3690. Human Nature and Socialism: Part 4. Socialism as the Process of De-alienation

By Kamran Nayeri, June 11, 2026

For readers familiar with my thinking, it would be reasonable to expect me to conclude this multipart essay with a review of the concept of human nature among the world's indigenous peoples. However, indigenous cultures, for the most part, lacked a notion of human nature because they viewed humanity as part of nature rather than separate from it.  The very concept of human nature presumes a certain separation between humanity and nature, which at least warrants explanation.

Indeed, there has been such a separation between humanity and the rest of nature in all civilizations. Thus, the philosophers and social and natural scientists I sampled in this essay have all noticed this separation and attempted to bridge it, at least through an understanding of “human nature.”

The problem of alienation

According to David Leopold (2022), the term “alienation” emerged in modern Europe. In English, the term had emerged by the early fifteenth century, already possessing an interesting cluster of associations. It was to refer to an individual’s estrangement from God and to mental derangement by psychiatric doctors. G.W.F. Hegel (1770–1831) introduced the term in German, which included the sense of property transfer.  Leopold suggests that the first philosophical discussion of alienation was in French, in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's (1712–1778) Second Discourse.  The concept of alienation is central to Karl Marx’s theory of socialism from the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 to his later work, including Das Kapital. Thus, in Marx’s theory, alienation is implied in human nature as an assemblage of social relations created by the dominant mode of production. The central task of socialism is to do away with capitalist alienation centered in the capitalist mode of production.

Thus, it is no surprise that indigenous peoples lack a concept of “human nature,” as they have considered themselves part of nature rather than estranged (alienated) from it. As I have explained elsewhere (Nayeri, 2013), alienation from nature arose with the emergence of the first agrarian cultures some 12,000 years ago because farmers needed to domesticate plants and animals to develop farms, the first artificial ecosystems, and to protect them from wild nature.  The transition implied an estrangement from nature, thereby conferring moral superiority on the farmer (humans). Social alienation arose when the early farmers produced an ongoing economic surplus, leading to social differentiation, domination, and exploitation. Thus, to rid society of social and ecological alienation requires a transition from ecocentrism to anthropocentrism at the same time as a socialist revolution, hence Ecocentric Socialism.  

The indigenous peoples often have not yet made the transition from hunter-gatherers to farmers and civilization, or are in the process of doing so, and hence still carry with them essential aspects of their ancestors’ ecocentrism. 

Let me outline how some indigenous peoples view themselves and their relationship to the rest of nature.

Robin Wall Kimmerer

Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants is a 2015 book by Potawatomi professor of botany Robin Wall Kimmerer that explores the role of Indigenous knowledge as an alternative or complementary approach to mainstream Western scientific methodologies.

The book consists of interconnected essays rather than a single linear argument. Kimmerer uses Sweetgrass, an aromatic herb, as a symbol of reciprocity and cultural renewal. The "Three Sisters" (corn, beans, and squash) serve as a model of cooperation in nature. Maple syrup harvesting exemplifies the ethical use of natural gifts. She emphasized the importance of language in shaping relationships with the natural world.

Kimmerer underscores the core of the Indigenous culture as follows:

1. Nature is a community of relations. She argues that plants, animals, rivers, and landscapes are not merely resources but part of a larger ecological community. Drawing on Potawatomi traditions, she emphasizes reciprocity rather than domination. A recurring idea is that the world is full of gifts—sunlight, water, food, fertile soil—and that receiving these gifts entails responsibilities.

2. Indigenous knowledge and Western science. As a trained botanist and a Potawatomi woman, Kimmerer explores how scientific knowledge and Indigenous knowledge can complement one another. She argues that science often tells us how ecological systems work, while Indigenous traditions can help answer questions about how humans ought to live within them.

3. The Honorable Harvest. One of the book's most influential concepts is the "Honorable Harvest," an ethical code for taking from nature: Take only what you need. Never take the first or the last. Use what you take. Give thanks. Give something back. Kimmerer presents this as a practical ecological ethic that promotes sustainability and respect.

4. Gratitude as an ecological practice.  The book contrasts a culture of consumption with a culture of gratitude. Kimmerer suggests that gratitude changes our relationship with the world, making exploitation less likely and stewardship more natural.

5. Critique of capitalism and resource extraction. Without developing a systematic political theory, Kimmerer criticizes economic systems that treat land and living beings as commodities. She argues that ecological crises stem partly from relationships based on ownership, extraction, and profit rather than reciprocity and care.

Kimmerer's central message is that ecological sustainability requires more than scientific knowledge or technological solutions. It requires transforming our relationships with the living world.  She put it this way: “The ecosystem is not a machine, but a community of beings, subjects rather than objects. What if those beings were the drivers?” (Kimmerer, 2023, p. 331). Humans flourish when they see themselves as members of an ecological community bound by reciprocity, gratitude, and responsibility. Kimmerer presents a worldview in which agency is not confined to humans alone; plants, animals, and ecosystems participate in shaping life, while humans are called to enter respectful relationships with them rather than stand outside nature as its rulers.

Vine Deloria Jr.

