Anthropology of Suspicion

Imagine someone claiming that, precisely because we firmly believe that people are fundamentally bad, we create institutions that continually fuel this distrust—and, in the end, promote the very negative traits we were actually trying to prevent. The philosopher Arnold Gehlen was convinced that human beings are overburdened creatures who simply cannot cope without the protection of strong institutions. But what if this picture is not true at all? Most of us grow up with the idea that human beings are somehow inherently flawed – a bit like a computer with too little RAM that keeps crashing when too many tabs are open. Gehlen believed that this is precisely why we need fixed rules and structures; otherwise, chaos will ensue. But then Rutger Bregman, a historian and bestselling author, comes along and turns everything upside down. His book, “Human, Kind, and Free,” is currently on shelves in bookstores from Berlin to New York, and it provokes readers with a radically different perspective: Bregman argues that the real problem is that we constantly assume the worst in people. We create “institutions of mistrust” that operate as if we were all potential cheats, selfish individuals, or little monsters. And it is precisely these institutions that ensure that, at some point, people behave in the way that the rules expect. Bregman sees this as a vicious cycle: the more mistrust we institutionalize, the more we get back. He counters this with a radical optimism – inspired by Rousseau, not by Hobbes. Rousseau said: Man is good by nature; society makes him bad. Hobbes believed the opposite. Using real-world studies and examples, Bregman aims to show that Rousseau is right. At our core, according to his thesis, we are cooperative, helpful, and social. There are studies showing that, in crisis situations, people do not panic and tear each other apart, but instead spontaneously help and share with one another. One example is the behavior of residents after natural disasters—here, researchers often observe the exact opposite of looting and violence: after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, for example, strangers suddenly formed neighborhood support groups, cooked together, and shared water and electricity. So, while Gehlen claims that without strong institutions, everything goes downhill, these stories show that people can be surprisingly supportive on their own. And that is precisely the crux of the matter: If we build institutions in a way that is based on mistrust, we are forcing people into a straitjacket that makes them mistrustful. But if we trust that people are fundamentally cooperative, we also encourage this behavior. The uncomfortable counterquestion is: What if our entire system—from schools to the state—doesn't make people better, but smaller? What if, out of mistrust, institutions cause more harm than a little chaos? The anthropological debate is not a side issue; rather, it is embedded in every discussion about education, politics, and living together. Our answer to the question “What is a human being?” shapes everything we build and believe. In the end, distrust can produce exactly what it seeks to prevent. If we assume that there is goodness in people, we enable completely different institutions—and perhaps even a different society. If this idea keeps running through your mind, you can use Lara Notes I'm In – this doesn't mean you agree with it; it's your decision to make this view of human nature your own. And if tomorrow, over coffee, you find yourself arguing with someone about Gehlen, Bregman, or the question of whether human beings are fundamentally good or bad, there is Shared Offline on Lara Notes—so your conversation with that person will remain part of your story. The original is from Philosophie Magazin – you've saved yourself a good five minutes.