The Theory of Human Nature by Thomas Hobbes is said to be an innovative and inspirational work of his time, a modern philosophical model distantly inspired by the perhaps less accessible world of Aristotle and Plato. Explaining and arguing his theory is not an easy task, especially when there is certainly a number of elements in Hobbes’s theories that seem to be hardly refutable. We will analyse Hobbes’s model of human nature to identify his various concepts relating to his definition of humanity and to see if they are truly valid in modern context.
To start with, a theory of human nature is directly related to the concept of man. The dualistic perspective of man being body and soul for Hobbes’s is non-existent; human beings are entirely material and reminiscent of engines. Hobbes adds more elements to his materialism, inferring that man is a self-moving, self-guided matter in motion. Hobbes interprets human bodies as a mechanism that pushes and pulls by our passions, in other words as mentioned by Crawford Brough Macpherson: “The machine seeks to continue its own motion. It does this by moving towards things… away form things not conducive. Motion towards is called appetite or desire, motion away from is called aversion ”.
This theory turns more complicated and controversial as he starts elaborating the qualities of human beings. Hobbes digs into the fundamental nature of man in stipulating that our behavior varies depending on the motivations or motions caused by appetites or desires. Furthermore, Hobbes presents an individualistic perspective that leaves man in the position of a competent animal that is constantly in the struggle for survival and consequently self-preservation.
This position, the core of Hobbes’s model of human nature; presents a highly irreverent perspective, primarily the idea of a purely selfish human being, driven at it’s core by the constant search of power and power over others , even pity being a tool of this eventual elevation. But pity can be a product of fear, specifically fear of punishment; a feeling that can be associated with aversion. We understand that in this case the engine is moving away, as Hobbes indicates that every man’s actions can be determined by his appetites or aversions. Hobbes in Leviathan (thousand-headed monster) describes that man is aggressive and violent by nature. His actions are dominated by the passions and desire of power, as previously stated, that go beyond the dignity and freedom of his peers, in order to achieve his supremacy.
This last point could be justified somewhat in that since we must preserve ourselves and in order to achieve safety, man is characterized by a natural tendency towards competition and elevation from it’s peers to achieve this safety. However, a response to this argument could be problematic too; ultimately we will found ourselves in a state of war under this model, and this would not appear in great parallel to some of Hobbes more political ideals on humanity and civilized society. A consequence of this natural behavior led by passion will place us in a “solitary, poor, nasty and short” state (loosely Hobbes’s ‘state of nature’) that leaves us in an anti-social position with no progress, no society nor civilization. For Hobbes this may seem less than ideal for his society-model which explores the social infrastructures of humanity, regardless this definition of human nature still forms it’s backbone in which this primal competency is somewhat mirrored but in a social context. This political theory is summarized in the sentence: "Man is a wolf to man". Furthermore, there is only friendship and unity among men when there is common individual interests, therefore the need of a nonaggression pact regulated by the State for protection against other men, emerges in the society-model as a result of the social mirroring of Hobbes' state of nature.
After watching a series of documentaries called Banged up abroad , I concluded that Hobbes’s theory could be validated. The point emerged whilst reflecting on the extreme conditions of life in certain prisons in Venezuela as portrayed by the show. The prisoners rule their territory and live in a permanent, literal state of war. These people deal in grenades, machine-guns and all sorts of weapons; as such the duties of the guards are reduced to merely the protection of the penal complex’s boundaries. One of the central characters of this event was relating his experience as a day-to-day permanent struggle for life and self-preservation. He reflected that in order to overcome and survive one must become an unlawful, spirited being that has to kill if is necessary or otherwise the situation will turn unbearable and one would not be able to survive.
Previous statements demonstrate that for Hobbes, this state of war is not ideal and ultimate. He provides breathing space from the seeming contradiction with his society-model in that ‘he believed that a state of nature never did generally prevail over all the world (although he thought a close approximation to it existed among “the savage people in many places of America”) ’. Hobbes in his society model proposes a fully civilised society. Moreover, he favours a society in which man can live well and comfortably, governed by an authoritative ruler, a perspective that seems to be in favour of monarchism.