Vine Deloria Jr. (1933–2005) was a Standing Rock Sioux scholar, author, theologian, and activist whose writings transformed the study of Native American history, religion, and law. Through his scholarship and leadership, he became one of the 20th century’s most influential Indigenous intellectuals, advocating for tribal sovereignty and reexamining Western conceptions of science and spirituality. In his book, God Is Red (1973), he explores Native American religious traditions and critiques the dominance of Western Christianity in shaping U.S. society. The book is regarded as a foundational text in Native American studies and Indigenous theology. Deloria expresses the same themes as Kimmerer.

Arturo Escobar

Arturo Escobar, a Colombian anthropologist and activist-scholar, has been recognized for pioneering post-development and political ecology thought. His work challenges Western notions of progress, focusing on ecological design, territorial autonomy, and “pluriversal” worldviews that embrace multiple ways of living and knowing.

Escobar’s Encountering Development (2011) framed the concept of post-development, arguing that traditional development models perpetuate colonial power structures. He advocates for locally grounded alternatives rooted in environmental care, cultural pluralism, and autonomy rather than economic growth alone.

Escobar’s later books—Designs for the Pluriverse (2018), Pluriversal Politics (2020), and La relacionalidad (2024)—extend his ideas toward “ontological design” and eco-social transitions. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2021, in recognition of his influence on global debates about sustainability and decolonial futures.

Eduardo Viveiros de Castro

Viveiros de Castro is perhaps the most influential interpreter of Amazonian thought. He was born in Brazil in 1951 and trained as an anthropologist. He is a professor at the National Museum of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. His theory of "Amerindian perspectivism" proposes that many beings are people, that morality is not an exclusive property of humanity, and that different species inhabit different perspectives on the same world. His work is theoretical rather than political, but it offers powerful conceptual resources for animistic materialism to which I subscribe. Viveiros de Castro has written a number of books, including Cosmological Perspectivism in Amazonia and Elsewhere, Hau Masterclass Series (vol. 1) (2012). In this book, he develops the concept of “perspectivism developed by Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, which is one of the most influential ideas in contemporary anthropology. It emerged from his study of Amazonian Indigenous.

Perspectivism is the philosophical position that one's access to the world through perception, experience, and reason is possible only through one's own perspective and interpretation. It rejects both the idea of a perspective-free or an interpretation-free objective reality.

Western thought generally assumes: One nature (the same physical world for everyone)

Many cultures (different human interpretations of that world). Viveiros de Castro argues that many Amazonian peoples hold something close to the reverse: One culture (all beings share personhood, intentionality, social life); many natures (different bodies generate different worlds). He calls this multi-naturalism, contrasting it with Western multiculturalism. In Amazonian perspectivism, animals, spirits, and other beings are not regarded as mere objects. Many are considered people.

Concluding remarks

Let me summarize the contributions I considered on human nature and the human mind from different intellectual traditions—historical materialism, dialectical biology, cybernetics and systems theory, neuroscience, and Indigenous cosmologies—that all challenge the liberal image of the autonomous individual.

Karl Marx viewed humans as a social, productive, self-creating species. He recognized that humans are part of nature, transforming nature through collective and historical praxis. Human nature develops historically as an assemblage of social relations.

There are two fundamental weaknesses in Marx’s theory. He intentionally leaves out nature in his consideration of human nature, society, and history, although he admits humans are embedded in nature, and his anthropocentric theory is limited to the history of class societies, which constitute a mere 5,000 years out of 300,000 years of the existence of Homo Sapiens and 2.5 million years of our ancestors in the Homo genus. Throughout this “prehistory,” our ancestors were hunter-gatherers, a way of human existence that precedes the emergence of modes of production, central to Marx’s theories.

Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin view the organism and environment as co-creating each other in a |dialectical interaction. They reject genetic and environmental determinism. The weakness in their view is that they do not clearly admit the primacy of nature over culture, as is clearly admitted in the theory of evolution to which they subscribe. Consequently, they remain within the bounds of Marx’s nineteenth-century socialism.

Gregory Bateson, relying on cybernetics and systems theory, views the human mind as part of a larger ecological mind. He correctly insists that the human mind exists in networks and relationships that operate according to the laws of systems and not according to individuals or groups of individuals. While Bateson was not interested in the theory of socialism, his theory of ecology of mind is indispensable to thinking about socialism and how to transition to it.

For Robert Sapolsky, human behavior emerges from biology, natural and social history. Humans are biological organisms embedded in their environment. He offers a multi-level analysis that supports questioning of free will. Notably, while Sapolsky offers biological evidence for human behavior, he is not a genetic determinist, as he places equal emphasis on biology, culture, and society; in fact, he argues that the nature/culture debate is obsolete. Indeed, his argument against the existence of free will, for greater consideration in judging fellow human beings, and for the importance of building institutions that support the development of virtues and inhibit vices must become the cornerstone of a democratic and libertarian socialism that has been missing in the history of socialism so far.

For Robin Wall Kimmerer, humans are members of a community of living beings. She calls for reciprocity with plants, animals, and ecosystems. For Vine Deloria Jr. humans belong to sacred places and relationships.  Nature is alive and communicative. He offers a critique Western anthropocentrism. Arturo Escobar believed humans live in relational and in radical interdependence with nonhuman worlds. He calls for a collective ecological and relational ontology. For Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, humanity is a condition of personhood, not species | Humans and nonhumans are all persons from their own perspective. He advocates Amerindian perspectivism and multinaturalism.

