Evolución, Anaciclosis, y dialéctica social de la Historia

Comentamos mediante enlaces relevantes un texto del Libro VI de las Historias de Polibio, donde se expone una original visión sobre cómo se desarrollan los sistemas políticos. Para Polibio este proceso descansa en última instancia en las características de la naturaleza humana y de las reacciones sociales que suscita la acumulación de poder. Este pasaje es una primera exposición del desarrollo cultural humano mediante un proceso evolutivo y emergente: evolución sociocultural de instituciones y relaciones, y emergencia de instituciones complejas sobre la base de una historia y una tradición política. El razonamiento de Polibio acude con frecuencia a algunos conceptos hoy muy manejados por la sociobiología, y en este contexto actual procuramos situar este pasaje crucial.

Texto completo:

Evolución, Anaciclosis, y dialéctica social de la Historia

https://ssrn.com/abstract=4215930

Vanity Fea 5/09/2012

10 Pages Posted: 2 Nov 2022

José Angel García Landa

Universidad de Zaragoza

Date Written: September 5, 2012

English abstract: Evolution, Anacyclosis, and the Social Dialectics of History

This is a commentary, through relevant links, of a text from Book VI of Polybius's 'Histories', a passage which formulates an original view on the way political systems develop. According to Polybius, this process rests in the last analysis on the specificities of human nature, and on the social reactions resulting from the accumulation of power. This passage is an early approach to human cultural development as an evolutionary and emergent process, a sociocultural evolution of institutions and relationships, and an emergence of complex institutions on the basis of history and political traditions. Polybius refers in his reasoning to a number of concepts which are often used in contemporary sociobiology, and it is in this context that we try to place this crucial passage.

Note: Downloadable document is in Spanish.

Keywords: Cultural evolution, History, Polybius, Anacyclosis, Political theory, Emergence, Cultural development, Societies

Suggested Citation:

Garcia Landa, Jose Angel, Evolución, Anaciclosis, y dialéctica social de la Historia (Evolution, Anacyclosis, and the Social Dialectics of History) (September 5, 2012). Vanity Fea 5/09/2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4215930

eJournal classifications:

CRN Subject Matter eJournals      Ancient Philosophical & Scientific Texts eJournal - CMBO          CRN: Ancient Politics (Topic) - CMBO
CRN Subject Matter eJournals      Ancient Greek & Roman History eJournal - CMBO          CRN: Greek History (Topic) - CMBO              CRN: Hellenistic Greece (Greek History) (Sub-Topic) - CMBO
HistoryRN Subject Matter eJournals      The Repository: Historiographical eJournal - CMBO
HistoryRN Subject Matter eJournals      Thucydides: Conflict & Conflict Resolution History & Review eJournal - CMBO
PRN Subject Matter eJournals      Social & Political Philosophy eJournal - CMBO          PRN: Consent of the Governed, Democracy, Forms of Government Generally (Topic) - CMBO
PRN Subject Matter eJournals      History of Western Philosophy eJournal - CMBO          PRN: Ancient Philosophy (Topic) - CMBO              PRN: Greek (Sub-Topic) - CMBO
Political Theory eJournals      Political Theory: History of Political Thought eJournal - CMBO          PSN: Other Political Theory: History of Political Thought (Topic) - CMBO

También aquí:

_____. "Evolución, anaciclosis y dialéctica social de la historia." In García Landa, Vanity Fea 5 Sept. 2012.* (Polybius).

         http://vanityfea.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/evolucion-anaciclosis-y-dialectica.html

