Any argument or set of beliefs operates with a number of assumptions at its base. This is unavoidable. You know an argument is consistent when the conclusions follow logically and reasonably if the assumptions are granted to be true. You know an argument is correct when the assumptions themselves are demonstrated to be true. To analyze a contrary position you must, in addition to examining the conclusions for logical fallacy, also decipher what its assumptions are in order to be able to properly evaluate them for feasibility.
At first glance the beliefs of myself, being a conservative capitalist, and Moe (and by extension, the Wingnuts), appear to be completely at odds with one another. Strong military/police vs. no military, free market vs. no market, etc, etc. Upon closer examination, however, they are…well…completely at odds with one another. But the reason for this isn’t some schism in personality or intelligence level. Instead, it stems from a fundamental difference in the view of humanity.
The Wingnuts appear to believe that through hard work human nature, since it is at least in part “a product of its environment” can be positively changed to allow for a more perfect society. Humans are, if not inherently good, at least inherently malleable. The best possible system will therefore attempt to alter society and humanity for the good of all.
The individual human is capable of great acts of sacrifice, generosity and nobility. It is, however, the unfortunate truth that humanity on the aggregate is self serving, narcissistic, and greedy. These characteristics are not superficial features that can be altered. They are instead basic components of our being that are as constant as the value of pi. Humans are fundamentally flawed. The best possible system will therefore attempt to channel this negative energy into positive directions, working with, rather than against, flawed human nature.
First look at the human being at his most genuine, his most pure, his most unadulterated: The Toddler. This human has had the time to become both self- and other-aware. He realizes that there are beings outside of himself. He has not, however, had time for society and his parents to dramatically change anything about his person. If you examine a toddler in America vs. a toddler in Ethiopia, you will find that aside from superficial differences they are much the same.
What is the nature of this being? Ask any honest parent, or become one yourself, and you’ll quickly find the toddler values itself above all other things. When it is hungry, it will cry and scream until fed. When it wants something, it will take it. If something is in its way, it is more apt to eliminate this obstacle through violence or manipulation, rather than simply to do without whatever the object of its attention is. If you doubt this, observe very young children at play for any length of time. You won’t have to watch long before one child will strike or push another, yell when it is denied, or in some way exemplify the flaws of man as a whole.
That is not to say that there are not exceptions to this rule. For example my own eldest daughter, when she learned that a family from church had lost everything in a fire, when prompted to choose out a toy to give to the other children who had none, retrieved her most prized possession (a particularly favorite Barbie, if memory serves) to give to the other family. Such an act of selfless sacrifice in one so young brought a tear to my eye. Of course, the day after this very same toddler struck her sister on the head when her sibling interfered with her playing with a toy she desired.
Even the methods used to discipline and teach acknowledge the self-centeredness of the pupil. You do not reason with a toddler, or try to explain why it is “nice” or “right” to share or speak kindly, at least not exclusively at first (There are parents who use this method. They are very easy to locate. Just look for the screaming, unruly children in your local grocery store). They are instead taught with “cause-and-effect”. This comes in two flavors, the negative [You do X, which is not acceptable. Therefore Y, perhaps physical pain (i.e. spanking) or social rejection (i.e. time out) happens] and the positive [You do X, which is acceptable, therefore you get Y, something you desire such as a toy or praise or recognition].
This shows that while young children are capable of acts of kindness, they are not necessarily prone to them as a rule until taught to be otherwise.
What if, however, even the toddler has been somehow affected by his environment in such a way as to invalidate him as a prism for humanity? What if the evils of our current society can infect from nearly out of the womb? If this were the case, and the greed and selfishness that manifests in humans is in fact a product of their environment, if the causality relationship truly flows society --> human nature, rather than the reverse, we would expect that different societies would produce fundamentally different humans.
To examine this I first turn to a piece given on the mental health of modern day American Indian tribes by Dr. Robert K. Thomas. He describes the tribal Indian culture as one where the identity of the person relies, not on predefined “roles”, but on relationships to those around you.
“The local unit, or community, of North American Indian groups varied in population size from about 100-300. Such a population means that one lived in intimate association throughout one's entire life with a very small number of people who had a specified, predictable, structured relationship to you…In modern American society, husband and wives are now making contracts. Commonly, one hears talk about the role of the wife or the father. I remember when I first became aware of this feature of American culture, about 1948. I would read articles in magazines about how to be a wife. And my response was, “Whose"?”