A note on ontology

It is necessary to conclude with a note on ontology. Nineteenth-century materialism was a philosophical and cultural shift that rejected religious and spiritual explanations, asserting instead that matter is the fundamental reality of the universe. Driven by rapid scientific advancements and the Industrial Revolution, it fundamentally transformed how humans understood nature, society, and themselves. Marx shared this ontology. In historical materialism, Marx and Engels developed a framework to critique capitalism and explain societal conflicts through class struggles and the means of production.

In modern times, Materialism has been refined to include the idea that all of reality is composed of physical objects, including both material objects and energy. Thus, nineteenth-century materialism has been redefined to explain quantum physics and the uncertainty principle.  The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known.

This poses fundamental Limitations on philosophical materialism about what can be known about particles, challenging the materialist view of complete knowledge of the physical world. First, there is the observer effect: It highlights the role of the observer in measurement, complicating the materialist perspective that reality exists independently of observation. Second, it introduced non-determinism: The principle introduces non-deterministic elements in quantum mechanics, conflicting with materialism's often deterministic framework. Third, it raises questions about the nature of reality itself, suggesting that at a fundamental level, reality may not be as straightforwardly material as philosophical materialism posits. The limitations on knowledge imply that materialism may not fully account for the complexities of existence and consciousness. Quantum entanglement is the phenomenon in which the quantum state of each particle in a group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical physics and quantum physics: entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics not present in classical mechanics. These challenge the materialist view of objects' separateness and individuality, suggesting interconnectedness that materialism struggles to explain.

These have been reintroduced in panpsychism, the view that mind or conscious experience, of some type or other, is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality, including for all physical reality.  Panpsychism is also described as a theory that the mind is a fundamental feature that exists throughout the universe. It is one of the oldest theories in the philosophy of mind, possibly overlapping in some interpretations with animism, the spiritual or religious worldview of many indigenous societies, though panpsychism is usually regarded as a philosophical (metaphysical) stance. Physicists and cosmologists increasingly believe that the universe itself must be viewed in a relational sense.

“The idea that existence is fundamentally relational – that nothing exists in complete isolation – is not new to philosophy. But today, the sciences are independently arriving at the same conclusion through their own rigorous methods. Across disciplines as different as physics and meteorology, the emerging picture is consistent: the universe’s deep structure is one of interconnection, mutual influence, and dynamic interdependence. To understand this, we need to look carefully at three major scientific frameworks: the theory of relativity, quantum field theory, and chaos theory (Philosophy Institute, no date).”

It must be evident that the nineteenth-century materialism of Marx, just like his theories of human nature, society, and history as embedded in historical materialism, must be revised in light of what we know and the problems we face in the twenty-first century. I trust this multipart essay lends additional support to my theory of Ecocentric Socialism, founded on ecological animistic materialism Nayeri, 2023, Chapter 19; Nayeri, 2021). 

 

References:

Escobar, Arturo. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. 2018.

Leopold, David. “Alienation.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2022.

Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. 2015.

Kopenawa, Davi. The Falling Sky. 2013.

Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo.  Cosmological Perspectivism in Amazonia and Elsewhere. 1998

Nayeri, Kamran. “Economics, Socialism and Ecology: A Critical Outline, Part 2,” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. October 29, 2013.

_____________." “The Case for Ecocentric Socialism.” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. July 4, 2021.

_____________." Whose Planet? Essays on Ecocentric Socialism. 2023. 

Philosophy Institute. “Unveiling the Fabric of the Universe: Insight from Contemporary Science.” No date. 

3689. Human Nature and Socialism, Part 3. Robert Sapolsky on Human Behavior

By Kamran Nayeri, June 7, 2026

Robert Sapolsky

Born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1957, Robert Morris Sapolsky is an American neuroscientist and primatologist. As John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Professor at Stanford University, he is a professor of biology, neurology, and neurosurgery. Sapolsky's research has focused on neuroendocrinology, particularly relating to stress. He is also a research associate with the National Museums of Kenya.

In what follows, I will outline Sapolsky’s grand synthesis of neuroscience, endocrinology, evolutionary biology, anthropology, and primatology as presented in his books Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (2018) and Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will (2023). His central argument is that no human behavior can be understood by looking at a single cause. Instead, every action is the outcome of a long causal chain extending from seconds before the act to millions of years of evolution.

Behave: Why humans do what they do

This 790-page book extensively discusses neurobiological foundations of human behavior, explaining how brain activity, particularly in the limbic and frontal cortex systems, dictates responses moments before an action is taken. It highlights the role of the triune brain model in processing everything from basic survival instincts to complex decision-making.

Sapolsky’s methodology is distinctive because it is neither purely neuroscientific nor purely sociological. Instead, Sapolsky develops what might be called a multi-level, historical-causal analysis of behavior.

His central methodological question is: What caused a particular behavior to occur at a particular moment?

To answer this, he works backward in time, examining layers of causation that extend from seconds before an action to millions of years before it.

The "Backward-in-Time" Method

Sapolsky begins with a specific behavior--for example, an act of aggression, altruism, cooperation, or prejudice—and asks what caused it. He then analyzes successively larger temporal scales:

First stage. One second before the behavior

What was happening in the brain?

