Sociology 1301
Introduction to Sociology
Collin College
Professor Larry Stern

Perspectives: What is a Human Being?

Introduction

Trying to understand precisely why people behave and act the way that they do is extraordinarily difficult.  Although, as shall be seen, certain patterns emerge when we look at the millions – actually billions – of social actions that occur each day, we can never get past the fact that no two individuals are exactly the same and that variability exists wherever one looks. There are no easy answers and two things immediately become clear: life is complicated and life is messy.

But scholars and scientists have always been confronted with complexity and still manage, little by little, to make better and better sense of the world.

Imagine the early days of physics before anyone knew anything about atoms, protons, electrons, and the many other particles physicists routinely work with today. How does one even think about such infinitesimally small particles?

And think about the field of embryology today. Does anyone have any idea of precisely how one microscopic sperm cell and one microscopic egg after joining together begins to morph into you or me? How do these two incredibly small bits of sticky goo – or what my grandmother would have called “schmutz” – lead to the development of hard bone, calcium teeth, fine hair, an expandable bag of skin, and a brain that, during gestation, sprouts neurons at the rate of 250,000 per minute and eventually produces consciousness, intellect and emotions? The brain itself, some scholars say, is so complicated that it might never be capable of understanding itself.

But this does not stop scientists from asking questions and looking for answers. So how do they begin? How do scientists – and sociologists are scientists – go about their business?

First and foremost, they take these difficult problems and they simplify them – and they do so by breaking them down into smaller manageable pieces. And they start with a tentative model – a perspective – of how things work that guides the research questions they ask and, at the same time, helps them interpret their results.  

It is important to remember, then, that this model is not a fully accurate description of the phenomenon it is trying to explain – again, it is a simplified version, a piece of a larger puzzle that, by itself is incomplete.

But the model – the perspective – is useful at the time. And scholars know that in the long run the models they are using – since they are simplified versions of a complicated reality – will eventually reach their limits, or prove to be inadequate, and be replaced by another model.

What is a Human Being?

The question that we need to consider is, given the complexity of human life, how can we conceptualize – think about – human beings? What, precisely, does it mean to be human? What do we have to start with?

To better understand this question, consider the following. I mentioned in the previous lecture that da Vinci’s Mona Lisa is the most recognizable painting in the world – and you’ve probably seen pictures of it. Did you know that it is rather small – and that it is not painted on canvas, but on wood? If da Vinci had painted it on canvas, using the exact same pigments and brushes, would it look exactly the same? No – because wood and canvas absorbs paint differently; the colors would have different shades. And if it was painted on concrete, or on silk, or on some other material, it would look different each time.

So, what material are we made up of? If the social world and our experiences are like pigments applied upon us by brush strokes, how will they be absorbed – how will they affect us?

The Nature – Nurture Debate

Some will say that human beings are infinitely malleable – that they can be shaped and molded by their experiences. Others argue that our genetic, innate, hard-wired biological heritage determines who we are and what we are capable of achieving.

These are the two poles in what has been – and still is – the most vigorously debated – and the most consequential – controversy in the scholarly world: the Nature – Nurture debate.

This fundamental question – and how it is answered – is deeply embedded in the thought of all major scholars who take human beings as their subject matter. Sometimes the analyst’s position is explicitly stated; most often, it is “smuggled” in.

And how it is answered will mostly depend upon the analysts’ disciplinary background – whether he or she is a theologian, a social philosopher, a biologist, a psychologist, an economist, an anthropologist, or a sociologist.

As shall be seen, each discipline – each perspective – will simplify and focus on different aspects of a human being. They each will, in effect, examine one piece of the puzzle as thoroughly as they can. No one has a total view – just as no one person can see the Starbuck’s cup from all angles simultaneously. Eventually, all of the pieces might be drawn together and synthesized into a coherent picture. But that is a long way off.

And, until that time comes, how one thinks about human beings has important consequences.

Theological Perspectives

Theologians have argued about this for centuries.

For some, the doctrine of original sin is the fundamental starting point when addressing the question of what is a human being. Although the specifics of this doctrine have generated much commentary and debate, generally speaking the doctrine holds that every person born into the world is tainted by the Fall. As such, all of humanity is ethically impaired, and has an inherited propensity to sin. On a world scale, original sin explains such things as genocide, war, cruelty, exploitation and abuse, and the presence and universality of sin in human history.