         2012

_____. "Evolución, anaciclosis y dialéctica social de la historia." Net Sight de José Angel García Landa 24 Oct. 2022.*

         https://personal.unizar.es/garciala/publicaciones/evolucion,anaciclosis.html

         2022

_____. "Evolución, anaciclosis y dialéctica social de la historia." SSRN 2 Nov. 2022.*

         http://ssrn.com/abstract=4215930

         2022 

         Ancient Political and Scientific Texts eJournal 2 Nov. 2022.*

         https://www.ssrn.com/link/Ancient-Philosophical-Scientific-Texts.html

         2022

         Ancient Greek & Roman History eJournal 2 Nov. 2022.*

         https://www.ssrn.com/link/Ancient-Greek-Roman-History.html

         2022

         The Repository: Historiographical eJournal 2 Nov. 2022.*

         https://www.ssrn.com/link/The-Repository-Historiographical.html

         2022

         Thucydides: Conflict & Conflict Resolution History & Review 2 Nov. 2022.*

         https://www.ssrn.com/link/Thucydides-Conflict-Resolution.html

         2022

         Social & Political Philosophy eJournal 2 Nov. 2022.*

         https://www.ssrn.com/link/Social-Political-Philosophy.html

         2022

         History of Western Philosophy eJournal 2 Nov. 2022.*

         https://www.ssrn.com/link/History-of-Western-Philosophy.html

         2022

         Political Theory: History of Political Thought eJournal 2 Nov. 2022.*

         https://www.ssrn.com/link/PT-History-Political-Thought.html

         2022

_____. "Evolución, anaciclosis y dialéctica social de la historia." In García Landa, Vanity Fea 27 Dec. 2022.*

         https://vanityfea.blogspot.com/2022/12/evolucion-anaciclosis-y-dialectica.html

         2022

—oOo—

Alan Macfarlane on Adam Smith

An excellent overview, with awful sound. Someone, possibly me, should transcribe and translate this. I have just subscribed to Alan Macfarlane's YouTube channel.

More Smith:
 

Why Is The Wealth of Nations So Important? Adam Smith and Classical Economics. (Book TV – C-Span2). 2010. YouTube (The Film Archives) 17 Aug. 2013.*

         http://youtu.be/pOksHxsR_2w

         2013

Muqaddimah

Por qué deshumanizamos a los demás

Del hombre se dice mucho que es un ser social; se dice menos que es un depredador de sociedades humanas. A los demás los deshumanizamos selectivamente, según dicta la ideología de nuestro grupo, nación o religión. Comentario que pongo a una reseña que aparece en Tercera Cultura del libro Menos que humanos sobre el estudio científico de la deshumanización (Less than human. Why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others, de David Livingstone Smith; St. Martin’s Griffin, 2012):

Somos hijos de la guerra. La estructura de nuestras sociedades, de nuestra organización para el trabajo, de nuestros ideales e ideologías, se ha visto fuertemente condicionada por la necesidad de imponerse frente a otros grupos sociales. El ser humano es un ser social, por lo que podría parecer que la deshumanización va en contra de su naturaleza; ahora bien, las prácticas de altruismo y cooperación se dirigen únicamente a quienes veamos como miembros del mismo grupo. Y la historia de la humanidad es la historia de la redefinición de esas líneas, pasando de la banda de cazadores-recolectores a la tribu nómada, al asentamiento neolítico, a la ciudad-Estado, al grupo religioso, y a los Estado modernos. Con el ideal de la humanidad multicultural y globalizada apuntando en tiempos recientes. La historia de estos grupos ha sido siempre la de la explotación de otros grupos. El hombre es un gran explotador de recursos naturales; de otras especies, y también de la propia. El trabajo ajeno, y eso lo sabía Marx, es el principal recurso a explotar. Eso se hace o bien exterminando a la tribu vecina, o bien esclavizándola, o bien colonizándola con estrategias diversas, militares y comerciales. La explotación directa de otro grupo social, para su exterminio o subyugación, es uno de los comportamientos que han sido primados por ese proceso de selección natural que llamamos prehistoria, y luego historia: una historia de guerra, de grupos de defensa propia y de ataque eficaz, y de estrategias de alianza para seguridad mutua... y explotación de un tercero. Esa es la esencia de la historia, y de la organización social humana. Por tanto no es de extrañar que la abyección del otro, la deshumanización de la tribu de bárbaros, o de los salvajes, o de los indios, o de los paganos, o de los judíos, etc., haya sido una estrategia fundamental, y que se haya visto primada por los éxitos que da a la hora de potenciar la cohesión del grupo propio y eliminar elementos de empatía que podrían dificultar la explotación eficaz del otro, o su exterminio rápido, llegado el caso. Es una estrategia de comportamiento social que ha sido seleccionada por la selección natural, uno más de sus productos colaterales desagradables.  Al parecer, el libro de David Livingston Smith enfatiza los aspectos exaptativos, la cognición de grupos como categorías. Y algo de eso hay, pero hay que explicar por qué se elige la estrategia de abyección. A mi entender es para potenciar la cohesión y solidaridad de grupo, hacerlo más competitivo, como ya señaló Darwin en El origen del hombre, y también para gestionar ventajosamente (para el grupo) los instintos sociales y empáticos, quiero decir desactivando los mecanismos de empatía.

