The Big Picture

In spite of the abysmal historical record regarding the ability of any particular ism to deliver a generally viable society there are those who still remain transfixed by one or another of them. Various factors are involved in the attraction that one may feel toward a particular ism, but one thing for sure, it is not a rational choice. One cannot choose one ism over another in an objective manner. There is just no way to objectively decide which is the better between capitalism and socialism nor liberalism and conservatism. That is because; (1) when left to themselves they will all fail and (2) they all have a legitimate part to play in a social organism. So, any notions about the ascendancy of one ism alone fly in the face of the real world.

It‘s impossible to objectively choose between capitalism v socialism, self-interest v collective-interest, individuality v commonality, conservatism v liberalism, competition v cooperation, because in reality these are not opposing contentious issues. There can certainly be tension between them. And that tension is made contentious by ideologues who, extremely attracted to one set and totally repelled by the other, hype their ism as the one and only and eschew all others as hostile pretenders to some idealized throne.

We also have a mind-set that defines the world in terms of opposites. Take our notions of competition and cooperation, for example. We have separate definitions for them and tend to see them as opposites while in reality they form a dynamic and cannot exist in total isolation from one another. There cannot be a society or an organization of any kind based solely on competition or cooperation. What we call competitive sports, for instance, are more about cooperation; it’s teamwork that wins the day. As far as the possibility of total cooperation is concerned, I was once part of a group that was all about cooperation. It was the order of the day every minute of the day. Competition, it was believed, had been eradicated from the premises. What I observed, however, was that people were in fact surreptitiously competing to win the unspoken title of “most cooperative”.

The mistaken Hobbesian view of primitive man as completely solitary and absolutely competitive is still, perhaps influential here. But try to imagine each and every individual engaged in total, absolute, ruthless competition with every other as a natural precept and I think you will find it to be a futile exercise. For one thing, such a condition would make the transition to aggregate states impossible.

When we see that each and every individual operates from a standpoint of self-interest it’s understandable to conclude, like Hobbes, that, without the authority of a state apparatus to oversee and control people’s inherent “selfishness”, primitive people living in the wild state of nature would be engaged in a brutal continuous free-for-all. It was, however, the advent of civilization that required the control and manipulation of individual self-interest, which was, up until then, managed quite nicely by the strictures imposed on people by the state of nature. The self-interest that serves to set us apart in the civilized world is the very thing that accounted for the formation of collectives in the primitive world and held groups together.

As far as the attraction/repulsion dynamic is concerned self-interest attracts us toward that which enhances our survival and repels us away from that which threatens it. Living in the wild our self-interest is first and foremost concerned with survival. The way one survived in a primitive setting was to belong to a group made up of other individuals with the same self-interest. In the natural world self-interest to survive creates collective interest. So, we have an innate attraction to belong to a group in order to enhance our survival prospects and we are repulsed at the prospect of being severed from it.

The natural world was the omnipotent presence to which all were subject to. It was nature that informed and instructed human behavior inside and out through genetic programming in relation to the overwhelming omnipresence of the state of nature. Each member of a group felt compelled to belong to the group in order to survive. And not only to belong - it was in each and every individual’s self-interest to contribute to the group’s cohesiveness. For a cohesive and harmonious group increased the chance for the group’s ongoing survival, which in turn increased the survivability of each and every member of the group. Every member of the group was in the survival game together with every other member. Every member played a vital role in the group’s survival. The natural world was the overarching authority they were subject to. It’s what demanded their cohesion. Demanded that they pool their resources and regard each other with respect. Their own subjective survival was objectified in their need of the group through which their own individual subjective needs could be realized. Each individual’s survival and the group’s survival were seamlessly joined. This is not to depict a world of perfect harmony but one where, out of necessity, group cohesion won the day.