• Neural circuits
• Amygdala activity
• Prefrontal cortex regulation
• Neurotransmitters

This is the immediate neurobiological explanation.

Second stage. Seconds to minutes before

What stimuli triggered the brain?

• Visual signals
• Sounds
• Social cues
• Threats or rewards

Behavior is seen as a response to environmental information processed by the nervous system.

Third stage. Hours to days before

What hormonal conditions existed?

• Cortisol
• Testosterone
• Oxytocin
• Dopamine

Hormones alter how the brain responds to stimuli.

Fourth stage. Months to years before

What developmental experiences shaped the individual?

• Childhood experiences
• Trauma
• Attachment
• Learning
• Socialization

The nervous system itself has been molded by prior experience.

Fifth stage. Genetic and epigenetic influences

What predispositions exist?

• Genes affecting temperament
• Gene-environment interactions
• Epigenetic modifications

Importantly, Sapolsky rejects genetic determinism. Genes influence probabilities, not fixed outcomes.

Sixth stage. Cultural influences

What social world shaped the person?

• Norms
• Institutions
• Religion
• Economic systems
• Political structures

Culture becomes a causal force in behavior.

Seventh stage. Evolutionary history

Why does our species possess these capacities at all?

• Evolution of cooperation
• Group identity
• Dominance hierarchies
• Empathy
• Aggression

Here Sapolsky draws on primatology, evolutionary biology, and anthropology.

Some conclusions

The following are some of the conclusions Sapolsky draws in Behave.

A. The nature-versus-nurture debate is largely obsolete

Sapolsky concludes that genes and environment are inseparable. Genes influence how organisms respond to environments, while environments influence how genes are expressed through developmental and epigenetic processes.

Thus, human behavior is always the product of gene-environment interaction.

B. The brain is highly plastic

Another major conclusion is that human brains are not fixed. Experience alters neural connections, emotional responses, cognitive capacities, stress systems, and even gene expression.

This means that neither virtue nor violence is permanently built into human beings.

C. Humans possess capacities for both extraordinary cruelty and extraordinary cooperation

Sapolsky rejects theories that portray humans as either naturally selfish or naturally good.

Humans have evolved capacities for aggression, domination, tribalism, and xenophobia,  but also, for empathy, cooperation, altruism, and reconciliation.

Both tendencies are deeply rooted in our biology.

D. Context matters enormously

A recurring conclusion throughout Behave is that behavior changes dramatically depending on circumstances.

People who behave compassionately in one context may behave cruelly in another.

Situational factors can often outweigh stable personality traits.

This insight draws partly from classic social psychology experiments and partly from neuroscience.

E. Tribalism is natural but not fixed

Sapolsky concludes that humans have evolved tendencies to divide the world into “us” and “them.” However, he emphasizes that group boundaries are remarkably flexible. People can rapidly redefine who belongs to "us." For Sapolsky, this flexibility provides grounds for optimism.

The same biological mechanisms that produce prejudice can also support broader forms of solidarity.

F. Social inequality has biological consequences

One of Sapolsky's longstanding research interests concerns stress and hierarchy. He concludes that chronic inequality, subordination, and insecurity produce measurable biological effects on health and behavior.

The social environment literally becomes embodied.This links social structures to biological outcomes.

G. Moral behavior depends heavily on social conditions

Sapolsky repeatedly argues that if societies wish to encourage cooperation, tolerance, and empathy it should create institutions and environments that support those behaviors. He is skeptical of explanations that focus solely on individual moral character. Instead, he emphasizes the importance of social arrangements.

H. Traditional notions of free will are deeply problematic

This conclusion becomes even more explicit in his later book, Determined, but its foundations are already present in Behave.

Sapolsky argues that every action arises from prior causes: genes, fetal development, childhood, culture, brain states, immediate circumstances.

As a result, he questions whether people could ever have acted independently of those causes. This does not mean behavior is random; rather, it is caused by factors beyond conscious control.

I. Understanding causation should increase compassion

This is perhaps the ethical conclusion that runs through the entire book. Sapolsky believes that understanding the causes of behavior should make us less self-righteous, less punitive, more empathetic. If behavior arises from biological and social histories that individuals did not choose, then moral judgment should be tempered by such understanding.

Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will

In this 511-page book, Robert Sapolsky takes the argument implicit in Behave to its logical conclusion: human beings do not possess free will in the traditional sense.

However, the book is not merely a philosophical argument. Sapolsky attempts to synthesize findings from neuroscience, genetics, endocrinology, psychology, developmental biology, and social science to show that every human action arises from causes that precede conscious choice.

His central thesis can be summarized as follows: A person could not have acted differently from how they acted, because every factor that produced the action was itself caused by prior factors over which the person had no control.

Sapolsky asks what caused a decision at a particular moment. As in Behave, he works backward to find the causal chain for the decision. He argues that at no point do we encounter an independent "chooser" standing outside this causal chain. Instead, we find only more causes.

The core claim

Sapolsky rejects what philosophers often call libertarian free will—the idea that a person could have genuinely chosen otherwise under exactly the same conditions.

He argues that every thought emerges from brain activity. Brain activity arises from prior physical and biological causes. Those causes arise from earlier biological, environmental, social and historical causes. Therefore, no action is ultimately self-created.

The traditional image of autonomous self-making uncaused choices is, in his view, an illusion.

What about conscious choice? Sapolsky does not deny that people deliberate. We weigh alternatives, reflect, and make plans. However, he argues that the mechanisms that generate preferences, desires, values, motivations, and reasoning styles, were themselves produced by prior causes. Thus, while conscious deliberation is real, it is not evidence for free will. The deliberative process is itself part of the causal chain.

Sapolsky draws on several sources of evidence.

Neuroscience: Experiments often show measurable brain activity precedes conscious awareness of decisions. The brain appears to begin preparing actions before people report deciding.

Genetics and Development: Temperament, impulse control, risk-taking, and emotional regulation are influenced by genes, prenatal conditions, and childhood experiences.  Individuals do not choose these starting points.

Social Environment: Economic conditions, education, trauma, discrimination, and profoundly shape behavior. People inherit social circumstances rather than choosing them.

Some people argue that quantum indeterminacy or randomness creates freedom. Sapolsky rejects this. A random event is not a free choice. Randomness may undermine strict determinism, but it does not create an autonomous will.

Implications for morality

This is where Sapolsky becomes most controversial. He argues that if free will does not exist, then traditional notions of moral blameworthiness become difficult to defend. No one chooses their genes, their prenatal environment, or their childhood circumstances. If behavior emerges from factors beyond personal control, then punishment justified by retribution becomes questionable.

Sapolsky does not argue for abolishing laws, courts, or prisons. Instead, he proposes a more pragmatic approach. Society may need to restrain dangerous individuals, protect the public, and rehabilitate offenders, but should do so without the belief that offenders freely choose their character.

He often compares this to dealing with a dangerous disease. Society protects itself but without hatred or moral condemnation.

A major ethical conclusion of the book is that abandoning free will should increase compassion.

When we understand how behavior is shaped by biology, history, culture, and social conditions, we become less inclined toward self-righteousness and vengeance.

For Sapolsky, understanding causation should foster empathy.

Major Criticisms

The book has attracted much praise but also some criticism from philosophers and some scientists. Common objections include:

Philosophical view of free will: many philosophers do not believe free will requires an uncaused soul or independent self. Instead, they defend compatibilism, the belief that free will and determinism are mutually compatible and that it is possible to believe in both without being logically inconsistent even in a causally determined world.

Sapolsky largely rejects this position.

References:

Sapolsky, Robert. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. 2018. 

____________.  Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will. 2023. 

3688. Human Nature and Socialism, Part 2. Gregory Bateson’s Ecology of Mind

By Kamran Nayeri, June 4, 2026 

Gregory Bateson

Gregory Bateson (1904 – 1980) was an English American anthropologist, social scientist, linguist, visual anthropologist, semiotician, and cyberneticist whose work intersected with many other fields. “His contributions range from evolutionary theory to epistemology to clinical psychology and psychiatry to anthropology to learning and communication. His approach was decidedly multidisciplinary (Montuori, 2002).” 

What got Bateson on the path to what he later called “ecology of mind was what he confronted in his teaching:

“I have taught various branches of behavioral biology and cultural anthropology to American students ranging from college freshmen to psychiatric residents, in various schools and teaching hospitals, and I have encountered a very strange gap in their thinking that springs from a lack of certain tools of thought. This lack is rather equally distributed at all levels of education, among students of both sexes, and among humanities as well as scientists. Specifically, it is a lack of knowledge of the presuppositions not only of science but of everyday life (Bateson, 2002, p. 23).”

Bateson’s interest led him to develop a methodology for piecing together information gleaned from various fields into new patterns of knowledge. 

“At present, there is no existing science whose interest is the combining of pieces of information. But I shall argue that the evolutionary process must depend upon such double increments of information. Every evolutionary step is an addition of information to an already existing system. Because it is so, the combinations, harmonies, and discords between successive pieces and layers of information will present many problems of survival and determine many directions of change (Bateson, 2002, p. 19).”

In this essay, I will focus on Bateson’s concept of the ecology of mind, which evolved over time in his writing, as expressed especially in Steps to an Ecology of Mind (1972) and Mind and Nature (1979). Cybernetics and systems theory played a central role in his ecology of mind.  Cybernetics is the study of systems, control, and communication in animals and machines. It explores feedback loops, which are essential for system regulation and adaptation; examines the role of information flow in maintaining system stability and functionality; analyzes interactions among components within a system to understand emergent behaviors; and investigates the application of cybernetics across fields such as biology, engineering, and the social sciences.

Bateson’s theory of ecology of mind

Gregory Bateson’s core thesis is that the mind is not an isolated substance or faculty inside individuals’ brains, but a relational, cybernetic process distributed across organisms and their environments.

Mind is a process that emerges from networks of relationships among organisms and their environments. Human beings, other living beings, and ecosystems are linked through flows of information. The mind is a system of relationships; it is not a “thing” but a process. He defined a mental system as one in which differences are perceived. Differences are transformed into information. Information affects future behavior. Feedback loops connect the parts of the system. A forest, a family, an ecosystem, or even a society can therefore exhibit mental characteristics because they process information through interconnected feedback relationships. This means no organism can be understood apart from the ecological system in which it exists.

Information is "a difference that makes a difference." A difference becomes information when it affects a system's behavior. For example, changes in temperature affect a plant; a predator's movement affects prey; a spoken word affects a listener.

