<disclaimer: very long post>
> That lead me to an idea, I called later on 'destabilization', in
> which I define some aspects, that could perhaps be also responsible for
the
> sudden failing of not only intellectual agents in an individuals
personality, but
> also the social ones. In a way it is an outburst of it's supressed
biological side in this
> moment, when the last 'social fuse' has failed, besides I consider such an
> outburst of the biological side of man, as absolutely not normal,
> even when social and intellectual agents are weak or not existent, so I
stress the
> adjective 'supressed' in the above.
I think you're setting up an opposition between the socio-intellectual
levels and the biological ones which isn't really wholly satisfactory. I
recall that there are studies which indicate that in cases where a large
majority group co-exists with a smaller minority group, it appears
instinctive (as far as it is possible to tell*) for the majority to 'turn'
on the minority - it only takes a cursory knowledge of anthropology to
realise how widespread the practice of scapegoating (ritual or otherwise)
actually is. I would have thought that this was exactly what took place in
the Weimar Republic - if you read Mein Kampf, Hitler's biological hatred of
the Jews is all too apparent. If genetic considerations at least partially
determine socio-intellectual considerations then a chiastic opposition
between the two cannot be supported.
* I say that because although the results appeared consistent (which would
militate towards a genetic explanation) cultural considerations are
impossible to discount. After all, it is only comparatively recently that we
have a society where prejudice has become wholly (as opposed to partially)
unacceptable.
>It may help to have a look at our nearby evolutionary 'relatives', such as
hominids, especially
> chimpanzees and bonobos, I do not know yet.
I think it does help. What this tells you is that chimpanzees (I'm afraid I
haven't the faintest idea what a bonobo is) are, like humans, a social
animal, in so far as they form small communities. Since each animal is meant
to act to maximise its, and its offspring's and relative's chances of
survival, one would perhaps expect individualistic behaviour to predominate.
However, in nature there are many accounts of social behaviour, such as the
schooling of fish, the grouping of apes, and the flocking of birds. It isn't
necessarily the case that this social co-operation is entered into for the
benefit of the individuals within the pack/tribe/herd etc. In the case of
lions (the only social felid) there is no apparent benefit in terms of being
able to hunt increased amounts of food. Of the felids, lions are the only
species who live at the three extremes of a preference for large prey, an
open habitat and a high population density. Thus it is easy for a kill to be
seen at a distance, and scavenging another's kill is far more likely for
lions than it is for other felids. A lone lion has perhaps almost as high a
chance of having her kill shared as a pride member does, however for a lone
lion there is a far lower likelihood that the cofeeder is related. Thus
prides of related females (and there are no examples of prides forming from
unrelated females) form simply to ensure that all their kills have a high
likelihood of benefiting their own genes. Similarly, unlike wolves (for
example) male lions who have acquired a new mate will slaughter any children
the female may already possess as a threat to the survival of his genes.
In other words, social animals will co-operate within a 'tribe' but the
flipside of that is that this co-operation is not extended to members of the
same species outside of that tribe (although, when not competing, many ape
species send off all the females or males to join other tribes for the
continued diversity of the tribe. intertribal adoption of females/young is
also frequently seen in 'primitive' humans and in animals. Similarly,
dolphins have been known to rescue drowning humans). Within a tribe social
altruism and co-operation appears to be largely instinctive (apes grooming
each other, elephants and dolphins caring for their ill), so that there is
evidence of humans caring for their maimed and elderly and forming ethical
systems, such as the code of hammurabi, independently of religious moral
systems (although the genetic imperative still comes into play - consider
Aristotle's advocacy of leaving crippled infants on the hillside to die).
When we look at Neanderthal skeletons for instance, we see that some had
injuries that would have left them unable to hunt, gather or participate,
that have healed over. As evidence of this we might consider the status of
psychopathy as a psychological aberration. There are actually studies which
indicate a sense of morality to be roughly congruent to an emotional sense;
certain serial killers appear to lack an emotional centre, and have no
feelings for other people. As such, they appear to lack an equivalent moral
centre, which, for want of a better word, I have usually referred to as a
capacity for empathy (assuming that affectvity and empathy are seen as
simply the rewards and penalties which have developed to keep us
cooperative).
Conversely, warefare between tribes (and prejudice against minority groups)
appear to be endemic to human existence. Other examples would include the
concept of a fatwah, wherein, in the case of Islam, provision is made to
declare a death sentence on an individual deemed guitly of blasphemy, as
with the notorious case of Salman Rushdie (this regards religion as a form
of estended tribal system). Also consider the thugees and the roma, who
regarded theft from non-gypsies as being perfectly acceptable. Within this
perspective, your opposition of the socio-intellectual levels and the
biological levels is not unreasonable - a recognition that (in the age of
the EU, IMF, NAFTA and any other acronyms that may happen to come along) the
opposition of one tribal/national groups to another is not supportable is
clearly a possibility. Certainly, I should also state that I would not wish
to proceed too far down the road of explaining all human behaviour in terms
of genetic imperative - that road is both reductive and potentially
misleading. But such considerations can hardly be ignored.
To obfuscate the issue somewhat, theories which hold that conflict between
groups emerges because of the emergeance of inter-group competition is
attributable to the real or perceived incompatibility of goals (in order for
hostility to emerge) suffers from the problem that studies have often found
the hostility to be greatest in cases where the rival groups have the most
in common; even when there is no conflict of interest and no record of
previous hostility. A better theory is the social identity theory, which
holds that as man at least roughly fits into the category of a social
animal, there is a basic need to assert a social identity, and that
inter-group conflicts arise because each group inevitably compares itself to
the other. In the case of dissimilarity, this will inevitably be to the
detriment of the other group. In the case of similarity, the absence of
distinguishing features (depriving the group of any other against which to
define itself) also leads to friction. This isn't necessarily to say that
such behaviour is instinctive, but given that the distinction between nature
and nurture is not especially meaningful as far as mankind is concerned,
there's nothing to say it isn't (it's certainly deeply ingrained). In other
words, 'Us-Themism' (between tribes and nationalities) isn't necessarily the
problem, and it may not be possible to extirpate it in any case. Regardless
of the similarity of the disparate groups competition between them was found
to enhance morale, cohesiveness and cooperation.The more intense the
conflict, the more the behaviour of members functioned according to their
group membership.
> And also I consider this process of 'melting down' as socially evoked,
> primarily. Only when I assume, like Pirsig says also (I started
> 'Lila' again yesterday), that in western socities social value pattern has
> been dismantled by, what he calls, the intellectual class since World War
I, than
> it works at least somehow.
This is a point I have some considerable difficulty with. It is perfectly
accurate to say that World War 1 (and, much more to the point, Freudianism)
were responsible for a far greater focus on the individual consciousness.
With figures like Marx and Nietzche having called historical forms of social
homoegeneity into doubt, it was hardly suprising that artists like DH
Lawrence (particularly in novels like Women in Love and Kangaroo) should
seek to consider new relations between society and the individual.
Similarly, I recall Virginia Woolf stating that the first world war had
inaugurated an entirely new form of human consciousness, which she (and
arguably James Joyce) sought to depict via the stream of consciousness
technique. However, in the first place it's worth noting that a diminitution
of the socal valye pattern is not necessarily deletrious; for example, I
think most people would count the dimunition of nationalism as a
considerable advance (the result of it being peace in Europe ever since the
2nd world war) - and as above, looser concepts of tribalism/nationality are
also likely to promote greater tolerance for minority groups. To my mind an
individualistic society is one that is likely to respect freedom of speech
and human rights; something which cannot be said of the many countries which
do still respect social value patterns.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST