I just finished C.R. Hallpike's book of essays On Primitive Society: and other forbidden topics. The essays are all about whacking other anthropologists over the head for a variety of sins, and asserting Hallpike's notion that we should apply Piaget's stage theory of cognitive development and Kohlberg's stage theory of moral development to primitive societies.
And his main assertion is that primitive societies -- meaning societies that are not states and do not yet have central governments -- usually do not operate beyond Piaget's Stage 2, the "pre-operational" stage.
Why? Because in hunter-gatherer and agricultural village life the "higher stages" aren't necessary. Hallpike proposes the notion that humans are lazy.
For people raised on the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" and the Great Reaction that insists on our right to be lazy, this is shocking. It means, by the way, that "primitive" people are not, necessarily, dumber than we are. In fact, Hallpike writes, young men from tribal villages in New Guinea go to mechanic school and become perfectly competent auto mechanics.
The point is that, since agriculture is probably no more than 15,000 years old, we humans are still genetically the same as hunter-gatherers, with the same intellectual horsepower. It's just that, in the old days, people didn't bother to exercise their full intellectual faculties. Because they didn't need to.
One of the things we didn't need to do was live according to what we think of as a moral sense. We are talking about guilt, the internal feeling of being in the wrong, versus shame, the horror of appearing wrong to our fellows. Let's set forth a table of values from Hallpike's book.
The point that Hallpike is making is that humans don't need to think about what someone else is thinking -- as in Stage 3 -- when they are living in an agricultural village. So they don't. But when they start living in bigger societies, then the whole question of hierarchy and self-conscious rules and feeling good about yourself -- the internal life -- become necessary for a functioning society.
And if we apply Hallpike's notion of the "survival of the average" notion then we have to take very seriously the idea that the development of the idea of being "a good person in your eyes and the those of others" became a necessary part of human society when real cities started appearing 3,000 years ago.
And here let us insert Nietzsche and his complaint about "the priests" teaching us to hate ourselves, whereas in the good old days we hated our enemies as we should. On Hallpike's theory I propose that the reason that the Axial Age religions came up with sin and salvation was because in the larger-scale societies of 3,000 years ago it was no longer OK for men to get mad with some other chap and whack him with a club. How do you stop the fellas from fisticuffs outside the tavern at night? Sin and guilt.
One other thing. I had always thought of "tribalism" as an instinctive thing that went way back into the mists of time. But Hallpike insists that hunter-gatherers are not tribal. Their groups are small enough that they don't really experience anything bigger than family. And when they get annoyed with each other they go their separate ways, and maybe join another band.
So if tribalism developed with the agricultural village, before the birth of the agricultural state, it means that all tribalism is what I call "fake tribalism." It is not an ancient and immemorial human instinct, but a new cultural adaption to the problems of living in villages of up to 3,000 people where you do not know everyone and everything about them. Tribalism as we understand it is not more than about 15,000 years old, pal.
Let us make the whole thing outrageous. Tribalism is like modern "branding;" it helps you know what to think about something without having to think. Oh that's a Honda: good solid Japanese engineering. Oh that's a Whatsit tribal member: one of them. And in fact that is the way we all live; we make snap judgments about everything all the time, unless a particular situation forces us to step back and rethink things.
This means that all tribes, from extended families to clans and feudal lords to cute little German princedoms to the modern tribalisms of class and race and nation, are all modern adaptations to the modern facts of living around a lot of people that you don't know, but with whom you have to interact anyway.
And capitalism does the same thing. We work in neo-tribes called corporations; we vote in neo-tribes called political parties; we get educations in neo-tribal universities complete with their tribal colors and mascots; we buy our preferred brands.
And then there is the tribiest tribe of all; the modern tribe of educated and evolved lefties and their activisms and intersectionalisms. Why do they do it? To differentiate themselves from the common herd, darling.
And his main assertion is that primitive societies -- meaning societies that are not states and do not yet have central governments -- usually do not operate beyond Piaget's Stage 2, the "pre-operational" stage.
Why? Because in hunter-gatherer and agricultural village life the "higher stages" aren't necessary. Hallpike proposes the notion that humans are lazy.