Mind therefore operates through the communication of differences rather than through material substances alone.

Epistemological errors arise when we fragment this systemic whole into linear cause–effect chains or oppose self and world.

Bateson’s theory has resulted in debates about systems thinking, constructivist epistemology, and ecological ethics.

Bateson believed modern industrial civilization suffers from a profound epistemological error. Western thought often separates mind from nature, humans from ecosystems, and subject from object.

Bateson argued that these separations are largely illusions. Humans are components of larger ecological systems, not masters standing outside them. When people act as if they are separate from nature, they damage the ecological systems upon which they depend.

Feedback and self-regulation

Ecological systems survive through feedback loops. Examples include predator-prey relationships, body temperature regulation, family interactions, and ecosystem nutrient cycles. Healthy systems contain balancing feedback that prevents runaway growth or collapse.

Many social and ecological crises arise when these feedback mechanisms are disrupted.

ُُSpecies co-evolve within networks of relationships; Organisms shape environments; Environments shape organisms. 

The sacred unity of life

In his later work, Bateson increasingly emphasized what he called the "pattern which connects," referring to the recurring relational structures found throughout living systems: Examples: cells and organisms; organisms and ecosystems; individuals and societies

He believed wisdom consists in recognizing these patterns rather than focusing only on isolated entities.

At the same time, Bateson’s view of the function of consciousness “in coupling between man and the homeostatic systems around him” is as follows:

“First, there is man’s habit of changing his environment rather than changing himself. …In evolutionary history, the great majority of steps have been changes within the organism itself; some steps have been of an intermediate kind in which the organism achieved change of environment by change of locale. In a few cases, organisms other than man have created modified microenvironments around themselves, e.g., the nests of hymenoptera and birds, concentrated forests of conifers, fungal colonies, etc.

“In all such cases, the logic of evolutionary progress is toward ecosystems which sustain only the dominant, environment-controlling species, and its symbionts and parasites.

“Man, the outstanding modifier of environment, similarly achieves single-species ecosystems and parasites in his cities, but he goes one step further, establishing special environment for his symbionts. These, likewise, become single-species ecosystems: fields of corn, cultures of bacteria, batteries of fowls, colonies of laboratory rats, and the like. 

“Secondly, the power ratio between purposive consciousness and the environment has rapidly changed in the last one hundred years, and the rate of change in the ratio is certainly rapidly increasing with technological advances. Conscious man, as a changer of the environment, is now fully able to wreck himself and the environment—with the very best conscious intentions.

 “Third, a peculiar sociological phenomenon has arisen in the last one hundred years which perhaps threatens to isolate conscious purpose from many corrective processes which might come out of less conscious parts of the mind. The social scene is nowadays characterized by the existence of a large number of self-maximizing entities which, in law, have something like the status of ‘persons’-trusts, companies, political parties, unions, commercial and financial agencies, nations, and the like. In biological fact, these entities are precisely not persons and not even aggregates of whole persons. They are aggregates of parts of persons (Bateson, 2002, p. 451-452).”

Batson then notes several factors “which may act as correctives.” They include love, by which he means “I-Thou” relationship “between man and his society or ecosystem,” and the formation of “sensitivity groups,” arts, poetry, music, and the humanities, where “more of the mind is active than consciousness would admit.” He adds contact between “man and animals and between man and the natural world,” which “breeds, perhaps—sometimes—wisdom (ibid., p. 453). He includes religion to which I will come back again.

Ecological implications

Bateson's ecological philosophy differs from both mechanistic materialism, which often treats nature as an object, and spiritual views that separate mind from the material world. Instead, he proposed a relational ontology in which the mind is immanent in ecological relationships. Human beings are part of larger living systems, and survival depends on maintaining the integrity of these systems.

The fundamental reality is not isolated things but relationships, patterns, and information flows. Human survival depends on recognizing that the true unit of life is the organism-in-its-ecosystem.

The survival unit

While Freudian psychology expanded the concept of the mind inwards to include the whole communication system within the body, the automatic, the habitual, and the vast range of unconscious processes, Bateson “expands mind outwards. And both these changes reduce the scope of the conscious self.

“We get a picture, then, of mind as synonymous with cybernetic system—the relevant total information-processing, trial-and-error completing unit. And we know that within Mind in the widest sense, there will be a hierarchy of subsystems, any one of which we call an individual mind. 

“But this picture is precisely the same as the picture which I arrived at in discussing the unit of evolution. I believe that this identity is the most important generalization which I have to offer you tonight…

“This identity between the unit of mind and the unit of evolutionary survival is of very of great importance, not only theoretical but also ethical. (ibid., p. 466).” 

Let’s get back to religion for a moment. Bateson argues that if

“You put God outside and set him vis-à-vis his creation, and if you have the idea that you are created in his image, you will logically and naturally see yourself as outside against the things around you. And as you arrogate all mind to yourself, you will see the world as mindless and therefore not entitled to moral or ethical considerations. The environment will seem to be yours to exploit. Your survival unit will be you and your folks or conspecifics against the environment of other social units, other races, brutes, and vegetables.

If this is your estimate of your relation to nature and you have advanced technology, your likelihood of survival will be that of a snowball in hell (ibid., p. 488, my emphasis).”

