Human Nature and the Historian

If History is always about people then historians need to concern themselves with human nature. What motivates us to act, whether individually or collectively, whether as leaders or as citizens, and so as voters, or else as subjects with little personal power?

We are both rational and emotional beings, and both sides of our nature motivate us to act. But what does it mean to be a rational and an emotional being? It is both rational to want to avoid war: wars bring economic distress, destruction and death. And it is rational to fight an enemy that would otherwise do you untold harm. Being rational can indeed be a matter of perspective. Take another example, it is rational to want to maximise our own well-being. But is this best served by rewarding individual effort, initiative and ability, in so doing maximising personal wealth? Or by a more equitable society at peace with itself, happy to give and share and so able to take care of all its members in good times and in bad? The same with emotion: we are emotional in defence of ourselves and our loved ones and we are emotional in our response to suffering of others. So emotion can make us act both selfishly and selflessly.

We can be inspired, we can be scared; and some great leaders in the past (Stalin, Hitler and Mao immediately come to mind) have both inspired and struck fear into those they ruled over Fear is indeed a great motivator: fear of losing your job, fear of not fitting in, fear of being caught (and punished). But so too is hope: hope for a better future, hope for a settlement (rather than conflict). We can be altruistic or selfish (and selfish is not necessarily a bad thing). We can help others or we can think only of ourselves and those near to us or like us.

We have positive, noble characteristics. For example we can be brave, we can be principled. But we also have negative, ignoble characteristics. For example we can also be greedy and we can be prejudiced.

So where do we see human nature in history? We see both the rational and the emotional sides of our nature in the decisions our leaders make. Take the July Crisis that led to WW1 as an example, a time when emotions were running high. Each side knew of the alliances that had been made, of the military build-up and the war plans that had been made. All the powers had their hopes and fears which, in each case, could be whittled down to one thing: power. Hopes of gaining more power; fear of losing power. Whereas for the military leaders it was absolutely rational to mobilise, or else defeat could be virtually guaranteed.

Jump to WW2 and we see both the rational and the emotional sides of Chamberlains arguments for appeasement: Britain wasn’t ready for war so best

avoid it, he couldn’t be sure that the Commonwealth and Empire countries would support Britain as they had in WW1 so best avoid it; both rational arguments; but Chamberlain was also witness to the horrors of WW1, and he was aware of the added horror that bombing would inflict on civilian populations, so he had emotional arguments for avoiding war too.

As for the mass of people. If it is rational to want to maximise our own well-being by maximising personal wealth then vote for a tax-cutting party. But if it is better achieved by ensuring a more equitable society at peace with itself and able to take care of all its members in good times and in bad, then you can do no better than vote Communist. But politicians know that we are emotional people and they will tweak our emotional characteristics, perhaps targeting young families or the elderly in the way they present their health policies, or else they will play on our fear of crime and, unfortunately, on our fear of those who are different. Fascism played on fear a lot: fear of socialism, of communism and of Jews.

And when in power, think about how the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao both inspired and struck fear into their people. They inspired with their leadership: brave, determined, visionary. But they spread fear with their secret police, their targeting of opponents, their purges and show trials.

We can be altruistic and brave, for example putting ourselves before others in times of war. We can be principled, opposing policies we know to be immoral, even if we know we might pay a price. Consider the people who have stood up for civil rights throughout history. But we can be selfish, even greedy too: to what extent was the Wall Street Crash the result of selfish greed? And we can be prejudiced: racism has reared its ugly head throughout history and is still doing so throughout the world today. Indeed, everything about our nature, both good and bad, still shows itself in the events of today.

This is why history is such an important subject. It helps us understand who we are as this or that nationality, this or that creed, this or that gender. But it also helps us understand who we are right down to our inner core.