How do sociologists account for human nature?
Describe and assess the argument that language determines thought.
What is it that makes who we are? Moreover, how can we account for the varied and differing actions of human beings and the general development of the human race as a whole? These are questions that have plagued academic authorities since the time of the ancient Greeks. Every academic discipline has in some measure or another attempted to explain and account for the essential features that make human beings distinct from other forms of life. In particular, sociologists have traditionally taken a central role in explaining the issues above. Above all, sociologists attempt to explain the world in which we live through the social actions and effects that we all encounter. ‘No man is an Island’, to quote Donne, is certainly central to this conception. The society in which we live directly affects the manner of our development as a human being and thus can also affect out ‘nature’. Pivotal to this social interaction and development is the issue of language. The language we use and the manner in which we use it defines in many ways who we are, our norms, our outlook and our values systems.
The purpose of this piece is to firstly assess the extent to which sociologists account for human nature and, secondly, to examine the role of language with particular reference to the outcome of thought. Roughly equal time is dedicated to each question. Moreover, it will soon become clear that the sociological tendency toward complication and counterargument is certainly alive and well in these matters. However, above all it will be shown that our ‘nature’ is largely the consequence of the social interactions which we experience as we develop our lives and not the result of some wide ranging and all encompassing ‘human nature’. Moreover, given this it is quite logical to then conclude that language is indeed an essential component in the production of thought, as thought is the primary method through which we conceptualise and understand ourselves and those around us. However, as is shown below, attempting to use this idea of language guiding thought is not possible in every case.
On the whole, the basic ‘human nature’ argument seeks to explain human action and outcome through the use of foundation of universal nature of human beings (Bilton et al, 2002). Naturally it is hugely problematic to account for such diversity on the basis of some semi biological nature that equally affects us all. Indeed, sociologists argue greatly about whether a universal human nature that can accurately account for all actions. Nonetheless, although concerted arguments have been proffered to support the thesis of universality behind human nature, it is very unlikely that a successful and complete conclusion to the thesis is possible (Bilton et al, 2002). As such, at the outset I will confirm my determination that a universal human nature does not exist. If such were indeed the case then it would be possible to account for human activities and actions using general criteria applicable to all. The study of both sociology and anthropology exemplifies the extent to which this is simply impossible and it is likely that the need for such academic disciplines would be reduced if such were indeed the case.
As such, if we can say that human nature is not generalised and conformed in every instance, what then accounts for the way we act, think and develop as human beings. Firstly, it is important to discuss the age old sociological debate surrounding nature and nurture as this lies at the heart of the current discussion. On the one hand, some sociologists declare that nature can essentially account for our actions and development as human beings. We are born with specific and unique characteristics that set us apart from every one else. This inherent nature then guides our actions and determines our development. Thus, human nature, whether it be universal or individual is capable of explaining the phenomenon of human behaviour (Ridely, 2004). Alternatively, the opposite sentiment argues that it is nurture that defines who we are and accounts for our development as human beings. ‘Nurture’ suggests that our surroundings and social interactions determine our development and make us who we are. This begins at a very early age with our immediate family and other close relatives but also goes on to include the general society to which we are subjected from a young age. Such social interactions can then account for our development (Ridely, 2004).
Now as I said, the nature versus nurture debate is one that has pervaded virtually every sociological discussion since the first conception of the discipline. As such, it would be both presumptuous and enormous folly to suggest that a definitive conclusion will be reached during the course of this current piece. However, I will nonetheless declare my conviction that nurture plays a more significant role in the human story than that of nature. This is not to say that inherent natural and often unique characteristics within us all do not also play their part. However, above all it is the environment to which we are subjected and then become accustomed that largely defines us and determines our outcomes and actions.
As such, above all it is our environment that accounts for our outcomes. The factor that makes the human story unique from that of other species is that our evolutionary development allowed for growth of intellectual capacities that set the human race apart from any other form of life on earth (Martindale, 1961). The very first homo sapiens developed the capacity to understand and control the environmental forces around them. This capacity along with the gradual evolution of the human brain allowed us to form various techniques and processes that meant we could assess and analyse circumstances and events in a unique fashion. From this we developed tools such as writing systems and language which allowed us to communicate with others around us to a graduate level. As such, society and social functions within the human race formed much faster and to a much higher evolutionary degree than in other species, such as for example our closest relatives; the apes (Martindale, 1961). As such, it is the social forces around us that largely account for our development as individuals and not some obscure form of ‘nature’.
