[lbo-talk] Kenneally, some notes and background

[Miles Jackson]

SA wrote:
> I haven't followed this thread from the beginning, but I think Miles' 
> fundamental objection has to do with the implication that any aspect 
> of language could somehow be part of (what might be called) an 
> "intrinsic human nature," because Miles doesn't believe there is such 
> a thing. Chomsky famously does believe there is such a thing, and I 
> think he's more or less explicitly said that he sees his linguistic 
> work as a confirmation of it. So while Chomsky obviously believes many 
> basic aspects of human life are socialized (including many aspects 
> that conservatives see as "human nature"), he doesn't believe that 
> children need to be socialized into the fundamental structures of 
> grammar. He thinks those structures are intrinsically built into the 
> human mind. I think that notion is what Miles is objecting to.
>
> SA 

Not so much.  There is intrinsic human nature, and that intrinsic human 
nature is the ensemble of social relations.  As Marx argues, positing an 
abstract, ahistorical individual is a fundamental error.  --Note that I 
am not taking a position in the tired "Nature/nurture" debate; asking if 
trait X is a result of socialization or "human nature" is pointless.  
The only reasonable answer to "Is X the result of nature or nurture?" is 
"Definitely".

Miles