Those who led the revolutions may have used the rhetoric of egalitarianism but, while they fought for their own 'equality', they continued to believe they were superior to others, for example, indigenous people, poor men, slaves or women. The men who wrote and signed those famous documents were satisfied that things were finally hunky-dory: at last 'All men are equal'… except for those that are not.
As I said in Part 1, the 'newly equal' continued to believe in a hierarchical arrangement of humanity, they just moved up the ranking. They drew the line of people who were 'unequal' below them. This reality was captured succinctly by playwright Henry-François Becque: the defect of equality is that we desire it only with our superiors.
Far from striving for equality, history's revolutions consisted of one section of society rising up against an individual (e.g. King) or a group (e.g. the church) that was usurping their assets and food, restricting their activities or options, oppressing them with gruelling work, or generally just being brutal to maintain control and take money from them. The revolutions were actually about securing the material needs of living and a sense of dignity by ending these various abuses of power.
History's famous egalitarian revolutions were more like the school yard retort: 'You're not the boss of me' or Monty Python's 'Don't you oppress me'.
That's a long way from a belief in equality with everyone else.
Is inequality 'natural'?
The issue of equality is one of those fundamental conflicts in ideas about humanity. On one hand is the view that a rigid and unequal social hierarchy is 'natural', 'the way it has always been' and essential for society and humanity. On the other hand, the view is that human equal status is 'natural', with those in leadership roles being greedy and selfish, purloining excessive controls, and tending to abuse their power to create and maintain the social hierarchy.
Neither position defines what natural means, but this appeal to 'nature' highlights this is a moral argument, not an argument of fact. Each position represents a belief, an assumption about the humanity.
If it's a belief or assumption, does any factual evidence help in understanding this conflict? We can look to our more distant past to critique how closely each position aligns with what we know about the development of society.
Anthropological evidence shows that humans in our pre-historical past lived in egalitarian groups. As with contemporary egalitarian peoples, leadership would have been assumed by older or stronger people, leaders in knowledge or capacity rather than having control over others. Leadership might even move between people over time - leadership was about meeting the needs at hand.
Inequality first developed with the move to agrarian societies, about 10,000 years ago, which required increased cooperation for planting and harvesting groups, building irrigation systems and tending animals. This level of organisation would have created more lasting leadership roles - leaders who determined and controlled what and when members of the group did various things. The efficiency of agriculture created surpluses that represented wealth.
Recent modelling comparing egalitarian and hierarchical groups shows the latter would have produced more food. All of those in the hierarchical groups in the modelling received more resources than those in the egalitarian groups, even when leaders took a large portion of the group's resulting surplus. The hierarchical groups thus grew faster, became more complex and even more hierarchical over time, and came to be the dominant form of human society.
So, hierarchical society and its resulting inequality was a trade-off for efficient food production. Inequality is thus an artefact of social organisation rather than an innate attribute of human nature. Control of the surplus food for trade also provided a source of potential power for the leaders. However, an hierarchy does not necessarily mean gross inequality or abuse of power. Something else changed too.
Abuse of power is natural
The few remaining contemporary egalitarian cultures have been observed to use a range of social mechanisms, like direct disapproval or ostracism, to limit individuals with ambitions for power over others, and also those unsuitable to be leaders, such as the cruel or psychopathic. These mechanisms of social control suppress both dominating individuals and undue competitiveness. It is reasonable to assume our prehistoric ancestors also managed their groups in this way.
However, the social controls of egalitarian societies would also have been undermined in the new agrarian cultures. With growing size and complexity, members of society lost direct personal contact with each other member of the group, the social power they had to control and reduce inappropriate behaviour. Without this, there was no broad social control over what the emerging leaders could do, who they could dominate and who they could control or abuse - except when those oppressed became desperate for food and revolted against the abuse. 'Civilised' human society would go on to produce the despot, the megalomaniac, the cruel monarch and, more recently, the narcissist who lacks any attributes of leadership. Our society regularly produces 'leaders' who are good at getting and holding power, not necessarily leading a complex society.
Agrarian culture gradually replaced the lost interpersonal social controls with complex political and religious systems, which worked rather well to manage and cohere a larger and more complex society. By some amazing fluke, these religions also revealed that god had ordained that some people (men) have dominion over other people and the environment. It seems even despots need to believe they were at the top of the pile because they are good at something or because some higher power put them there. Possibly no one wants to admit they are ruthless bastards with little regard for other people; they want to believe they were ordained to be the boss man. Or maybe it just helped with social control.