Ahora bien, hay que puntualizar dos cosas: 

- Que la estrategia de la abyección y la deshumanización es una construcción evolutiva tardía, menos enraizada en la psique humana que los instintos básicos de reconocimiento del otro como humano. Es una "segunda capa" de identidad socialmente transmitida, que por tanto es susceptible de ser modificada, si no en una generación sí con la influencia de otras culturas y circunstancias cambiantes.

- Que tan importantes como las estrategias de abyección del otro son las estrategias mentales y estructuras sociales (tribales, ideológicas, religiosas, etc.) que permiten reorganizar estratégicamente el mapa de las alianzas y de las enemistades, para convertirse llegado el caso en aliados circunstanciales de los enemigos abyectos, frente a un tercer peligro más urgente que amenaza a los dos conjuntamente.

Como en tantas otras cuestiones, aquí la batalla se libra en el campo de las representaciones del otro, y de los esquemas narrativos  que describen la situación en la que nos hallamos (el derecho, la guerra, la ofensa, el peligro, la alianza, la justicia, etc.) y las acciones a emprender, con ellos o contra ellos. Una cosa que puede ayudar a tomar buenas decisiones es la reflexión sobre los motivos y los procesos de estas alianzas y estas abyecciones y deshumanizaciones.

Meme(z) de Dawkins

 

—oOo—

Comentario Sobre la Auténtica Grandeza

Este es un comentario de F. Storr y C. H. Gibson al ensayo de Francis Bacon "Of the True Greatness of Kingdoms and States", y versa sobre el progreso y la evolución social—sobre el desarrollo de la civilización y el perfeccionamiento de las sociedades humanas. Un tema de interés, a mitad de camino entre la sociobiología evolutiva, la teoría de la historia, y la filosofía política. Aparece en una oscura edición escolar de los ensayos de Bacon, publicada hace más de ciento veinticinco años, en 1885 (Bacon's Essays, with Introduction, Annotations, Notes and Indexes by F. Storr, B. A., Chief Master of Modern Subjects at Merchant Taylor's School and C. H. Gibson, M. A., Assistant Master at Merchant Taylor's Schools. Third edition. London: Longmans, Green & Co. and New York: 15 East 16th Street, 1891). Lo republico aquí no como comentario al ensayo de Bacon, pues más bien es un excurso alternativo, sino como muestra del altísimo nivel intelectual de los editores en el contexto del pensamiento de la época, y más en concreto como muestra del impacto y eficacia que tuvo el evolucionismo de Spencer como instrumento para la comprensión intelectual de los más diversos aspectos de la realidad. En concreto, obsérvese cómo aparece aquí anticipada la idea central de la sociobiología actual sobre la adaptación activa del entorno, y la construcción de nichos ecológicos. Se reconoce también, por supuesto, el aire victoriano de época, y el ideal optimista sobre el progreso de una era de expansión imperial, comercial e industrial británica, de una cultura que se veía avanzar hacia la racionalidad, la ilustración y la democracia, a través del esfuerzo colectivo, la ética del trabajo, la educación, la organización de los procesos, y el respeto de los individuos al ideal colectivo de la nación: respeto a la tradición, pero reforma gradual y constante de las costumbres y las instituciones. Ese optimismo hoy podemos mirarlo casi con nostalgia y envidia—pero quizá deberíamos aprender más de una cosa de estos constructivos y decimonónicos victorianos, antes que darlos por definitivamente finiquitados. Añado enlaces relevantes donde parece oportuno.

