I don't think there is any one true theory of human nature. Apply any given theory to any given human situation, and you'll get an explanation for the behavior that ranges somewhere on a continuum between "sort of plausible" to "highly satisfying" - and they theory that works best will be different every time. If there is any one universal fact of "human nature" (aside from "it changes a lot"), I would say it is a stubborn propensity to insist on human nature - that is, that humans have some special status differentiating us from not-humans. This seems to be a way of saying that humans are social, and since this special human status is enacted in different ways in different societies, we can say that society and human nature are mutually constituted. Human nature is socially constructed, and socially and historically contingent.
Of course, I am approaching this question like an archaeologist. Thinking about what it means to be human in terms of events, people, and societies throughout the entirety of human history is a different proposition from considering what it means to be human in the Western-dominated modern world. As an example, I recently read an article about the excavation of a Chimu burial ground in Peru, which seems to represent a single sacrificial event and mostly contains the bodies of children and young llamas. To a modern understanding of human rights, this is horrifying, and obviously wrong. And this is a perfectly valid point of view, arrived at through any number of perfectly reasonable theories of human nature. But it doesn't get you anywhere. You can stand around and condemn it all day, but everyone involved has been dead for centuries - if everyone who let this happen is burning in hell for eternity, okay; but that's a dead-end statement that lacks resonance in the present. The way to give it meaning is to try to really understand what happened, and in order to do that you have to be open to other possible interpretations. Then you can begin to ask questions like why the society chose to do this; was it truly a choice or percieved as a necessity; was it achieved through coercion on the part of the elites, and is there evidence of resistance; conversely, is there evidence that the people were complicit (a Marxist might phrase this in terms of false consciousness); are there commonalities in the burials that suggest a particular segment of society was being singled out (for inclusion or exclusion); what do we already know about their spiritual practices from other contexts, and how might that interact with a climate reconstruction to pontentially explain this; etc etc, and in doing so we learn something about these specific poeple and about the range of human experience in general. But we can't even get started unless we move beyond the idea that obviously this is evil, and crime against human nature; we need to be able to pull from a wide variety of explanations, to hold each of them up to the evidence and say, okay, I think this is what's going on here, but it looks there might be a little of that going on too.
However, we now live in what is increasingly, for better or worse, a global society, and as you note there are some serious challenges to reconciling disparate closely-held views of human nature. But we've managed to agree on at least a few basic human rights, a global consensus on how we as a society will enact our special status as humans (and I think that is pretty amazing and gives me some hope). One thing we've agreed on is that, in general and barring special circumstances, certain exceptions, and a few edge cases that we may never entirely resolve, every human being has a right to life. Gone are the days when a king could be buried in lavish state ceremony, together with his freshly-killed 12 wives, 18 servants, baby daughter and three horses. And if we encountered a mass grave full of children that dated to within the last hundred years (more or less, depending on location), a response of horror, anguish, and a demand that those responsible for this crime against humanity be brought to justice, would be perfectly appropriate, and, in fact, it would be incumbent upon us to do so. But it's important to recognize that this is only appropriate because our social and historical context has normalized a particular theory of human nature that attaches certain rights to human beings.
Obviously in the modern world we have a lot of people trying to live together who disagree fundamentally about many smaller issues than "killing is bad." Since the original post is about marriage I'll use that as an example. There are certain theories of human nature that say that two women marrying one another is wrong, for various different reasons. Fine. However, there are numerous women living under these circumstances who are very happy with their lives and doing active good for society. This would imply that either 1) the theory is wrong, or 2) these women are living in opposition to their nature. I personally find 2) to be utterly ludicrous and tend to accept position 1). (Or, well, not that the theory is wrong per se, but that it doesn't fit into our modern ideas of human rights as constitued by our lived experience of modern society. In much the same way that I don't think a theory that allows human sacrifice is "wrong," because it provides a great explanation for human behavior in certain times and places, but I do think it is incompatible with modern society.)
Ultimately I think we can certainly forge a plural society in which we agree on the big things (like no killing) but disagree on the details, and I think the way to do it is to ensure that the people we trust to make and enact our laws are people who accept that human nature is socially contingent, so we can have a society where I can marry a woman if I want, and my neighbor is equally free to think I'm unnatural for doing it - as long as she doesn't kill me.
Sorry to take so long to answer this - I have actually been thinking about it! And I'm not sure I addressed everything (I wrote this without rereading your comment), so maybe more in a couple minutes.
... Ok, I think some of what I said is actually just rephrasing some of what you said, but let me just address this: I don't think "human nature" is down to individual choice. I think every individual probably does have their own idea of what constitutes human nature, but that idea is socially and historically contingent. I suppose it's theoretically possible to design and subscribe to a completely individual theory, but it would be completely unsustainble unless it shares a lot of its basic tenets with at least one of the theories that currently shape the society. Which is basically what you say when you talk about worldview being based on unconscious assumptions, actually.
And I suppose I belong to your group C - but an educated version who understands that x+y=z and y=mx+b are both straight lines and should try to get along, but y=log(x)? that is CRAZY TALK! (; (This is a convoluted math metaphor for social theory, I am a fan.)
