The Relationship between the Body and the Self

Many define the task of philosophy by the well-known Greek quote “know thyself”. In striving to better understand ourselves, we must look at what defines an individual and what separates an individual from others. To further understand one’s self, we must identify the relationship between an individual’s physical body and their sense of identity and self. While many would feel confident that their body is the defining element of their self, there exists a substantial amount of evidence that alludes to the contrary. By evaluating the relationship between the body and the self, we can conclude that the self is independent of the rest of the individual’s body.

Throughout this paper, I will support his claim by examining many different ways and situations in which we interact with our body. First, we can observe a change in one’s physical body, and compare that to the changes in that individual’s identity. We will also look at the ways that an individual can adopt an outside “body” as their own and incorporate it within their self. Finally, we can examine the relationship between the brain and the rest of the body to show the different roles they play in defining the self. Each of these premises provides examples of situations in which the self clearly operates independently of the body.

Examining Changes in the Physical Body

The simplest way to analyze the relationship between the body and the self is to look at changes in both and attempt to draw connections. If the body and self are connected, than a significant change to body should be observable as a corresponding change to the self. In many cases, changes to the body and to the self may occur at the same time. However, correlation does not imply causation. When we observe situations where the body changes but the self does not, or vice versa, it becomes clear that there is no direct connection between these two entities.

We can see the distinct separation of the body and the self by examining a substantial change in the body while the self stays the same. To isolate the direct connection between the body and the self, we must find a situation where there is a substantial change to an individual’s body, yet no change his or her self. If the individual’s self is unchanged despite the physical change, then it is evident that the body can not directly alter the self.  To look at this, we can imagine an individual developing an internal disease, such as cancer. Although it is not externally visible, the development of a large tumor inside the body is clearly a substantial change to the body. Many individuals suffering from cancer would describe their disease as a part of their identity. However, this change in identity does not occur until the individual becomes aware of their disease and accepts it as a part of who they are. An individual that has cancer developing in their body but has not been diagnosed with cancer will continue to live with their identity unchanged, despite the substantial changes to their body. Once the individual becomes aware of their disease, whether by getting diagnosed from a doctor, or by recognizing symptoms, they will likely accept their disease as part of their identity. By looking at this situation, we see that an individual’s self will typically reflect their physical body; however this sense of identity comes from the individual’s mind and their understanding of their body. When the individual is unaware of the change in their body, their self will not reflect this change. Only by recognizing changes to the body will the individual’s self change. By understanding this type of situation, it is clear that the body does not have a direct tie to the self.

We can further examine these changes in the body by looking at the effect of the phenomenon known as “phantom limbs”. The idea of a “phantom limb” is something that occurs with the majority of amputees. After losing a limb, individuals will continue to have the impression that the limb is still present. Individuals will feel pain in the missing limb, try to move the limb and perceive the position of it. Some will even continue to perceive changes in the limb, such as feeling that the limb is “shrinking” (Ramachandran and Hirstein 1998). Phantom limbs represent a bizarre situation, but helps reinforce that the body can change without the self changing. Unlike in the previous example, individuals experience phantom limbs are acutely aware of the changes their body has undergone. They know that their limb is missing, but continue to act as though their body has been unchanged. The sensation of a phantom limb typically lasts for days or weeks, occasionally longer. The duration of time is likely dependent on the rate at which the individual can accept that their limb is missing and modify their “self” to account for this change. This example shows that visible changes can still be ignored by the self for a period of time. If the dramatic and painful experience of losing a limb is not enough to directly change the self, then it is clear that the two operate independently of each other.

While we often look at how a physical change can transform an individual’s self, we can also observe an individual that strives to modify their own body to reflect their perceived self. In this situation, one may assume that an individual is changing their body in an attempt to change their self. However, when we examine an individual modifying their body, it is clear that the self will typically change before the individual modifies his or her body. Individuals use body modification in order to express their true self through the canvas that is their body. Methods of self-expression can range from simple ear piercings to plastic surgery. To examine these actions, we can focus on ear piercing, a simple procedure that is undergone by the majority of females in America. Based on the prevalence of this procedure, we can conclude that social influence is responsible for the desire for young girls to pierce their ears. Furthermore, the prevalence of pierced ears in media, fashion as well as peer pressure creates an image that all normal, attractive females pierce their ears. Growing up in this environment, females will adapt this image as their own, and see their own body, specifically their unpierced ears, as not reflecting their true self. By examining these actions, it is clear that many individuals have a strong and concrete perception of themselves, regardless of the physical body. When an individual modifies their body to reflect his or her self, they are not doing so to change who they are, rather they are hoping that they can recognize the body that they see in the mirror as the individual that they know they are.

Adopting Different Bodies as One’s Own

If the body is not connected to the self, then it should be possible for individuals to connect their self to an outside body as their own. This may be a difficult concept to accept, as nearly every human holds their own body as a key part of their identity. However, there are a number of situations where an individual can connect their self with an outside body that is not their own. These types of situations include simply relating to an outsider’s emotions, connecting with a virtual body, and even assuming a separate body as part of one’s own.

Before we begin to look into whether an outside body can be a part of one’s self, we should establish the criteria for this connection between the body and the self. We can establish that our self is the result of all of our perceptions of our world. This concept of the self is supported by David Hume in the following quote from his “A Treatise of Human Nature”:

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are remov’d for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. (Hume 1739)

Additionally, Hume notes that when he is sleeping and lacking perception, then his self does not exist. This establishes that the self does require a body in order to exist. Using Hume’s ideas regarding the relationship between the body and the self, we can observe situations where outside bodies are incorporated into one’s identity. If an individual has the “perception” of this outside body, then we can conclude that the individual is connecting to the body like they would to their own.

