Rorty and Nature vs. Nurture

Object Lesson, 10.25.11

In Richard Rorty’s “Contingency of Language,” one of his statements that stood out to me was “The World does not speak. Only we do.” One of Rorty’s central concepts is that truth (or the semblance thereof,) rather than just sitting “out there” waiting to be found, is a product of the society, ideology, and the tools of language with which it is constructed and understood. That is, words in and of themselves have no meaning, no real handle on reality except that which humans (perhaps erroneously) bestow upon them. For instance, anyone can walk out into the countryside and relax under a tree to ponder his or her existence. As trees have long life spans, it is conceivable that two different people from different periods of time might relax under the same tree and ponder the same or similar subjects, but arrive at very different conclusions. Just as Socrates and Phaedrus reclined beneath a tree to question the nature of love, arriving at the conclusion that the attentions bestowed by a ‘lover’ are more valuable than a ‘non-lover’ so as to better fathom the extent of one’s love, so might a contemporary American recline in similar fashion, deciding it better to favor brief, fleeting relationships in order to experience a wider range of feelings and interpersonal differences (or out of lack of patience.) The difference between these two parties, or even two different parties occupying the same period of time, is that of experience and purported knowledge. For example, here is a seemingly neutral-ish article I found on Yahoo about new economic policies of the Obama administration: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-unveil-housing-plan-campaign-swing-west-064348119.html

I have a guilty habit of reading the comments for articles on Yahoo; for some reason I usually find more of interest there than in the actual article itself, or at least lots of ways to re-frame my understanding or that of others on a given topic. Although the article is fairly benign, the ferocity and wide differences among the comments is variably astounding, enlightening, infuriating, or disgusting.

There is a concept in psychology known as “nature vs. nurture.” It deals with how particular responses are encoded in humans. The nature side contends that specific responses are instinctual, and do not have to be taught to children, as they are concepts that are always already understood. This is true primarily of things like breathing and certain fight-or-flight responses, but is made out to be true also of personality traits or beliefs (like right and wrong.) The nurture side holds that responses to stimuli, personality traits, and personal beliefs are the result of specific inculcation of the individual to the methods of operating of a particular group, or subset of a group. The nurture side, at least in relation to things like personality traits or beliefs, is generally more widely accepted. Consider the example of dogs bred to fight being largely incapable of adjusting to home life, as fear and violence have surrounded them so often that they become “the way of things.”

Rorty’s statement that “The World does not speak. Only we do.” stems from an intrinsic acknowledgement that human experience (of different or similar situations) is infinitely varied, and that it is difficult, or even impossible, to assign preference to one interpretation over another. The only way this is accomplished is through the assignment of value to situations, people, or concepts by learned response. Take for instance the frenzied response to Obama’s presidency by a seemingly significant number of highly conservative citizens: that he has done nothing, is actively trying to dismantle the United States, is a socialist / Muslim / communist, or is not even an American citizen. These accusations are made blatantly, loudly, and often, even though there is little evidence to support any of these claims. Supporters of Obama or those that are more neutral tend towards using the established political language and means of thought, believing that he is doing the best he can within a preexisting framework and genuinely has the interests of the country at heart. To believe that Obama is a socialist anti-Christ is to see a “third vocabulary.” To cast Obama as a socialist, communist, and Muslim, and anti-Christ all at once is to create a new language in which to envisage that idea.