What are the implications of this view? If we arrive in this world predisposed to evil, can man’s sinful behavior be changed by societal interventions, such as harsh and repressive punishments? Most theologians adhering to this view would say no, that people are powerless to rehabilitate themselves, unless rescued by God.

The Founding Fathers

If you have taken a government course and studied the debates surrounding the form our government should take, you probably know that the founding fathers argued considerably about the nature of man.

The Federalists – men such as James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Noah Webster, and Benjamin Rush – believed man to be, by their nature, irrational, treacherous and guided by passion, self-interest, insatiable avarice and ambition. Government, they argued, had to be strong and organized in a manner that would keep these inherent tendencies in check.

As Madison wrote in The Federalist, no. 51,

“But what is government itself, but the greatest reflection on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary . . .”

And when Alexander Hamilton asked, in The Federalist, no. 15,

“Why has government been instituted at all,

he answered

“Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice.”

Using the Federalist Party newspaper as his platform, Noah Webster, its editor wrote that:

“Every person, moderately acquainted with human nature, knows that public bodies, as well as individuals, are liable to the influence of sudden and violent passions, under the operation of which, the voice of reason is silenced.”

And as Benjamin Rush put the argument,

“Nothing but a vigorous and efficient government can prevent their degenerating into savages, or devouring each other like beasts of prey.”

And, of course, let’s not forget that our founding fathers believed that members of various races were by their nature biologically inferior and thus allowed – even endorsed – slavery. Women, too, were considered to be less capable then men by their nature and, as a result, were treated quite differently, as shall be seen later this semester.

In this case, the founding fathers were arguing that, given their nature, men have certain tendencies or propensities to act certain ways.

Biological Determinism.

Others, however, have taken a much more stringent approach, arguing that man’s biology comes close to determining how they behave. That human beings are nothing but their genes. That, for example, “Purple” people – by their nature – due to the genes they possess – are more likely to have violent or overly-aggressive tendencies and, as a result, commit more crimes than others.

Or that “Orange” people – by their nature – due to the genes they possess – are less intelligent than others and, as a result, are more likely to make poor choices in life and live in poverty.

Moreover, those taking this approach believe that, by their nature, some categories of people are inherently less capable of achieving socially valued goals.

Some then jump to the conclusion that social inequalities based on race, sex, or class cannot be altered because they reflect the innate and inferior genetic endowments of the disadvantaged. That people at the bottom of society – those who do not “make it” according to societal standards are constructed of intrinsically inferior material, be it poor brains, bad genes, or whatever.

This can be seen more clearly by examining the eugenics movement in the United States and abroad.

The word "eugenics" was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin.  He took the word from the Greek root meaning “good in birth” or “noble in heredity.”  He intended it to denote the “science” of improving human stock by giving “the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.”

According to Galton and those who embraced his ideas, some people were “born well” while others were biologically deficient – they were born “feebleminded” and were the main cause of the social problems – poverty, crime, prostitution – that plagued society.

And in the United States, at the turn of the twentieth century it attracted many of our best and brightest scientists and scholars, including members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Psychological Association, and the American Sociological Society. It was funded by such philanthropists as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

Perhaps most important, these ideas resonated with the general public and seeped into popular culture.

All of you, I’m sure, have heard the proverb that

The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

It is a piece of conventional folk wisdom that originated in Germany in the 16th century and made its way to the United States in the mid-nineteenth century. Ralph Waldo Emerson used the proverb in a letter to his aunt, Mary Moody Emerson, dated 22 December 1839, with the prefatory “and as men say apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” which suggests that it was by then already a popular saying.

Today, we find the proverb in seventeen different languages. There is clearly something about it that strikes a responsive chord – and it highlights the notion that genetics is crucial in determining who one comes to be. (You are probably aware of other similar proverbs, Chip off the old block and Like father, like son). The assigned reading will provide more information about this.

But let me focus, for the moment, on the consequences of eugenic thinking. As early as 1906, the American Breeders Association Committee on Eugenics set up a sub-committee charged with investigating “Sterilization and other means of eliminating defective germ plasm.” Harry Laughlin, who chaired the sub-committee, was strongly committed to sterilization as a solution to society’s ills.

