Philosophical Anthropology

Why Are People Different?

Everything we have previously discussed characterizes a certain individual "in general," a species of humanity as such, its characteristic composite traits that distinguish humans from other beings. Yet, physically, there is no such thing as "humanity in general," but rather distinct individuals and communities, each unique in their attributes. Each individual or group possesses specific characteristics that outline a particular type or unique individuality. The richness of understanding humanity lies precisely in the nuances of these differences and similarities. These differences are the subject of empirical research, and their full spectrum is far from being encompassed by science; indeed, it cannot even be hastily presented in a brief overview. A wealth of material has been amassed by researchers, structured within several disciplines. Physical (or biological) anthropology studies variations in body structure, including specific traits that have measurable and descriptive expressions (methods of anthropometry and anthroposcopy). For example, the shape of a nose (a descriptive feature) or waist circumference (a measurable one). Based on these features, characteristic differences are systematized and categorized. Thus, the morphological differences among groups of people who have long been in relative reproductive isolation, leading to the formation of their local morphotype, are termed races. A race is a composite characteristic of intergroup variations based on a complex of traits. Race characterizes not an individual (thus it is incorrect to ask which race someone belongs to), but rather a group of people (a local population). However, based on these traits, one can construct a kind of synthesized portrait of the group, a model to which all members of this population bear closer resemblance than to other models. It is important to note that racial traits do not encompass cultural or social characteristics. Hence, there is no such thing as a Ukrainian race, a Hungarian race, or, say, a race of Dynamo (Kyiv) fans or Baptists. Racial differences encompass the entire available spectrum of morphological traits, not merely one. Thus, differences in skin color are an anthroposcopic indicator, but insufficient to indicate racial proximity between two populations, whether dark-skinned or light-skinned. Dark-skinned Australians, the Khoisan race, and Black individuals differ from one another by a complex of traits no less than each differs from light-skinned Europeans or Ainu people. The connection between morphological racial traits and others, such as psychophysiological ones, remains problematic. Research in this area has been subject to an unspoken taboo in reaction to the overtly discriminatory racial theories of the late 19th to mid-20th centuries. Today, we can confidently assert that humanity is a biologically unified species, with individual variations among people relatively insignificant when compared to other species. As for intellectual capabilities, there is no reliable data supporting the existence of any racial indicators.

However, within any population, these abilities vary widely. Yet the development of these abilities possesses a distinct cultural specificity. Therefore, it is inappropriate to compare them directly when success in a particular type of activity serves as the criterion. Academic success, often used as a measure of intelligence, is far from the sole adaptation mechanism for an individual to social life, personal success, and the happiness of its members.

Differential psychology studies personal, intellectual, and psychophysiological differences among people, delineating such characteristic units of analysis as temperament (a complex of genetically determined psychophysiological traits), character (a complex of established attitudes formed in early ontogeny that remain largely unchanged thereafter, imposed upon temperament), and personality type (value orientations and learned social roles imposed upon character).

Among these studies, which link physical anthropology (differential morphology) with differential psychology, is the search for connections between bodily traits and mental organization. For instance, whether there are mental differences between men and women that are not due to their upbringing in a particular culture but stem from inherent psychophysiological endowments of the two sexes. In recent decades, this question has gained considerable urgency in light of the demands of the women's political movement for emancipation (feminism). Other questions concern whether there are clear indicators in body structure of certain psychophysiological characteristics. For a long time, the constitutional theory of temperament was popular, positing that a specific set of morphological traits (somatotype) was a reliable means of predicting an individual's inclinations and abilities. However, careful empirical data have muddied this issue, though the old theory can be definitively dismissed.

Simultaneously, alongside the study of individual variability, the exploration of variations among social groups unfolded, primarily focusing on relict groups considered "savage," in which, it was thought, archaic traits had been preserved (a notion that can itself be contested, since they are our contemporaries). This direction has been termed cultural social anthropology, within which numerous specialized branches have developed—researching various aspects of the formation of social institutions throughout human evolution and variations in customs across different spheres (moral and legal establishments, educational practices, gender roles, marriage institutions, economies, etc.).

Within this vast array, we must ask ourselves what factors underlie these differences, attempting to systematize the types of influences that determine human variability. These can be grouped into four categories.