People do what is easiest or most attractive for them to do in the circumstances, and what is easiest to do is unlikely to be very efficient or even very sensible. It is easiest for most people to follow the crowd, to go on doing things in the same old way, to be lazy, gluttonous, and revengeful... Once people have devised something that works better than nothing, the natural temptation is to rest on one's laurels and go no further, unless there is a compelling reason to do so.(p.89)Hallpike calls this the "survival of the mediocre." And I don't things have changed much on the mediocre front.
For people raised on the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" and the Great Reaction that insists on our right to be lazy, this is shocking. It means, by the way, that "primitive" people are not, necessarily, dumber than we are. In fact, Hallpike writes, young men from tribal villages in New Guinea go to mechanic school and become perfectly competent auto mechanics.
The point is that, since agriculture is probably no more than 15,000 years old, we humans are still genetically the same as hunter-gatherers, with the same intellectual horsepower. It's just that, in the old days, people didn't bother to exercise their full intellectual faculties. Because they didn't need to.
One of the things we didn't need to do was live according to what we think of as a moral sense. We are talking about guilt, the internal feeling of being in the wrong, versus shame, the horror of appearing wrong to our fellows. Let's set forth a table of values from Hallpike's book.
| Piaget/Kohlberg Stage 2 | Piaget/Kohlberg Stage 3 | |
| What is right (p.370) | Following rules only when it is to my immediate advantage and need. Right is also what is fair, and what's an equal exchange, a deal, an agreement. | Living up to what people who are close to you or what people generally expect of you in your role as son, brother, friend, etc. |
| Reasons for doing right (p.378) | To serve one's own needs or interests in a world where you have to recognize that other people have interests too. | The need to be a good person in your eyes and those of others. Your caring for others. Belief in the implicit Golden Rule. Desire to maintain rules and authority which support stereotypical good behavior. |
The point that Hallpike is making is that humans don't need to think about what someone else is thinking -- as in Stage 3 -- when they are living in an agricultural village. So they don't. But when they start living in bigger societies, then the whole question of hierarchy and self-conscious rules and feeling good about yourself -- the internal life -- become necessary for a functioning society.
And if we apply Hallpike's notion of the "survival of the average" notion then we have to take very seriously the idea that the development of the idea of being "a good person in your eyes and the those of others" became a necessary part of human society when real cities started appearing 3,000 years ago.
And here let us insert Nietzsche and his complaint about "the priests" teaching us to hate ourselves, whereas in the good old days we hated our enemies as we should. On Hallpike's theory I propose that the reason that the Axial Age religions came up with sin and salvation was because in the larger-scale societies of 3,000 years ago it was no longer OK for men to get mad with some other chap and whack him with a club. How do you stop the fellas from fisticuffs outside the tavern at night? Sin and guilt.
One other thing. I had always thought of "tribalism" as an instinctive thing that went way back into the mists of time. But Hallpike insists that hunter-gatherers are not tribal. Their groups are small enough that they don't really experience anything bigger than family. And when they get annoyed with each other they go their separate ways, and maybe join another band.
So if tribalism developed with the agricultural village, before the birth of the agricultural state, it means that all tribalism is what I call "fake tribalism." It is not an ancient and immemorial human instinct, but a new cultural adaption to the problems of living in villages of up to 3,000 people where you do not know everyone and everything about them. Tribalism as we understand it is not more than about 15,000 years old, pal.
Let us make the whole thing outrageous. Tribalism is like modern "branding;" it helps you know what to think about something without having to think. Oh that's a Honda: good solid Japanese engineering. Oh that's a Whatsit tribal member: one of them. And in fact that is the way we all live; we make snap judgments about everything all the time, unless a particular situation forces us to step back and rethink things.
This means that all tribes, from extended families to clans and feudal lords to cute little German princedoms to the modern tribalisms of class and race and nation, are all modern adaptations to the modern facts of living around a lot of people that you don't know, but with whom you have to interact anyway.
And capitalism does the same thing. We work in neo-tribes called corporations; we vote in neo-tribes called political parties; we get educations in neo-tribal universities complete with their tribal colors and mascots; we buy our preferred brands.
And then there is the tribiest tribe of all; the modern tribe of educated and evolved lefties and their activisms and intersectionalisms. Why do they do it? To differentiate themselves from the common herd, darling.
No comments:
Post a Comment