2.2. Modern ideas of the human

There is a plethora of different ideas, theories and views that pertain to humanity and the place of humans in the world. In this chapter, we will present the most important modern philosophical and historical conceptions of the relations between the human and the rest of the world.

“The words human and humane can signify the best or the worst qualities that humans are thought to possess, depending on the context. As we know, to err is human, but humane consideration of fellow human beings is also human. We can understand someone's mistakes when we think that “They are only human”. (Lehtonen 2014, 76.)

Cultural researcher Mikko Lehtonen compares two different views of the human in his book Maa-ilma: the human can be understood as an individual being that is detached of worldly relations while at the same time, openness, diversity and engaging in relations define the human species. In the history of philosophy, it is commonly thought that a typical feature of the modern time, which began in the 16th century, is conceiving the human as separate from nature and other humans, and as divided into the spirit and the body. According to Lehtonen, this human is “no longer subordinate to the creator” but instead, “they themselves are thought to create the conditions of their own existence”.

“Instead of a creator or nature, the new understanding of the human makes them the final source of meanings, values and truth. What is essential in the new conception of the human are not the human's connections to other living or non-living beings, but their assumed specialness and separateness as a knowing being.” (Lehtonen 2014, 77)

This kind of idea of the human is usually called the modern or humanist “idea of man”. The “idea of man” has oriented societal movements such as the secularisation of societies and in the development of human rights and the equality between people. Slavery, for example, is considered morally reprehensible for the very reason that all people are considered to have intrinsic value which in turn means that they have certain rights, such as the right to freedom and bodily immunity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations is one of the greatest achievements of modern humanist thinking.

In late 20th century and in the 21st century, the openness, diversity and relationality of humans, which were mentioned by Lehtonen, have been increasingly emphasised. The current understanding is that there is not a single correct model for humanity but many possibilities instead.

Human nature

Natural sciences can be helpful in understanding how the human species interacts with the rest of the material world. However, the human species cannot be precisely or exhaustively described with natural scientific methods. This limitation stems from the simple fact that humans study themselves from “within” the species, i.e., in a way that makes objective observation difficult. In addition to that, even the workings of natural sciences rely on cultural preconceptions.

A good example of the cultural limitations of natural sciences is that scientific disputes on human nature have often reflected a view that to be human is to be divided in two, and that one side or the other should be treated as primary. Humans have been considered beings that are primarily located either in the physicality of an animal or in the moral world of humanity. Therefore, they are either “animals” or “angels”. So, there has been dispute over whether the place of humans is in nature or in culture. This duality is characterised by many definitions given to humans: rational animal (Aristotle), political animal (Aristotle), tool-making animal (Benjamin Franklin and Karl Marx) and symbolising animal (Ernst Cassirer).

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has strongly informed the conceptions of the human in the 20th century by demonstrating that humans are descended from other animal species. Biological conceptions of the human are based, on one way or another, on Darwin’s idea of evolution as a process that directs the development trends of life. For example, as recently as the early 20th century, the vitalists interpreted evolution in a way that there are forces in nature that intentionally guide life towards a certain direction. Later on, a so-called naturalist interpretation became established. As per this interpretation, evolution is understood as operating “blindly”, i.e., without a predetermined destination.

In the 1970s, biologist Edward O. Wilson proposed that the social activity of humans can be explained through biology. Wilson called his approach sociobiology and used it to explain, for example, phenomena such as partner selection and warfare. Sociobiology has been criticised, for example, for not recognising that it is possible for humans to change their problematic behavioural models (such as violence and hierarchical division of power) and not considering adequately how behaviour is shaped by cultures and social systems. The significance of biological factors in human activity is still investigated with the help of various approaches such as evolutionary psychology and behavioural ecology.

The human has also been characterised as a “cultural animal” directed by cultural evolution. The theory of cultural evolution is one way to explain that during some twenty thousand years, the human species have created an immense amount of new technology, art, language, religion, economy, science and constructed environments, and our species has also spread out everywhere on Earth. According to the summary of philosopher Ilkka Niiniluoto (2015, 51):

The relationship between biological evolution and cultural evolution is the subject of many scientific and ideological disputes. In the 20th and 21st centuries, much attention has been paid on the effects of genes on directing human activity and ability, and in popular culture, genes are nowadays often understood as a “code” that directs organisms. In the 1990s, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins popularized the idea of “the selfish gene”. According to the idea, genetic traits direct the activity of humans so strongly that conscious choices or cultural learning have little to no significance. From a scientific standpoint, this idea is too simple: naturally, genes have an impact on the evolution of organisms, but their formative influence is neither straightforward nor independent of environmental pressures.

