The underlying makeup of human nature has been a primary focus of many philosophers throughout history, particularly the relationship between the individual and culture. According to noted psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud in Civilization and its Discontents, civilization is made up of individuals, each with their own anxieties and personality traits, their own needs and priorities being the essential focus of human nature. However, Ruth Benedict is much more focused on culture as the vehicle that establishes consistent actions and thought patterns that can be found within societies, each of which must be accepted and tolerated as individual to them. Comparing Freud to Benedict, the former views human nature as a series of individualistic choices, while the latter cites cultural relativism as the means by which individuals learn their own culture.
Freud, Psychoanalysis, and the Pleasure Principle
Sigmund Freud’s perspective on society and civilization is highly individualistic, believing that culture is comprised of individuals with their own wants, needs and desires, which collectively makes up the culture. Chief among these is the pleasure principle, in which people seek out happiness and structure their lives based around the search for and fulfillment of pleasure (Freud, 1961). Therefore, human nature is invariably about the pursuit of happiness and pleasure, often through sex. Freud looks at this through very individualistic terms: “There is no golden rule which applies to everyone: every man must find out for himself in what particular fashion he can be saved” (1961, p. 34). Greater cultural forces do not necessarily influence him, as Freud is an absolutist about how everyone’s individual principles guide their actions and needs.
In many ways, Freud believes that civilization is a bad thing, a group of societal restrictions that cause anxiety and unhappiness by creating inhibitions that limit what we feel we are free to do. As Freud notes, “what we call our civilization is largely responsible for our misery, and that we should be much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions (Freud 1961, p., 38). At all turns, we yearn to return to a freer, simpler time in which we only have to look out for ourselves and our needs. However, civilizations form by replacing the power of individuals and giving it to the community, taking it out of the individual’s hands – this is perceived as a wounding or neutering of the individual (Freud, 1961). In essence, individuals are neutered of their natural right to be violent, aggressive, and sexual beings through the establishment of cultural norms that discourage that behavior: this creates tension within the being that can be manifested in all manner of psychological maladies (Freud, 1961). It is societies that create taboos, which then cause conflict when they clash with a person’s essential nature or desires – this is often unconsciously felt and manifests itself through existential malaise or the establishment of religious or societal means to assuage that guilt through salvation of some kind (Freud, 1961).
Ruth Benedict and Cultural Relativism
Benedict, meanwhile, places a much greater focus on culture as what determines the values and behavior of individuals. According to Benedict, culture is “personality writ large,” in that the overall culture collectively decides upon several basic character traits that can be found among the individuals within that society (Benedict 1934, p. xiii). While cultures are aggregate personalities, they do not represent the global needs of the whole; instead, each culture has their own values that must be respected and understood through study of that culture – a phenomenon known as cultural relativism (Benedict, 1934). Benedict argues for a diversity of culture that requires people to understand that one function as applied to their own society may serve a different function in another’s: she wholeheartedly embraces what other theorists call the ‘group fallacy,’ and argues that cultures are more than the sum of their individuals (1934, p. 231).
In some ways, Benedict acknowledges some of Freud’s overall points about cultural norms affecting the behavior of the individual, as understanding people’s actions involves the ability “to relate his congenial responses to the behavior that is singled out in the institutions of the culture” (Benedict 1934, p. 254). However, instead of viewing this as a problem or tension that the individual suffers for, Benedict believes that individuals mostly assume the behavior that society dictates for them happily. Wherever a person is born, they are malleable enough to be shaped into a product of that culture, in which they “take quite readily the form that is presented to them” as individuals (p. 255). To that end, human nature for Benedict is simply determined by the environment to which they are born; they will soon fall into the norms of their culture.
While Benedict’s arguments about cultural relativism are sound, they are not without potential criticisms. For instance, cultural relativism argues that people from other cultures cannot judge another culture’s morality unless they fully understand it. While this approach can promote greater tolerance, this level of plasticity can present problems with controversies. For instance, female genital mutilation in developing countries is considered abhorrent by most developed nations, but Benedict would argue that the society should be allowed to continue that practice because they believe it is a moral one. This prevents global development and progress from interfering with practices that could be avoided; to that end, it becomes much harder to subscribe to Benedict’s approaches to human nature. This is the kind of argument that Freud might make; for instance, things like female genital mutilation become cultural institutions that enforce taboos that should be eliminated to bring its victims greater psychological and sexual freedom. While Benedict would reinforce FGM as a cultural practice that is an acceptable part of human nature, Freud would resist it as an injustice perpetuated by culture that stifles the individual.
Conclusion
When comparing Freud to Benedict in their assessment of human nature and the relationship between individuals and their culture, both theorists fall on opposite ends of the spectrum. Freud believes that human nature is inherently individualistic, and that civilizations work to restrict the fundamental and psychologically healthy need for people to be free to pursue their desires. Benedict, however, sees the value in cultural relativism, and believes that cultures work together to create the values of the individuals within it. Freud would likely oppose Benedict’s teachings, as he believes it is human nature to return to primitive times when they looked out for their own needs; instead, Benedict’s views on human nature are to form cultures with their own distinct moralities that must not be judged by the values of another culture. The conflict between individualism and civilization creates a conflicting series of philosophies between Freud and Benedict; however, together, they form a unique perspective on the individual’s place within their communities, cultures and civilizations.
References
Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of culture. Houghton Mifflin.
Freud, S. (1961). Civilization and its discontents. Trans. Ed. Strachey, J. W.W. Norton &
Company.
