Human Nature and Conflict: Inherency Theories Explained

For centuries, thinkers have wrestled with a single, uncomfortable question: are humans wired for violence? When wars break out, when neighbours turn on neighbours, when entire societies descend into bloodshed, it is tempting to conclude that something within us makes conflict unavoidable. This is the core claim of inherency theories, a family of ideas arguing that aggression and conflict are not products of circumstance but are stitched into human nature itself. These theories sit at the heart of the nature versus nurture debate in conflict studies, and understanding them is the first step toward grasping how scholars approach peace and conflict resolution today.

What are inherency theories? 🔗

Inherency theories hold that the source of conflict lies inside the human being rather than outside. According to this view, violence is inevitable, widespread, and universal, regardless of how a society is structured, because aggression is inherent in human beings. The roots of this thinking go back to political philosophy. Thomas Hobbes, writing in the seventeenth century, famously described life in the state of nature as a war of all against all, driven by competition, fear, and the desire for glory. For Hobbes, only a strong governing authority could keep humanity’s destructive impulses in check.

These theories are deliberately contrasted with contingency theories (also called social structural theories), which argue the opposite: that humans are basically peaceful and that conflict arises from external factors such as scarcity of resources or the way society is organised. The “nature” theorists emphasise genes and instinct; the “nurture” theorists emphasise social conditions. Inherency theories belong firmly to the “nature” camp, locating the seeds of war and violence within the individual.

The biological roots of conflict 🔗

The strongest versions of inherency theory draw on biology. If aggression evolved because it helped our ancestors survive, then it is part of our inheritance as a species. Several distinct but related ideas fall under this biological umbrella.

Instinct theory and Konrad Lorenz 🔗

The most influential figure here is the Austrian ethologist Konrad Lorenz, whose 1963 book On Aggression brought the instinctual view of human violence back into serious scientific discussion. Lorenz argued that aggression in human beings results from an instinct that we share with most other species and that developed over evolutionary time because it aided survival. He treated aggressive energy almost like steam in a pressure cooker, an instinctual drive that builds up until it is released, sometimes triggered by an external stimulus.

Crucially, Lorenz did not see aggression as simply destructive. He suggested it serves a species-preserving function, helping animals space themselves out rather than overcrowd a habitat, defend territory, secure mates, and establish a rank order within the group. He also observed that this aggression is typically intra-specific, directed at members of the same species rather than at outsiders.

Darwinism and the survival of the fittest 🔗

Lorenz’s thinking is deeply Darwinian. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution did not just reshape how we understand animals; it transformed our understanding of human behaviour too. From a Darwinian perspective, aggression exists today because it once helped our ancestors compete for food, mates, and territory, and therefore pass on their genes. All organisms, including humans, are products of evolution in which fitness for survival is determined by a combination of mutation and natural selection.

This evolutionary logic gave rise to a darker offshoot. Under the influence of Social Darwinism, some scholars adopted a “might is right” doctrine, using biology to justify human aggression as natural and even necessary. This is one reason inherency theories have always been politically controversial: a theory that calls violence “natural” can easily be misused to excuse it.

Socio-biology and E. O. Wilson 🔗

A more sophisticated biological account came from the socio-biological perspective associated with E. O. Wilson. Rather than treating aggression as a simple, fixed instinct, socio-biology offers a more complex, interactionist model. Wilson’s ideas combine ethological observation with other biological factors to explain human aggression and war as the result of an interaction between our genes and our cultural environment.

This is an important nuance. Socio-biology does not claim that genes alone produce a violent person. Instead, it argues that our genetic inheritance sets certain tendencies, which then express themselves differently depending on the cultural setting. In this way, socio-biology sits closer to the boundary between “nature” and “nurture” than the pure instinct theory does.

Freud and the death instinct 🔗

While biologists looked at our evolutionary past, Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, looked inward at the human psyche. Freud traced conflict to what he saw as an unchangeable feature of human nature. He stated that aggression is carried out in the name of self-preservation and is inherent to humans.

Freud’s most provocative contribution was the idea of the death instinct, often called Thanatos. In his theory, every person is torn between two fundamental drives: Eros, the life instinct that promotes love, connection, and survival, and Thanatos, the death instinct that pushes toward destruction and a return to an inanimate state. When this destructive energy is turned outward toward the world, it appears as aggression and violence.