Of True Greatness: Annotations and Hints

"All nature widens upwards. Evermore
    The simpler essence lower lies.
More complex is more perfect, owning more
    Discourse, more widely wise."

i. The Latin title of this Essay is "de proferendis imperii finibus." To Bacon, national greatness is synonymous with expansion by conquest. It is the highest excellence of states as well as of individuals (1), to profess arms. All other conditions of national prosperity, as we understand the term, are subordinate to war. Bacon must be judged by his own times, and by his literary antecedents. The ancients conceived the progress of science, but both to antiquity and mediaevalism, national progress was limited by the number of worlds to conquer. Bacon, in the Advancement (2) and Novum Organum (3), speaks enthusiastically of the advance of knowledge, though he says too much about "cycles" as opposed to continuous advance, and is too sanguine about "royal roads" to learning, and the possibility of a universal encyclopaedia. As to national greatness, he believed in the necessity of constant war, and in 1607, spoke strongly in the House of Commons in favour of a spirited war policy ; contrasting the imperial schemes of Spain with the "reckonings and audits" of Britain. Here Bacon is certainly not in advance of his own times. As a philosopher, he was the radical reformer of antiquity, and as a statesman, he might have advocated, instead of barely tolerating, the industrial spirit. There were many clear signs that the military spirit was passing away, but such prescience is hardly to be looked for in an Elizabethan statesman. France and Spain each regarded England as the prize and prey of the victor. The policy of both the Cecils, Bacon's uncle and cousin, was to play off one power against the other, and at the same time to stand prepared for an attack from either side.

    ii. Progress is a modern idea. The march of humanity onwards and upwards, was but dimply perceived before the present century. Aristotle conceived of gradual ascent of matter to form, and by his doctrine of "potential existence," foreshadowed the great law of evolution. But in Greece, the commonly received idea of national life was that various forms of government succeeded one another in a cycle. Experience bore this out, and further taught that destruction, rather than progress, was to be expected. Further, the Greeks considered infinity of the nature of evil ; all that is good is finite and measurable. The spreading power of Rome, especially during the early empire, suggested the idea of a world civilized by Roman influences, but the final lesson was that overgrown power falls to pieces. The Romans never conceived progress except as the gradual absorption of the world by Roman civilization which was ex hypothesi perfect.

     iii. Mediaeval thought was on the lines of antiquity. Besides, in the Middle Ages, men only saw falling kingdoms, and a shifting chaos of military supremacies, rather than well-defined national divisions. The Church, too, distinctly opposed the idea of human perfectibility. The reaction of Luther only turned men to see more clearly their own moral and spiritual degradation (4). The great discoveries of the Elizabethan age were but germs of future greatness. Even the outburst of literary life was short-lived, and seemed to pale before that of Greece and Rome. As late as the seventeenth century, it was thought necessary to prove, as Bishop Hakewill did, that man had not degenerated.

     iv. Vico, who lived from 1668 to 1743, first grasped intelligently the idea of progress. According to him, there are two sorts of progress. "That of nations from insignificance, passing through a period of greatness to insignificance, and that of humanity, the march of one that advances and never recedes." This progress is from the restraint of physical force, nulle terre sans seigneur, to the free obedience of rational beings to reason. The flaw in Vico's proposition is that he conceives that nations necessarily flourish and decay, and that, as long as a nation holds the foremost place in the world, its history is the history of humanity. This is not the case: all grow together at different rates of speed as parts of a great whole.

     v. Though Vico undoubtedly understood the problem of progressive history, the comparative method, which regards each phase of existence as a stepping-stone to something higher, was not conceived either by the philosophic or the popular mind in the eighteenth century. Viewed from the standpoint of evolution, progress is an infinite series of ever-increasing complexity, in which each lower factor is contained in that next above it. The two ideas which dominated the eighteenth century, were the immediate perfectibility of man, and the degradation of society. Some looked forward to a model state which existed only in imagination ; others looked back to a golden age of primitive simplicity. In some cases the tendencies were purely destructive ; existing institutions were absolutely to be destroyed. But most thought that humanity was perfectible, and preached the doctrine of an iron present, and a golden future. Doctrinaires had to learn again that utopias are vanity, humanity imperfect, and that nature nihil facit per saltum.

