David Mamet has decided that he is no longer a “brain-dead liberal” because he no longer believes that “people are basically good at heart”. In other words, there is no point in putting your faith in humanity, so we need a greater degree of authoritarianism. I also infer that Mamet would prefer that the educated (if not the rich) should have a greater say in the running of things.
Reading this made me realise that I haven’t addressed what is the most common objection to idealistic politics: human nature.
The practicalities of winning elections form one barrier, but ultimately it’s human nature that most people believe stands in the way of anything they regard as utopian. We’re violent, greedy, distrustful, racist and lazy. How can we expect humanity to converge on a society, or societies, where we don’t use violence, don’t take more than we need, trust our neighbours (on every level), treat everyone fairly and all contribute to our community?
The question isn’t how we overcome these aspects of ourselves, and I won’t deny a tendency towards most, if not all, of these “sins” in myself, but whether these traits are significantly inherited, or whether they are predominantly learned.
This is (I would say “of course”) almost unknowable, but there are some things we do know make them worse. It could be argued that some are even a creation of society and not individuals. Racism is the obvious example: there is no reason to fear or hate those who are different from ourselves. Racism rises and falls with poverty and unemployment; differences are exaggerated to deflect blame from those in power or as a source of power for others.
The main counter-argument is that some of our less admirable traits have evolved in us, to give us an advantage in surviving and reproducing. Greed drives us to get what we need to feed our family and survive the winter. But that doesn’t explain the laziness. And evolution also seems to have provided us with the altruism that helps communities to stay together and survive.
So, is the balance essentially positive or negative? I’ll give one example of why I believe we are prone to act positively: Hollywood.
As Chomsky, if no-one else, has pointed out: powerful nations are inclined to behave badly. It is not the mix of ethnicities that makes the USA behave as the world’s bully while pretending to be the world’s policeman, it’s the need to consolidate its position as the world’s only superpower. But the American creative media do not, on the whole, reflect this need. American books, music, tv, and most especially movies, take a far more moral stance (on the whole).
Bad behaviour is punished in proportion to the crime. Good behaviour, particularly if it is otherwise motiveless gets rewarded. If not, the viewer is made painfully aware that this is an “unhappy ending”.
So, what motivates the film studios? Their own behaviour does not echo the morality of their movies. They are giving the movie-watching public what they think they want. We are the movie-watching public and most of us want the world of the movies to be good and just.
Don’t try and tell me that we don’t want the same in the real world.
In the end, does it matter what is in our nature? Well, yes. If we are not capable of sustaining a better world of better communities, then there is no point trying for anything better.