The “nature” of the human species, i.e., what separates humans as a species from other species, is at least as much a philosophical question as it is a scientific one. From a philosophical standpoint, one problematic aspect is that the biological explanations of humanity aim to discover something essential and permanent about humanity, which would then define the nature of the species once and for all. The concept of human nature can be considered misleading for the very reason that there is no unchanging basis. Instead, humanity is defined only by the diversity of human existence and action.

To define human nature is also to exercise power. Defining the nature of the human species always influences what people consider possible, natural and admirable – or strange, unnatural and improper. If, for example, it is thought that a human is not an animal and that the abilities and experiences of humans are completely different than those of animals, humans can exploit animals without regarding their experiences. Such a logic of definition has also been used for dehumanising other people, and the monstrosity or substandard nature of the opposition has always been used to justify warfare and other hostility towards another people or tribe.

For example, in monotheistic religions or different nationalist ideologies, humanity – or “Mankind” – has also been defined with the help of ideals suitable for the rulers. It has been defined what, for example, a good Christian or a good Finn is like. The flipside of such ideals is the exclusion of those who do not fit them. Ideals of Man have also been utilised by imperialist or colonialist powers to enable the exclusion and subjugation of the subordinated. According to archaeologist Christopher Gosden, contemplating human nature has become salient particularly when Europeans have come in touch with the many human cultures that differ from their own.

Unnatural humanity

The idea of “human nature” always carries with it some kind of ideological or political presumptions that can be exploited in different power struggles. When the view of nature as permanent and separate from humans was challenged, especially in the late 20th century, such naturalising views of the human also began to look suspicious or untruthful. Beginning from the 1980s, it has become more and more difficult to justify, for example, gender relations or diets by claiming that some specific model is “natural” and others are not. Particularly Marxist, feminist and constructivist strains of thought have asked what different models of organising life produce in personal life or society, even in everyday circumstances. From this standpoint, it is thought that heterosexual relationships that differentiate gender roles, or gendered roles such as ‘foreman’ or ‘chairman’, may produce inequality between genders. “The production of Nature” is also emphasised, for example, in athletic and health practices in which the aim is to develop and shape the human body into new forms. An extreme example of understanding the body as a product is “biohacking”. In biohacking, the human body is viewed as a system connected with its environment in many ways but resembling a complicated machine, whose capacities and operational logic can be “upgraded” or “reconfigured” through “hacking”.

Relational humanity

According to the cultural materialist conception of the human, being human is based on interacting with nature and other humans. Humans are not merely consciousness but thinking and acting bodies who have evolved into their current forms in material and cultural circumstances. Therefore, the human species cannot be understood as separate from its environment or as created from nothing, but as always in relation to others. This conception of the human relies both on natural sciences, such as ecology and the evolutionary theory, as well as human sciences, such as social psychology and social constructionism.

The way of thinking that foregrounds how relations shape beings is called relationality. An essential part of understanding the material relations of humans is the idea of continuous change: when interacting with their environments, humans shape both the environments and themselves. Such interactive relations are partly unconscious and partly conscious, but research on relationality focuses on conscious and experiential relations in particular.

The idea of relationality stems from theoretical discussions regarding different values, particularly the discussions of sustainability sciences. The concept of relational values has been developed to depict values that are linked neither just to the instrumental nor the intrinsic value of a being or a thing. Relational values refer to meaningful relations with a being or a thing. For example, a forest can be associated with instrumental values, intrinsic values as well as relational values: it can be seen as a source of construction material and firewood, as a natural environment that is valuable in itself or as a meaningful place for a human experiencer. Therefore, the relational values of a forest are thus formed in interactive and experiential relations with a forest: for example, an individual can experience walking in a forest or picking mushrooms as activities that contribute to well-being and meaningfulness of life. Such a significant relationship with a forest can be characterised by gratitude towards the forest and a desire to care for its well-being. This kind of relationship cannot be replaced with anything else, and the time and effort spent on relational activities should be seen as important components of good life in themselves (Jax et al. 2018). Relational values should therefore be understood as part of a rounded experience of a good and meaningful life. They are also linked to the eudaimonic conception well-being discussed in chapter 1.2. The significance of relational thinking in the sustainability transformation is discussed more in section 4.

The relational conception of the human challenges conceptions and world views that are based on separation and objectification. At the same time, it also sheds new light to the values and aims that have directed the development of modern societies, such as the ambition to rule nature and to be set free from its constraints. Science journalist Mikko Pelttari (2021, 77–78) offers a summary in his book Lämpenevä Maa:

Would you like to comment something on this section? Voluntary.