Two of them are, regarding the individual, factors of heredity. In other words, this variability does not depend on the individual's personal experiences; the relevant traits of body structure, temperament, and abilities are inherited in ready-made forms from ancestors. However, the nature of these inheritance processes varies. The first type, molecular-genetic heredity, is determined by the mechanism of organism reproduction based on a molecular matrix. Individual development, ontogeny, occurs as a self-organizing process, regulated by a set of ontogenetic programs that constitute a unique chemical code for the transformation of substances and biosynthesis. These programs, known as genes, function similarly to a computer's memory and processor: they govern protein synthesis and are further regulated based on chemical conditions. In other words, this processor reacts to internal environmental parameters as signals, which, in response, either block or initiate protein biosynthesis. Our understanding of this mechanism currently does not provide a comprehensive, detailed answer to the question of how an organism arises step by step as a result of cell division and specialization. However, we know for certain that this division entails changes in the activity of the genome (the molecular carrier of genes, which is deoxyribonucleic acid). During sexual reproduction, an individual's gene set (the organism's genotype) is constantly combinatorially altered. Thus, from the entire gene pool of the population, an individual receives a sampling—a unique set that determines the innate differences among individuals. This set among close relatives (children and their parents, siblings) will be more similar than among more distant relations. In an extreme case, it is identical among genetic clones—monozygotic twins. Their existence allows us to assess the degree of heritability of particular traits by evaluating the expression of those traits among twins, parents, children, and unrelated individuals. However, it is essential to remember and avoid the common fallacy often found in media sources that suggests the existence of genes for intelligence, longevity, beauty, morality, and so forth. The genome encodes only the amino acid composition of proteins and the biochemical parameters of the environment in which these proteins will be synthesized. The emergence of any particular trait of a person's character depends on the complex interplay of cumulative factors, and only in certain instances can one point to a specific protein as a necessary condition for the emergence of that trait. Since the genome, like a processor, responds to signals from external influences, it contains numerous switches that govern the course of individual development depending on life circumstances. In other words, the genotype does not define a specific variant of an organism but rather a spectrum of possible variants of organisms based on it, or, as it is sometimes termed, a norm of reaction (the boundaries of possible variations).

The other hereditary factor—the cultural-genetic one—has been discussed above. We must emphasize that it is this factor that determines the majority of those typical forms of behavior characteristic of humanity as members of society. These traits are not innate; they are acquired during the individual's socialization and development into a person, yet they are culturally specific. Just as the genome does not entirely determine uniformly alike individuals—the gene pool supports a considerable diversity of possible individual variants, each of which, in turn, allows for many variations in specific conditions—so too does culture uphold a diversity of patterned roles and ways of their individual adjustment.

Consequently, the overall variability of people will depend on the other two factors, which, in contrast to hereditary transmission of ready-made patterned samples, determine individual peculiarities and rely on the unique life experiences of individuals. These two factors render each person unique, for the acquired experience is practically impossible to replicate in all its details. However, variations in this experience, its differences, remain significant. Partially, these variations are normed by the community, creating typical models of life paths. These widespread, mass conditions—such as schooling under standardized programs, common games and films, and countless other standard circumstances of mass culture—though they may homogenize individuals under a single comb, this unification never achieves a level of complete leveling. It is also important to note that culture itself changes, as do the circumstances in which individuals belonging to different generations and various social strata live.

However, the most essential aspect of this individually acquired mutability lies in the distinction between two fundamentally different factors, one of which is purely human. The first factor can be described as direct individual adaptation to living conditions (which is equally characteristic of all living beings). This adaptation results from the operation of several mechanisms, the details of which we will omit. In general, their effect can be summarized as the emergence, at a certain stage of life, of a relatively stable, reproducible mode of reaction or an irreversible influence that the individual is compelled to accommodate. This encompasses conditioned reflexes, cultivated habits, the aftermath of trauma, and so forth, in their complex interplay. Such habits are far from always beneficial for the individual. A conditioned reflex or habit developed in one context may be inadequate in another; acquired stereotypes can obstruct the assimilation of alternative modes of action, among other issues. Human experience is often distorted. For instance, fear of dogs may arise because an individual was bitten by one, possibly multiple times. In their personal experience, dogs bite, which shapes inadequate expectations that are projected onto all future encounters. Though this fear may be exaggerated, it has a genuine foundation, rendered inadequate precisely due to the limitations of individual experience and its incorrect generalization.

