How “General” is “Human Nature”?

  • W. Peter Archibald


Let us retrace our steps to the accounts of hunters and gatherers discussed in the previous chapter and reexamine them with regard to Marx’s conception of needs and wants “in general”.


Human Nature Social Comparison Relative Deprivation Intergroup Relation Intergroup Conflict 
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. 1.
    Richard Preston, “The development of self-control in the Eastern Cree life cycle”, pp. 83–92 in K. Ishwaren (ed.), Childhood and Adolescence in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1979) p. 87.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steward, 1938, op. cit., pp. 1, 45–6, 257; “Causal factors and processes in the evolution of pre-farming societies”, pp. 321–34 in Lee and DeVore, op. cit. Marvin Harris, Cultural Materialism (New York: Random House, 1979).Google Scholar
  3. 8.
    E.g., see Alastair Clayre, Work and Play (New York: Harper and Row, 1974).Google Scholar
  4. 16.
    D. D. Kossambi, The Culture and Civilization of Ancient India in Historical Outline (New Delhi: Vikas (Vani Educational), 1986) pp. 145, 173.Google Scholar
  5. 47.
    E.g., E. Wight Bakke, Citizens Without Work (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969).Google Scholar
  6. 50.
    Fred H. Blum, Toward a Democratic Work Process (New York: Harper and Row, 1953).Google Scholar
  7. 54.
    E.g., see Arthur Kornhauser’s The Mental Health of the Industrial Worker (New York: Wiley, 1965) pp. 159–62, 269–71.Google Scholar
  8. 59.
    Michael Burawoy, Manufacturing Consent (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980) pp. 132–5, 200; Willis, op. cit., p. 179.Google Scholar
  9. 61.
    E.g., see Studs Terkel’s Working (New York: Pantheon, 1972)Google Scholar
  10. and Barbara Garson’s All the Live Long Day (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977).Google Scholar
  11. 64.
    E.g., Wilhelm Reich, The Mass Psychology of Fascism (New York: Simon and Schuster (Touchstone), 1970) Chapter 10, and pp. 191–200.Google Scholar
  12. Herbert Marcuse, Eros and Civilization (New York: Random House (Vintage), 1962).Google Scholar
  13. 65.
    For example, see Ira L. Reiss, Ronald E. Anderson, and G. C. Sponaugle, “A multivariate model of the determinants of extramarital sexual permissiveness”, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 42 (May 1980), pp. 395–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 66.
    [1941] Jean-Paul Sartre, Search for a Method (New York: Random House (Vintage), 1962).Google Scholar
  15. 72.
    E.g., for the first claim, see Ann Oakley’s The Sociology of Housework (New York: Pantheon, 1974); for the second, a secondary analysis of a national sample of the Canadian labour force by Owen Adams and myself and reported in my Social Psychology … , op. cit., pp. 222–5.Google Scholar
  16. The third finding is in Terrence H. White, “Autonomy in work: Are women any different?” pp. 213–26 in Marylee Stephenson (ed.), Women in Canada (Toronto: New Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  17. 75.
    Ruth Cavendish, Women on the Line (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983) pp. 19, 24, 31–6, 40, 90–6.Google Scholar
  18. Sallie Westwood, All Day, Every Day (London: Pluto Press, 1984) pp. 20, 43, 89–91, 102.Google Scholar
  19. Charlene Gannage, Double Day, Double Bind: Women garment workers (Toronto: Women’s Press, 1986) pp. 66, 107, 126.Google Scholar
  20. 80.
    E.g., see the critical review by Gerald R. Salancik and Jeffrey Pfeffer, “An examination of need-satisfaction models of job attitudes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 22 (September 1977), pp. 427–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 82.
    Arthur N. Turner and Paul R. Lawrence, Industrial Jobs and the Worker (Boston: Harvard University, 1965) pp. 36–8, 44–8, 113.Google Scholar
  22. 84.
    For Charles L. Hulin and Milton R. Blood, see their “Job enlargement, individual differences, and worker responses”, Psychological Bulletin, 1968, vol. 69 (1), pp. 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 87.
    E.g., see Michael Maccoby’s The Games-man (New York: Bantam, 1978) pp. 234, 238, 240–8.Google Scholar
  24. 88.
    For the second, in addition to Salancik and Pfeffer, op. cit., see the review by Mahmoud A. Wahba and Lawrence G. Bidwell, “Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, vol. 15 (April 1976), pp. 212–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 90.
    E.g., Frank Friedlander, “Importance of work versus nonwork among socially and occupationally stratified groups”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 50 (December 1966), pp. 437–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. W. W. Ronan, “Relative importance of job characteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 54 (June 1970), pp. 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 92.
    Thomas Cook, Faye Crosby, and Karen M. Hennigan, “The construct validity of relative deprivation”, pp. 307–33 in Jerry M. Suls and Richard L. Miller (eds), Social Comparison Processes (Washington: Wiley (Hemisphere), 1977) p. 323.Google Scholar
  28. William Austin, Neil C. McGinn, and Charles Susmilch, “Internal standards revisited: Effects of social comparisons and expectancies on judgments of fairness and satisfaction”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1980, 16, pp. 426–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawrence A. Messé and Barbara L. Watts, “Complex nature of the sense of fairness: Internal standards and social comparison as bases for reward evaluations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 45 (July 1983), pp. 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 93.
    E.g., see Marylee C. Taylor, “Improved conditions, rising expectations, and dissatisfaction: A test of the past/present relative deprivation hypothesis”, Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 45 (March 1982), pp. 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 95.
    Faye Crosby, Relative Deprivation and Working Women (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
  32. Robert Folger, David Rosenfield, Karen Rheaume, and Chris Martin, “Relative deprivation and referent cognitions”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, (1983) vol. 19 pp. 172–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 98.
    Mary Kristine Ute and Robert F. Kidd, “Equity and attribution”, pp. 63–93 in Gerold Mikula (ed.), Justice and Social Interaction (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1980).Google Scholar
  34. 99.
    Also John Urry, Reference Groups and the Theory of Revolution (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973) p. 127.Google Scholar
  35. 102.
    Ibid. See also Philip Brickman and Ronnie Janoff Bulman, “Pleasure and pain in social comparison”, pp. 149–86 in the same source (pp. 149, 159–61), and Thomas Ashby Wills, “Downward comparison principles in social psychology”, Psychological Bulletin, 1981, vol. 90 (2), pp. 245–71; p. 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 105.
    On the former point, see John H. Goldthorpe, Social Mobility and Class Structure in Britain (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980), p. 230.Google Scholar