First, the separation of self and body is evident when we examine how someone can relate to the feelings and emotions of others. Typically, an individual’s perceptions are limited to his or her own emotions and feelings. However, if individuals can perceive the feelings of others, we can establish that they are taking ownership of external bodies. Joel Smith uses a series of thought experiments to support this premise in his paper “Bodily Awareness, Imagination and the Self” (2006). Smith describes a number of situations where one may imagine the feelings or actions of someone else. He notes that some would claim that imagining that Napoleon is in pain is really the individual imagining Napoleon's pain upon his or herself. However, Smith counters that one is imagining Napoleon as the subject of that pain, therefore inheriting a bodily awareness separate from their own. “...When imagining being Napoleon I do not imagine anything about myself, it follows that imagined bodily awareness (and thus bodily awareness) cannot have first person content” he claims (Smith 2006, 61). With this explanation, Smith establishes that it is possible to experience perceptions that are not from one’s own body. These ideas show that as much as we identify with our own body, we can also identify with the body of others.

Modern technology allows us to further explore ways that individuals can “assume” a new body. Popular online video games often involve each player adopting an “avatar”, or an electronic representation of the player.[1] Since the individual playing the game has nearly complete control over this character, we can observe how an individual will begin to perceive the world of this character. By continuing to play the game and becoming more immersed in the universe represented in the game, an individual will begin to accept the body of the avatar in the game as his or her own. By accepting this avatar, they will feel emotions towards this virtual body that are similar to what we may feel towards our physical bodies. For example, they may feel pride for their body around others, and sadness if this body is damaged or injured. These situations show that if an individual is willing to open their mind to an outside entity, then it may become as much a part of their identity as their physical body. Although the body of a character in a game is not even a physical entity, it simply takes someone relating to The body does not need to be physically connected, or even to physically exist, for it to become incorporated in an individual’s self.

Additionally, under the right set of circumstances, we can observe how truly disconnected an individual is from his or her body. Typically, if an individual is shown an object resembling a body part, they will quickly reject it as either fake or the body part of another individual. However, with the correct set of circumstances, an individual can be convinced that a body part is theirs and accept it as their own. One notable and well-studied example of this is the Rubber Hand Illusion. In this experiment, a participant sits with their hand hidden behind a screen. They are then shown a rubber hand in front of them, and their actual hand is out of sight. The individual is lead to accept this hand by the receiving a series of touches to their real and fake hand at the same time. For example, the person operating the experiment will show the participant a feather brushing the fake arm, while the individual feels the feather brushing their physical arm. Throughout the experiment, the participant will be able to “feel” touches to the rubber hand as if it were their own. If the rubber hand is threatened with injury, such as if a sharp needle is held over the hand, the participant become concerned as if it were their own hand (De Vignemont 2011). Once the individual can recognize the hand as part of their body, they can perceive the feelings and sensations of the hand. Separate experiments have shown that individuals can even perceive objects that do not resemble body parts as their own. In a similar experiment, scientists followed similar procedures, but used a shoe in place of a rubber hand. Surprisingly, the majority of individuals in this experiment still were able to feel sensations coming from the shoe. This experiment allowed the involved scientists to conclude that “the so-called body image, despite all its appearance of durability and permanence, is an entirely transitory internal construct that can be profoundly altered by the stimulus contingencies and correlations that one encounters” (Ramachandran and Hirstein 1998). These two experiments both conclude that participants can take “ownership” of an outside object even though it is not truly part of their body. The connection between these false appendages is entirely a part of their perception. If individuals can assume an outside entity as a part of their self without any physical connection, then we can conclude that our physical body is connected in the same fashion. These ideas support to the premise that our self’s perception of our body is not necessarily connected to our physical body.

Examining the Role of the Brain

While we have established that many parts of the body can be separated from the self, some would claim that the brain is directly connected to both the body and the self. It can be claimed that brain plays a substantial role in the definition of one's identity; therefore the body does indeed influence one's self. While there is some evidence supporting these ideas, I contend that this does not allow one to conclude that there is a direct connection between the body and the self.

A substantial claim regarding the role of the brain in the self is that modifications to the brain can lead to changes in personality and identity. One popular and notable anecdote regarding this issue is the bizarre story of rail worker named Phineas Gage. While working on railroad construction in 1848, an explosive accidentally detonated, sending a long, iron bar up through Gage's jaw and out the top of his head.

While Gage was able to make a remarkable recovery, reports claim that his personality was completely different than prior to the accident. “A typical description of him would say that before the accident Gage had been a diligent, reliable, polite and socially adept person; after his accident, he subsequently became uncaring, profane and socially inappropriate in his conduct.” (Zbigniew 2007, 116) This story is often used as an example of how changes to the physical brain can have an impact on one’s personality. This dramatic change personality clearly appears to be directly the result of the physical changes to Gage’s brain. From assessment, it could easily be claimed that physical changes to the brain can significantly change one’s self.

However, interpreting the Phineas Gage story from a different perspective and with some additional information can lead to a completely different assessment of the role of the physical brain. An account of Gage’s visit to his mother’s house recounts him entertaining his young nieces and nephews, and showing ‘fondness’ towards animals. Zbigniew Kotowicz’s piece “The Strange Case of Phineas Gage” (2007) examines this evidence and argues that the changes in Gage’s behavior were not the result of his physical injuries, but as an emotional response to the accident and his transformed body. Accounts of Gage describe his healed face as rather distorted and scarred. One can imagine the social issues that would arise from being seen with such an unsettling face. Kotowicz asserts that only among the non-judgmental eyes of his family and animals could Gage be comfortable as himself. This conclusion supports the theory that a change in the physical body can only transform the self by the individual accepting the change as who they are. Gage likely saw himself in the mirror as a deformed individual, and he likely saw negative reactions from other individuals that he would meet. It is not hard to imagine that Gage would suffer enormously from the psychological effects of this accident. The hard evidence surrounding the Gage incident is quite inconclusive, as to be expected from an incident that occurred over 150 years ago. However, the situation serves as a good example of an identity change that appears to be the result of a physical change, but may have much more to do with the individual’s perception of himself.

While this story and its implications are disputed by modern scientists, there is no disputing the role that neurology and neuroscience play in modern Psychiatry. Our increased understanding of the brain implies that the physical properties and changes of it can have direct effects on a human’s personality, understanding and thought process. This is evident in the research of mental diseases, such as OCD and depression, using neural imaging techniques. The personality of an individual can even be substantially altered by the application of drugs to the brain. By consuming drugs and altering the chemical balances of the brain, we can observe that individuals can display a number of different characteristics, such as being more assertive, introspective, or social. It is clear that the physical state of the brain plays a substantial role in an individual’s personality and mental state; therefore it could be argued that the brain can define an individual’s self.

In this regard, I do not contest that one's brain does not play a role in their self. However, using this point to conclude that the body does in fact play a role in one's self depends on our definition of body. It is clear that the brain plays an important role in our thought process, and ultimately we must think to be able to accept any entity or change into our self. By contrast, no other part of our body holds a similar role, they can send input to the brain such as pain or hunger, but cannot directly affect the way that we think. While am not arguing that the human brain does control the self, the connection between changes in the brain and the self is much stronger than with the rest of the body. Therefore, by asserting that the brain is not a part of the body, it is clear that the body can not directly affect an individual’s self.

Conclusion

Accepting this separation of body and self can be a difficult idea to accept because our body is the most intimate physical entity in our life, the “ship” to our “captain” as De Vignemont describes. However, when considering something so important and connected to who we are, we must examine how we are connected to our identity. Our self is built out of our perceptions of the world around us, and it is clear that it is possible to perceive the world using entities other that our physical body. With this understanding that our body is not directly connected to ourselves, we are allowed the ability to remove this constraint on our identity and strive to be the individual that we truly are.

References

De Vignemont, Frédérique. "A Self for the Body." Metaphilosophy 42, no. 3 (2011): 230-247.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature . 1739.

Ramachandran, V. S., and William Hirstein. "The Perception of Phantom Limbs." Brain (Oxford University Press), 1998: 1603-1630.

Smith, Joel. "Bodily Awareness, Imagination and the Self." European Journal of Philosophy, 2006.

Zbigniew, Kotowicz. "The strange case of Phineas Gage." History of the Human Sciences 20, no. 11 (2007): 115-131.

Choice in Housing: Sexual Segregation at Universities

Sex segregation, the separation of individuals according to their sex, is often an unquestioned practice in society. Sex segregation inevitably influences everyone since sex is a universal attribute in some form. It is also a major attribute of most modern western societies. Most public bathrooms, sports leagues, and clothing stores are segregated by sex. So in our society, sexual segregation is something that we deal with almost every day. This subject also has current relevance due to the ongoing debates over gender identity and sexual orientation. While the problem is not solely limited to non-cisgender (people who identify as a gender different from their sex) or non-heterosexuals (those who are not solely or at all attracted to the opposite sex), the increasing acceptance of non-traditional identities creates a demand for alternative environments. Therefore sexual segregation is an issue that affects everyone, and will continue to influence society as long as it is practiced. One place where sexual segregation is specifically harmful is in college dorms, which we will be specifically discussing in this paper.

Colleges often have co-ed dorms and floors, but even in these each room will have members of only one sex. Colleges that allow coed dorm rooms are much less common than those that don’t. However, not everyone is comfortable rooming with someone of the same sex. There are many students who, for a variety of reasons, are disadvantaged by the practice of segregating dorm rooms by sex. Because the practice of sexual segregation in student housing at colleges does not meet the needs of all students, it should be phased out in favor of more gender-neutral housing options. In this paper, we will use gender-neutral housing to refer to the addition of a housing option which students can choose, where there are no restrictions on rooming based on either gender or sex, leaving the students free to decide their own housing arrangements.

There are a large variety of sexualities. The most commonly known are heterosexual and homosexual. Others include bisexual, pansexual, asexual, sapiosexual, and so on. Current estimates show that approximately 3.5% of the population identifies as homo- or bisexual (Gates, 2011). Despite this, it is the only sexuality traditionally recognized, and as a result, university housing has been developed solely to satisfy it. Due to this, the existing single-sex paradigm fails to meet the needs of those who have different sexualities.

First, one common argument against gender-neutral housing is that it is a bad idea to have people who are sexually attracted to each other living together. However, if this is true, then it is a bad idea to have, for example, a homosexual person living with someone of the same sex, while an asexual would have no restrictions regarding their living situation. This notably excludes bisexuals, who are sexually attracted to both males and females, and pansexuals, who are attracted to everyone, regardless of sex. They would be unable to find a housing solution without sexual attraction.

Ultimately, even if we accept the premise that sexual attraction is bad in housing, the argument still fails, due to a simple assumption that it makes: that all people of a sexuality are attracted to all people in their target group, e.g., that all homosexuals are attracted to all people of the same sex, that all pansexuals are attracted to everyone, and so on. However, even in this case, many people don't want to live with people of their target group, due to either sexual attraction or the potential for the same, and would feel highly uncomfortable. “Universities reported that many LGBT students felt more comfortable rooming with a member of the opposite sex” (Willoughby 2012). One necessary trait of on-campus housing is that students feel comfortable in it. Single-sex housing clearly fails to meet this for everyone, and as a result, it doesn’t necessarily meet the needs of non-heterosexual people.

