culture demystified
The cliché that evolution produces the survival of the fittest is, of course, not true. Evolution produces only the tautology of the survival of the survivors. There is no overall quality of “evolutionary fitness”. There can’t be since “fitness” only has meaning in terms of a particular environment, and the environment is in continual flux. Qualities that earn success in one type of environment could be the cause of failure in another. Environmental instability precludes the possibility of judgments on the relative evolutionary value of any existing organism. Anything alive is a winner in evolutionary terms; the losers are all dead.
However, cultures are quite eager to make judgments where evolution is silent. That is, judgments as to the relative value of human beings are the stock in trade of all cultures. So there is a problem. Evolution tells us all living human beings are “winners”, but culture is telling us some of those “winners” are “mediocrities” or “losers”.
What accounts for this discrepancy between the cultural and evolutionary assessments regarding the relative value of human beings, and what value should be attributed to each of the different assessments?
Since our social nature is an indelible component of the human condition, we need a method for expressing the requirements of a social existence, and culture does that. In addition, it is beyond question that culture has been the pivotal “bootstrapping” mechanism in the perceived “ascent” in the human condition. But culture has a two-fold aspect.
In one aspect, as a mechanism for dealing with the external environment, culture is a further refinement of the evolutionary process, which accounts for its capacity to produce that perceived “ascent”.
However, its other aspect is the creation of an internal “cultural environment”. What are the dynamics that create the rules constituting that internal cultural environment? How do we insure that those rules maintain the requirements for a social existence with its bootstrapping capabilities, without compromising the long-term potential for the survivability of the human species?
Let’s start by considering the concept of “games”. Humans have a proclivity to create games. The definition of game being any human activity that is governed by arbitrary rules - by arbitrary I mean rules not rooted in objectified information. The rules are the result of someone’s preference. But rules affect outcomes. For example, in considering the “running game” it’s evident that the changes in the rules of such a game changes who the wins and who loses. If the game rule is that the distance run is 100 yards, we get one set of winners and losers. If the distance rule changes to marathon length, we get an entirely different set of winners and losers. There is nothing inherently true about a distance rule in the game of running. Game rules are perfectly arbitrary and can be modified to accommodate changing human preferences.
Our proclivity to create games probably arises from our desire to manifest our idiosyncratic configuration and to explore insights. Since we know that variety is a positive evolutionary condition, the more games the better. There is no violation of the evolutionary fairness principle in the game concept as long as there is no compulsion to play. The idea of fairness in games applies only to the extent that whatever rules exist must apply equally to all players. But there is no requirement that game rules must be fair in any wider sense since if I don’t like the rules of any particular game, I don’t have to play. I am free to play those games that are interesting to me and to ignore those that aren’t.
There is a problem, however, if game rules get embedded in social rules because in this situation I don’t have the option of whether or not to play. If a social rule embodies someone’s particular insight or idiosyncratic configuration, it may put me at a disadvantage. Rules affect outcomes, and I have no evolutionary interest in granting advantages to others and their progeny over my progeny and me.
From the section on the Human Condition, we understand why “fairness” in that environment will be under continual assault. There will always be individuals or groups within a culture who will attempt to “game” the system to their advantage, with a consequent disadvantage for other members of the culture. So culture can present a problem.
In so far as a culture can be successfully “gamed”, that culture produces advantages and disadvantages among its members by the application of the cultural rules. Those who are advantaged are those in control of that culture – that’s how they became advantaged – and would rarely be interested having the cultural rules adjusted or changed in a way that diminishes their advantage. As a consequence, every culture has as its primary goal its own replication. The advantaged in any culture, therefore, attempt to marshal the cultural dynamics in such a way that the fundamental social arrangements are “beyond dispute” and thus to be perpetuated. These attempts at deception on the fairness issue can be successful by the “mystification” of the concept of culture through the adoption of certain assumptions. Such assumptions provide the premises by which cultural rules can appear to have been validated. They consist of such things as:
- Supernatural revelation – something that is beyond the competence of humans to question.
- Authority of extraordinary persons – reliance on those superior qualities that transcend the abilities of “ordinary” people.
- Tradition – the antiquity of a belief is its validation.
- Casual consensus – if everyone believes something, it must be true.
- Ethnocentrism - assumed special status of your group, with the preservation of the group identity being the preeminent value.