Aggression and withdrawal as responses to frustration

  1. 110.
    For instance, Clayton Robarchek (“Frustration, aggression, and the nonviolent Semai”, American Ethnologist, vol. 4 (November 1977) pp. 762–79) claims that a tribe of primitive agriculturalists on the Malay Peninsula almost never respond to frustration with anger and aggression.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 111.
    Karl Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973) pp. 137, 142–3, 156–7, 331, 421.Google Scholar
  3. 120.
    See also Hobsbawm, 1959, op. cit., p. 23, and even Barrington Moore (Injustice: The social bases of obedience and revolt (White Plains, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1978) pp. 156, 161–5, 169), who claims not to like such a model.Google Scholar
  4. 122.
    For Ted Gurr, see his Why Men Rebel (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970).Google Scholar
  5. 123.
    E.g., Keith Webb, Ekkart Zimmerman, Michael Marsh, Anne-Marie Aish, Christina Mironesco, Christopher Mitchell, Leonardo Morlino, and James Walston, “Etiology and outcomes of protest: New European perspectives”, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 26 (January/ February 1983), pp. 311–33. Pp. 312, 315–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. David Snyder, “Collective violence: A research agenda and some strategic considerations”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 22 (September 1978), pp. 499–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 124.
    See also Paul Edwards and Hugh Scullion, The Social Organization of Industrial Conflict (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982) pp. 58, 65, 79–80, 89–90, 173, 230.Google Scholar
  8. 127.
    James T. Tedeschi, R. Bob Smith and Robert C. Brown, “A reinter-pretation of research on aggression”, Psychological Bulletin, vol. 81 (August 1974), pp. 540–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 128.
    E.g., see the review by Leonard Berkowitz, “Whatever happened to the frustration-aggression hypothesis?”, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 21 (May-June 1978), pp. 691–708.Google Scholar
  10. 131.
    But for some contrary evidence, see David S. Holmes, “Aggression, displacement, and guilt”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, vol. 21 (3), pp. 296–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. On the relationship between aggression and other responses, see, e.g., Paul Babiak, “Locus of control as a moderator of the relationship between worker frustration and aggression, escape, avoidance, stress and fixation”, Dissertation Abstracts, vol. 43 (June 1983), pp. 4184–5B.Google Scholar

