Comparison of Freud and Rousseau on the issue of nature and culture

Nature and culture are two are two opposing, and very different conceptions. Nature is something that is
given to us, and existed much more before us. ON the other hand culture is creation of human, and culture
varies from place to place, and from time to time. Main question that we should ask is, is the influence of
culture always a good thing? Can culture cause more damage then our human nature? At last, but not the
least, can culture completely alter and tame nature?

Sigmund Freud had given many thoughts about culture and nature. Before we discuss this subject, we
should remind ourselves to the Freud structure of personality. Id, Ego, and Super Ego are the components
of human personality. Id, the important part now, is part that is most connected to the nature. Id represents
our basic instincts, our needs and desires, and Id does important part in early years of our life( it keeps us
safe and alive through instincts). Ids only wish is to fulfill its needs, no matter what. That cant always be
done, and sometimes we must adjust our needs so they can be satisfied in a manner that is sociable
acceptable. Because that, we need the culture , so our needs are completed in a way that is received to all
members of society.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was patron of a nature. He believed that human are, and must be, free
and always in touch with his nature.
Reason and passion condition each other but there is one great difference- as a reasonable being,
human is active, but as a sensual being he is passive. Rousseau uses contrast conscience- passion,
and comes to conclusion who follows conscience, he toes to the nature. He criticize
rationalism and he couldnt let the possibility for reason to become basis of nature. He saw the
culture and civilization as a negation to nature, which is foundation of true humaneness. That is
why he preaches return to nature.

When we compare these two authors, we can see clear difference in answer what culture does to
humans. Freud strongly believed that culture and civilization are essential for human kind.
Culture has two purposes: to regulate relations between people, and to protect a man from the
nature. This definition means that culture is what makes us different from the animals, it is our
creation and that is the main feature of culture. Rousseau standpoint is that culture is completely
fake and balefully; it is based on prejudice and misapprehension, and as the way it is, it is far
from human heart. Only the man of nature can be happy man. Unlike Rousseau, Freud said that
man is happy and pleased with culture and because of her, he can get he best from the nature and
himself. What prevails in human life are fear, misery and pain, and that is caused by three fears:
superior nature, fear of death and relationship with others. Rousseau point of view was that
science and art ( one of cultures main creations) are contributing human vices, and also they are
bad because they are product of artificial and fake needs. In the end, Freud said that culture
begins with arrangement of human relationships, more precisely when personal freedom obeys to
requests of community. But Rousseau believed that in natural state man is born free and
contributes to be free fulfilling only his small and simple needs. Socialization leads to integration
of person and like a tamed animal, he loses his freedom to be who he is, and what is his nature.

Personally, I prefer Rousseau point of view. In some way, Freud had good points, but when we
think about socialization and culture, we can see some paradigm . With socialization, we do lose
some small ( and sometimes big) part of our nature and free will. Culture and socialization
makes us to conform to community, to conform to common values, and that is mostly against our
will and we are not even aware of that. We are taught to respect the values of our society, and if
we feel the need to do something different, we may face the consequence . To summarize, if we
have some primal, natural need, we may be forbidden to satisfy it because our culture does not
approve that. Second reason for being on Rousseau side is question of freedom, and freedom is
our basic need. Culture and civilization are making us to renounce part of our freedom and obey
others will. That is contrary to human nature, because no one is born like slave, like servant, or
even like obedient entity. Artificial needs that culture creates are forcing us to make inequality
among humans, which can lead to losing part or even complete freedom. IN the end, cultures
and civilizations are different in every part of world, and in different times, but nature is always
the same.

We met very opposite opinions about the nature and culture, and the relation between them. One
of our questions was can culture completely alter and tame human nature. Well, certainly it can
Culture can be strong and strict and may try to limit nature, and our natural needs. It can makes
us conform and can create a certain forms of preferably behavior that we need to obey. But,
human nature is much stronger force that is rooted in us , and it will always appear on surface no
matter in what way.