retain cultural pluralism or
diversity with respect to matters that are
accidental in human life--such things as cuisine,
dress, manners, customs, and the like?
Adler: Yes, these
are the things that vary from one human subgroup to
another, accordingly, as these subgroups differ in
the way they nurture their members. When that
happens, we will have at last overcome the nurtural
illusion that there is a Western mind and an
Eastern mind, a European mind and an African mind,
or a civilized mind and a primitive mind. There is
only a human mind and it is one and the same in all
human beings.
Click HERE to
return to Part One
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
Enrich
Your Life With a Philosophy
Magazine...
|
Academy
Showcase Specials
|
|
|
|
|
|
|