    vi. In the nineteenth century we find the gradual rise of the comparative treatment of all branches of human knowledge applied to the phenomena of human progress. German thought, led by Hegel, with his "philosophy of history," and Goethe's "life of plants," first developed the idea to practical results. In the non-mechanical sciences, wich deals with things in process of development, the question to be asked is not "What is it and what are its antecedents now?" but, "How did this grow and to what is it growing?" In other words, the growth of causes, "crescente variables," have to be investigated. The attention is fixed solely on the increasing cause, and its law or series is determined as nearly as possible. Such a law is a law of progress, and progress is consciously realized only in so far as definite results have been obtained. Hitherto we have got plenty of laws, but many of them are hypothetical and want verification and filling up. More is required than a blank formula often vague and unsatisfying. So thought has been derived from sensation, through ideas or remembered sensation ; abstract language from onomatopoeia, and interjections definitely and consciously attached to sensations. In the case of man, the "crescent variable" is reason. Progress is convertible with the growth of reason. The end of man is to do his own proper work in the best possible way. The greater the number of men who do so, the greater and more real the progress. The better the work, the more it is in accordance with reason. Reason may be defined as the faculty by which we conceive ends, and consciously adapt means to such ends. The growth of plants and animals is through instinctive adaptation to their environment. Man consciously modifies his own surroundings, as well as adapts himself to them.

    vii. Freedom to develop and opportunities for development are primary necessities. Enfranchisement and education must precede as well as follow progress. Monopolies, class privileges, standing armies, go hand in hand with ignorance. The man who has no responsibilities has no aspirations. Originality tends to heterodoxy and rebellion against authority. Science and literature subject to the requirements of sacerdotalism and despotism can attempt no daring flights.

    viii. Though reason is a crescent variable capable of infinite development from within, there are stationary elements such as climate, food, geographical position, and language, which cannot completely be eliminated. The ethiopian cannot change his skin, and human agency can but sligthly modify physical surroundings.

    ix. In describing progress in terms of reason, the growth of morality and religion as well as of material advance, can be equally recognized. In assuming that the world becomes more rational, it is not to be supposed that it becomes less moral, but rather that the claims of morality are more and more realized by reason, and that religion is brought into closer harmony with reason. The higher the morality, the more rational. "Kill nobody," is better wisdom than "kill not ta member of your tribe," and is at the same time more moral (5). We need not fall into Mr. Buckle's mistake of supposing that morality is stationary, reason progressive.

    x. No man can do everything. Each does one thing best. Civilization tends towards specialization. At first the same man is warrior, hunter, artisan,—a jack-of-all-trades. As things increase in complexity there is a tendency to separate off one individual or class for each work. The highest stage is when the differentiated products become so special as to be severally incapable of performing the other's work. Further, every new differentiation implies increase of population. The better a man does his own work the greater his dependence on the good work of others. Every new discovery specializes, and at the same time draws men together. Printing, gunpowder, steam, railways, emphasize all pre-existing differences, create new ones, and make all more dependent on the functions of others. And further, each specialization of any class ipso facto produces organic changes which lead to the specialization of other classes. As music improves, dancing and singing improve. As the eye sees better, the hand grows better fitted for its own work. The danger of specialization is the loss of spontaneity and many-sidedness.

    xi. The great truth of specialization of functions, leads to a difficulty. If the Puritan and popular standpoint is correct, and if every man can be his own prophet, priest, and king, progress depends in a great measure on the way in which every man applies for himself the principles of morality, religion, and government, to the business of life. But if, on the other hand, morality, government, and religion get more complex, and are lost sight of in the fierce rush of worldly pursuits and the engrossing claims of self-love, then more than ever men will need the great moralist, preacher, and statesman, who will point out the truth, and disentangle the principles of true life from the tangled web of competition and pleasure. Laissez faire, may be as obstructive as over-government. Leaving the social organism to run wild is not necessarily giving it room to develop. (Y aquí es donde se separan más los autores, con buen criterio, de la perspectiva hiper-liberal de Spencer).

    xii. Laws of progress are only rough generalizations of tendencies. Modern thought suffers from insisting too strongly on the analogy between social and other organism, between the life of plants and of men. We can read the past only in outline, the future is a sealed book. It is not possible to forecast how far this or that nation will have advanced within a specific period. Herbert Spencer's great law is "Evolution is a process or progression from the simple homogeneous to the complex heterogeneous by continuous differentiation and integration." Or differently expressed, "All progress is through stages—unity, plurality, singularity." Humboldt says that "the end of government is the development of man in the greatest originality and variety possible." Matthew Arnold would have more "culture," a vague and ideal formula. Mill insists on the necessity of representative institutions—an engine, not an end. Comte expresses the history of humanity by three stages—the theological, metaphysical, and positive. "History," says Hegel, "is the embodiment of reason carried out through the imperfect medium of man's spirit." But the course of universal reason is either obscured or contradicted by exceptions, so that it is hardly ever possible to predict the next step. The human mind is virtually a sealed book. The great man is an incalculable factor in the problem of progress. This is especially the case with scientific as opposed to social and political progress. We can roughly sum the series and isolate the phenomena in the past, and see in outline how reason develops, but neither the nation nor the individual repeats itself, and we can only hope for a more complete union of individual ends with universal reason. A perfect science of history is an ideal which fades as we move.

