|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Dale agrees with Ted that high-level technological societies cannot exist without significant hierarchies that often lead to suffering. However, Dale values the trade-off, particularly the capacity for global connectivity and the potential to use one’s intellect to remain vigilant about rights. He contrasts this with the precariousness of primitive societies, where the egalitarianism of a tribe was often a matter of luck, and escaping tyranny—especially for women—was far harder than today in many parts of the world.
| + | x |
| − | Hanno Sauer, in The Invention of Good and Evil, examines the transition from egalitarian communities to hierarchical civilizations, stating:
| |
| − | | |
| − | "The shift from prehistoric small groups to pre-modern large-scale civilizations has almost always been a shift from communities with an egalitarian structure to social inequality and despotic rule. The fact that we still live with extreme social inequalities in wealth, power, and status seems to have been the inevitable price to pay for social evolution towards complex large societies."
| |
| − | | |
| − | However, Sauer, drawing on David Graeber and David Wengrow, challenges the notion that such a trajectory was unavoidable:
| |
| − | | |
| − | "There are growing doubts about the oversimplified narrative that humans throughout the Pleistocene lived in scattered small groups organized in an egalitarian way. … Humans have always lived in all kinds of conditions and socio-political arrangements, consciously shaping their coexistence. Some societies were familiar with strict hierarchies, while others moved effortlessly between radically divergent political structures, depending on the season or context."
| |
| − | | |
| − | Graeber and Wengrow caution against ideologically charged narratives that portray inequality as inevitable, arguing that human history showcases our remarkable political plasticity. This perspective resonates with me, as it emphasizes that inequality is not an inherent or unchangeable aspect of human nature. Similarly, our understanding of others’ behavior is shaped not by simplistic models of beliefs and desires, but by recognizing people as whole beings with traits, emotions, and social relations. Folk psychology often relies on tools like personality trait attribution, inductive reasoning about past behavior, and generalization from one’s own experience rather than complex, abstract theorizing. This perspective highlights the importance of recognizing both the shared and diverse ways beings navigate social worlds.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Dale’s perspective—that the benefits of modern societies outweigh the risks of primitive ones—is pragmatic. Yet, I hold on to Ted’s optimism for radical change. As he once said: “Never lose hope, be persistent and stubborn and never give up. There are many instances in history where apparent losers suddenly turn out to be winners unexpectedly, so you should never conclude all hope is lost.” While I hope for transformative change, I believe it can manifest through a far-left, anti-authoritarian revolution rather than through regression to simpler forms of living.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ted’s tendency to frame modern malaise as an “evolutionary mismatch”—where the human mind, adapted for simpler environments, is unsuited for modern complexities—can oversimplify the relationship between humans and their environment. As one critique of evolutionary psychology notes:
| |
| − | | |
| − | "One way that TIME reduces the complexity of the human experience is through the rewording of the human condition in ways that simplify who we are. … Understanding the human in terms of states (state-orientation) begins to be reframed to traits (trait-orientation). Traits are context-free. All the experiences that stimulate the mind are stripped away."
| |
| − | | |
| − | This framing limits our ability to see the dynamic interplay between human adaptability and social structures. Rather than viewing modern issues as symptoms of an inherent mismatch, we might better address them by exploring the social and cultural frameworks we’ve created and rethinking the ways these frameworks constrain or empower us. This strengthens the argument for perceiving others as social agents embedded in relationships, rather than abstract repositories of beliefs and desires. While evolutionary psychology provides valuable insights, social sciences better address the nuances of human agency and interaction. Graeber’s work, in particular, highlights our capacity for flexibility and collective choice, perspectives essential for imagining alternative futures.
| |
| − | | |
| − | I advocate for more communitarian societies, not to eliminate alienation but to provide secure, positive liberties to counter its effects. For instance, if Ted’s guidance counselor had prioritized fostering his social life over advancing his academic progress, his path might have been different. Additionally, systemic changes such as affordable access to counseling could prevent isolation. At one point, Ted sought help but abandoned the idea due to prohibitive costs and logistical challenges: “He was told that he would have to find a way to travel a considerable distance to the office, and that he would have to find some way to pay for his sessions. Both of these were more than he could manage.”
| |
| − | | |
| − | Carl Jung’s advice to a depressed friend encapsulates a path to resilience through connection, creativity, and acceptance:
| |
| − | | |
| − | "If I had to live in a foreign country, I would seek out one or two people who seemed amiable and would make myself useful to them, so that libido came to me from outside, even though in a somewhat primitive form, say of a dog wagging its tail. I would raise animals and plants and find joy in their thriving. I would surround myself with beauty — no matter how primitive and artless — objects, colours, sounds. I would eat and drink well. When the darkness grows denser, I would penetrate to its very core and ground, and would not rest until amid the pain a light appeared to me."
| |
| − | | |
| − | Ultimately, everything we are capable of nurturing exists within the boundaries of our nature. But our nature is profoundly flexible. By fostering environments that encourage critical thinking and offering diverse options for self-actualization, we can shape societies that align more closely with the values of inclusion, equity, and community. In doing so, we honor the rich political and social variability Graeber and others remind us has always been within our reach.
| |
