Mead And Marx's View On Human Nature

1311 Words3 Pages

Philosophy Exam #3 Philosophers have tried to describe human nature in a plethora of diverse ways. Some focus on what they think humans are born as, what their life goals are, or what morals classify them as human. Mead and Marx both focus on the surroundings of certain types of people, and describe how this changes their human nature. In the process, they both describe similar but different human natures. Mead believes human nature is cultural, and therefore can be shaped by nurture. Marx believes there is a true human nature, that of a free species being, but our social environment can alienate us from it. To describe this nature, he first describes the class conflict between the bourgeois and the proletariats. Coined by Marx, the bourgeois are “the exploiting and ruling class…”, and the proletariats are “the exploited and oppressed class” (Marx, 207). These two classes are separated because of the machine we call capitalism. Capitalism arises from private property, specialization of labor, wage labor, and inevitably causes competition. “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products (…) chases the bourgeois over the whole surface of the globe” (Marx, 212) and creates a world that cannot exist without the separation of workers and owners and competition for the lowest price. The struggle between the For example, capitalism separates us into the bourgeois and proletariats because it alienates us from our true human nature, our species being, and other men. It causes class conflict that will end in a revolution. Similarly, Mead asserts that nurture shapes human nature because when she studied the Samoan culture their tranquil lifestyle resulted in a tranquil adolescence for the young ladies. This shows there is no defined way to be. She says that how we raise our children and the pressures that we put on children, especially female, can shape the human

Open Document