logists as well as political scientists have argued as to the inevitability
of conflict and aggression amongst human beings (in this context
perhaps significantly usually referred to as ‘Man’!). On the right,
Hobbes, De Maistre [1754–1821], Nietzsche [1844–1900] and others
have seen conflict, violence and a struggle for dominance as intrinsic
to human nature with a consequent need for a strong state to enforce
peace. On the left, the potential for consensus and co-operation
among human beings has been emphasised by writers such as
Thomas More [1478–1535], Locke, Rousseau [1712–1788] and
Tolstoy [1828–1910]. On the right, conflict and aggression are seen as
‘natural’, whilst on the left such behaviour is seen as learned.
Evidence on this key issue of ‘nature versus nurture’ is both
plentiful and inconclusive and the reader is referred to standard texts
on social psychology and anthropology for details. However, if we
examine evidence from studies of genetically identical individuals it is
found that they do differ in such characteristics as intelligence (and,
presumably, aggressive temperament) when brought up in different
families within the same society, although not so much as genetically
different individuals do. Thus there appears to be both a genetic and a
social component to ‘human nature’ (Eysenck and Kamin, 1981;
Rutter and Madge, 1976). An examination of the expectations about
human nature to be found in different societies shows that they do
seem to differ quite radically – especially in simple or tribal societies.
There are groups, such as the Zuni Indians of New Mexico, which
place a premium on co-operation and consensus and expect and
obtain a very low level of aggression from their members. Other
groups, such as the Dobu of New Guinea, base their whole social
structure on the assumption of mutual competition and aggression.
Benedict (1935) suggests that both societies show a range of
temperament within individuals, but that range is around a socially
defined norm that differs greatly between the two.
Many of the classical sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writers
on political theory attempted to argue the case for the need to have a
state, from the assumed inconveniences of an original ‘state of
nature’ in which there was no state to mediate between individuals.
Hobbes suggested that in such a state there would be a war of every
man against every man and the gains in security associated with any
state were thus infinitely greater than the loss of freedom involved
in obeying its authorities. Early Libertarians such as Locke and
CONCEPTS 51