Putting the survival of the group over and above oneself as we see was not an act of altruism. One’s interest in the group per se grew out of one’s self-interest. This natural conditioning to group servitude in individuals can be extended into sacrificing oneself for the benefit of the group. But again there is self-interest involved even with sacrificing one’s life in defense of one’s group. For one knows that as long as one’s group is in tact one can pursue one’s personal goals and live the life that one is accustomed to. If, however, an enemy were allowed to overtake one’s group then one’s quality of life would be drastically circumscribed as one would become totally subjected to an alien power and live or die at its whim. So, when one’s group is threatened one feels one’s own back is to the wall and risking one’s life in battle is a matter of personal survival. This is at the root of our civilized feelings of patriotism, which, of course, depend on how closely one identifies with one’s group, one’s society. Such patriotism might be expressed thusly, “If I am not willing to go to my death for my group then the existence of my group is severely jeopardized as is my very own self-interest.”

Today we all need to be concerned about the survival of the planet. Our common identity as earthlings needs to come to the fore and supersede all ideological, cultural, national and ethnic identities. But that is asking a lot. Our cultured civilized identities are so much more attractive to us than the reality of our earthly existence and our real identity as creatures of the earth. The fanciful images of ourselves that lift us above our earthly realm are what we are transfixed by and believe in.

Science looks at Homo sapiens purely as creatures of the earth and because of that some people find scientific knowledge abhorrent. We want things to be other than how science reveals them to be. We want human beings to be purely cultural or spiritual entities, demigods for whom the natural world is a subservient support system. We want to think of ourselves as free of nature’s confinement and able to live our lives without the intrusion of environmental concerns. We become peevish at the thought of such concerns inhibiting our lavish habits of consumption. Such habits, of course, are attributable to a common natural instinct to exploit the environment for one’s own benefit. But we cloak that natural instinct in divine raiment. We claim that human beings operate on a higher level, our extravagant life styles (provided by earthly science and technology) are a testament to our divine origins. We find it necessary to distinguish ourselves from the natural world in whatever way we can -even if it means destroying that world in the process.

Whether we know it or not there is nothing more important to anyone than having a natural environment that is friendly to life. All other issues and causes become absolutely irrelevant on a planet whose life support system is being threatened. This is an issue that requires us, one and all to put our differences aside and focus our collective attention on allowing the planet to become and remain as ecologically sound as possible. Or we can continue to be embroiled in our ethnic conflicts, ideological wars, corporate exploitation and governmental ineptitude until one day we look up and notice that there is nothing more to fight over or exploit because our life support system has become damaged beyond repair. That may seem farfetched to some, perhaps to most people, but as a possibility it cannot be ruled out categorically. And that dire possibility should be enough to seriously amend our thinking.

In some ways our thinking has been amended. How could it not have been in the face of all the changes that we have been subjected to in the last five decades? The question is – has our thinking changed for the better? Perhaps, our thinking has changed into more of a non-thinking. As in the “dumbing down” that has been much talked about in recent years. Perhaps there’s just too much to think about, too much to wrap our minds around. Perhaps we can’t quite figure out how to connect things up sensing that traditional mind-sets don’t fit with how the real world actually operates.

Traditional thinking with its accent on splitting the world in two holds sway, defining the holistic dynamics like self-interest/collective-interest as opposing factions. Wherever we look there is heated controversy with opposing sides stubbornly determined not to budge from their prefabricated positions no matter what. The world in general is riddled with the warfare of opposing factions championing one belief system or another. In the US we see all the talking heads on TV, mainly occupied with fighting culture wars, side with one faction or another, subscribe to whatever half-baked argument favors them while systematically ignoring the big picture that we are all part of.

Francis Fukuyama, in his thoughtful and informative book, THE GREAT DISRUPTION, points out that the vast majority of people are not engaged in culture wars. These conflicts, he maintains, are a matter for activist ideologues only. Everyone else goes about their daily routines unaffected. Well, people can ignore the culture wars but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily unaffected them. As political and cultural infighting becomes more insular and isolated the threat to democratic institutions becomes more prevalent. And if the majority of people have a more objective view of things, i.e., are not shackled by a fixed idea, then their input would seem to me to be a much needed ingredient in the debate.

So, as we see, cultural as well as natural environments are polluted. We need to take measures to clean up both. There is growing recognition of natural environmental problems and a considerable effort to improve them is ongoing. With respect to cultural environments, however, there is hardly any recognition about the need for drastic, radical and genuine revolutionary change. One must soar above all the ideological smog in order to see the big picture and fashion a cogent worldview that integrates all our differences into a salubrious whole.