One of the reasons why so many discussions about what is natural and what is not are often getting nowhere is of a linguistic character.
Different people use the word "natural" having very different meanings in mind, which results in a communication breakdown. You say "red" and somebody else thinks you've said "green".
"Natural" is a term that has been overused, and it's lost much of its original sense. Sometimes people use it so generically that it really doesn't mean very much.
Hence, definition is important to give back its significance to the word.
A good example of incorrect usage of the term is in expressions like "natural foods" or "natural remedies". Here "natural" is taken to mean, among other things, "good" and "not harmful". In the case of remedies or drugs of natural source, the idea is that they shouldn't have the nasty side effects of other drugs.
In fact, there have been cases of harmful side effects of so-called natural and herbal remedies, much the same as it may happen with all medicines.
And, if you think about it, there's no reason why it should be otherwise.
Poisonous mushrooms are natural, and so is snakes' venom.
The idea that anything natural should necessarily be good is a fantasy.
My proposal is to start with the etimology, the origin of the word in the Latin language.
In Latin, the noun "natura" and the adjective "naturalis" share their root with the verb "nascere", which means to be born. (Think of the English word "nativity", of Latin origin, which refers to the act of being born, in this case by Jesus Christ).
In this way, the term "natural" pertains to the characteristics with which we are born, and is similar to "innate".
The interesting thing is that we are not all born with the same characters.
The human species as a whole has much of its genetic endowment common to all its individuals, but some is not.
In short, most genes are the same for all human individuals, and some genes are different among individuals.
This transferring the debate about what's natural from a universal, general ground to a specific, individual ground may help clarify certain issues, like homosexuality.
If it's true that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, then, given my definition, we may very easily say that homosexuality is natural for those particular individuals born with the "homosexuality genes" (the inverted commas remind us that it's an oversimplification), and that homosexuality is not natural for all other human beings.
Appeals to the behaviour seen in other animal species complicate, rather than help, the matter, because other animal species share even less of our common genetic inheritance.
Another area where this definition of "natural" can help is still related to our sexual and emotional life: the question of faithfulness in love, and whether we are "naturally" monogamous or polygamous.
I think that much of the tragedy in our love life stems from a very basic contradiction: most human beings (if perhaps not all) have a genetic need for being the exclusive object of someone's love and sexual desire, but at the same time have a genetic predisposition to be sexually attracted to more than one person.
To put it bluntly, we are "naturally" monogamous in that we want our partner to be monogamous, and "naturally" polygamous in that we want ourselves to be polygamous.
This conflict of tendencies or unbalance causes more suffering than necessary, though, due to the way marriage and permanent relationships are constantly idealized to make faithfulness appear almost like an effortless consequence of love, which is definitely not.
I believe that we wouldn't have so many failed marriages if, for instance, the education of children focused a bit more on a realistic depiction of humans as beings who have a continual attraction for different people.
People arrive at marriage with an enormous luggage of high expectations, impossible to be fulfilled.
Music, opera, films, literature are also responsible for this idealization of romantic love as a permanent, lifelong state of being in love, without the slightest sign of interest for someone else.
The impression is conveyed that, if a man is attracted to another woman, then he doesn't love his wife, whereas the reality is that a man who loves his wife is still always attracted to other women.
The "... and they lived happy ever after" at the end of films implies, even if it doesn't say it explicitly, "and they never felt attracted to anyone else".
|
|
|
