If Jared Diamond–in Guns, Germs, and Steel–is correct about murder being a leading cause of death in hunter-gatherer bands (p.277), the central sentimental conceit of the gentle savage is compromised. If he is correct about the exterminations of large animals in Australia, South America, North America, and the Pacific basin, this adds weight to the arguments against presenting “aboriginal” peoples as drastically different from–either better or worse than–“advanced” peoples and puts an emphasis on social structure and the factors allowing and encouraging “progress”. I use progress simply as “traceable change through time”, since whether or not progress is “good” is an open question. My only caveat concerning progress is that it does not move backwards–time does not move backwards although vision might look back in time. My focus is on progress being misunderstood, with a belief that a better understanding of history and progress allows better communication of understanding along with the further belief that better communication of understandings allows greater possibility for conviviality and exploration among people(s).
If the central conceit of the gentle savage is left behind, we can see that competition and complexity, along with the factors allowing increases in population size and density, motivate progress. If competition is allowed–and we can see this in children of any social group, although different forms are encouraged in different social groups–then we can also see that progress, for better or worse, consists of stabilizing progressive steps towards increasing competitive advantage. Between individuals this can be seen as status, possessions, and conflict, and between groups this can be seen as status, possessions, and conflict. Competitive advantage was sought within and between groups of hunter-gatherers and competitive advantage is sought within and between groups of “advanced” peoples. While what is to be considered advantageous may be debated, it is hardly debatable whether it makes sense to discard advantage. (In fact, the purpose of debating is to gain advantage.) It does not seem sensible to discard advantage. Within a group, “advantage” translates into “improvement”.
It is possible then, even necessary in a discussion of social progress, to incorporate natural self-interest. In fact, “competition”–within an adequate understanding–is reframed as active self-interest. We may have to also distinguish between selfishness and self-interest. The idea here is that self-interest may be healthy and unavoidable, even beneficial to the larger group when the complexity of our human nature is taken into account.
At this point in our common history, population pressures from within human society along with ecological pressures from without necessitate moderation that is either embraced and/or enforced. Individual motivation, advantage, and ecology cannot be separated; they must be taken together, as a package. If this package is accepted as real, “progress” is unavoidable because people desire what they consider good, and in pursuit of what they consider good, they adapt, and they attempt to maintain as well as advance beneficial adaptations within the breadth and scheme of their visions. Even if humans did not “advance”, they would have to change at least at the rate of ecological change. The fact is, though, that humans tend to adapt faster than climates change.
As opposed to adaptation, the idiom of progress is organized around comprehensive, sustainable advantages. (Beyond but including human society, this idea is also called evolution.) Just as exoskeletons are an advantage for small animals but present an upper limit in size due to weight and inflexibility, endoskeletons provide an advantage within a certain size range. Just as the terrestrial environment places atmospheric gravitational pressures on land animals, the oceanic environment compensates in buoyancy at the upper levels in the ocean but increases the effects of gravity at deeper levels due to the greater density of water (than air). Similar changes in internal structure and environment allow and encourage for different ranges of possible human societies.
Certain structures are more advantageous in certain environments, and the demand characteristics (pressures) of certain environments shape structures and functions. Certain changes must occur in order to “progress” beyond the size that exoskeletons allow for. A change in environment–oceanic instead of terrestrial–can allow for greater weight and size (whales compared to elephants) along with a degree of grace and environmental fit (legs for land, flippers for water). I would argue that a global human social environment, compared to a nationalistic or particularist-ideological environment, is similar to the pressures and opportunities afforded in an oceanic compared to a terrestrial environment. Elephants won’t fare all that well in the ocean whether they are attacking each other or not, but they will certainly exhaust themselves more quickly if they decide to attack.
Besides that comparison concerning environmental pressures and opportunities, we must consider the costs and benefits of structure within (endoskeletal) compared to structure without (exoskeletal). Regardless of how certain functions are met (internally or externally), though, certain functions must be met. Just as there are similarities between animal species but vast differences in how various functions are carried out (e.g. movement–legs or flippers), there are similarities between human societies and corresponding differences between how various functions are carried out (e.g. social connection, reproduction, education, economics, etc.)
Just as very few people argue whether beetles are more righteous than hyenas, I think it is possible to set aside the majority of arguments between vastly different human societies. To do so may seem as strange and unlikely as beetles and hyenas living in the same place and rarely competing for resources, but the simple fact of the matter is that this does occur, and quite naturally. In fact, whales, elephants, hyenas, and beetles all live on a single planet. We may have some important lessons to learn from those far less advanced than we consider ourselves to be.
At this point in evolutionary history, the drive for human progress comes largely from individual self-interest–including attachment motivations–more than individual survival demands. (In other words, humans have little to fear from animal competitors except for other humans; or, individuals in viable social groups are most often viable.) Up until 1975 or so, evolutionists mostly focused on competition and ignored attachment motivations because there seems to be more excitement in fighting and flighting than in nurturing and enjoying. (It may also be easier to study individual animals than group interactions and effects.) The same is true for politicians. The same is true for anyone who mostly considers problem-solving and is less capable of thinking in terms of appreciation as opposed to problem-avoidance or problem-control. Simplistic positive thinking doesn’t work either; genocide is not an opportunity ( for Tutsis) as much as it is a problem (for central Africa).