The “mystification” of culture occurs through social acquiescence to items 1 and 2. Items, 3, 4 and 5 are cognitive intuitions, which provide an “intuitive” (that is, a “common sense”) confirmation within each individual that the premise is sound. The acceptance of these premises creates a “conventional wisdom”. The primary technique used to insure acceptance is only to allow information to be disseminated that appears to support the premises, or to limit, to the extent possible, the dissemination of any information to the contrary. In any event, the “mystification” of culture through the acceptance of the conventional wisdom is designed to disengage your ability to rationally consider cultural values – that is, to actually think. Once that has been done, you become vulnerable to being “conditioned” into acceptance of the prevailing culture and the application of its rules, even if such rules put you at a serious disadvantage.
The cultural designations of “winners” and “mediocrities/losers” identify those people who succeed or fail in a particular culture. However, those designations provide no information on the value the culture itself has for enhancing the probability of the long-term success and survivability of the human species.
Therefore, it is essential to “demystify” culture. Now the conventional wisdom is that culture evolves out of some natural process and is not the product of conscious human social engineering. Therefore, cultural claims on rule formation have a “special status” in the human condition. However, if a natural process were the dynamic in cultural formation, all cultures would be roughly the same, with minor differences resulting from differing external environments. But, in fact, they differ radically, and these radical differences exist even when the external environment for differing cultures is roughly the same. There are a few rules that seem to appear in nearly all cultures – prohibitions against in-group murder and theft, incest, rape etc. These rules appear to embody the minimal requirements for a social existence. But beyond these rules, there are a multitude of other issues that are culturally determined – language, marriage, child rearing, status assignment, religion etc. These determinations exist in splendid variety. That variety precludes the certainty that any are reflective of a fundamental requirement in our nature. The only dynamic that can account for these differences is a human intention, that is, a conscious act of social engineering. While some kind of culture is a universal requirement for the human condition, each particular expression is a product of someone’s or some group’s social engineering.
Therefore, a social rule cannot be sanctified by its cultural confirmation. We are at liberty to analyze the “intention” that produced the rule. The appropriateness of any social rule should be determined by how effective it is in enhancing the long-term success and survivability of the human species, which means it must not violate any of the principles enumerated in the section on Human Decency.
All human beings are, in some sense, a product of their particular culture. But they are not simply culture products. They are also evolutionary products and thereby have an obligation and the capability to transcend the limitations imposed by their culture. This understanding produces a radical change in perspective. We no longer see our value in our culture’s assessment of that value. But rather assess our culture’s value in how it well it safeguards our general evolutionary value as expressed in the requirements for human decency, since it is the expression of those values that enhance the probability for the long-term survival and success of the human species.
The requirement that cultural rules are constrained by the principles of human decency is not intended to produce the homogenization of cultures. That is, that the many should become one. Quite to the contrary, variety in cultural expressions has a similar value for the human condition as variety of insights. But a priori, we can’t have knowledge of the precise social structures and rules that produce that value. That knowledge can only be secured by analyzing the results of actual cultural expressions for conformity with the principles of human decency. By way of example, consider the human conditions prevalent in Sweden and Romania. Technically, Sweden is a monarchy and Romania is a republic. Now monarchy is a thoroughly discredited as a principle for social organization, whereas republican principles are nearly universally acknowledged to be the approach that best accommodates our quest for human decency. But which cultural expression conforms most closely to the requirement for human decency?
One of the most powerful cultural expressions is language; therefore, language preservation would be an important principle in maintaining cultural diversity. Since all languages have the potential to be of equal value in the human condition, the requirements of human decency do not constrain that expression. But language diversity does present a problem. It is currently not possible to get the total knowledge base into all languages. But that knowledge base is required for individuals to make a proper assessment of cultural values, otherwise speakers of such languages would inhabit a language ghetto. Therefore, a universal language is needed which does contain that knowledge base, and that language must be in the mental arsenal of everyone. In other words, bilingualism is a human requirement for those whose native language is not the universal language. However, where bilingualism is not feasible, access to the knowledge base is more important than the preservation of language.
The fact that cultural and language diversity have a potential value to the human condition does not imply that the preservation of any particular version of a culture or language has value. Since all environments are in continual flux, vigorous cultures and languages will be evolving to accommodate those environmental changes – these have value in their diversity. The attempt to “freeze” cultural or language expressions as they are exhibited at a particular point in time will merely consign such expressions to irrelevance and insure their eventual demise - these contribute little value in their diversity.
- Home
- Introduction
- Part 1
- Truth
- Insights
- The Human Condition
- Education
- Human Decency
- Enlightenment
- Part 2
- Culture Demystified
- The Elite
- Mediocrities
- Self-regard
- Self and Society
- Part 3
- Morals, Ethics, and Virtue
- The Concept of Evil is a Bad Idea
- Religion
- Patriotism
- Freedom
- Market Capitalism
- Wealth Distribution