On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Ammar wrote:
> Hi Lubna!
>
> You have said that the only thing essential about
> human nature is its potential to change or be moulded.You also say that
> the drives ,say of killing etc., are natural,i.e part of human nature.
> Can you elaborate,pl?
>
> Regards,
> Ammar.
>
Hi Ammar,
My apologies for the late reply.
My basic argument is that we all posess (instinctual) drives that are
natural. How we choose to express them is of course a totally different
matter. I'm not saying that the act of killing is natural, but that the
drive that motivates one to express destruction, be it killing or just
slapping someone is natural, ie , thanatos. (of course Freud said all of
this, I'm just agreeing with him). The thing about society and killing
is that society regulates this destructive drive, and encourages something
like sublimation, ie converting a desire to do something not socially
acceptable, like masturbation in public, to something acceptable like
rugby, or some sport.
The potential for us to be moulded into something (by society) is in a
sense, the only
thing that is essential about human nature, but the fact that we can be
moulded into something, relies on the basic drives like eros and thanatos.
What does any of this have to do with Foucault. I'm not quite sure. But I
would go so far as to argue that Foucault's argument on Power, that it is
both productive, and oppressive (relatively), would maybe explain why it
is that sex (for example) and the pleasure that is derived from it, would be
regarded as more natural, than killing.
regards
Lubna.