The limits of social progress are determined by limits of inclusiveness and the necessary amount of complexity or richness demanded by the scope of inclusiveness. Just as the Nazi group did their best to exclude Jews, Roma, and homosexuals, etc., that Nazi group excluded a certain complexity or richness, which we might call potential. Nazi ideology was not adequate to the vast array (surplus) of human potential. Culturally, on a global scale, the same sort of Kulture Kampf is feared and is in fact occurring. Humans and human groups are rarely dying to animal predators at this point in global history, but they are dying due to human predators by direct military and indirect economic and ecological means.
Due to the global spread of humans, or population pressure, the options for expanding any particular group are: include or conquer. At this point, even expanding a group by increasing birth rates within the group demand conquering resources and space that supports other humans or their interests. Some of those interests concern capital, but some of those interests concern ecological diversity. We either look to include other humans in our interests, or we try to justify or ignore how we are conquering. This choice and our ability to make this choice defines interactions between groups. But the global environment also directly affects individuals.
Due to the pressures social organization and complexity place on individuals, the internalization of simplicity (in American psychology: mindfulness) becomes increasingly valuable. Every group and individual needs a certain amount of simplicity and stability. To the extent that a group is disorganized in dealing with environmental pressures, individuals must attempt to deal with those pressures. The inability of the group to handle the pressure means that individuals are left to face natural selection pressures on their own. As natural selection pressures have evolved to the point where “artificial selection” pressures (between humans) are much higher than any others, incapable groups allow their members to face human aggression without adequate support. Individuals respond by a multitude of means including fighting, attempting to flee, distraction, denial, acceptance, and innovation.
Due to the pressures that complexity, population density, and hierarchy place on groups, tolerance then conviviality or at least negotiated agreement become increasingly necessary. All of these particularist groups supporting a blind view of lack while populations and consumption explode motivate idiocy. This idiocy comes in as many forms as there are particularist groupings, but it is in every case similarly asinine. A ridiculous concentration of goods and power along with our inability to negotiate an adequate redistribution is what supports this idiocy and the violence that accompanies it. By whatever system’s rules, capital must flow for economic health, and there is no ideological or idealistic solution to economic devastation–just as there is no economic answer to ecological devastation.
The corporate/institutional structures that work for nation-states are as inadequate on a global scale as an exoskeleton on an elephant. (The American military is that exoskeleton, and international investment capital is the “brain” that moves the beast.) Leadership–as opposed to armor and heavy-handedness (or heavy-footedness)–involves motivation, inclusion, and organization. There is an African proverb that says something like, “When elephants fight, the grass always loses.” We have seen this culmination of violence between citizen-peoples in WWI and between mechanized nations in WWII. America stepped on a tack in Vietnam, and the USSR did the same in Afghanistan. So there is a distinct difference between power and world leadership; there is also a distinct difference between power and success. How do they say “literacy” in Cuba?
The inability of expanding “interests” to include humanity and humanism shows not only inadequacy or limitations in functioning but also a lack of leadership. Post-911 in America, we are so scared of lacking leadership that our representatives in Congress call this lack of leadership a lack of imagination. This is because they lack capable leadership but are smart enough not to say so directly. They lack capable leadership because they are living in a quasi-democracy and not following the will of the people. They are capable of filibusters and arguments but not listening. Our politicians, as a whole, are selfishly contentious and childish. A two-party system encourages contention, and concentration of power supports the separation that allows this childishness.
If simplicity–in adequate amounts–is not embraced from within each level of organization, it will be enforced by dominant pressures from above, below, or outside. On the same level, more cohesive groups will dominate the contest between groups at that level with or without developing comprehensive leadership. (Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, said that it is sensible when defeating an army to kill the general and retrain the troops. Our leaders like or dislike war, but both ways, they seem incapable of art.)
If an adequate balance is not struck at each level of organization between complexity and simplicity, stability and flexibility, as well as cooperation and competition, directive pressures from above, below, or outside will be felt as limiting. When the struggle is against the immediate cause alone, there is no chance of purposeful “imagination” because groups under conflict restrict their thinking and either attack or dig in and fortify their boundaries. America is currently attempting both. It seems, then, as if it takes a strong leader who is focused on overcoming the enemy to take control of the situation, but leadership is not about winning battles or winning wars. Leadership is about comprehensive vision that motivates, includes, and organizes. Conflict is the idiom chosen by those who want to win battles and wars. Conflict-thinking does not search for understanding, though, and there can be no leadership without understanding. Understanding involves taking a risk that one’s actions may not be best and that one’s position may not be sustainable; understanding involves change. We can try for exoskeletons on elephants, we can try for Vietnam on a worldwide scale, but there are certain natural limits.
It is not a question of who has control power by person or position. Progress is a question of leadership capability. Leadership at this point concerns inclusion and comprehension more than expansion. We all struggle against so-called leadership that is only dominating; we all pull for creative individuality and shared appreciation. If we cannot embrace the future, it will feel forced upon us. Leadership is a question of figuring out how to embrace and enjoy the future, not about conquering other people either inside or outside national borders.
Copyright Todd Mertz