The interesting question is whether there are multiple stable equilibrium points. What happens when a society goes outside the set of parameters that it was "designed" for? Advanced technology has radically changed our life -- do the Old Design Rules still work?I think that this warrants some further elaboration. It's my belief, and a cursory examination of history will confirm, that it is possible to have different type of societies (i.e equilibrium points) but only only within certain limits. The whole point about the "Tao of Life" is that there is more commonality amongst enduring societies than than there are differences.
I suppose the reason why there is limited range of equilibrium points within a human societal "system" is because the material from which human society is built, human nature, puts constraints on types of societal structures that can be maintained. Human capabilities with regard to jealousy, trust, fear, love, friendship, etc. are the limiting factors with regard to human interaction. Human nature is the material from which societal "engines" are formed, and this in turn places limits on the type of enduring societies that are possible.
An example of this is with regard to sexuality. Most men naturally desire variety and it would be expected, that given this nature, societies would develop which would cater to this fact. Yet it's pretty obvious that culturaly advanced polyamorous societies have failed to develop, since sexual activity occurs in the context of other parameters such as reproduction, love and investment. Any society that attempted to institute such a practice would be torn apart by feuds, lusts, jealousy etc. Likewise, Communism, a great idea in theory, fails because it ignores the fact the human nature responds to incentives.
Human nature, being what it is, therefore limits the type of advanced societies that can exist.
What we do tend to see is that amongst primitive peoples there does seem to be more latitude with respect to human nature and stable "society", but as a society becomes bigger and culturally advances, the potential for alternative normative behaviors lessens.
6 comments:
And what happens if you change "human nature" via either genetic engineering or cyborgization?
I would predict you could create different societies with different equilibrium points, correct?
And what happens if you change "human nature" via either genetic engineering or cyborgization?
I would predict you could create different societies with different equilibrium points, correct?
S.P.: I wonder if it wouldn't be better if you used the word "civilization" to describe advanced, complex societies. A civilization is a particular type of society, which, as Freud pointed out, is the source of some profound discontents. Unlike Freud, I think the benefits outweigh the cost, but he's right to point out that civilized life demands repression. As you say, civilization must take account of the "crooked timber" of humanity, but sometimes this entails some fairly painful negation of that nature. One can imagine a human society that imposed no restrictions (i.e. parameters)--a true state of nature, such as unruly descendants of shipwrecked pirates on a desert isle--but it wouldn't be a civilization.
Anonymous: Human nature by its very nature cannot change without ceasing to be "human" nature. If the modifications you mention were sufficient to allow radically different equilibrium points, the modified creature would be post-human, its societies post-human societies. That is, they would be post-human societies if they were discrete societies composed entirely of post-human beings. What is more likely is that these post-human supermen would form a ruling caste, and keep ordinary humans around as helots. This isn't all that far from what we already have: men with genetic and technological advantages on the top, everyone else on the bottom. So maybe the parameters stay the same.
@JMSmith
I wonder if it wouldn't be better if you used the word "civilization" to describe advanced, complex societies.
What I'm trying to get people to do is look at these things as systems and not as civilisations, and getting people to think that affecting one parameter impacts upon the others.
but he's right to point out that civilized life demands repression.
Frued, subtly front-loads his case by pejoratively using the term repression of desire in place of subordination. Is a man who is repressed with regard to one desire really that worse off if his overall condition is improved?
The classical thinkers all thought that being a slave to the passions was poisonous to a mans well being. They never said that a man wallowing in the brothel was deficient in sexual pleasure, rather they felt he was less of man by doing so. They also felt that he was going to be less happy overall by doing so.
When we start thinking of society as a multiparametric system composed of many individual components, each one operating submaximally at optimal system performance, we start to understand that the we a limited in what we can do in the world.
For example we may be able to eliminate all poverty but it may come at the expense of social stability and culture. We may be able to have completely safe streets but only at the expense of a policeman on every corner.
When Jesus said that the poor will always be with us, he wasn't being defeatist, it's just that poverty can't be eliminated without society destroying itself, leading to more poverty.
A lot of the pathology of the left consists in trying to maximise one parameter at the expense of system optimisation.
@Anon,
I don't think human nature is going to change much either with genetic engineering or cyborgisation. At least not for a long, long time.
If it were possible, then yes, I imagine societies could be created with different equilibrium points.
SP: I agree that Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents is tendentious, not to mention reductionist in its representation of human drives. What I was trying to get at was that "society" is such an abstraction that it has very few properties. Yesterday I was thinking that those properties need not include parameters, this morning I'm not so sure.
You're also right to question the use of the word repression at the scale of the individual, since in that case the one being "repressed" is also the one enjoying the benefits of the repression. The term is probably best restricted to inter-personal relations, where the one who suffers and the one who benefits are different people. Thanks! That's very helpful.
Post a Comment