Anarchy and human nature

Noam Chomsky had this dialog in a 1976 interview with the BBC's Peter Jay. (You can listen to the entire interview on YouTube. The question begins around 7:38 of the clip below, which is part 5 of the 5 part series.)

QUESTION: How far does the success of libertarian socialism or anarchism really depend on a fundamental change in the nature of man, both in his motivation, his altruism, and also in his knowledge and sophistication?

CHOMSKY: I think it not only depends on it but in fact the whole purpose of libertarian socialism is that it will contribute to it. It will contribute to a spiritual transformation -- precisely that kind of great transformation in the way humans conceive of themselves and their ability to act, to decide, to create, to produce, to enquire -- precisely that spiritual transformation that social thinkers from the left-Marxist traditions, from Luxembourg, say, through anarcho-syndicalists, have always emphasized. So, on the one hand, it requires that spiritual transformation. On the other hand, its purpose is to create institutions which will contribute to that transformation in the nature of work, the nature of creative activity, simply in social bonds among people, and through this interaction of creating institutions which permit new aspects of human nature to flourish. And then the building of still more libertarian institutions to which these liberated human beings can contribute. This is the evolution of socialism as I understand it.

Jay asks about three characteristic of humanity: knowledge, sophistication, and "the nature of man." His interest in the latter is specific to the nature of man's motivation and altruism. The question is whether Chomsky's preferred social structure, anarcho-syndicalism, would require changes in those three characteristics to be successful.

I agree with Chomsky that a change in man's knowledge and sophistication would both be needed for and brought about by the success of such social system, but I disagree with his inclusion of human nature in this list. Now I can't object too strongly to his full response, because his elaboration is entirely about the social environment, and I certainly agree that humans will behave differently as social structures change. He glossed over the human nature part and talked about a "spiritual transformation" which would be a social/cultural characteristic.

I'd like to comment a bit more on my understanding of human nature, because I think it is a useful elaboration on Chomsky's point.

What motivates our behaviors is somewhat programmed by our genes, and somewhat influenced by our environment. Roughly speaking, our genes program us to seek out certain kinds of resources and avoid certain kinds of dangers, and our social environment provides information about those resources and dangers. The way we pursue and evade is also influenced by biology and environment. That is human nature: somewhat hard-wired and somewhat plastic.

Human nature won't and can't change over the course of a few decades or centuries; biology doesn't work that way. But social conditions can change that quickly, and the behavior of humans within the new systems can be different. Those humans will have the same underlying (not necessarily conscious - see next paragraph) motivations and the same nature, but might for example demonstrate more altruism or sophistication, both of which are just behavioral strategies for pursuing resources and avoiding dangers. Victorian England, for example, was a culture that rewarded refinement and sophistication, rewards that could lead to access to various resources. Football locker rooms reward a rather different set of behaviors, but the same human nature and the same motivation to pursue the resources would underlie the different behaviors.

As noted above, motivations don't have to be conscious, which I think is the key for understanding altruism. You need not stop and think "saving this drowning stranger could earn me rewards" in order to act altruistically; an immediate and deep feeling that it is right thing to do is enough to encourage you to act. That feeling is shaped by genes and by environment. Genes likely provide for some amount of plasticity, meaning that as you collect information about your environment and what kinds of behaviors are rewarded, your feeling about what kinds of behaviors are "right" could be variable.

If Chomsky is right that anarcho-syndicalism would provide a preferable life for the vast majority of people, why don't we already have it? Well, that's part of the reason that more knowledge and sophistication would be required for the success of that structure. The vast majority of people lack the knowledge of the flaws in the current social structure, partially because the powerful act to prevent this in selfish service of their own interests. People have been convinced that working within the existing system is in their best interests, and without knowledge to the contrary, change is unlikely. Presumably the same forces that have led to the current social structure would still be at work in the proposed structure (meaning the boundless greed of the powerful), and so continual refreshing of knowledge would indeed be necessary in order for anarcho-syndicalism to succeed. The knowledge to recognize the self-interest of behaving in a more altruistic fashion might be a specific kind of knowledge required to foster the spirit of altruism (which by the way is the sense in which Chomsky referred to a "spiritual transformation," as opposed to a religious sense of the term).

But that doesn't represent a change in human nature, just a change in social conditions that allow non-altruistic behaviors to thrive. Knowledge is a resource, environmental information on which people can base decisions. Sophistication is a behavioral strategy in regards to the application of knowledge, altruism a behavioral strategy in response to certain kinds of knowledge, or in response to a less conscious evaluation of the social environment. A system of anarcho-syndicalism would rely on a certain amount of knowledge, sophistication, and altruism, and also serve to encourage more of each. Human nature would not need to change for such a system to be successful; we're already well equipped with the right kind of motivation to respond with altruism and sophistication to an environment that rewards those behaviors.

I think what Chomsky discussed wasn't really human "nature," but how human nature would actually manifest itself under certain conditions. Many manifestations are compatible with human nature, at least in the short run, but the question is which manifestation is preferable and why. Chomsky prefers anarcho-syndicalism because he believes it will "provide the framework for intellectual development, the growth of moral consciousness, cultural achievement, and participation in a free community." I tend to agree with that assessment, as well the idea he has expressed elsewhere that the survival of humanity may well depend on this kind of change.