I think we are probably in agreement about human nature and history.
I am not saying that there are not basic elements in the human psyche that are largely invariant in time or place. Like the suckle response in an infant. Like the fear of falling which emerges very early. Like fear of snakes, that is present in infants. Like the smile, which emerges to cement the mother-infant bond.
I think I would go further, but not everybody would: cooperation, creativity, urge towards complexity, for example.
I think it was you who said that there is something in a human mother that keeps her attached to her child until that child has been shown to her to be self-sufficient. Absolutely, I agree with this. How could I not?
There may be a million other genetic or biochemical influences that underlie behavior and make human nature what it is.
With that I am also in agreement.
What I am saying is how such biological bases of behavior in human nature are molded, interpreted, understood, encouraged and discouraged--are subject to historical and cultural influence. And the malleability of human beings has been significant.
Understanding of emotions, sexuality, the meaning of philanthropy and gift giving, marriage, the body, clothing, religion, money, relation of individual and group, the life cycle, ideas about property and private property, children and rearing children, value, how elders are viewed, ideas about work, economy, rites of passage, gender roles, etc. are all subject to interpretation that differs historically and cross-culturally.
If you are interested, I will research specific examples in the Anthropological literature. I am particularly interested in reading again in this area.
I look forward to a debate.