    xiii. Is progress a fact? There are always laudatores temporis acti, who sigh for a past that never was present. Most of us are one-sided, at the mercy of the strongest impression, and unable to look out of our life. In the present, evil seems actively predominant. Good seems ever liable to decay, except by constant watching and personal care.

"The evil that men do lives after them ;
The good is oft interrèd with their bones."

The future is hidden, the good of the past—de mortuis nil nisi bonum—is alone remembered, and encircled with a halo of virtue. Reverence and imagination lend to the past an illusory brightness. Further, there has been a tendency in the human mind, from the Preacher to Schopenhauer, to believe rather in present corruption than in future progress.

    xiv. Apart from the natural tendency to grumble, most reforms are attended by a certain loss. The Puritan movement was accomplished at the cost of much that was valuable in art, literature, and manners. On a comparison of the age of Elizabeth with that of the Protectorate, England, in spite of much material advance, will seem to have retrograded. Many see only retrogression in the decay of chivalry. Even feudalism is a valuable counterpoise to the worship of money. "Since the Reformation, the whole tendency of the world has been in an industrial direction." Progress is often obscured or diverted into one channel. Change is not progress (6), nor is freedom by itself. "Intellectual emancipation," says Goethe, "if it does not give us control over ourselves, is poisonous." The truest freedom is rational obedience to law, whether given from without or within. No one should be free till he knows how to obey.

    xv. There is a dark side of the picture. Increased machinery and wealth have hardly benefited the masses. There is a growing tendency to inequality of property. Monopolies are not dead. Adultreation is too strong for the law. The union of democracy with the Church is not impossible, but the tendency of democracy is to aim only at material prosperity. In giving all an opportunity of rising, there seems some danger of dragging down rather than moving up, and fewer are willing to hold subordinate positions. Government tends to become "a joint-stock concern for the practice of Thrift." Improved social machinery tends to destroy self-help. Artificial helps lessen the struggle for existence, withouth which there will be degeneracy; men must go forward or go back. Malthusianism only sees ground for hope in checking population, communism is wholesale robbery and retrogression. Further, the traditional and fundamental principles of religion, morality, and society are questioned as hardly ever before. The fearful propaganda of Nihilism daily warns us that we live on a volcano. There is a feverish craving for novelty and excitement. Agnosticism is openly preached as a creed, and the sovereignty of reason is appealed to by the irrational. The policy of "blood and iron" is triumphant on the continent. These and many other considerations suggest the question, "are we progressing?" Thus the doctrine of despair, taught by Schopenhauer, is echoed in countries which have less ground for pessimism than Germany (7): "To will, i.e. to live, is to suffer," will being the conscious application of force. The higher the civilization, the more consciously active, and, therefore, the more miserable is man. The only remedy is self-annihilation.

xvi. The vigorous mind will learn to look beyond. Pessimism argues a want of historical perspective. The pessimist ignores the comparative method, looks only at the present time, and only to some special phase of the present time. Then he rails, like Carlyle in his "Latter-day Pamphlets" (8), against democracy and all the first-born of Egypt. There is a shadow which saddens life, but a great mind may feel this without bewailing that the world is all out of joint. According to Leopardi, every stage of existence—science, culture, religion, commercial industry, and politics—wherein man seeks happiness, are all stages of illusion. Pessimism can never be a philosophy of life; it belongs to the effete dreamy Eastern character. In the East, life is a constant thirst and craving which is never satisfied. Pessimism may suit the lazy mysticism of Buddhism, but vanishes before the gospel of "act and you shall know." Asceticism is only another form of pessismism, a protest against nature. It is not healthy to dwell with too accurate diagnosis on national pathology. Men are too ready to prophesy evil and then wish to see their prophecies fulfilled. Further, the disorder and evils of transition are a necessary stage.