Dr. Thomas continues to describe the differences between modern America and tribal Indians. As you might expect, they are stark. However, it doesn’t take long for him to begin discussing the “major social control mechanisms” of these tribal Indians. Namely, they withdraw, or “deny access of self”, to those who are determined to be out of line. Other controls are the sanctity of tradition, the guidance of elders, and the perceived causal relationship of human actions and their external surroundings.
When this societal control breaks down (or, in other words, when humans are not being guided by an outside mechanism), you get this:
”A person who sees his nature as fixed and is without tradition behaves erratically. If you don't have kinfolk to frown at you and if you don't have a body of tradition to follow, you act erratically. One of the reasons why there are corrupt governments in Africa and on Indian reservations where everybody puts their hand in the till up to their elbow, is that officials have no kin folks around to scowl at them when they are dishonest. That kind of personality needs the structure of those kin relations, both to be definitive and as a social control and as a support and as a guide.”As you can see, once stripped of the veneer of society, the American Indian becomes selfish, corrupt, and self-serving. This is further demonstrated by the anecdote delivered later in the paper of modern Cherokees. The value followed there was to share everything among all members of the community. What was happening in practice, however (since the societal controls on human nature had broken down), was lazier Cherokee would simply feed off those who were more hard working.
If we wish we can examine humanity on a more aggregate, long term scale. Examine the course of human history as we know it. Pick any continent, region, race, color, creed, or time you like. You will find exactly the same thing, variations on a theme. What differences were there in motivation between the Venetian merchant who squeezes every dime he can out of his competition and the Japanese lord who conquers the neighboring province for greater revenue? Is there a fundamental difference between wars for resources when fought over water, or oil, or more fertile land? How about between the genocide of the Nazis in Germany and the genocides in deep Africa? What is the common thread that causes history to repeat itself? That thread is the immutability of human nature. No matter how often you change the environment of the human, the time period, the society, or the technology available to him, the basic motivations of the human do not change.
Though I have argued that human nature is unchanging, let us accept for a moment that it could be changed. Let us say that if society were to be altered that humanity would fundamentally alter along with it. Since this is the Wingnut position (and, I suspect, the position of most other Anarchists to one extent or another), let’s accept it as fact for the sake of discussion. Do their actions make sense given their assumptions?
Some of them do. For example, distributing food, attempting to promote a more socialistic community (that is to say, one that shares resources rather than competes for them), and encouraging community enacted security, all make sense in the framework of attempting to change humanity for the better.
But what about the more, shall we say, stereotypical Anarchist actions? Things like harassing policemen on duty, or protesting the government’s right to detain criminals in a jail system, or (to quote their website), “oppos[ing] the state and its agents, including politicians, the police, the military industrial complex, corporations and greedy developers”?
Even if we allow that humanity can be changed, the fact remains that at this moment it hasn’t been changed. To a certain extent it makes sense to degrade the confines of current society in order to shift it, but imagine if suddenly the Anarchists were successful in their attempts to destroy these societal controls! Humanity, in its current, unaltered state would explode into chaos! To take actions that are aimed at destroying the chains of the evil State and Capitalism in the immediacy is much like going to a patient in rehab and cutting off his casts and taking away his crutches and expecting him to immediately run. Certainly he must in the end do without such devices, because if they were to perpetuate forever they would hinder his recover, but to remove them prematurely would be disastrous.
In conclusion, the basic assumption of the Wingnuts that human nature can be molded flies in the face of every iota of human history and experience. Humans have demonstrated, time and again, that they will not change until something comes along to change them. While they have the potential to do great and noble things when taught, influenced, or incentivized to do so, they require this external structure. Given this, the resulting arguments are invalid.
Even if we accept the assumptions to be true, the actions resulting from them are not all internally consistent. They rush the issue, dramatic in their desire to do something, rather than being patient and considering, methodical and precise, as any effort to enact fundamental change must be.
The Wingnuts appear to be a group of generally well meaning people who genuinely wish better for humanity. They are a resource to their community in many ways, and ought to be lauded for their efforts in community service and social support.
They are also naïve, lacking a fundamental understanding of the evils that exist in this world. Perhaps it is the result of living in a nation that has been more or less safe and peaceful for over two centuries. I think it likely that they would change their minds if they were emerged in areas of true anarchy, like the warlord torn regions of Africa. They strive for a goal that feels and sounds good but is more than unattainable: It is downright dangerous.
I leave you with this, from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, an examination of human nature in the context of perfectly rational people.
No comments:
Post a Comment