The idea of an 'innate' disposition for language flew in the face of hundreds of years of Enlightenment thinking, in which science and rationality have been seen as the basis of all knowledge.
Before the Enlightenment, many people assumed that all the things which make us individuals are innate within us at birth – programmed by God into our very fibre. This assumption underpinned not only religious beliefs, but supported the stability of society itself.
Imagine. A man who makes barrels for a living does so not because that was the best job they could find. They do so because God pre-ordained that they should make barrels, and built into their DNA (if you like) the predisposition to do so. A barrel-maker would never think of running for Parliament, then, because this would be to go against God's will.
The problem is that if God has ordained that you are meant to make barrels, you cannot really aspire to do anything else. If you educate yourself and attempt to ‘better yourself’, then you are going against God’s design.
In terms of social structures, this means that the status quo is always retained. The wealthy, privileged ruling classes are unchallenged because God has ordained that they should be wealthy and in charge. To challenge that view would be to challenge God. In the same way, the downtrodden working man must never aspire to be anything more than a powerless labourer, because God has ordained that this is what they should be.
Language
and The Enlightenment