Gender orientation generally poses similar problems. Many of the same arguments apply. For example, sexual attraction could be an issue when a transgender person is transitioning. Furthermore, transgender people may be most comfortable with people of the gender they identify as. Providing that the other person is comfortable with it, there is little reason to not try to ease the already difficult transition. One attempt that could be made to alleviate this would be to house students by male/female gender, rather than sex. While a better solution, it still ties into the gender binary. In addition to cisgender and transgender, there are many other orientations: gender-neutral, fluid, etc. Simply classifying based on gender isn't sufficient to create an environment that everyone is necessarily comfortable in. It is also a difficult solution for transgender people, as it requires them to formally declare an orientation, which may be uncomfortable. Therefore, we are not proposing a special accommodation for those who identify as non-cisgender heterosexual, which would require formal declaration. Rather, we are proposing housing without restriction based on either sex or gender.

It is worth noting that none of these objections will necessarily apply to all non-hetero/cis- people, since there is wide variance in both the sexual/gender identities and the individuals. What they are comfortable with can’t be predicted solely from the simple label of their identity. Ultimately, the major objection to single-sex housing is that it removes the ability to choose what housing solution will best suit one’s needs.

And, finally, for both sex and gender, single sex housing continues to enforce the cisgender, heterosexual norm. There are several ways that this happens. First, the heterosexual norm is what single-sex housing was designed to support. Other identities are necessarily devalued, by their lack of inclusion in the design of the system and the hardships that are placed on them. Second, by creating a homogenous environment, single-sex housing discourages exploration, an important stage for many people. Establishing and valuing a norm, and more importantly not providing examples of anything outside the norm, makes it more difficult for anyone who doesn’t fit that norm to break out. As Smith and Kimmel write, “[the norm] is deployed coercively against gender-nonconforming men and comparatively to maintain socially created differences between women and men as natural and therefore legitimate“ (Smith 1831). As such, the gender bounds become that much stricter. The schools that have made gender-neutral housing recognize these failures. However, at this point, very few colleges have done so. Additionally, it is primarily confined to liberal arts colleges. As such, there is still obviously a long way to go on fixing the problem and providing housing that provides for everyone.

Sexually segregated housing does not meet the needs of cisgender and heterosexual students. An argument for sexually segregated housing is that it is more appropriate for the needs of the majority, but this is not the case. There may be cisgender students that would like to live with students of the opposite sex. For this reason, sexually segregated housing is already a problem. To fully determine whether sexually segregated housing is best for the majority you must examine the arguments against integrated housing. Concerns about sexual harassment and a violation of privacy are at the forefront of the arguments for sexually segregated housing.

There is an argument that sexual segregation is beneficial for student housing because it will reduce the rates of sexual harassment. This argument does a disservice towards the majority of students as it implies that men are dangerous and cannot be put in the same living space as women, and that women are unable to decide who is safe for them to be around. This must be implied as it is not allowed on many college campuses for individuals to live with students of the opposite regardless of their desire to do so. Safety and privacy violations can happen in any housing arrangements. So segregated housing can foster violence by implying that violence only happens in “dangerous” situations. To argue that sexually segregated housing is necessary for this reason makes assumptions about the students and human nature in general. This assumption can be seen in a case reviewed by Smith and Kimmel. In the case a male student makes a speech which has a lot of sexual content. The court rules against the student’s right to free speech on the basis of protective female students. This “decision may be offensive to some women who feel that they need no protection from lewd and lascivious descriptions of male sexuality” (Smith 2005, 1843). This case also implies that all men like lewd sexuality. The same offense may be taken in the case of forced sexual segregation in housing at universities. A violation of privacy is a similar argument to the argument as sexual harassment. It implies that students cannot respect the privacy of other students, and that a violation of privacy from an individual in the opposite sex is more harmful than a violation of privacy from an individual from the same sex.

Ultimately the best option for the majority, including cisgender and heterosexual students is to allow them to make their own decisions. This will allow students to make their own rooming choices thus the responsibility lies with the student and not the university to protect the safety and privacy of the students. Choice should satisfy the majority of students as it would allow students to either live sexually segregated or with students of the opposite sex. The only reasonable issue this would cause would be potential complaints from students who have issues with students living with the opposite sex living in their vicinity. This would be the minority case, and there may be ways of preventing this altogether. Universities can maintain separate buildings or floors as long as they give students options.

The strongest argument against gender neutral housing is that it may create logistical problems for those responsible for college residences. Proponents of this argument claim that, since single-sex housing is good enough, the colleges’ convenience would then outweigh the preferences of the students. Universities already have established systems in place to handle the process of rooming assignments, and any change to this system will cost the university money. Additionally, the availability of gender neutral housing will likely appeal to heterosexual couples looking to live together. Studies have shown that young couples living together is “linked to numerous negative couple and individual outcomes” (Journal of Adolescent Research, p745). Any instability between a heterosexual couple living together will likely require intervention by school residential services. Many schools may see these potential issues as a strain on resources.

While this change in university policy may disrupt existing university workflows, existing policies do not meet the needs of existing students and reconciling these issues should be a priority. Some students may not feel comfortable living with members of the same sex. With on-campus housing being a fundamental part of the college lifestyle, universities should be willing to accommodate this type of lifestyle. Additionally, some logistical issues caused by gender-neutral housing may be countered by some simplicity afforded by these policies. Providing gender-neutral housing gives students more options for housing. As we have established that single-sex housing actually fails to meet needs, not just failing to meet preferences, this must take precedence over convenience for the school.

