Читать книгу Nature via Nurture: Genes, experience and what makes us human - Matt Ridley, Matt Ridley - Страница 16

One of the besetting sins of the nature-nurture debate has been the habit of utopianism, the notion that there is one ideal design of society that can be derived from a theory of human nature. Many of those who thought they understood human nature promptly turned description to prescription and set out a design of the perfect society. This practice is common to those on the nature side of the debate as well as those on the nurture side. Yet the only lesson to be drawn from utopian dreaming is that all utopias are hells. All attempts to design society by reference to one narrow conception of human nature, whether on paper or in the streets, end in producing something much worse. I propose to end each chapter mocking the utopia implied in taking any theory too far.

William James and the protagonists of instinct did not, as far as I can discern, write a utopia. But Plato’s Republic, the father of all utopias, is in many ways close to a Jamesian dream. It is imbued with a similar nativism. The Republic has been called a ‘managerial meritocracy’ in which the same education is available to all, so the top jobs go to those with the innate talent for them.⁴⁷ In Plato’s metaphorical republic (probably never intended as a political blueprint), everything is governed by strict rules. The Rulers, who make policy, are assisted by the Auxiliaries, who provide a sort of civil and defence service. Together these two classes are called the Guardians, and they are chosen on merit, which means on native talent. But to prevent corruption, the Guardians live lives of austere asceticism, unable to own property, to marry, or even to drink from gold cups. They live in a dormitory, but their miserable existence gladdens their hearts because they know it is for the good of the society as a whole.

Karl Popper was not the first, nor will he be the last, philosopher to call Plato’s dream a totalitarian nightmare. Even Aristotle pointed out that there was not much point in a meritocracy if merit did not bring rewards – of wealth and sex as well as power: ‘Men pay most attention to what is their own: they care less for what is common.’⁴⁸ Plato’s citizens were expected to accept any spouse nominated by the state, and (if female) to suckle any baby. Some chance. But grant Plato the backhanded compliment of having this insight, at least: even the meritocracy is an imperfect society. If all people receive the same education, then the differences in their abilities will be innate. A truly equal-opportunity society merely rewards the talented with the best jobs and relegates the rest to doing the dirty work.