John Gray and the evil at the core of human nature

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/24/john-gray-evil-core-human-nature

Version 0 of 1.

John Gray’s essay is disappointing (The evil within, 21 October). To sustain his critique of secular liberalism, he needs to distinguish between the so-called liberalism of western governments and the so-called liberalism of those who are critical of their own governments, especially when those governments propose intervention or restricting “human rights”, invoking “security”. He does not do so. In fact, he homogenises divergent strands of western liberalism.

Gray affects to believe that because Tony Blair said Saddam Hussein was “uniquely” evil, all other western leaders thought the same, when even George W Bush spoke of an “axis of evil” comprising three states. His assertion that “our leaders”, today, believe Isis to be “uniquely evil” seems baseless. They believe that Isis is more evil than Bashar al-Assad and more of a direct threat to us – justifiably. They also tell us it will be a long struggle – correctly.

Gray’s other error is to invoke situations where intervention has not “worked” without mentioning situations where non-intervention has been equally unsuccessful. Thus, Libya “is now an anarchic hell-hole”, but tenfold worse Syria is not mentioned.

Western leaders as believers in “melioristic liberalism” is quite a stretch. In fact, it is their vocal opponents on the liberal left who believe that people can just go on getting better without what the market calls “corrections” now and again. They will not like Gray’s wise conclusion that “non-intervention is a morally compromised option” and that “military action may be justified”.Hugh HetheringtonSandwich, Kent

• The conclusion to John Gray’s lament exposes the contradiction within it: he accepts that there is no peace without “functioning states”; but functioning states are examples of the same “social institutions” he has dismissed a thousand words earlier. Social institutions are established to mitigate a variety of evils (rather than a single monolithic “evil”). Some grandiose creators of social institutions may believe that evil can be finally overcome through their efforts. But many members, supporters, or advocates of social institutions are not so deluded. They understand that institutions are fallible, will break down, and may themselves become agencies of harm. There will be improvements, but also deteriorations. So institutions have to be dismantled and rebuilt, generation after generation, and all final solutions are bogus. It’s possible to believe that social institutions are all we’ve got without believing they provide the royal road to the perfection of anything.Jon GriffithSchool of Social Sciences, University of East London

• “No advance in human knowledge can stop humans attacking and persecuting others.” Surely a claim too far, unless John Gray regards his own article as a futile contribution to a pointless debate? Meliorism is not idealism: in education, and social science in particular, meliorism assumes that while violence and destructiveness may be inherent and inescapable features of humanity, improvements in interpersonal and inter-group relations are possible. This assumption does not conflict with the broad sweep of Gray’s analysis and he has no need to assert that it does.Neil S BatchelorGlasgow

• John Gray’s article is fascinating, and in many respects convincing. However, I strongly reject his view that the tendency to violence and evil is a fundamental aspect of our nature. While it would clearly be ridiculous to claim humans are never violent, the psychotherapist Carl Rogers argues that his experience shows that “the innermost core of man’s nature, the deepest layers of his personality, the base of his ‘animal nature’ is positive in nature – is basically socialised, forward-looking, rational and realistic”.

The generally accepted view, however, as Rogers points out, is that man’s basic nature is destructive and has to be kept under control. One reason this view is so widespread is that therapy reveals (and we often feel) destructiveness, violence and anger, and it is easy to mistake these feelings as fundamental. But Rogers found that these “untamed and unsocial feelings are neither the deepest nor the strongest, and that the inner core of man’s personality is the organism itself, which is essentially both self-preserving and social”.

Gray calls on evolutionary psychology to support his case, but I would ask: why would a species evolve that was fundamentally self-destructive? The instinctive desire for preservation of self and others seems to me to be a much more likely product of human evolution.Ian PirieUpminster, Essex

• It’s perhaps apt that John Gray’s article should coincide with your editor-in-chief’s invitation to readers to engage more fully with the Guardian. I was struck by the quoted abstract from CP Scott’s famous 1921 essay that one of the most important aspects of a newspaper is it that should “play on the minds and consciences of men”. May the Guardian long continue to do so.Brendan KelleherDouglas, Cork, Ireland

• Frederik Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth in their novel Wolfbane explain that human cultural development is controlled by the ratio C:P, where C is the number of calories and P is population. The practice of liberal ideals will only be possible where C:P is high; it will be degraded, and eventually disappear, where C:P declines.Jeremy CushingExeter

• John Gray provides an insightful commentary on the global political and socio-cultural chaos we are bequeathing to our children. His essay reveals the inadequacies of the “western” political and military responses thus far, yet does not offer any way out of the morass. He ascribes many historical and current atrocities to a refusal to offer “moral standing” on the part of the perpetrators towards their victims.

I recall, when teaching politics at Oxford University in the late 1990s, that many of my students were enamoured of the Charter 88 movement of an earlier political generation. A written or codified constitution, for them, provided an answer to many of the issues and inequalities besetting the UK at the time. I confess that I did not wish to stifle their youthful idealism, yet felt duty bound to spend time running through the inadequacies of nation-states that did possess codified constitutions.

For example, the US constitution and bill of rights did not prevent the Removal of Indians Act, the internment of Japanese Americans during the second world war or the abuses of Senator Joe McCarthy. Clearly, to be denied “personhood” in the eyes of others or institutions entails a threatening vulnerability, written constitution or not. Liberation theology, a useful credo that emanated from Latin America, offered another insight to which Gray alludes, that institutional structures have their own dynamic that can bring about awful, or “sinful”, results.

His fundamental thesis, however, concerns the seeming intractability of human nature and the failings of the “melioristic” liberal construct to handle this. He recognises that this observation is nothing new, but perhaps fails to acknowledge the insights provided by the great Lithuanian, Levinas, whose whole philosophy, it is said, can be summed up with the words: “After you, sir.”

The great world religions, too, offer a critique of human nature and in many ways emphasise the importance of empathy, the abrogation of self, wisdom and a perspective beyond the now at both a collective and individual level. It is perhaps this shared element of human understanding, if not nature, that we must all now look to as a means of giving the next generation something with which they can work to counter the nihilistic theism that characterises the present epoch.Dr Jonathan SnickerSt John’s College, Oxford

• Barack Obama, David Cameron, Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair, Bashar al-Assad, Abu Bakr Naji, Vladimir Putin, George W Bush, Jo Biden, the Taliban, Gaddafi, God, Mani, Jesus, St Paul, Satan, St Augustine, Pelagius, David Cesarani, Adolf Eichmann, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Avishai Margalit … are either against, or exponents of, or responsible for, or quoted on, or victims of, or have ideas about evil, in John Gray’s explanation of human conflict as a basic human trait. One woman, Hannah Arendt, had a say.

It’s no wonder women don’t write letters to the Guardian. Surely they deserve better representation in an essay on such an important matter, that affects all of us so deeply. Ok, they are not on the world’s historical cast list, but they did give birth to it, and nurtured it.Judy LiebertNottingham