Further, most of the objections on practicality can be easily eliminated. For example, couples living together can be weeded out by requiring an interview, as some colleges with gender neutral housing do (Willoughby 2012). The complexity of figuring out who would be willing to live with the opposite sex isn't an issue if it’s not an option for freshman, because sophomores and above generally choose who they’ll live with. People being uncomfortable with shared-sex bathrooms isn’t a concern in suites, since the bathroom is generally single person, and not shared with anyone outside of the suite. These are just examples, and full discussion of implementation falls outside this paper. However, it shows that the most important practical objections that are generally raised to gender-neutral housing are fairly simply countered, and thus shouldn't restrict it.

The practice of sexual segregation in student housing at colleges should be phased out, because it does not meet the needs of all of the students. An important goal in providing on-campus housing to students is to provide them with a safe and comfortable place for them to live. Single-sex housing was often enforced because colleges traditionally did not want students to be rooming with someone they may be sexually attracted to. However, this does not take non-heterosexual students into account, some of whom may be more comfortable rooming with someone of a different sex than what they would be assigned. Single-sex housing also fails to accommodate the needs of non-cisgendered people, as they may feel more comfortable rooming with someone of the gender they identify as or a close friend rather than someone of their sex. Even cisgender, heterosexual students can feel more comfortable rooming with members of the opposite sex than with members of their own sex. In all of these cases, enforcing single-sex rooms takes freedom of choice away from students, and can keep them from the rooming in the situations that would be best for their comfort and their academic pursuits. Therefore, colleges that care about the needs of their students should work towards adopting gender-neutral housing options.

Bibliography:

Gates, Gary J. 2011. How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? The Williams Institute.  Web.

Smith, Tyson and Michael Kimmel. 2005. The hidden discourse of masculinity in gender discrimination law. Signs 30 (3): 1827-1850.

Willoughby, Brian J., Jason S. Carroll, William J. Marshall, and Caitlin Clark. The Decline of In Loco Parentis and the Shift to Coed Housing on College Campuses. Journal of Adolescent Research 24 (2009): 21-36. Web.
Willoughby, Brian J., Jeffrey K. Larsen, and Jason S. Carroll. The Emergence of Gender-Neutral Housing on American University Campuses. Journal of Adolescent Research 27 (2012): 732-50. Print.

Comparison of Hobbes' and Rousseau's Views on Social Structure

Much of our day to day lives revolve around working to fit in with society. Our culture, interactions and government provide rules which we must follow in order to remain a member of society and reap the rewards of being part of it. Furthermore, some believe that this connection to society leads to issues with human behavior and interaction. To truly understand how humans behave, we must figure out which of our traits we are born with and which ones are the product of our societies. Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Discourse on the Origins of Inequality” both provide theories as to the origins of human social structures as well as how they affect our human nature.

Hobbes and Rousseau both make contrasting claims regarding the basic nature of humans in the absence of any social order. Hobbes’ argues that humans are born solitary and self interested, void of any moral inclinations. By establishing that humans are all more or less equal in terms of our skills and abilities, Hobbes derives the basic sources of human conflict. One source is competition, which results from a limited resource desired by two individuals. “If any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies,” he explains. Two individuals engaged in conflict while in their natural state will suspend their isolative tendencies and use their mental and physical abilities to gain a favorable outcome. Hobbes also explains diffidence, which comes from humans’ ability to relate to the emotions of others. We understand our own capacity for self-interested action, so it is easy for us to project this onto others. We recognize that others are unlikely to help us if it does not serve their self interest, therefore it is difficult to establish trust with others. Finally, we have a natural tendency to prove to others that we are at minimum their equal, if not greater than them. This attribute can be used to describe many actions that do not appear to be self interested. If a man knows that others are donating to charity, he too my donate to show that he has the abilities and resources to donate as well. He may even give a significantly larger donation to show that he is better at managing his self interests than others, to the extent that he can afford to give this kind of money. These conflicts, Hobbes argues, are what drive humans to form governments and social orders.

Rousseau also offers her views on the behavior of humans in their natural state, although her view is notably different than Hobbes. While Rousseau may accept that Hobbes’ ideas may represent a modern human, he believes this is humans in an “artificial” state created by society, and that the natural state is much different. He claims man in his natural state only strives basic needs and will be content once those needs are met. Modern humans are constantly struggling to make more and more money, even once their basic needs are met. Rousseau would claim that this is simply the result of our society training us to constantly want more. Additionally, Rousseau asserts that humans are naturally sympathetic to the suffering of other living beings and have moral issues with the suffering of others. This is sharply different from Hobbes’ views that humans are solely self interested. Rousseau believes have been changed by the social orders we live in to lose some of these attributes like pity for others. He claims this social structure allows us to rationalize the suffering of others, escaping us from the burden of feeling pity towards others. For example, one might see an injured man on the ground, but avoid the pity towards him by rationalizing that they did not hurt the man, or that it is the government's responsibility to provide medical services to him. Rousseau provides other problems that social structure has caused, such as the constant desire for wealth and property. He goes as far as to state that the type of human relationships we have are only the product of society training us to treat others like resources to acquire. He believes in the natural state, our interactions would be much more transient with long term relations not existing.
Given the natural state of humans as described by Hobbes and Rousseau, humanity has developed social structures and governments to serve the mutual benefit of men. The development of social structures can be imagined as two natural individuals each possessing a resource the other desires. They wish to make a deal to exchange resources, but can not trust that the other person will not lie and act in their own self interest. However, a higher social power, such as a government, could oversee the deal and enforce the execution of the promises made. This would be the ideal government to Hobbes, one dedicated to enforcing contracts between individuals. By forming this type of social system, the men would no longer have the total freedom they would in their natural state. Hobbes believes man can justify this loss of freedom as a means of gaining the protection and order of a governed society.