So anyway, I think that we certainly can have a pluralistic society. I think that "culture wars" can be avoided by ensuring we that call out anyone who makes a claim to a "human nature" that espouses no true commonality, but rather what the speaker considers ideal. If we can't escape nature-based arguments we should at least try not to say "all people are X" when what we really mean is "I believe all people should be X." Clarifying that rhetoric, which is what Rosemary Joyce is trying to do, should help us get leaders who can differentiate between ideology and practicality.
no subject
Of course, I am approaching this question like an archaeologist. Thinking about what it means to be human in terms of events, people, and societies throughout the entirety of human history is a different proposition from considering what it means to be human in the Western-dominated modern world. As an example, I recently read an article about the excavation of a Chimu burial ground in Peru, which seems to represent a single sacrificial event and mostly contains the bodies of children and young llamas. To a modern understanding of human rights, this is horrifying, and obviously wrong. And this is a perfectly valid point of view, arrived at through any number of perfectly reasonable theories of human nature. But it doesn't get you anywhere. You can stand around and condemn it all day, but everyone involved has been dead for centuries - if everyone who let this happen is burning in hell for eternity, okay; but that's a dead-end statement that lacks resonance in the present. The way to give it meaning is to try to really understand what happened, and in order to do that you have to be open to other possible interpretations. Then you can begin to ask questions like why the society chose to do this; was it truly a choice or percieved as a necessity; was it achieved through coercion on the part of the elites, and is there evidence of resistance; conversely, is there evidence that the people were complicit (a Marxist might phrase this in terms of false consciousness); are there commonalities in the burials that suggest a particular segment of society was being singled out (for inclusion or exclusion); what do we already know about their spiritual practices from other contexts, and how might that interact with a climate reconstruction to pontentially explain this; etc etc, and in doing so we learn something about these specific poeple and about the range of human experience in general. But we can't even get started unless we move beyond the idea that obviously this is evil, and crime against human nature; we need to be able to pull from a wide variety of explanations, to hold each of them up to the evidence and say, okay, I think this is what's going on here, but it looks there might be a little of that going on too.
However, we now live in what is increasingly, for better or worse, a global society, and as you note there are some serious challenges to reconciling disparate closely-held views of human nature. But we've managed to agree on at least a few basic human rights, a global consensus on how we as a society will enact our special status as humans (and I think that is pretty amazing and gives me some hope). One thing we've agreed on is that, in general and barring special circumstances, certain exceptions, and a few edge cases that we may never entirely resolve, every human being has a right to life. Gone are the days when a king could be buried in lavish state ceremony, together with his freshly-killed 12 wives, 18 servants, baby daughter and three horses. And if we encountered a mass grave full of children that dated to within the last hundred years (more or less, depending on location), a response of horror, anguish, and a demand that those responsible for this crime against humanity be brought to justice, would be perfectly appropriate, and, in fact, it would be incumbent upon us to do so. But it's important to recognize that this is only appropriate because our social and historical context has normalized a particular theory of human nature that attaches certain rights to human beings.
Obviously in the modern world we have a lot of people trying to live together who disagree fundamentally about many smaller issues than "killing is bad." Since the original post is about marriage I'll use that as an example. There are certain theories of human nature that say that two women marrying one another is wrong, for various different reasons. Fine. However, there are numerous women living under these circumstances who are very happy with their lives and doing active good for society. This would imply that either 1) the theory is wrong, or 2) these women are living in opposition to their nature. I personally find 2) to be utterly ludicrous and tend to accept position 1). (Or, well, not that the theory is wrong per se, but that it doesn't fit into our modern ideas of human rights as constitued by our lived experience of modern society. In much the same way that I don't think a theory that allows human sacrifice is "wrong," because it provides a great explanation for human behavior in certain times and places, but I do think it is incompatible with modern society.)
Ultimately I think we can certainly forge a plural society in which we agree on the big things (like no killing) but disagree on the details, and I think the way to do it is to ensure that the people we trust to make and enact our laws are people who accept that human nature is socially contingent, so we can have a society where I can marry a woman if I want, and my neighbor is equally free to think I'm unnatural for doing it - as long as she doesn't kill me.
Sorry to take so long to answer this - I have actually been thinking about it! And I'm not sure I addressed everything (I wrote this without rereading your comment), so maybe more in a couple minutes.
... Ok, I think some of what I said is actually just rephrasing some of what you said, but let me just address this: I don't think "human nature" is down to individual choice. I think every individual probably does have their own idea of what constitutes human nature, but that idea is socially and historically contingent. I suppose it's theoretically possible to design and subscribe to a completely individual theory, but it would be completely unsustainble unless it shares a lot of its basic tenets with at least one of the theories that currently shape the society. Which is basically what you say when you talk about worldview being based on unconscious assumptions, actually.
And I suppose I belong to your group C - but an educated version who understands that x+y=z and y=mx+b are both straight lines and should try to get along, but y=log(x)? that is CRAZY TALK! (; (This is a convoluted math metaphor for social theory, I am a fan.)
So anyway, I think that we certainly can have a pluralistic society. I think that "culture wars" can be avoided by ensuring we that call out anyone who makes a claim to a "human nature" that espouses no true commonality, but rather what the speaker considers ideal. If we can't escape nature-based arguments we should at least try not to say "all people are X" when what we really mean is "I believe all people should be X." Clarifying that rhetoric, which is what Rosemary Joyce is trying to do, should help us get leaders who can differentiate between ideology and practicality.