xvii. The belief in an infinite series of progress is almost a religion to the best minds. "Let us allow and believe," says Wordsworth, "that there is a progress of the species toward unattainable perfection; or whether this be so or not, that it is a necessity of a good and gifted nature to believe in it." "Kant, while arguing that past progress does not necessarily imply future progress, sees surer ground for advance in the enthusiastic sympathies, excited throughout Europe by the outbreak of the French Revolution" (9). The French Revolution was more successful as a destructive than a constructive movement. It swept away the abuses of feudalism and class-privilege. Its dreams of universal brotherhood, a federation of nations, and a reign of universal reason were not realized. Yet with all its illusions, and in spite of all its crimes, it promoted freedom of thought, which is the tap-root of civilization. Compare the whole world, as it is, with the world as it was, or even a novel of George Eliot with one of Fielding or Smollett, and doubts will be quieted. We may yet live to see the "parliament of man, the federation of the world." The idea of international law and national conscience steadily grows. In catching sight of the universal, there seems some danger of losing many of the lights and shades of individual progress ; but the race, as a whole, is advancing, in spite of back-eddies.

"Not in vain the distance beckons. Forward, forward let us range,
Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change."

Goethe says that each man, like a star, should move restless but hasteless in his own sphere. For such there will be no more sickly questions whether "life is worth living."



____


(1) See Essay on Empire.
(2) Bk. ii, xxiv.
(3) i. cxxix.
(4) See Guesses at Truth, p. 313, et seqq.
(5) See Essay on Goodness and Goodness of Nature.
(6) See Essay on Innovation.
(7) See Sully's Pessimism, London, 1877.
(8) On The Present Time.
(9) Guesses at Truth.
[See also Essay on Innovation]

Consiliencia, evolución y anclaje narrativo

Together against

 

 (A comment to a talk on Kropotkin and the evolutionary role of mutual aid— from Facebook):

 

"Kropotkin was known as a brilliant scientist, famous for his work on animal and human cooperation, and for his role as a founder of anarchism. Tens of thousands of people followed Prince Peter during two speaking tours that took him around America. Kropotkin’s path to fame was labyrinthine, with asides in prisons, breathtaking 50,000-mile journeys through Siberia, and banishment from most respectable Western countries of the day. In Russia, he went from being Czar Alexander II’s favored teenage page, to a young man enamored with the theory of evolution, to a convicted felon and jail-breaker, eventually being chased halfway around the world by the Russian secret police. Somehow Kropotkin found the energy to write books on a dazzling array of topics: evolution and cooperation, ethics, anarchism, socialism and communism, penal systems, and the coming industrial revolution in the East, to name a few. Though seemingly disparate topics, a common thread–Kropotkin’s scientific law of mutual aid, which guided the evolution of all life on earth–tied these works together. Just like in the animals he watched for five years in Siberia, Kropotkin saw human cooperation as ultimately being driven not by government, but by groups of individuals spontaneously uniting to do good, even when they have to pay a cost to help."

  The Prince of Evolution: A Talk by Lee Dugatkin

El Lunes, 13 de febrero a la(s) 17:30

· · Compartir · Hace 6 horas ·

A 4 personas les gusta esto.

• • 
    

    José Angel García Landa Mutual aid is a powerful force among humans... usually to be exerted against other humans.
  • _____
  • 
    
  • 
    

    
    

    Aristocrats know a lot about mutual aid. Anarchists too.
    
  • 
    
  • The notion that competition between human groups was a powerful engine of human evolution was put forward by Darwin, Spencer, R. D. Alexander...
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    Yet mutual aid is also a Darwinian principle. Darwin argued that a tribe consisting of many members, who possessing a high degree of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, are ever ready to help each other, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would triumph over most other tribes, and this would be an aspect of natural selection. (And an instance of group selection, of course).
    

    
    

    
    

    
    

    Michael Gazzaniga notes that a competitive hypothesis on the origin of the social brain and of the growth of the human brain was put forward by R. D. Alexander, professor of Zoology at the University of Michigan. He emphasized intergroup (not intragroup) selection, and suggested that eventually it was other groups of hominids that became the main predator for hominid species. This resulted in an arms race for weapons and strategies, and a consequent reinforcement of the dynamics of mutual threat  and mutual solidarity between/within groups. (R. D. Alexander,  How Did Humans Evolve? Reflections on the Uniquely Unique Species. (Museum of Zoology, U of Michigan Special Publication, 1). Ann Arbor: U of Michigan, 1990; see Gazzaniga, Human, 2008). And Javier Falgueras, in Hijos de la guerra, has put forward a theory of war as a key dynamics in social evolution.
    