The “Why War?” correspondence 🔗

The clearest statement of Freud’s view appears in his famous 1932 exchange of letters with Albert Einstein. Einstein, troubled by how easily people could be roused to hatred, wrote to Freud seeking insight into the roots of war. In his reply, published as “Why War?”, Freud explained that the death instinct, when directed outward, becomes destructive, and concluded that there is little likelihood of ever fully suppressing humanity’s aggressive tendencies. Freud believed that civilisation works to repress these urges through laws, norms, and moral values, but that during times of crisis these instincts resurface, often expressing themselves in war.

Freud did, however, leave room for hope. He argued that society and culture can sublimate destructive impulses, redirecting them into constructive activities such as sport, art, and work. This idea of channelling aggression rather than eliminating it remains influential in how some theorists think about managing conflict.

The shared message of inherency theories 🔗

Across these different thinkers, a common thread emerges. Whether the explanation comes from instinct, evolution, genes, or the psyche, inherency theories all conclude that conflict is unavoidable. If aggression is built into us, then the best we can hope for is not a world without conflict but a world where conflict is managed, contained, or redirected. This has profound implications. It shapes how governments build institutions, how thinkers design security systems, and how societies approach the prevention of violence. A theory that treats violence as inevitable will favour control and deterrence over transformation and reconciliation.

Criticisms of inherency theories 🔗

Despite their long history, inherency theories face serious objections. The most important criticism is that they underestimate the role of social learning and culture in shaping human behaviour.

The evidence from frustration and learning 🔗

Critics point out that research offers little support for Freud’s reasoning about innate destructive drives. Most instances of aggression appear to be linked to frustration from early experiences or to social learning, rather than to biological inevitability. In other words, people often learn to be aggressive by observing and imitating others, not because a hidden instinct compels them.

The problem of cultural variation 🔗

A second powerful objection comes from the sheer diversity of human societies. If aggression were purely instinctual, why do violence rates differ so dramatically between societies and historical periods? Some cultures glorify aggressive behaviour, while others actively promote peaceful resolution. This flexibility strongly suggests that aggression is shaped by social context, not fixed by biology. There is also a practical danger in the biological view: if aggression were genetically determined, it would imply we can do nothing about it, a conclusion many find both unconvincing and harmful.

Gandhi’s challenge to inherency 🔗

One of the most powerful critics of the inherency view was Mahatma Gandhi, who believed in the essential goodness of human beings. When asked whether aggression is a basic human instinct, Gandhi observed that nonviolence pervades human life and is practised by people without special effort. For Gandhi, violence is not a natural human instinct at all but a learned behaviour that can be unlearned through education and moral development. This optimistic vision directly challenges Freud and Lorenz, and it underpins the entire philosophy of nonviolent resistance that shaped India’s freedom struggle and inspired movements worldwide.

Why this debate still matters 🔗

The argument between inherency and its critics is not just academic. It determines the strategies we choose for building peace. If you believe humans are inherently violent, you will invest in controlling and deterring aggression. If you believe, like Gandhi, that peace is our truer nature and violence is learned, you will invest in education, dialogue, and moral transformation. Most modern conflict scholars now reject the extreme version of inherency, recognising that biology may set certain predispositions but that culture, learning, and social structure do the heavy lifting in deciding whether conflict turns violent. The most useful takeaway is that “human nature” alone cannot explain the world’s wars; the conditions we create matter just as much.

What do you think? If aggression is partly inherited but heavily shaped by what we learn, where should a society focus its energy to reduce violence? And do you find Gandhi’s belief in the essential goodness of human beings more convincing than Freud’s death instinct, or is the truth somewhere in between?

References

1. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/63227/1/Unit-8.pdf
2. https://assignment.ignouservice.in/2023/01/explain-different-theoretical.html
3. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/83191/1/Unit-4.pdf
4. https://archive.aessweb.com/index.php/5003/article/download/3776/5954
5. https://banotes.org/conflict-resolution-peace-building/biological-foundations-conflict-instinct-sociobiology/
6. https://archive.aessweb.com/index.php/5003/article/view/3776
7. https://en.unesco.org/courier/marzo-1993/why-war-letter-freud-einstein