This is why Bateson has been influential in ecology, systems theory, cybernetics, family therapy, and environmental philosophy.

Critique of Bateson’s theory

From the perspective of a theory of human nature and socialism, it is evident that a cybernetic approach to human society operates at a higher degree of generality and lacks any specific theory of society and history, unlike Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Karl Marx.  However, he complements such theories of society and history with a grand overall view that offers significant advantages. To begin with, although Bateson does not explicitly discuss his ontology, it is evident that he held a philosophy of being, existence, and reality that is materialist and immanently relational. As I underscored in Part 1 of this essay, even Marx’s historical materialism was constructed by limiting human nature, society, and history to social relations arising from modes of production and ensuing class struggles. Of course, Marx and Engels admitted this fundamental shortcoming but never returned to the task of placing humanity within nature, to which it is bound by natural history. A key exception is Marx’s concept of the metabolic rift, which originated in his critique of capitalist agriculture, which destroyed the metabolic relationship with the soil (Foster, 2000; Saito, 2017). However, contrary to claims of Foster and Saito, Marx never developed the idea in his theory of society and history; and his historical materialism and critique of political economy remained anthropocentric (Nayeri, 2023, Chapter 22; Nayeri, October 12, 2023). Marx accepted the ontology of nineteenth-century materialism but proposed it as dialectical materialism, thereby rejecting the prevalent mechanistic view.

Also, Marx’s theory entails no environmental ethics while Bateson’s theory of ecology of mind does.

The task remains for the twenty-first-century ecological socialists to develop a theory of human nature cognizant of Bateson’s contributions.

References:

Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. 1972.

____________. Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. 1979/2002. 

Foster, John Bellamy. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. 2000.

Foster, John Bellamy, Brett Clark, Richard York. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on Earth. 2010.

Manghi, Sergio. Forward: In Wider Perspective. In Gregory Bateson, Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity. 2002.

Nayeri, Kamran. “Was Marx an Ecosocialist?” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. October 12, 2023.

_____________. Whose Planet? Essays on Ecocentric Socialism. 2023.

Saito, Kohei. Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy. 2017.

3687. End the U.S. Blockade of Cuba and Threats of Military Intervention NOW!

 

By Kamran Nayeri, May 30, 2026

In recent days, the U.S. government has been making threats of military attack against Cuba. Two weeks ago, the Justice Department filed an indictment against Raul Castro, the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution, and five others in the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Florida. The main charge in this indictment is the decision to shoot down three airplanes belonging to Brothers to the Rescue on February 23, 1996. This group had been flying over Cuba to drop leaflets encouraging Cubans to revolt against the government.

Cubans' demand for U.S. immigration has always outstripped the supply of immigrant visas granted by the U.S. embassy. As a result, one of the problems the Cuban government has faced has been illegal immigration through the Florida Strait by often self-made boats, putting them in danger of dehydration and drowning in treacherous waters.

Brothers for the Rescue was formed in May 1991 by a group of Cuban pilots who immigrated to the United States. Its initial goal was to help Cubans who were sailing from Cuba to Florida. However, its founder, Jose Basulto, had a history of working for the CIA. This group increasingly worked to help overthrow the Cuban government, including by propaganda through dropping leaflets in Cuba (Robles, May 20, 2026).  Prior to the targeting of the "Brothers for the Rescue" planes, the Cuban government had repeatedly complained to the US government about the activities of this group based in Florida, which was made up of U.S. nationals or legal residents. Several negotiation meetings were held between the diplomats of the two countries, but the U.S. government took no action to stop these illegal flights that contributed to a counter-revolution in Cuba.

Trump's anti-Cuba policies escalated after his success in the imperialist campaign against the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, which led to the kidnapping of him and his wife, Celia Flores, on January 3 of this year, and replacing him with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez. Rodriguez and the leadership of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela abandoned the socialist language used by the Maduro government, replacing senior officials, mainly from the military, in 13 of the 32 ministries.

From the first day after Maduro's abduction, Trump declared his main goal of controlling Venezuela's resources and oil industry.  With 303 billion barrels of oil estimated in 2023, Venezuela has the largest known oil reserves in the world. Oil was discovered in Venezuela in the late 19th century, but its extraction began in 1922 by American and European companies. In 1976, Venezuela nationalized the oil industry.

On January 29, Rodríguez, with the cooperation of parliament, where the United Socialist Party holds a majority, enacted a law to privatize oil production and sales.  At the same time, the United States lifted sanctions on Venezuela's oil industry and issued licenses to American oil companies to enter the Venezuelan oil industry. According to U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who visited Venezuela in February, Venezuela's oil sales had reached $1 billion after Maduro's abduction, and another $5 billion is expected in the coming months.

U.S. action against Cuba after Maduro's abductionThe day after Maduro was kidnapped from Venezuela, Trump turned his attention to Cuba as a “trouble spot” and threatened it to "make a deal" with him before it was too late. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel responded by saying that those who turn everything, even human lives, into business, lack the moral credibility to criticize Cuba. 

By declaring a state of emergency, Trump used his executive power to warn that any country that sells or gives oil to Cuba will be subject to tariffs (Robles, January 30, 2026).  On February 27, the day before the start of the war against Iran, Trump said in his speech that he would take Cuba in a “friendly way."