So, too, was Madison Grant. In his The Passing of the Great Race, first published in 1916 and re-issued over the next twenty years, Grant wrote,

“It would not be a matter of great difficulty to secure a general consensus of public opinion as to the least desirable, let us say, ten percent of the community [this would amount to 15 million people]. When this unemployed and unemployable human residuum has been eliminated, together with the great mass of crime, poverty, alcoholism, and feeble-mindedness associated therewith, it would be easy to consider the advisability of further restricting the perpetuation of the then remaining least valuable types. By this method mankind might ultimately become sufficiently intelligent to deliberately choose the most vital and intellectual strains to carry on the race.”

“This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types.”

Hitler, after reading Grant, said, “This book is my Bible.” And, in fact, the vast majority of reviews Grant’s book received were positive.

Theodore Roosevelt, wrote his friend and hunting companion that

“This book is a capital book; in purpose, in vision, in grasp of the facts of our people most need to realize. It shows an extraordinary range of reading and a wide scholarship. It shows a habit of singular serious thought on the subjects of most commanding importance.
It shows a fine fearlessness in assailing the popular and mischievous sentimentalities and attractive and corroding falsehoods which few men dare assail. It is the work of an American scholar and gentleman; and all Americans should be sincerely grateful to you for writing it.” (Roosevelt to Grant, 30 October 1916)

In another letter, this time to Charles Davenport, the head of the Eugenics Record office, Roosevelt wrote,

“I agree with you . . . that society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind . . . Some day, we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty, of the good citizen of the right type, is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type.” (Roosevelt to Davenport, 3 January 1913)

As harsh as this sounds, consider that most citizens also endorsed these ideas. Look, for example, at these State Voting Records on Sterilization Bills and the Number of Sterilizations, 1905 – 1921.

The overwhelming majority of these votes are not close.

Many more states followed suit after the Supreme Court, in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case, ruled eight-to-one that sterilization on eugenic grounds was allowable within the police power of the state, that it provided due process of law, and that it did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment.

Many more states followed suit after the Supreme Court, in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case, ruled eight-to-one that sterilization on eugenic grounds was allowable within the police power of the state, that it provided due process of law, and that it did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment.

Oliver Wendell Holmes
1841 - 1935

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, then in his eighties and the most celebrated jurist in America, wrote the majority opinion:

“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives.  It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices . . . in order to prevent our being swamped with
incompetence . . .

“It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principal that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.  Three generations of imbeciles is enough.”

Now look at the following map, which shows the legislative status of eugenical sterilization in the United States as of January 1, 1935, and the number of operations performed. This number will increase to more than 70,000.

And how is one’s feeblemindedness to be determined? By looking at their score on an IQ test which, at the time, was clearly inadequate.

Such sterilizations no longer occur today. But the ideas underpinning those procedures – that some people, by their nature, are less capable than others – still persists. You can hear echoes of these ideas in current immigration debates, as well as the controversy over whether intelligence is genetically determined and whether significant immutable – resistant to change – differences exist between the two sexes and between different racial categories. And, with new advances in genetics and biotechnology, some say that a new “backdoor eugenics” has emerged.

If you enter “eugenics” into google, you will get two-and-a-half million hits. One web page, titled “Future Generations,” is allegedly devoted to “humanitarian eugenics.”

So the answer, a human being is, for the most part, their genetic endowment – at that their biology trumps other factors in explaining what they do and how they do it, has policy consequences.

If you believe that a category of people are by their very nature less intelligent than others, and, as a result, are more apt to make poor decisions in life – ie., act promiscuously, commit crimes, or act in such a way that  leads them into poverty – then you will likely advocate quite different laws and social policies than someone who places greater emphasis on environmental factors. If you believe that “orange” people are, by their very nature less intelligent than others then, when confronted with the fact that they are less likely to be doctors or engineers or physicists you would likely say, “What would you expect? You need to be smart to be in those professions and they are less so than others.” You wouldn’t consider that there were other factors involved – that, perhaps, purple people were not afforded the same opportunities as others, or that their local neighborhood schools were inadequate. This matters.

What is a Human Being – Psychology

Human Beings are Bundles of Instincts

William James, considered to be the father of American psychology, was influenced by Charles Darwin and in his early work he argued that human instincts could explain much of human behavior. He listed 37 instincts, including acquisitiveness, anger, clasping, cleanliness, constructiveness, crying, curiosity, emulation, fear of dark places, fear of noise, fear of strange animals, fear of strange men, hunting, imitation, jealousy, love, modesty, parental love, play, pugnacity, resentment, secretiveness, shame, shyness, smiling, sociability, sympathy, and walking. But although these could explain much, he also realized that these instincts could be overridden by experience and by each other, since many of the instincts were actually in conflict with each other.