Over time, and certainly with industrialisation, complex society became more rigidly hierarchical and increasingly unequal. The 'god given' right to power justified this happy situation for the few men at the top of the pile. I expect the majority of people in these societies accepted the religious dictates too as 'the way it is', even if they sometimes wondered at god's cruel arrangements.
The social controls of religion thus had little impact on the human tendency to abuse power. Throughout more recent history, the total and often brutal control over other people, particularly women, continued to be justified on religious grounds. Rampant expansion and colonisation was based on the West's concept of itself has having a natural place 'above' others, promised dominion over all by its own religious creeds. As religion's authority waned, misinterpretations of Darwin's theory of evolution were enlisted to bolster this existing belief and give it a veneer of 'nature.' This belief persists today, for some it is religious, for others it is now 'the natural order'.
Resistance to the abuse of power is natural
Large and complex societies need to be organised. They need structure. Hierarchies have proved an efficient structure for meeting the material needs of life. As well, human psychological wellbeing depends on some predictability about other people and we all need a sense of fit within our society - both of which are achieved with social roles and social structure. It makes sense that the larger society became, the more rigid social structure and roles also became.
However, there is no evidence that people are inherently unequal, that hierarchies must inevitably involve oppression and tyranny, or that the way society is currently organised has any origins in a 'natural order' that certain people are superior to others. Appeals to 'nature' do not in any way support an argument for denying people equal rights before the law.
We're not so different from the American men who fought off the British oppressors in the 1700s to create a new country with their inspiring slogan: 'all men are created equal (except not really all of them)'. I think that we tend to resist what we perceive as oppression and power abuse against us, but also tend to continue to hold, consciously or subconsciously, a ranked view of humanity.
This all makes sense of what I learned from my closer read of history in Part 1. History is less the progress of a genuine egalitarian spirit and more a struggle due to our society's failure to replace earlier social controls against the abuse of power.
Is the empire about to strike back?
Over recent history, Western societies* have become more equal over time. In contrast with the early 19th century, many more people have equal voting, economic and legal standing.
However, the spread of Conservatism since the 1940s is testament to the fact that many people see this as a problem.
A growing Conservative political force claims the decadence and decay of society and the increasing number of poor people is due to 'too much' equality. Conservatives believe that a rigid social hierarchy is the only way, the 'natural way', the way 'god intended' to organise society. By some happy accident, or perhaps because they are naturally superior people, they find themselves on or near the top of the hierarchy. It is a deeply held belief about the way the world is - not something you can challenge.
The gradual access to equal legal and social status for more of humanity over the last few hundred years is seen by them not as improvement, but as causing the downfall of society. And they are organising to 'fix it'.
Conflict about whether humans are equal or not looks set to continue.
In the third and final part of this series, I explore what we can learn from an updated view of history.
*I apologise again for knowing so little about non-Western countries to comment further.
Images used under Creative Commons
1 and 2. Grumpy cat and Monty Python: memegenerator
3. Leviathan book cover: ChrisTolworthy/Flickr
4. Lord Acton corruption quote: AZ quotes
Is inequality 'natural'?
The issue of equality is one of those fundamental conflicts in ideas about humanity. On one hand is the view that a rigid and unequal social hierarchy is 'natural', 'the way it has always been' and essential for society and humanity. On the other hand, the view is that human equal status is 'natural', with those in leadership roles being greedy and selfish, purloining excessive controls, and tending to abuse their power to create and maintain the social hierarchy.
Neither position defines what natural means, but this appeal to 'nature' highlights this is a moral argument, not an argument of fact. Each position represents a belief, an assumption about the humanity.
If it's a belief or assumption, does any factual evidence help in understanding this conflict? We can look to our more distant past to critique how closely each position aligns with what we know about the development of society.
Anthropological evidence shows that humans in our pre-historical past lived in egalitarian groups. As with contemporary egalitarian peoples, leadership would have been assumed by older or stronger people, leaders in knowledge or capacity rather than having control over others. Leadership might even move between people over time - leadership was about meeting the needs at hand.
Inequality first developed with the move to agrarian societies, about 10,000 years ago, which required increased cooperation for planting and harvesting groups, building irrigation systems and tending animals. This level of organisation would have created more lasting leadership roles - leaders who determined and controlled what and when members of the group did various things. The efficiency of agriculture created surpluses that represented wealth.
Recent modelling comparing egalitarian and hierarchical groups shows the latter would have produced more food. All of those in the hierarchical groups in the modelling received more resources than those in the egalitarian groups, even when leaders took a large portion of the group's resulting surplus. The hierarchical groups thus grew faster, became more complex and even more hierarchical over time, and came to be the dominant form of human society.
