Hehe…I’m *fond* of them myself, at least when I can’t use italics, which are my favorite.

can you tell I like using asterisks for emphasis? It’s *very* exciting.

=)

To clarify my perspective, I personally am reticent to assume any kind of “rationality” when it comes to people, and common definitely doesn’t mean “normal” or whatever that implies. “Normal” is actually a really problematic word. And beyond having just one trait or even a set of traits, I imagine any important traits also include spectrums of degree (like the masculine/feminine one I mention). However, if empathy is at least an important primary ability and society an important drive, I would still think that humans are incredibly prone and susceptible to fear. And how fear manifests itself can lead to a whole multitude of possible responses that underlie a lot of behavior we see. Throw in trauma of any kind and then the possibilities get even more complex.

But even if it doesn’t all boil down to empathy, I do like to imagine what it would be like if the Hobbesian view wasn’t so dominant. What if we discovered, through scientific evidence, that we’ve been assuming a Hobbesian view of the world and that’s why our politics has manifested itself in the way it has (i.e. principally realist/neo-realist paradigm)? What if we discovered that humans actually do have a more empathetic nature than we’ve assumed and the more self-interested actions have come when social connectivity failed and that it’s actually possible to prevent or minimize that failure? What if we assumed more empathy, how would our personal interactions and, by extension, world politic change? As a fan of Moravcsik and old-school constructivism, it makes me happy to ponder such things.

Thanks so much for your comments and I hope all is going well with you too!

I think you’re right to point out that mainstream historians and news media emphasize the avarice and lust of humanity because of the ability of these things to catch attention and inspire controversy. So in a sense these images do not capture “normal” human behavior because they obscure the every-day activity of individual life. Indeed, they catch attention precisely because they are “extra-” ordinary. But is it fair to say that because historians/media focus on the extraordinary that they therefore represent the abnormal and obscure the normal? This may be a problematic slippery slope (aren’t slippery slopes problematic in general? ), because it almost seems to equate behavior that is common with behavior that is normal, or as you say, “the norm.” This may further imply that commonality can be a proxy for the “natural,” to the extent that uncommon behavior represents an “aberration” from the “norm of human nature.”

Putting aside the question of whether violence and greed are more or less common than altruism and empathy (a tall order, methodologically, and it’s not clear what this statistic would tell us anyway) I’ve yet seen any convincing research that suggests that any of these behaviors or corresponding sets of motives are more or less, let’s say “alien,” to the human motivational repertoire than the others. Yes, we are empathizers, but does this render aggression abnormal? Yes, we are selfish, but does this mean we don’t care about others? The tragedy of the human condition may be that the human motivational complex is a network of competing desires and difficult internal tradeoffs; viz. there is no homunculus, no ultimate motive. The hope of the human condition, as we would both agree, is that we have the capacity to decide that the historians are wrong about our future. So the more research we uncover that problematizes Hobbesian claims on human nature, the better. But the failure of Hobbes does not vindicate Rousseau.

Great post! I like your space here. You’re a great writer and I like the variety on your page. I’ll have to check out the Rifkin book. Only book I’ve read of his is The Hydrogen Economy. it was a good read. Hope you’re doing well, Jade!