Human Beings are Driven by Unconscious Motivations

Compare this with Freud’s perspective, which placed tremendous emphasis on the unconscious and one’s libido or sex drive. According to Freud, psychological development in childhood takes place in a series of fixed psychosexual stages – oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital. Difficulties experienced in these stages might lead to anxiety that might persist into adulthood as a neurosis. This theory is now considered to be quite controversial and there are many who believe that Freud fell victim to what we earlier called “Maslow’s Hammer,” the over reliance on one particular tool. But it is important to understand that Freud was not arguing that people are nothing but their personality or that it developed in a vacuum. Early childhood experiences are, of course, dependent on one’s culture, social class, sex, and a whole host of other things that Freud knew were important. But his focus was on these internal processes. He was looking at people only in so far as they were beings internalizing and being driven by unconscious motivations.

Human Beings are “Personalities”

Other psychologists, like Gordon Allport think of human beings as bundles of personality traits or dispositions that range along a continuum, such as introversion – extroversion, stability – instability, agreeableness – disagreeableness, and openness – rigidity.

Mainstream personality theorists tend to rely upon these traits to account for individuals’ behavior and believe that these dispositions are relatively stable across time.

Human Beings are Learning Machines

One of the most influential psychological perspectives of the twentieth century was behaviorism, introduced by John Watson and vastly extended by B. F. Skinner. Here, human beings were thought to be like learning machines whose behavior could be modified by manipulating rewards and punishments. Rewarding desired behaviors – providing positive reinforcement – will strengthen those behaviors and increase the likelihood that they will occur again. Punish undesirable behaviors and they will likely be weakened and less apt to occur again.

As Watson put it,

“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.”

Here's a quick spoof about behaviorism from The Big Bang Theory:

Economics: Human Beings are Rational Cost-Benefit Analysts

Turning to economics, we find yet another perspective or underlying assumption about human beings – that human beings are rational actors who typically use a cost-benefit analysis when deciding what to do. The choices people make are intended to maximize their benefit. Behaviors can be changed, then, by changing the calculus. If we want to deter a certain behavior – like crime – simply make the potential cost of being caught far outweigh the potential benefit. No rational individual will then choose to behave in that manner.

Sociology: Human Beings are Active Agents that Construct Social Reality

It was against this background that sociology – the youngest of the social sciences – developed. And early sociologists chose to think about human beings in a distinctive way.

As you shall see each week, sociology is a way of focusing on certain aspects of human conduct, raising certain questions and then relying on the systematic application of scientific methods – not individual, personalized, impressionistic accounts – to attain a deeper understanding of the world.

One perspective that we will be examining throughout the semester is called the “symbolic interactionist” perspective. George Herbert Mead, one of the founders of this perspective, and others following in his footsteps, believed that previous approaches ignored the fundamental fact that individuals “think” – that they actively perceive, define, and interpret the world around them.

Rather than see the individual as a passive puppet blindly responding to stimuli without necessarily thinking about it – as Mead believed the behaviorists did – Mead wanted to understand what goes on between stimulus and response. Do all individuals interpret and define the stimulus in the same manner?

Consider a child who feels neglected by his or her parents and “acts out.” The parents, when disciplining their child, might think that they are punishing their child when, from the child’s point of view, he or she is being rewarded by gaining their attention. It is crucial, symbolic interactionists argue, that peoples’ definition of the situation – what they think about the situation and what they intend to do – must be understood if you want to make sense out of their behavior.

And rather than see individuals driven by either psychological impulses – as did Freud – or biological impulses – as did eugenicists – that are not under the control of the person, Mead wanted to focus on the practical face-to-face, day-to-day activities of people in their more immediate social setting and show how they actively construct these settings by communicating with symbols that they create, define, and share.

Sociology: Human beings are Occupants of Social Positions (Statuses)

Another way that sociologists think about human beings is to see them as occupants of social positions – i.e., sex, race, age, social class, educational attainment, religion. These sociologists refer to these social positions as “statuses,” and they see people as occupying a whole array of statuses – what they call a “status-set.”

One of the fundamental propositions of sociology is that we are all shaped and molded by our experiences. If so, we must realize that men and women do not experience the world the same way. Nor do wealthy people and poor people have the same experiences. Or light skinned people in the United States and those with a darker complexion.