The primary manifestation of this movement toward social conditioning which drives the development of human beings can above all be seen by the existence of culture. Culture is what allows human beings to pass on gained knowledge and experience to oncoming generations through a variety of techniques of communication, primarily that of language (Bilton et al, 2002). The fact that different cultures develop in entirely distinct and unique fashions exemplifies the extent to which a natural guiding nature is not evident in the progress of the human story. Indeed, social Darwinians have come under sustained criticism for attempting to explain human competitiveness through the use of the human nature argument. The suggestion is that the inclination toward competition is an essential and integral characteristic of human beings and thus it is a tendency that is derived from a similar encompassing nature (Martindale, 1961). However, anthropological studies have shown the extent to which even this widely held conviction is untrue. Aborigines in Australia were surprised to learn of the idea of land ownership when the first European explorers landed in the country. Moreover, they had no conception of the idea of competition at all (Bilton et al, 2002). Thus, attempting to conclude that human nature is responsible for a unified human inclination toward a competitive nature is ultimately impossible to apply in every case. Indeed, many of the sociological arguments that suggest this tend to look at most problems and issues from an essentially European and North American perspective (Bilton et al, 2002). As such, it is unsurprising that they draw such conclusions.
Let us then examine the issue of language and whether it determines thought. Now as we have seen, language is the most essential tool by which human beings communicate and pass on knowledge and experience. It is therefore pivotal in the development of culture and human development in general. In fact, as one very influential commentator on the question once suggested, “Speech is the best show man puts on. It is his own “act” on the stage of evolution, in which he comes before the cosmic backdrop and really “does his stuff” (Whorf and Carroll; 1956, P.249).
Above all, the central concept involved here is that of ‘linguistic relativism’, and the primary proponent of the idea was Benjamin Whorf. Whorf argued that language was an essential tool not only in human interaction but also general human development. As such, given this understanding it was possible to explain cultural differences by highlighting the differing use of language. Thus, language could determine the thought processes of human beings and then account for social outcomes (Martindale, 1961). The essential components of this thesis are laid done in the collaborative efforts of Whorf and the anthropologist Edward Sapir. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggested that thought and language were inextricably linked. The specific and unique nature of a particular language allows for a specific development that is often wholly unique from that of others. Whorf in particular studied a variety of different cultures in an attempt to prove the hypothesis and achieved notable results.
In a study of North American Hopi Indians, Whorf discovered that their language was wholly distinct from that of traditional English. In particular, the differences were highlighted by the nature and understanding of time and space. Whereas the English language places supreme importance on time as a concrete measurement with distinct intervals, the Hopi language understood time in a much more loose sense (Whorf and Carroll, 1956). As such, time for the Hopi was more like the telling of a story that could adapt and alter in particular given circumstances. However, Western English was incapable of such loose understanding which in Whorf’s view accounts for the scientific nature of Western society. Science is seen as the ultimate method of discovery and understanding because of the manner in which English views time and space using scientific criteria. Whorf did highlight the fact that such examples were varied in nature and extent (Whorf and Carroll, 1956). As such, the impact of language on thought varies considerably depending on which language is under investigation.
The Sapir-Wharf hypothesis was widely celebrated as a method of understanding cultural difference. However, there have also been enormous problems offering full substantiation to the thesis. Indeed, even Whorf himself asserted that linguistic relativism could not be used as an all encompassing explanation for human development. Furthermore, some of Whorf’s original evidence has been proved to be incorrect. For example, in 1991 Geoffrey Pullum proved that a 50 year old assertion by Whorf and Sapir on Eskimo language was wholly incorrect. Whorf and Sapir had originally argued that the Eskimo language had around seven different words for snow because of the nature of its importance to them (Whorf and Carroll, 1956). Indeed, it is a view that has pervaded into the general consciousness. However, Pullum found that “the truth is that the Eskimos do not have lots of different words for snow, and no one who knows anything about Eskimo language has ever said they do” (Pullum; 1991, P.160). As such, determining that language totally acts to determine thought is perilously difficult in a lot of cases.
In conclusion, we have seen the various ways in which sociologists account for human nature. Above all, my conviction that it is social factors that on the whole play the greatest part in making us who we are remains unchanged. As such, attempting to offer explanations that provide for a ‘nature’ argument that allows for the development of human beings is ultimately impossible. Furthermore, we have seen that although the conception of language and thought is a very compelling one, it is nonetheless incapable of explaining human development and outcomes in every instance. Indeed, this was something that Whorf accepted himself.
Bibliography
Bilton, T. (2002). Introductory Sociology, New York: Palgrave.
Jordon, T and Pile, S. (2002). Social Change, Oxford: Blackwell.
Martindale, P. (1961). The Nature of Types of Sociological Theory, London: Routledge.
Pullum, GK. (1991). The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax, and other irreverent essays on the study of language, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Ridely, M. (2004). Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience and what makes us Human, London: Harper, 2004.
Whorf, BL and Carroll, JB. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings, Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.