What we now know about knowledge

  1. 156.
    Trotsky’s observation as well as more systematic evidence is contained in John Leggett’s Class, Race and Labor: Working class consciousness in Detroit (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968) pp. 71–3.Google Scholar
  2. 162.
    J. S. Bruner and C.D. Goodman, “Value and need as organizing factors in perception”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1947, vol. 42, pp. 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grouping and its effects

  1. 177.
    Mustafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, Groups in Harmony and Tension (New York: Harper, 1953).Google Scholar
  2. 178.
    Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner, “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, pp. 33–47 in William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Monterey: Brooks/ Cole, 1979) p. 34.Google Scholar
  3. Henri Tajfel, “Social psychology of intergroup relations”, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 33, 1982, pp. 1–39. P. 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 179.
    Tajfel and Turner, op. cit., pp. 34, 38, 42; Tajfel, op. cit., p. 31; John Turner, “Social identification and psychological group formation”, pp. 518–38 in Henri Tajfel (ed.), The Social Dimension (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Volume 2).Google Scholar
  5. 180.
    Tajfel and Turner, op. cit.; Donald M. Taylor and David J. McKirnan, “A five-stage model of intergroup relations”, British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 23 (November 1984), pp. 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 181.
    Rupert Brown, “Divided we fall: An analysis of relations between sections of a factory workforce”, pp. 395–429 in Henri Tajfel (ed.), Differentiation Between Social Groups (London: Academic Press, 1978).Google Scholar
  7. 191.
    Reed D. Vanneman and Thomas F. Pettigrew, “Race and relative deprivation in the urban United States”, Race, vol. 13 (April 1972), pp. 461–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Iain Walker and Thomas F. Pettigrew, “Relative deprivation theory: An overview and conceptual critique”, British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 23 (November 1984), pp. 301–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rama Charan Tripathi and Rashmi Srivastava, “Relative deprivation and intergroup attitudes”, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 11 (July-September 1981), pp. 313–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Serge Guimond and Lise Dubé-Simard, “Relative deprivation theory and the Quebec nationalist movement”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 44(3), 1983, pp. 526–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 192.
    Brown, op. cit. For the experimental evidence, see Rupert J. Brown and John C. Turner, “Interpersonal and intergroup behaviour”, pp. 33–65 in John C. Turner and Howard Giles (eds), Intergroup Behaviour (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981).Google Scholar
  12. 204.
    E.g., see Marvin E. Shaw, Group Dynamics, 3rd Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981) pp. 68–79; 57–68, 77–9.Google Scholar
  13. James H. Davis, Group Performance (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969) Chapter 3.Google Scholar
  14. 208.
    Philip G. Zimbardo, “Individuation, reason and order versus deindividuation, impulse and chaos”, pp. 237–307 in W. J. Arnold and D. Levine (eds), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970).Google Scholar
  15. L. Mann, J. W. Newton, and J. M. Innes, “A test between deindividuation and emergent norm theories of crowd aggression”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 42, 1982, pp. 260–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. S. Prentice-Dunn and R. W. Rogers, “Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 43, 1982, pp. 505–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 209.
    See William Ryan’s “Preventive services in the social context: Power, pathology, and prevention”, Proceedings of the Mental Health Institute, (May–June 1969), pp. 49–58 (Boulder, Col.: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education).Google Scholar
  18. 210.
    Itesh Sachdev and Richard Y. Bourhis, “Social categorization and power differentials in group relations”, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 15, 1985, pp. 415–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 215.
    John Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Turner, and P. M. Smith, “Failure and defeat as determinants of group cohesiveness”, British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 23 (June 1984), pp. 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 216.
    E.g., see Robert F. Bales, “Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups”, pp. 437–47 in Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley (eds), Readings in Social Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958) 3rd Edition.Google Scholar
  21. 217.
    E.g., see Luther Gerlach and Virginia Hine, People, Power, Change (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970) pp. 65–7, 111.Google Scholar
  22. 220.
    Robert L. Hamblin, “Leadership and crises”, Sociometry, vol. 21, 1958, pp. 322–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. E. P. Hollander, “Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit”, Psychological Review, vol. 65, 1958, pp. 117–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 221.
    David Mandel (The Petrograd Workers and the Fall of the Old Regime (London: Macmillan, 1983)) makes a good case that large sections of the Petrograd working class were far in advance of many members of the Bolshevik party, in that, for example, they recognized the necessity for workers themselves to control their factories.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© W. Peter Archibald 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Peter Archibald
    • 1
  1. 1.McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations