Against human nature

Part of the Theory and Decision Library A: book series (TDLA, volume 39)


Are cultural differences superimposed upon a universal human nature? The appeal to an essentialist concept of human nature is a defensive reaction to the legacy of racist science left by Darwin’s argument in The Descent of Man. Humans are made to appear different in degree from their evolutionary antecedents by attributing the movement of history to a process of culture that differs in kind from the biological process of evolution. The specifications of evolved human nature are supposed to lie in the genes. However, human capacities are not genetically specified but emerge within processes of ontogenetic development. Moreover the circumstances of development are continually shaped through human activity. There is consequently no human nature that has escaped the current of history.


Natural Selection Human Nature Human Genome Project Ontogenetic Development Defensive Reaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boas, F. 1940. Race, language and culture. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bock, K.E. 1980. Human nature and history: A response to sociobiology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, D.E. 1991. Human universals. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, D.J. 1990. The common heritage: The significance of hunter-gatherer societies for human evolution. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  5. Darwin, C. 1872. The origin of species, 6th Ed. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  6. Darwin, C. 1874. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex, 2nd Ed. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  7. Dent, C.H. 1990. “An ecological approach to language development: An alternative functionalism.” Developmental Psychobiology 23: 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunbar, R. 1994. “Sociality among humans and non-human animals.” In: Ingold, T. (ed.), Companion encyclopaedia of anthropology: Humanity, culture and social life 756–782. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Griffiths, P.E.; and Gray, R.D. 1994. “Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation.” Journal of Philosophy XCI(6): 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hull, D. 1984. “Historical entities and historical narratives.” In: Hookway, C. (ed.), Minds, machines and evolution 17–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Ingold, T. 1986. Evolution and social life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ingold, T. 1998. “The evolution of society.” In: Fabian, A.C. (ed.), Evolution: Society, science and the universe 79–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Ingold, T. 2001. “From the transmission of representations to the education of attention.” In: Whitehouse, H. (ed.), The debated mind: Evolutionary psychology versus ethnography 113–153. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  15. Kawada, J. (n.d.). “Postures de portage et de travaux manuels, en rapport avec d’autres domaines de la vie Japonaise.” Paper presented to the Fyssen Foundation Colloquium on Culture and the uses of the body. Saint Germain en Laye, Paris, March 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Kay, L.E. 1998. “A book of life? How the genome became an information system and DNA a language.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41: 504–528.Google Scholar
  17. Keller, E.F. 2001. “Beyond the gene but beneath the skin.” In: Oyama, S.; Griffiths, P.E.; and Gray, R. (eds.), Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution 299–312. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kroeber, A.L. 1952. The nature of culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lehrman, D.S. 1953. “A critique of Konrad Lorenz’s theory of instinctive behavior.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 28: 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewontin, R.C. 1983. “Gene, organism and environment.” In: Bendall, D.S. (ed.), Evolution from molecules to men 273–285. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lovejoy, A.O. 1936. The great chain of being. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mauss, M. 1979. Sociology and psychology: Essays. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. Medawar, P. 1957. The uniqueness of the individual. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  24. Mellars, P.; and Stringer, C. (eds.). 1989. The human revolution: Behavioural and biological perspectives on the origins of modern humans. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Oyama, S. 1985. The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Premack, D.; and Premack, A.J. 1994. “Why animals have neither culture nor history.” In: Ingold, T. (ed.), Companion encyclopaedia of anthropology: Humanity, culture and social life 350–365. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Reynolds, P.C. 1981. On the evolution of human behavior: The argument from animals to man. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Thelen, E. 1995. “Motor development: A new synthesis.” The American Psychologist 50: 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tooby, J.; and Cosmides, L. 1992. “The psychological foundations of culture.” In: Barkow, J.H.; Cosmides, L.; and Tooby, J. (eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture 19–136. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wallace, A.R. 1870. Contributions to the theory of natural selection. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeen, ScotlandUK

Personalised recommendations