We can argue that Hobbes exaggerated the aggressiveness of man but the truth is that human beings are characterized by a high capacity for self-determination that makes us prone to anti-social attitudes and behaviors in which we can become cruel with others and hostile inhabitants of the environment. Nevertheless, the ‘freedom’ that characterizes man makes him capable of being a spirited and empowered whole, it does not mean that this personal liberty is a curse that would have to be eradicated, nor would it be possible to eliminate cruelty in human life without at the same time eliminating individual liberty.
Clearly human beings are in some ways determined to live in a continual ethical struggle, and through the provision of laws and authorities control their own behaviour. Hence a peaceful coexistence is possible, increasingly less cruel; but ultimately never perfectly peaceful or devoiced of cruelty, as such Hobbes’ depiction of human nature holds strong.
Through Hobbes’s theory it is possible to assume that he is not a rationalist, which, in my opinion, is a strongpoint of the philosophy of his times also, as opposed to Descartes account. In this case, reason can be considered as a servant of our passions and it is rather a tool that reaches general prepositions. Hobbes complements his philosophy by making evident that there are motivations activated by fear; which is a key element that interferes with desires of gaining power, glory and self-love.
Hobbes reasoning for human actions can be considered pessimistic in light of the depiction of man as an egotistical being that manipulates things around in his favour, even relationships, as we use mankind abilities purely for self-preservation. Even more negative an outlook is the idea related to pity and charity - he establishes a connection between fear and pity but also postulates that we help or support others as we are in search of glory, hence, solidarity is able to provide us a sense of power and glory through averting future calamity. However this tendency emerges as an obligation that it is not innate in us. Furthermore, what makes man a more selfish and also a social animal is the need of mutual benefit. Fear is a powerful force that drives us into co-operation with each other. As Hobbes points out, we are dependant on joint activities. To this extent, a position of disagreement comes to light. We certainly need mutual cooperation to coexist peacefully and harmoniously, but we help others as we feel sympathy and compassion – thus Hobbes pessimism leads him to overlook positive realities that we experience personally.
There are certain events when I obviously feel pity and sympathy but there seems to be something that goes beyond self-preservation. We are human beings but as the word denotes our condition is human. This term infers ethics and morals. An example that might be quite common is the children starving in Africa. The willing to be part of a humanitarian cause to stop the suffering of others may be understood, from Hobbes’s theory perspective, as a way to feed the ego driven by the desire of glory. On the other hand, there is and evident desire that motives us to charity.
As I have previously experienced, supporting a child trough an organization such as child vision actually represents a mutual beneficial act, in the way that a child has the opportunity to live a dignified life with access to education, food and medical access. I feel satisfaction as there is a way that the life of a child has improved and in my opinion, this act of charity of is not caused by need of glory and power rather that being part of the change and being able to make a difference.
To sum up, Hobbes account of human nature depicts man as competitive and manipulative being in constant struggle for surviving. His theory can be easily applied and proved to multiple circumstances in day-to-day life, which makes it a hardly refutable account, accurately portraying some unfortunate fundamentals of human nature. Although some of his statements are unenthusiastic in terms of how we act, in my opinion, there are too other explanations that can come from a place of love, which is an innate element to humanity.
In this Blog, the Colombian bag also known as “mochila” has been selected to examine and also discuss it’s fundamental relevance and importance to me as a person in terms of it’s cultural, aesthetical, artistic and historical formation. Thus, how it affects my perception of the world[1]. The mochila or Colombia Bag is a traditional, handmade woven bag manufactured by a Native American ethnic group called Arhuacos. The Arhuacos live near the snowy mountains up on the north of Colombia.