Another notable characteristic of human behavior can be observed in autumn and spring. In the same air temperature, people still wear T-shirts in the fall, while in the spring, they still don coats. The inertia of adaptation manifests in the tendency for the familiar to be reproduced more frequently than a change in mode of action. Here, we can identify two general rules: (1) that which has developed and established itself will require no less effort to change than that which was needed for the formation of the habit; (2) habits are formed as reactions to known circumstances, and their alteration encounters anxiety related to the yet unknown. Consequently, those habits formed early in childhood often become foundational; the individual must subsequently adapt to them. It is not the individual who governs these habits; rather, they govern the individual. This holds true in later life as well. A habit that eases life in one context may become a burden in another.

The second factor of acquired experience pertains to a distinctive trait of humanity: individuals inhabit not only the real world but also, in parallel, a secondary reality constituted by the mental forms of culture, within that third world of symbolic mediators: language and thought. The same physical environment can hold different meanings for people within the context of this mental work. Value orientations alter a person's living environment; their “internal” cognitive production mediates their actions concerning real objects. The extent of this production varies among individuals. Some live as if in a peculiar mental cocoon, isolating them from the external world. In contrast, others exhibit less mental mediation, being more guided by their senses than by language and thought. This distinction seems linked to the varying functioning of the different hemispheres of the brain: in the former, the left hemisphere predominates, while in the latter, the right. However, this typically does not manifest as a strict division but rather as a wide spectrum of variations regarding the degree of expression of opposing tendencies and their imbalance. Furthermore, in some individuals, their internal mental production appears somewhat isolated, poorly aligned communicatively with others, and estranged. Their worldviews and reactions to their surroundings may thus be largely incomprehensible to others, as if they communicate in a unique language. The development of their ideas is significantly tied to this internal logic, a logic minimally adjusted by external circumstances. Conversely, others, immersed in the mental world, predominantly engage with collective notions, continuously participating in the communicative process; they value hearing and being heard, striving to align their views with those of others and disseminating a common language. Accordingly, their perspectives frequently shift alongside changes in societal moods. Nevertheless, in both cases, this mental experience mediates human decisions and becomes an autonomous process that dictates behavior, independent of the direct influence of external factors.

In summation, we can model a thought experiment to conclude this overview. Let us envision not two, but numerous clones—monozygotic twins (such occurrences are possible). Suppose one set develops together under identical conditions, for instance, in a typical Kyiv family, while the other grows up somewhere in India or in the Amazon rainforest among a tribe isolated from Western civilization. Let us set aside how the indigenous inhabitants might react to their external features—skin color, facial structure—(in real conditions, such reactions could significantly affect an individual's status within that community). What will happen? To what extent will these individuals differ from one another? They share the same genotype, which will determine all the traits of similarity influenced by the interaction of the molecular-genetic factor with environmental conditions. If these conditions are similar, the twins will appear more alike compared to those raised in different circumstances. For example, given an identical genotype, body structure can be significantly impacted by dietary caloric content, composition, and the activity level of one’s lifestyle. (However, even under uniform dietary conditions, activity levels, and other standardized situations, individuals will still differ in stature, and these differences should be attributed to genetic factors.) Nonetheless, the acquired skills, habits, established ways of life, and beliefs of these twins will vary across different cultures. Even if they were raised in a shared cultural environment, the two genetic clones will not be entirely identical in personality. We may discover intriguing characteristics: in some cases, one twin might possess a personality strikingly similar not to that of their sibling, with whom they were raised, but to someone who grew up in a different culture. Despite similarities in character traits, their mental orientations may differ sharply, while others remain quite close. Why is this? The primary influence on the formation of personality traits stems from adaptation to the social environment. Thus, under certain conditions, one twin might compete with the other for a particular role. Their interactions with one another become a crucial factor in an environment that is now distinct for each of them, for part of that environment is the other twin. This “other” is perceived differently by each of them. We may also observe that one twin’s views closely align with those of their social surroundings, while the other maintains peculiar beliefs that influence their lifestyle and actions. Ultimately, regardless of how alike they may seem, we will not uncover two individuals among them that are absolutely identical in all traits upon thorough examination.