While learning about Hobbes and Rousseau’s ideas regarding the natural state of humans and the development of societies, I couldn’t help but think of how modern biology and anthropology could shed more light on this topic. Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” was written in 1651 and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality” was written in 1754. Over 100 years later, in 1859, Charles Darwin would publish “On the Origin of Species”, the famous piece describing the ideas of evolution and natural selection. These ideas can be used to expand, and in some cases reject, the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau. The key idea of evolution is that the attributes of all animals have developed as a way to help the animal survive until the point in which they can reproduce. While Rousseau believes that humans will naturally feel pity for a fellow man who is suffering, there is little reason for a solitary man to relate to others from an evolutionary point of view. Compassion for others develops only when there is a social structure to provide mutual benefit for helping others. Modern evolutionary theories tend to support Hobbes’ ideas more than Rousseau's, as self-interested action is more likely to lead to successful reproduction than compassionate action. Hobbes and Rousseau provide thoughtful explanations for the foundations and problems with modern societies, however modern science should not be ignored when describing the basic nature of humans.

Kant's Views on Attaining Enlightenment

For centuries, governments have struggled to reach the correct balance freedom and regulation for a society to be best suited. Some believe that strong civil liberties allow people to freely express themselves and make the best decisions based on their decisions. Others believe governments should regulate “bad” behavior to keep people on the correct path. In “What is Enlightenment?”, Immanuel Kant provides his views on how to best balance these two ideas to attain “enlightenment”.

Kant defines enlightenment as the ability to use and act upon one’s own rationality. He states that the main reason people are often unable to do this is the fact that they lack the courage to make their own decisions. It is often easy to allow society to take control of the way we act and think, preventing us from making our own decisions. This “laziness” is understandable, as the human instinct is to avoid unnecessary pain. The full use of reason requires practice in order to be fully developed. Kant even goes as far as to state that conflict is necessary for reason to develop, which is also understandably avoided. However Kant describes these as individuals to reach enlightenment and for societies to truly flourish.

Established religion is used as a strong example in “What is Enlightenment?” as an example of a societal lack of critical thinking. In a church, individuals attend ceremonies in which a pastor describes how they should be thinking. Rather than deriving morals and ethics from rational thinking, they allow themselves to mirror the mindset of the other members of their church. Furthermore, Kant explains how the pastor himself must also suspend his critical thinking. As a pastor, he is “bound to instruct his catecumens and congregation in accordance with the symbol of the church he serves, for he was appointed on that condition.” The pastor may use his critical thinking to find errors with these lessons, however he will not pass on this information to his congregation, as it is not his job to do so. With a congregation blindly following a pastor and a pastor blindly following his religious teachings, churches exemplify Kant’s idea of laziness. By relying on others for these ideas, individuals avoid burdensome thought, however they also avoid the increased understanding that would come from thinking about these issues.

Despite Kant’s calls for greater rational thinking, he does not believe that total freedom will lead to enlightenment. In describing an enlightened society, Kant separates public freedom from private freedom. He views the current climate as one in which people are told to refrain from arguing and just obey. Kant believes it is still required for people to obey the rules of their society in order for it to work properly, but that argument should be encouraged, or in his words "argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!". Public freedom is the ability to argue and think rationally in an open and free manner. This is the only way that the public can truly strive towards enlightenment. However, there would be no issue restricting private freedom, which would be viewed as obeying the rules necessary for a smooth running society. An example of this contrast would be an individual publicly decrying a supposed unfair taxation, while continuing to pay the tax. This allows individuals to strive towards enlightenment without disrupting the workings of a society.

When comparing the work of Kant to those of other philosophers, it is notably more realistic than some. The idea of maintaining order by restricting private use of reason shows Kant is less concerned with a overhaul of existing laws, simply a change in the way we think. Additionally, “What is Enlightenment?” reinforces the idea that quick revolutions are uneffective at helping people reach enlightenment, changes are only made through slow changes in thought. However, there are instances in which restricting private reason and focusing on slow changes would lead to problematic outcomes. Throughout American history, blacks have faced discrimination not only through the ideas of individuals, but even through discriminatory laws. Kant’s view of a situation like slavery or the African American civil rights movement would likely have been that rational thinking would slowly lead to a time in which slaves are freed or blacks are given equal rights. However these slow changes would have kept blacks enslaved or repressed until the full transformation was complete. The freeing of the slaves or the civil rights laws would be seen as breaking the restrictions on private reason. Kant’s ideas lay a good ground for a society in which people freely share ideas and think critically, however there are some extreme cases in which these ideas do not hold up.

Essay on Aristotle's "The Nicomachean Ethics"

One of the defining features of humans is our self awareness and free will. These attributes often lead us to believe we are in total control of our actions and character. However, in “The Nicomachean Ethics”, Aristotle argues that individuals are the product of their environments, with their values and ethics shaped by the society in which they live in. Furthermore, he explains that our adherence to these principles is dependent on our upbringing. 