  • 
    
  • But again it was of course Darwin who emphasized that the struggle for existence is usually more fierce for close competitors within the same ecosystem, and within the same species. We only need to find a compromise between these two seemingly opposite principles, the advantages and disadvantages of social alliances. (Both alliances between individuals and between groups. See my observations on alliances in "El origen de las sociedades").
    

    
    

     

    

    
    

    
    

    A sort of pre-evolutionary forerunner of these reflections is none other than Thomas Hobbes, and his homo homini lupus hypothesis expounded in Leviathan. There is a natural continuity, really, between theories of human sociality and social development and theories of evolution, one perhaps more evident to Darwin than it is to 21st-c. theorists, ridden by political correction and political prudence, and a backing away from the nastier implications of the Darwinian "struggle for life"—for instance, by ascribing it to Spencer and so-called "Social Darwinists", a favourite Aunt Sally for the ugly side of human evolution.
  • 
    
    
    
  • 
    
  • This audio is very much related to the subject: a lecture by Jared Diamond on "The Evolution of Religion"—focusing on its prominent role as a promoter of group cohesion (and of group confrontation).
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    

    Somos hijos de la guerra

     

    —oOo—
    

Origen de las sociedades

Más sobre el origen de las sociedades. De primates, que sociedades hay muchas, pero las de primates incluyen a las sociedades humanas. A cuenta de un artículo aparecido en Nature—

Shultz, Susanne, Christopher Opie and Quentin D. Atkinson. "Stepwise Evolution of Stable Sociality in Primates." Nature 479 (10 Nov. 2011): 219-22.* doi: 10.1038/nature10601
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7372/full/nature10601.html
    2011

Nicholas Wade, en el New York Times, "Genes Play Major Role in Primate Social Behavior, Study Finds." informa más sobre esto:

The Oxford survey confirms that the structure of human society, too, is likely to have a genetic basis, since humans are in the primate family, said Bernard Chapais, an expert on human social evolution at the University of Montreal. "Evolutionary change in any particular lineage is highly constrained by the lineage's phylogenetic history," Dr. Chapais said, referring to the evolutionary family tree. "This reasoning applies to all species, including ours. But in humans, cultural variation hides both the social unity of humankind and its biological foundation."

Human multifamily groups may have arisen from the gorilla-type harem structure, with many harems merging together, or from stable breeding bonds replacing sexual promiscuity in a chimpanzee-type society, Dr. Chapais said.

In his book Primeval Kinship (Harvard, 2008), he describes a further stage in human social evolution that occurred when individual bands allied with those with whom they exchanged daughters. The bands in such a marital exchange system formed a tribe, taking human society to a level of organization beyond that of chimpanzee society.

With chimps, territorially based bands also exchange daughters to avoid incest but continue to fight with one another to the death because the males cannot recognize their kinship with relatives in neighboring bands.

El intercambio de hijas como base de la sociedad habría que relacionarlo, claro, con la prohibición del incesto, que como señalaba Lévi-Strauss existe de una forma u otra en todas las sociedades humanas—y por tanto puede considerarse un universal, una piedra angular o estructura fundacional. 

El segundo paso es (parece ser) el reconocimiento de aliados más allá del propio grupo, para evitar la guerra universal—en especial en la época en la que el hombre es un chimpancé para el hombre. Es el momento en que nacen la diplomacia y el potlatch—el intercambio de regalos, que tanta importancia tiene en las sociedades primitivas. Y hasta en la sociedad homérica, ahora que estoy releyendo La Odisea.

Por cierto que algunas conclusiones geneticistas que apunta Wade en su artículo me parecen exageradas, o precipitadas, o sobredimensionadas. Las sociedades, en especial la humana, crean condiciones emergentes que si bien pueden haberse debido en su origen a los genes, se encuentran ya a otro nivel de análisis, y originan una dinámica ecológica que se retroalimenta con la propia existencia de la sociedad (un nicho ecológico, dicho de otro modo), de tal modo que cualquier tendencia genética ya se ve canalizada y conducida por las circunstancias y relaciones socialmente construidas.

The Descent of Man

 

—oOo—