Bonald's post "What cultural diversity among the savages doesn't tell us" opens by discussing an objection posed by relativists to the idea that the organization of traditional Western society is natural. In particular, that monogamy and the traditional roles of men and women in society is natural. Relativists point to primitive societies which are arranged differently and conclude that since the values of traditional Western society are not universal, they must not be natural.
But in addition to the relativist argument that simply because different societies exist, they show that culture is relative, there is another challenge, which is that because societies that are organized differently are primitive, they are in some sense more fundamental than traditional Western culture. This leads to a different kind of challenge, i.e. are that the values of traditional Western culture just an artifact of a particular kind of society or are they more fundamental than that?
Bonald answers the first challenge with an intersting statement:
"As an Aristotelian, I believe that it's the complete, perfected state of a substance that most clearly manifests that substance's essence, its intelligible principle, rather than the immature states. If you want to understand human nature, look first at civilized man."
But this also relates to the second challenge as well. If primitive societies are less realized versions of less primitive societies, then the social organization of the less primitive societies is better.
I think there's definitely something in Bonald's statement. To the extent that societies come about because of spiritual impulses (and spiritual does not necessarily mean good, if we consider those societies that engaged in mass human sacrifice), then they are in touch with a more fundamental reality and are not just artifacts of an arbitary form of social organization.
Another way to consider this relates to the idea of the evolutionary development of consciousness and how it relates to society. Rudolf Steiner had the idea that apes are devolved men. Or, more precisely, the physical body of both human beings and apes originated as some kind of primate, which was neither man nor ape, but possessed the potentiality for either of them. Those members of that species which developed spiritually humanlike qualities became more human, while those who became more bestial developed into apes.
So, there developed a further split between the two lineages. And it is not just Steiner who said something like this. William James Tychonievich brought a theory to my attention (in the comments of this post) that, rather than human beings evolving from a chimpanzee-like ancestor, gorillas and chimps may have degenerated from a more human-like ancestor. This also relates to the idea of evolution having a spiritual characteristic. In that evolutionary change partly comes about by the response of species to spiritual impulses. Lamarck may have been onto something, in a spiritual sense.
Perhaps something similar might happen with societies. At some point they reach a "fork in the road", where further continuation along the same lines is no longer possible. Those who continue forward along the path evolve towards a different kind of society, while those who do not can only degenerate.
So, while some primitive societies may simply be more or less stable (like certain tribes in the Amazon) perhaps others are only primitive in the sense of their material circumstances, while they have in fact degenerated from a prior phase. This might explain some strange behaviors like cannibalism and manifestations of non-biological sexuality; they were not there originally, but have come about after a period of degeneration. Like Steiner's theory about apes and men, the prior phase would have been less sophisticated both in terms of cruelty and goodness.
For those that did successfully move to the new civilization that does not mean that the new social arrangement will be a paradise; they will have their own problems, with new possibilities for bad and good, but they will have evaded the fate of those who did not move forward.
The anthropological reports of cultural diversity are themselves - as knowledge always is - a consequence of co-creation between the anthropologist and the unformed 'data' - therefore much anthropology of the past century is a kind of 'evil creation' made by a collaboration between evil-serving humans and whatever 'facts' they are able and willing to notice.
ReplyDeleteMargaret Mead's work is perhaps the earliest example of such fakery/ incompetence being used (with stunning success) to promote the left agenda.
Anthropology has long been (mostly) in service of the mainstream ideology of leftism-materialism - and this has tainted even the first hand reports; as can be seem by a comparison with reports from an earlier (Christian) era.
I have become very suspicious of what passes for anthropological 'knowledge' nowadays - some of which is based on deliberate lies and concealment. I wrote about this on my blog in relation to Australian Aborigines.
Western modern ideas are often incorporated into the kind of anthropology we read in the mass media - for example Chief Seattle's famous speech is quoted all over the place, but known to have been written by a Hollywood scriptwriter in living memory. And the Aborigine Songlines (sacred songs supposedly used for desert navigation) appear to be wholly a recent fabrication - although I don't know the exact origin).
I suspect that the supposedly matriarchal Chines tribe of Mosuo is - like the supposed Philippine tribe of Tasady - some kind of fabrication - but currently the Mosuo are 'common knowledge' among leftist intellectuals and their favoured outlets (nearly half a million Google hits).
In other words, there is surely a diversity among tribal people; but probably not of the nature supposed.
Good comment. I had heard a little about Margaret Mead; but not some of the other things you mentioned. This strengthens my suspicion that politically useful anthropology research has been misrepresented to the public.
Delete"In other words, there is surely a diversity among tribal people; but probably not of the nature supposed."
I agree. Just like how traditional "civilized cultures" differed greatly, but in ways that leftists don't care about or find politically useful, tribal people probably do differ from each other in all sorts of ways, but these are ignored by the broader culture.
Good post. It reminds me of the idea that polytheism is actually a degeneration from an earlier monotheism not a precursor to it
ReplyDeleteThanks.
DeleteI'm not sure if all polytheism is a degeneration from monotheism; some might have come from animism. But I can also imagine that this might have happened in some instances.
For instance, how some polytheists would have a supreme god who was rarely spoken of in mythology, but still acknowledged as the highest in the background.
On similar lines, J.R.R. Tolkein wrote in "On Fairy-Stories":
"This is borne out by the more careful and sypathetic sutdy of 'primitive' peoples: that is, peoples still living in an inherited paganism, who are not, as we say, civilised. The hasty survey finds only their wilder tales; a closer examination finds their cosmological myths; only patience and inner knowledge discovers their philosophy and religion: the truly worshipful, of which the 'gods' are not necessarily an embodiment at all, or only in a variable measure (often decided by the individual)."
It depends on what is meant by polytheism. To Jews and Muslims, all Christians are polytheists (because for us Jesus was fully divine) - and I myself am a polytheist (and pluralist) in that sense.
DeleteMore importantly, those Christian who believe our destiny (or at least for some men) is to become fully divine, are also aspiring polytheists.
On the other hand, the essential 'monotheism' of Christianity is to believe that this is a created reality, purposively created by God. I think this is an essential belief for Christians, a unity of creative purpose. But then is God one or poly?
My point is that we need to stop using 'polytheism' as a slur, as necessarily A Bad Thing; and simply describe reality as we know and believe it. Definitions are secondary.
Hi there. On the topic of the last common ancestor of chimps and humans being more human than modern chimps, that surely is a given if you accept the Darwinian theory of evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection. Assuming that evolution is entirely naturalistic and "blind", how could it be otherwise? It's not as if chimps were able to relax, chill out and just eat bananas for 10 million years confident that the baton of progress had been safely handed over to their proto-human cousins. According to Darwin, there is no progress! Just the purposeless illusion of progress.
ReplyDelete"According to Darwin, there is no progress! Just the purposeless illusion of progress."
DeleteI agree. Yes, one can only say whether an organism is well or badly adapted to it's environments, not whether there is progress in a moral or spiritual sense.
If you haven't already read it, you might like this essay by Bruce Chalton that touches on purpose in evolution:
https://thewinnower.com/papers/3497-reconceptualizing-the-metaphysical-basis-of-biology-a-new-definition-based-on-deistic-teleology-and-an-hierarchy-of-organizing-entities