To start with, I am going to contextualise the mochila in terms of cultural and ethnographical features. For the Arhuaco people, this Colombian bag denotes family lineage. More over, it is a symbolic representation of life-creation and is directly symbolic of their cosmology and mythology. The mochila is linked to a famous myth: Serankua was the first son of the universal mother. He started creating the world in a spiral motion all over the ancestral territory, as well as the snail and the pumpkin plant - a fundamental symbol that represents spreading of life. Hence, it becomes an account of fertility as it is believed by this community to be a depiction of the universal mother’s womb, a concept further reflected by the physical form of the item. Furthermore, it is a remarkable icon of the creation of life.
The art of weaving the mochila is a duty done exclusively by women in the everyday life of the community. It could be said that it is a purely feminine activity and is considered to be inherent to the female genre. Likewise, the art of weaving the Colombia bag is initiated at an early stage of life. The little girl goes along with the mother/elder sister and learns to develop the skills demanded of one’s gender, rehearsing the first stitches and therefore creating the first Mochila. Alternatively, the Yekuana people, another American Indian ethnic group situated in the Amazon rainforest; are distinguished by the art of basketry. This art could be compared by its similarities in terms of handmade-everyday-object, to what we find in the text of David M. Guss, All Things Made:
“In order to manufacture even the simplest objects of everyday use, the maker will need to be familiar with the symbolic arrangements necessary to their completion. As these objects become more complicated, so too must the esoteric knowledge incorporated into their design. Of all the artefacts the Yekuana manufacture, no other demonstrates this simultaneously incremental development of technical and ritual competence as does basketry.”[2]
As we see, the art of weaving in America is an influential activity not only related to a material level but also a metaphysical and meaningful account of the perception of the world.
The Colombia bag is woven from cotton, sheep and goat wool, also cane, palm and vine fibre. However cotton was introduced into the region by Spanish missionaries in the 18th century.
Each member of the group must wear at least three Colombian Bags. The first mochila, for the use of personal belongings; is usually coloured. The second mochila slightly smaller in which the coca[3] leafs are commonly stored. The third is used for the transportation of household goods on expeditions.
Now that the Mochila as an object is defined in terms of what it is and what is represents to certain peoples, I will attempt to interpret what the Colombian bag represents to me and correlate its significance to a perspective of the world and why it is so important and meaningful to me as a personal belonging.
Across my life, I have always been identified with the minorities, specifically, indigenous communities of my country Colombia, as well as ethnics groups of South America and all over the world; identified in both the philosophical and religious sense particularly. The way of seeing the everyday life, the relativism considered and incorporated in their philosophy and moreover the sort of answers they have to questions as indispensable as the very origin of life. The fact of wearing a mochila keeps me grounded and reminds me where I come from, what is my cultural background and beyond that, the awareness of an ethnographic meaning. It also draws my attention to the extent that I must be conscious and proud of coming from such a rich and varied background. From a land that has more that 80 different ethnic groups, each one speaking different dialects and having different customs. Its significance goes beyond my limitations of understanding; it transcends the boundaries of what is objectivity.
One of the meanings in particular I can comprehend is it’s metaphoric character as previously illustrated. The handmade nature of this object not only adds a strong personal connection regarding the objects origins to this metaphor, but also adds a significant economical value. The symbols that the hands of the community weave into the mochila represent everything from the beliefs and convictions of the people, to the simple everyday activities of all aspects of the communities, from small tasks to the environment to the personal energies of the tribe, and as such are constantly being woven and recreated day to day to represent the present state of all aspects of life. This object therefore has the ability to understand how culture can be made, an idea to which I find a strong attraction. When I am attracted to something I gravitate around it and then it may become a part of me, an extension on my body, of the art I like, of my produce as an artist.
In the text of James Clifford ‘Histories of the tribal and the modern’, an interesting concept is explored in that nowadays we are attracted to what is tribal and elemental. That Westerners are fascinated with tribal artifacts also serves to remind us that in the first half of the twentieth century painters such as Picasso attributed importance to these same objects. These artifacts also make us realize the importance of other cultures. James Clifford states “Around 1910 Picasso and his cohort suddenly, intuitively recognize that “primitive” objects are in fact powerful “art”…modernism is thus presented as a search for “informing principles” that transcend culture, politics and history. Beneath this generous umbrella the tribal is modern and the modern more richly, more diversely human”[4].