One of the key points of Aristotle’s thesis is that the character of a human is dependent on the society in which they live. From the day we are born, we are constantly being trained on the types of behaviors that our society views as correct.We can explain the social forces that mold an individual as a current. When an individual conforms to social norms, they move smoothly along the path set out by society. However, one who deviates from the pattern set by society will be met with resistance and struggle. Aristotle breaks the virtues that we learn into two categories: intellectual virtues and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues are explicitly instructed to us, and requires “experience and time” for us to learn them. However, moral virtues are learned through experience. We first experience these virtues by observing them in others, and acquire them by practice and repetition. It important that humans learn these virtues at a young age, as the older one gets, the more they become resistant to changes in their virtues, and Aristotle argues that virtues are not something that can not simply be consciously changed.

In addition to explaining where humans attain their virtues from, Aristotle also explains what makes different behaviors “virtuous”. First of all, an individual must have full awareness of the action they are taking and it’s expected outcome. The person must then deliberately chose to take a virtuous action, rather than have that action forced upon them or happen out of habit. Accidentally helping out someone else would not be viewed as virtuous because the person did not intend or expect to be helpful. Finally, the action taken by the individual must be taken in following their “own firm and immutable character.” Many small children act correctly under their parents’ watch, but this does not make their actions virtuous. The drive to take virtuous actions must be a part of the person’s character. However, Aristotle does make clear that the character of a person is based on their actions rather than their emotions, stating “for we are not called good or bad for our emotions but for our virtues or vices.” In following with the idea that the basic human goal is to seek pleasure and avoid pain, Aristotle notes that we can use these ideas to measure how strong one’s moral virtues are. An individual who has been trained well with moral virtues should experience pleasure for doing the right types of things and pain for doing the wrong types of things. While Aristotle expresses criteria for the types of behaviors we can identify as virtuous, he is clear to state that these virtues are not part of humans by nature, “for nothing that exists by nature can be transformed by habit,” as he says.

The result of this training of an individual is what Aristotle calls “Prudence”. Prudence is the ability of an individual to recognize the correct course of action and make it. Virtuous people must be able to analyze a given situation and rationally conclude the correct course of action to be taken. To act in accordance with what society deems is virtuous behavior, Aristotle explains that actions must fall into the mean, “which is equally distinct from both its extremes.” This means that actions should not be too excessive, nor insufficient. For example, when someone is in the threat of physical harm, a virtuous person should aid them rather than choose inaction. However, it would be foolish for that person to place themself in a situation where they too are at risk of physical injury. Prudence should tell the person to act according to the mean of the situation and safely help the person.

After reading these select portions of “The Nicomachean Ethics”, it is clear that the social forces described by Aristotle are very much a driving factor of today’s society. While humans do have some generic traits expressed by all, much of the character of a person can be seen as coming from the environment that they come from. Additionally, many people present themselves and even pride themselves on taking a firm stance on their values. For example, many people see themselves as always honest, always helpful or always brave. However, the actions of these people will then show them taking the mean course of action. Humans are social beings, and Aristotle’s writings help show us the way society sculpts and molds who we are as people.

Analysis of Bruno Latour’s "Where are the Missing Masses?”

As humans, we like to perceive ourselves as in control of our environment. We have free will and can make use of technology at our own discretion to help alleviate our problems and issues. However, some would argue that technology plays such a major role in our lives, that it is in control of us. Bruno Latour’s "Where are the Missing Masses?” argues that we must consider “nonhumans” when analyzing the social structure of society. Technologies contain the ideas and morals of their creator, and these ideas are passed on to us as we attempt to learn how to make technology a part of our lives.

The idea that technology is in control of us may seem counter-intuitive at first. Technology is built by humans to serve a purpose, in a way that asserts our control of physics, natural resources and engineering. However, technologies are only effective when used in the proper manner. Latour cites doors as an example of these ideas; doors serve the purpose of a temporary wall, however they will not function correctly if one walks straight into a door. Through conditioning, we to twist the door nob then push before passing through a doorway. Technologies “teach” us through our attempts to use them, and this develops in to parts of our personality. Nobody tries to push doors that have knobs, the doors have trained us not to. Some personality traits are more subtle than turning a door knob, such as frequently checking a cell phone for new text messages or emails. Whether good or bad, it is hard to miss the fact that much of our lives are controlled by the technology around us.

One of Latour’s main claims in his paper is that technology should be analyzed in a similar fashion to humans when developing a social theory. When a person interacts with a second person, we can describe this as “using” that person. They may be using the other person for advise and assistance, or simply entertainment and social interaction. However, people are more likely to interact with those who they know personally, this can be described as interacting with those that they know how to use. This relationship is very similar to a human interacting with technology. Just as a person would be uncomfortable talking to a stranger that they don’t know how to “use”, people approach new technological devices with caution. They slowly gain comfort and develop a relationship with that object until they can easily use that object. In fact, a recent study shows that being shown one’s cell phone causes similar brain activity to being shown a close friend or family member (Lindstrom). We are all familiar with basic social guidelines, such as people will respond better to communication if it is in a kind and friendly manner. Technologies all have similar guidelines that we learn to follow as well, such as a cell phone will respond better to attempts to communicate if it is near a window or outside. When looking at the social frameworks that hold our society together, it is important that we look at the relationships between humans and technology as well as the relationships between humans.

Latour’s view of technology revolves around the idea of displacing our actions on to technology. When an engineer builds or designs a product, they have a set of ideas about how this new product should work, what it should do, and how people should use it. This new product now contains those ideas within it, people will forever have to learn the ideas of this engineer in order to extract the benefit of using his product. The advantage is, of course, that this product also displaces the work required to preform a task. For example, someone attempting to use a power drill is looking to displace the work required to create a hole in an object. However, the engineer of this drill has given it some new requirements, such as providing electrical power to the drill, holding the pistol grip of it, and squeezing the trigger. To someone accustomed to using a hand drill, this new drill removes the problem of strenuous cranking to drill a hole. However, the operator of the drill must become comfortable with the requirements imposed by the drill’s engineer such as finding a source of electricity and holding the drill correctly. Every problem solved by technology creates new problems associated with using that technology.