So, hierarchical society and its resulting inequality was a trade-off for efficient food production. Inequality is thus an artefact of social organisation rather than an innate attribute of human nature. Control of the surplus food for trade also provided a source of potential power for the leaders. However, an hierarchy does not necessarily mean gross inequality or abuse of power. Something else changed too.
Abuse of power is natural
The few remaining contemporary egalitarian cultures have been observed to use a range of social mechanisms, like direct disapproval or ostracism, to limit individuals with ambitions for power over others, and also those unsuitable to be leaders, such as the cruel or psychopathic. These mechanisms of social control suppress both dominating individuals and undue competitiveness. It is reasonable to assume our prehistoric ancestors also managed their groups in this way.
However, the social controls of egalitarian societies would also have been undermined in the new agrarian cultures. With growing size and complexity, members of society lost direct personal contact with each other member of the group, the social power they had to control and reduce inappropriate behaviour. Without this, there was no broad social control over what the emerging leaders could do, who they could dominate and who they could control or abuse - except when those oppressed became desperate for food and revolted against the abuse. 'Civilised' human society would go on to produce the despot, the megalomaniac, the cruel monarch and, more recently, the narcissist who lacks any attributes of leadership. Our society regularly produces 'leaders' who are good at getting and holding power, not necessarily leading a complex society.
 |
| The Leviathan |
Over time, and certainly with industrialisation, complex society became more rigidly hierarchical and increasingly unequal. The 'god given' right to power justified this happy situation for the few men at the top of the pile. I expect the majority of people in these societies accepted the religious dictates too as 'the way it is', even if they sometimes wondered at god's cruel arrangements.
Resistance to the abuse of power is natural
Large and complex societies need to be organised. They need structure. Hierarchies have proved an efficient structure for meeting the material needs of life. As well, human psychological wellbeing depends on some predictability about other people and we all need a sense of fit within our society - both of which are achieved with social roles and social structure. It makes sense that the larger society became, the more rigid social structure and roles also became.
However, there is no evidence that people are inherently unequal, that hierarchies must inevitably involve oppression and tyranny, or that the way society is currently organised has any origins in a 'natural order' that certain people are superior to others. Appeals to 'nature' do not in any way support an argument for denying people equal rights before the law.
Inequality is not an attribute of human nature. Abuse of power is. And resistance to power abuse also is.
From early childhood, we have instilled in us a view of the human social world that is hierarchical. It is hard for us to imagine it any other way. It's not easy even to look at closely: a social hierarchy and our status within it is an essential part of our sense of ourselves in the world. I think that we all (including me) hold a view of humanity as ranked. Maybe some of us have flatter systems. Maybe each of us draws our 'line of people not equal to me' at different points in the ranking system: people who are 'too dumb' to vote, people with disabilities, people on welfare; you get the idea.
But we sure don't like being pushed around. We don't abide people we perceive as abusing power, but we know that it is very likely, as summed up by Lord Acton so long ago.
But we sure don't like being pushed around. We don't abide people we perceive as abusing power, but we know that it is very likely, as summed up by Lord Acton so long ago.
This all makes sense of what I learned from my closer read of history in Part 1. History is less the progress of a genuine egalitarian spirit and more a struggle due to our society's failure to replace earlier social controls against the abuse of power.
Is the empire about to strike back?
Over recent history, Western societies* have become more equal over time. In contrast with the early 19th century, many more people have equal voting, economic and legal standing.
However, the spread of Conservatism since the 1940s is testament to the fact that many people see this as a problem.
A growing Conservative political force claims the decadence and decay of society and the increasing number of poor people is due to 'too much' equality. Conservatives believe that a rigid social hierarchy is the only way, the 'natural way', the way 'god intended' to organise society. By some happy accident, or perhaps because they are naturally superior people, they find themselves on or near the top of the hierarchy. It is a deeply held belief about the way the world is - not something you can challenge.
The gradual access to equal legal and social status for more of humanity over the last few hundred years is seen by them not as improvement, but as causing the downfall of society. And they are organising to 'fix it'.
Conflict about whether humans are equal or not looks set to continue.
In the third and final part of this series, I explore what we can learn from an updated view of history.
*I apologise again for knowing so little about non-Western countries to comment further.
Images used under Creative Commons
1 and 2. Grumpy cat and Monty Python: memegenerator
3. Leviathan book cover: ChrisTolworthy/Flickr
4. Lord Acton corruption quote: AZ quotes
No comments:
Post a Comment
We would love to hear your comments. All comments are moderated - so after you have your say, click Publish (bottom left), then you should get a pop up about approval. If it is your first time commenting, you may get a Blogger site request to confirm your name which will be displayed with your comment. Fred or the other writers will do their best to get back to you in a day or two!