To me, the mochila represents a way of life, a perception of the universe with spiritual and cultural significance as I have demonstrated. However, beyond that, as a young adolescent I was always attracted to the idea of running away from civilization and to find refuge in the mountain where I believed and I still believe that ancestral wisdom can be found. I consider interesting the idea of following the ascetic way, finding time to devote myself to life as well as be able to dedicate myself for a while to contemplative meditation.
The acquisition of my first Colombian bag takes me back to the age of 12. When I first contemplated the idea of buying one I thought that I would be buying something that would differentiate me from the rest, however as a teenager I also felt I would appear to my peers as alternative and unfashionable, it was a unique and special artifact. As a matter of fact, every single Colombian bag is unique; there is not one identical although there might be similarities in design, use of colour and size. Ever since that first acquired Mochila which was stolen 7 years later, I still feel deep regret and an incalculable loss, it is to me what, in Antoine De Saint-Exupery’s classic ‘The little prince’; the little prince is to the fox or what the Rose is to the Little Prince[5].
From the 1960’s the youth in Colombia has become more consciously aware of the importance of this symbolic element and also acknowledged how fundamental it is to be identified to the roots of indigenous culture. Ever since, many of us adopted into our outfit the use of the Mochila, beautiful and full of symbols, where like any Arhuaco we keep our dearest belongings.
The Mochila itself is such a fascinating object. It is reminiscent of Zen Buddhism, dualism, relativism and significantly of emptiness. By emptiness I mean it could not be what it is if the notion of bareness was not implicit, an object made to contain. Nevertheless, the Colombian bag is itself a blank canvas. The space where the mental state of the weavers is embodied. Looking at all the patterns in it one can easily find relation and affinity to nature and start to wonder about the cosmological meanings of it’s creators. The shape of the bottom end of the bag is in spiral but also a reminder as previously mentioned mother earth’s womb, in other words, Pacha mama, the foundation of life. Therefore and once again, the mochila as a way of seeing life expresses concepts, myths, family linage, values, and correlation with nature. The mochila is a system of communication; “the meaning of an element lies in its position within a relational system, as it does in language.”[6]
[1]“ The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe” BBC TV DOCUMENTARY - WAYS OF SEEING - WITH JOHN BERGERFIRST EPISODE (LOOKING AT ART)[2]David M. Guss 2006 “All things Made” Morphy Howard and Perkins Morgan. The Anthropology of Art: A reader. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing 2006. pp 375 [3] The coca is a vital element for indigenous groups across South America as it is a part of the way of life and the cosmological – philosophical perspective. It is commonly used as a traditional medicine. It relieves the symptoms of altitude sickness. It is also know for its anaesthetic components. [4] James Clifford. Histories of the tribal and the modern. Morphy Howard and Perkins Morgan. The Anthropology of Art: A reader. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing 2006.Pp 151[5] "You are not at all like my rose," he said."As yet you are nothing. No one has tamed you, and you have tamed no one. You are like my fox when I first knew him. He was only a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But I have made him my friend, and now he is unique in all the world." Pp 63[6] Abraham Rosman and Paula G. Rubel. Structural pattering in Kwakiutl Art and Ritual. Morphy Howard and Perkins Morgan. The Anthropology of Art: A reader. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing 2006.Pp 339
Bibliography:
Antoine De Saint-Exupery. The little Prince. Orlando. Harvest Book Harcourt. 1971
Barragan Julio Mario: La mochila Arhuaca. Semana Magazine. Bogotá. June 2006
Berger John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 1977.
Grass Antonio: The Magic Mark. Bogotá. Editoriales Norma. 1970
Morphy Howard and Perkins Morgan. The Anthropology of Art: A reader. Cornwall: Blackwell Publishing 2006.
: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford University Press, 1964
: an historical introduction. Malden Massachusetts. Blackwell Publishers. 1999 