With the large amount of control that technology has on our lives, we can wonder whether we can consider these devices as having human characteristics. Latour points three reasons why we can characterize some technologies as anthropomorphic. First, technologies are the product of human designers and are made up of the ideas of their creator. Second, these products replace humans at preforming a task so that humans are no longer required. Third, these technologies shape our mind and relationships with the world around us. Latour lists those characteristics while referring to a door closer, however they an be applied to any type of object or technology. Latour continues by comparing technologies to written text. While writing is not a living being, it expresses ideas, opinions and the characteristics of the author. Just as a book can convince you to act in a different way, technology expresses the ideas of it’s creator, teaching you to act in a different way. If we can accept writing as anthropomorphic, than the same principle can be applied to technology.

Unlike earlier philosophers, Latour’s goal is not to express the benefits or problems with technology or our relationship with it. “Where Are The Missing Masses?” is intended to present the reader with a new way of understanding social relationships and accounting for the different aspects that play a role in our lives. Technologies are the product of men, and Latour shows us that these technologies contains the ideas and attributes of the men who made them. Only when we accept the way technologies can affect us can we fully understand how our society functions.

Works Cited
Lindstrom, Martin. "You Love Your IPhone. Literally." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/you-love-your-iphone-literally.html>.

Analysis of Habermas' "Technology and Science as Ideology"

Do humans use technology, or does technology use us? Does technology allow us to reach into the future, or does it constrain us to the social order. These ideas are central to Jürgen Habermas’ piece “Technology and Science as Ideology.” In this essay, Habermas criticizes Herbert Marcuse’s ideas that technology corrupts our idea of what we need to do to succeed and makes us resistant to social change. Rather, Habermas states that technology is the natural method of outsourcing our tasks that has been universally growing for all of history. Habermas divides our interactions with technology into purpose driven and culturally driven actions. Unlike Marcuse, Habermas believes our problems are not with our relationship with technology, but rather which parts of that relationship we put more emphasis on.

Marcuse’s “One Dimensional Man” portrays technology as a tool used to maintain social order in a society. While there are many instances in which technology appears to be forcing us to conform to society, technology is more a reflection of society than a unique aspect that can be changed. To illustrate this idea, we can compare the ideas of technology and government. Governments are tools built to solve problems, however they are built on the ideas of people and can freely adjust itself. However, technology is not a human institution but rather an organic progression of our means to solve problems. Governments tend to be tightly connected to the culture in which they govern, new alternative governments rise once they become too disconnected. Habermas points out that, unlike government, we can not connect technology to social projects because there is no alternative to a world with technology. Technology will always remain a major part of society and our relationship with technology will only change as our culture changes around it.

Throughout history technology has evolved to match the challenges faced by humans. Just like early humans used technology as a method of solving their primitive problems like heat and shelter, we continue to develop and use technology to solve our modern problems like communication and transportation. Technology allows humans to extend our natural capabilities to be more efficient and successful. For example, a farmer can work his crops by hand, but using a plow allows him to outsource that task to technology. Humans can easily communicate verbally, but by handing the process of communication to technology, we can communicate at far greater distances. Therefore, technology can not necessarily be connected to it’s historical and political context, as it is human nature to try to preform our necessary tasks with as little effort as possible. Furthermore, Habermas finds issue with Marcuse’s claim that modern technology is always part of a system of repression.
To explain the ways in which we interact with technology in a modern society, Habermas draws a distinction between work and interaction. Work is actions made to accomplish a task and is “governed by technical rules based on empirical knowledge.” Interaction is is actions that allow us to connect to our environment and engage on a social and political level. Interaction less efficient, as it is not centered around rational, purpose driven action, but rather adherence to the social norms. A “traditional society”, as defined by Habermas, is one in which interaction is the dominating force. These societies are constructed around “developed technologies” and work remains an important force in sustaining the society, but remain grounded in traditional values.

Unlike traditional societies, capitalist societies do not feature interaction as the dominant force. “Capitalism is the first mode of production in world history to institutionalize self-sustaining economic growth,” explains Habermas, which is an attribute that is both very helpful but also causes many problems. Capitalism leads to an extremely fast rate of economic growth, which can increase living conditions and lead to a more prosperous country. However, Habermas explains that the problem is that this growth is unconstrained and constantly increasing, leading work to become the dominating force of the society. No longer is work part of the subsystem of the society, work becomes the driving force in the society. This means that interaction becomes less important, and many of the social and cultural attributes of society fall apart. As an example, Habermas discusses the modern protester. Protesters should tend to be oppressed minorities, such as lower-class and poor citizens, however modern protesters are typically made up of privileged college students. In our society, those who actually have legitimate issues to fight for are swept away by the capitalist system, leaving only college students with significant resources as well as a disengagement from the capitalist environment. Political protest, one of the founding ideas of this country, is swept away as work comes to dominate it.

“Technology and Science as Ideology” lays forth Habermas’ beliefs that society's problem is not simply the abundance of technology or our dependence on it, rather it is the way we use technology to interact with society. When work is the driving force of society, we lose many of the elements that make modern societies diverse and cultural. I find Habermas’ views much more accurate than earlier philosophers such as Marcuse. His opinion that we must chance technology to fix the problems associated with it is rather irrational, as the growth of technology is a natural progression that can’t be simply redirected. Habermas accepts technological growth and the ways in which it applies to our culture, but believes that our problems with technology come from a dis-balance of the ways we use technology.