Blank slate?

Many of the great figures in political theory, some of whose works we have sampled in Political Science 101 class have remarked on how humans relate to each other, and how we should be governed. Throughout the years they have offered many interesting and thoughtful yet contradictory points. Indeed the questions raised by political theory are timeless, and are still asked to this very day. Yet if a person were to ask those questions today, what advantages would he have over the thinkers of the past century? I would say that we have the benefit of scientific discovery and insight into human behavior; no, the pseudo-intellectual Social Darwinism of the 19th century, but neuroscientific, kinesiology and modern evolutionary biology findings that could perhaps shed a light on mankind's tendencies.

Of the social contract theorists, Locke in particular stands out for his stance on human nature. He believes that at birth, the human mind is blank (hence the term tabula rasa, or blank slate), and that our tendencies and thoughts are shaped by our experience. The implications are that none of our behaviors whatsoever are beholden to anything innate beyond our control, that we have limitless potential for change, we are all equal, and all our tendencies and prejudices are the result of upbringing and societal conditioning.

While this theory is true and noble, scientific study in the past half century might point to another direction. Of course if the findings are accurate, they do not champion inequality of any kind, and do not change the fact that everyone regardless of differences deserve equal rights and respect. Science done right, "the Will to Truth",  and facts are not political. Before we get to the issues regarding the mind, let us examine some physical differences, namely those between men and women. In Throwing Like a Girl Iris Young makes the argument that the reason boys throw further than girls is because girls have been conditioned by society in a way that impairs their ability to use their body properly in the throw, not some biological difference. If we extend that argument we get the question: is superior athletic performance in the majority of males mostly due to societal conditioning, and not due to biological differences? On the other hand, let's take a look at a more scientific explanation than Young's: A recent study in the journal Gait and Posture makes the case that the difference in how men and women perform the single legged squat is due to biomechanical differences.

For the most part we are able to accept innate physical tendencies and differences, but what if we are talking about the mind? Of course the sexist notion that women are inferior because they are physically weaker is absurd. The mental notions threatens to overstep the boundaries of political correctness, but truth does not care about political correctness, and what if it might be true that the truth could be a little politically incorrect? Should we press on in the quest for truth, or deem those things to be too controversial to look into? An evolutionary biological theory has proposed that men and women have different spatial abilities - "In short, the theory predicts that women will be better at "spatial location memory" as a gathering adaptation; men will be better at navigational abilities, map reading, and the sort of mental rotations that hurling a spear through space to take down an  animal requires...The results of many studies now confirm these sex differences in spatial abilities."(Buss, 2008) [Newer version of the book can be found here] Even more controversial, are theories regarding aggression and rape.
Buss states that "Anthropologists have long been hostile to anyone who discusses human aggression in a biological context." Studies which suggest that rape might have roots as a biological adaption, and not only arises from "nurture" have been met with fierce criticism from feminists, who maintain that rape is not so much about sex, but about power.

So what can this mean for political systems? If human behavior cannot be shaped by the environment alone, we must not ignore what could be instinctual or innate tendencies, when creating policies. A concept in evolutionary psychology called kin selection states that we are selfish, and only most altruistic to those who carry the most number of same genes as we do - i.e. our relatives. Seemingly altruistic acts on complete strangers actually have the goal of benefitting ourselves in the end in what is called "reciprocal altruism". And when there aren't enough resources to go around for everyone, people just might take from others by force to give to their close ones.  If that were true, and is our nature, then Marx's hope of a utopian paradise of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" rests on shaky ground. Instead, the ruthless capitalism and greed of Wall Street seem to fit in more with human behavior.

In conclusion whatever human nature is,  I think it would greatly benefit us if we are able to openly talk and discuss these issues in the pursuit of knowledge, without any political agenda. After all, just because something might appear in nature doesn't mean that it is right or should be condoned. And one should take caution in trying to form policies ignoring, or on the other hand completely based on current knowledge of human biology.

Additional Sources:

Buss, D. (2008). Evolutionary Psychology - The New Science of The Mind. Pearson Education
Pinker, S. (2003). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Penguin Books

Images:
http://www.flascience.org/art/iconmicroscope.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjHISqYOXzZZgx0WgLPq5fXBngjdb6WWBx8CCrlbleg2KtrINCEe0LwrLr