[Glorantha] Nurture: hardware or software?

>> The whole way society was organised could be described as a systematic
>> repression of basic instincts.

OK, the main one I had in mind was the sexual repression that in our society more or less typifies the Victorians. OK, I think that reputation is a little over-done, but I still think it existed. One could argue that sex is a basic instinct regardless of reproduction; in females as well as males - now who's being sexist? ;-) Certainly there are some homosexuals of my acquaintance who would be quite vociferous on that point! Certainly I would say that the idea of recreational sex was taboo within British "polite" society well into the post-war era.
Survival of offspring. I would have said that the Victorian tendency to put children in factories, work houses and up chimneys is not the best expression of the instinct to ensure their survival.

> The cultural attitudes came into
> existance to best achieve that in the society of that time.

Do you really believe that? I'm sure an argument can be made in support of it, but some societies at some times do not seem to serve the natural interests or instincts of their members. The Cultural Revolution in China and was it "Year Zero" in Kampuchea seem to illustrate that. The Victorians are a more moderate example than either of those, but they seem geared towards the prejudices of the social and religious elite rather than to best achieve survival and reproduction in the society at large.

> From all I've heard breastfeeding has to be learnt which makes
> it unlikely as an instinct never mind a physical compulsion.

When a woman has a baby, she begins to lactate. She does not learn it, she does not choose it, it just happens. As much a physical compulsion as any other expulsion of liquid matter from the body. A newborn baby will (if physically able) climb its mother's body, without assistance, and attempt to suckle on the breast, if not assisted. (I've seen a speeded up video of that happening, it takes about half an hour or so. Quite amazing!) To breastfeed effectively, as you say, has to be learnt, by both the mother and child, though both have a number of hardwired reflexes to assist this (the "let down reflex" in the mother generates milk when her child (or another child sometimes) indicates that they are hungry or distressed, and the "sucking reflex" in a newborn baby for example).

> And I can only think of two reasons for the cultural repression.
> The heavy promotion of milk products by the medical profession
> and the food industry during the 1950s and 60s, combined with
> the social emphasis on the sexual function of the female breast.

I agree that those are the main ones. There is also the emphasis on convenience, a tendency to assume that modern science is better than nature, the second and third generation parental pressure arising from the promotion you mention, resulting in "Well I fed you on formula milk, and you survived, didn't you?" type arguments happening between new parents and their own mothers. There are others.

> This is where we're disagreeing, you are claiming as basic instincts
> things I believe are learnt behaviour. As a result you have to
> conclude that humans learn to override their instincts whereas
> I say it is a matter of not learning something which the majority
> of people in a particular culture do.

Yes, I think that this is the main difference in our perceptions of the argument. And to be sure, it is a difficult issue, to separate genuine automatic instincts from the most basic learned behaviour. I agree that humans have hardly any hard instincts, because so much of human existence is devoted to learning and adapting suitable responses to our environments.

Nevertheless, to take the examples I quoted from you above: "individual survival, reproduction (sex in males, babies in females) and survival of offspring" I am still quite certain in my own mind that the instincts of males are more inclined towards protection and production, and those females are more geared towards care and nurture. The more complex a society becomes, the more these instincts can be marginalised, suppressed, refined or sometimes actually counterproductive - if the society is structured in a way that is in conflict with them, but I am still certain that they are present.

Now my own *personal* opinion, is that it is more "sexist" to deny that there are differences between genders that are beyond the purely physical, and to claim that everyone is absolutely equal, than it is to recognise them for what they are, and accept them accordingly. I realise that not everyone would agree with that, but I am confident (some would say arrogant) enough to think that I am not the one who is flying in the face of reality!

Cheers!

Malk. Received on Thu 06 Jul 2006 - 18:15:53 EEST