The crisis caused by the ban on oil exports to Cuba

The blocking of oil imports to Cuba quickly turned into a full-blown crisis. The New York  Times compared it to the blockade of Cuba during the 1962 Missile Crisis.

According to the UN Human Rights Office, the oil blockade of Cuba has caused severe fuel shortages, threatened the country's food supply and water system, and affected hospitals. According to the UN World Food Program, along with Hurricane Melissa, fuel shortages have hurt crops in agriculture. The Cuban government has been forced to close down schools, universities and some transportation services. Due to the lack of fuel for vehicles, garbage has accumulated in Havana neighborhoods, posing a risk of disease spread. Electricity is rationed in all cities, and in some cases there is only two to four hours of electricity per day.

On March 13, 2026, Dias Canel announced that Cuba was in negotiations with the United States (Duran, March 13, 2026). Of course, the people of Cuba and the rest of the world knew nothing about these negotiations. At the end of March, reports emerged about these secret negotiations, suggesting that Trump's goal was to replace Díaz-Canel (Cotto, March 24, 2026). Canel was elected president on April 19, 2018, at the suggestion of Raúl Castro, and by his proposal at the party Congress on April 16, 2021, he was elected First Secretary of the Communist Party.  Before him, Raúl Castro held both positions.

On April 9, Canel said he would not resign in a rally.

Before formal negotiations between the two countries began, Trump's representatives secretly met with Raúl Castro's grandson, Rodrigo Castro. During these talks, Trump apparently called for the release of "political prisoners."

In  an interview on April 23, Cuba's ambassador to the United Nations, Ernesto Sobron Guzmán, said Cuba's internal affairs, including those in detention, would not be negotiated with the United States.

On April 28, Republican senators holding a majority blocked a bill introduced by Democratic senators to end oil blockade of Cuba.

While negotiating, Trump threatened Cuba with military intervention. At the same time, Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered $ 100 million in “humanitarian aid” to the Cuban people, along with two years of free Starlink service!

In the past, the same kind of offers have been made to Cuba by the U.S. government. On the one hand, they have tried to harm the Cuban economy and people's daily lives with sanctions and a blockade, and on the other hand, they have offered "humanitarian aid" on the condition that they directly distribute it to “the Cuban people,” bypassing the Cuban government!  Of course, the Cuban government has never accepted such "aid."

On May 14, CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Cuba to deliver a "message" to the Cuban government while U.S. spy planes reportedly increased their flights around Cuba.  According  to "anonymous" CIA officials quoted in the US press, the Trump administration will only "seriously engage in dialogue" if Havana makes "fundamental changes."

The United States has increased the possibility of military action. On May 17, Axios published a report claiming that  Cuba had received about 300 military drones from Iran and Russia  and intends to  use them to attack "the U.S. base at Guantanamo, U.S. military ships, and possibly Key West, Florida."

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez responded, "Without any legitimate excuse, the U.S.  government is building a fabricated dossier day in  and day out to justify its brutal economic war against the Cuban people and ultimately military aggression." He added, "Certain media outlets write in their favor and promote slanders."

The Cuban government issued a statement after meeting with Ratcliffe, saying Cuba "does not pose a threat to the national security of the United States, and there is no valid reason to put it on the list of countries that allegedly support terrorism."

The Cuban government reiterated that Cuba "does not host, support or finance terrorist or extremist organizations, and does  not allow any foreign military or intelligence bases to exist on its territory" and that it "has never supported and  will not allow any hostile action against the United States.”

The need for solidarity with Cuba

As I have emphasized earlier,

“Today's crisis-ridden Cuba has no resemblance to a society in transition to socialism; rather, Cuba seems more like a peripheral country under economic sanctions and threats from imperialism. Of course, working people must oppose these imperialist actions and threats. However, the one-party system dominated by Stalinist ideology has made it impossible for any form of socialist democracy to develop and for a much-needed democratic public discussion in Cuba on how to get out of the crisis. Instead, the Communist Party (PCC) leadership has for six decades tried to avert the systemic crisis rooted in the lack of socialist motivation of the working people by using administrative measures and market incentives (Nayeri, 2024).”

Still, Trump administration's filing of a case against Raul Castro is an attempt to create a political atmosphere for the purpose of toppling the Cuban government. The aim of this invasion is to crush all the achievements of the Cuban national democratic revolution of 1959, which ended half a century of U.S. imperialist domination of the country, and paved the way for a better society for all Cubans, especially workers, peasants, women and blacks, by adopting a measure of of social justice. 

U.S. Hands off Cuba!

References:

Coto, Danicia. Associated Press. “As US pressure grows for leadership change in Cuba, a Castro could be the next president.” March 24, 2026.

Duran, Milexy, Danica Coto, Matthew Lee, and Aamer Mahani. “Cuban President Confirms US Talks as Island’s Energy and Economic Crises Intensify.” Associated Press. March 13, 2026.

Kelley, Laura. “Trump Floats ‘Friendly Takeover’ of Cuba.” The Hill, February 27, 2026.

Nayeri, Kamran. “The Cuban Revolution and Other Socialist Revolutions of the Twentieth Century: A Reassessment.” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism. October 16, 2024.

Robles, Frances. “Trump Moves to Cut Off All Oil to Cuba as U.S. Takes Aim at Its Government.” The New York Times, January 30, 2026.