- 02 Mar 2023 11:42
#15266729
On 20 February, I published on PoFo (cf. political circus) an article named “Nation”, about the roots of nationalism, xenophobia and racism. I would like to complete this reflection by trying to answer this question: why did certain peoples reach a high level of civilisation at a time when others still had a way of life close to the one led by the ancestors of the first, centuries or millennia earlier.
These two categories of peoples met when Europeans began to spread around the world. Their technical knowledge brought them a military advantage that allowed them to colonise the territories of the “underdeveloped” nations and, often, to subject them to a kind of slavery.
From the throne of humanity, many Europeans let themselves be won over by a feeling of superiority which sometimes turned into racism. This racism served as an ideological cover for imperialist domination: there were fewer scruples in dominating and exploiting “inferiors” than “equals”.
Before answering the question of the first paragraph, a preliminary remark deserves the detour: a more developed civilisation does not necessarily mean a better civilisation. To classify civilisations in quality, multiple criteria are possible and none is absolute. Among them, this one seems very important to me: the level of happiness that is provided to the population. It is however not measurable, but nothing indicates that the most developed civilisations are the happiest.
Let us come to the explanation of the differentiated levels of development. A first explanation is “we developed faster because we are cleverer”. Many Europeans wanted to believe it. However, no scientific evidence has ever come to support this hypothesis. So, is there a more subtle alternative explanation?
My explanation is this: every society, whether primitive or civilised, exerts some pressure on its members. Its role is to ensure social cohesion. This pressure manifests itself in a series of prohibitions and obligations to which individuals are subject: rites, taboos, customs, beliefs, respect for the word of the elders and, of course, laws. These social mechanisms are more pressing in a primitive society than in a civilised one, because the less understood and the more threatening the environment is felt, the more the individual feels precarious, vulnerable and the more he relies on his group to protect him; the reciprocal expectations of the members are therefore more demanding. What makes modern legislation so complex is precisely that social needs are to be married with individual freedom.
One effect of social pressure is the reproduction of modes of thought and modes of production from generation to generation. “We learned from our ancestors how to hunt, how to dwell, how to dress…; you, our children, you will continue to apply what their genius has transmitted to us”. If social pressure decreases, individuals can initiate new practices that will ultimately prove beneficial for the group, if not in absolute terms, at least in terms of its ability to find accommodation and food... Too much obedience, too much respect for traditions padlock change and therefore evolution.
So, let’s consider two primitive tribes A and B identical in all respects, except that in A, the social pressure is a little less heavy than in B. They will evolve differently. It will probably need centuries or millennia for the difference in development to be considerable; on the scale of human history, it is short.
My explanation for differentiated attainment of civilisation is that social pressure varied from one primitive society to another. Too much pressure has prevented some societies from civilising at the same rate as others. Individuals who were not less intelligent but more submissive could not evolve autonomously. On the other hand, when civilisation came to them from outside, the aborigines of Australia, to take an example, in a few generations took a great leap forward. Today, some attend Australian universities whereas their great-grandparents lived in the Stone Age. Individual abilities are not in question.
And why was social pressure higher in B than in A? Certainly not because the members of A had foreseen that it would allow their descendants to become civilised a few centuries later. It is quite simply chance, chance as a contingent entanglement of a multitude of factors.
NB: The term “civilisation” is used in its usual meaning by historians. Civilisation came with writing. This invention made possible a radical transformation of society. Political power took the form of State, with professional army and administration. A consequence is the advent of cities and of social classes. With groups freed of agricultural labour, science, technology progressed.
These two categories of peoples met when Europeans began to spread around the world. Their technical knowledge brought them a military advantage that allowed them to colonise the territories of the “underdeveloped” nations and, often, to subject them to a kind of slavery.
From the throne of humanity, many Europeans let themselves be won over by a feeling of superiority which sometimes turned into racism. This racism served as an ideological cover for imperialist domination: there were fewer scruples in dominating and exploiting “inferiors” than “equals”.
Before answering the question of the first paragraph, a preliminary remark deserves the detour: a more developed civilisation does not necessarily mean a better civilisation. To classify civilisations in quality, multiple criteria are possible and none is absolute. Among them, this one seems very important to me: the level of happiness that is provided to the population. It is however not measurable, but nothing indicates that the most developed civilisations are the happiest.
Let us come to the explanation of the differentiated levels of development. A first explanation is “we developed faster because we are cleverer”. Many Europeans wanted to believe it. However, no scientific evidence has ever come to support this hypothesis. So, is there a more subtle alternative explanation?
My explanation is this: every society, whether primitive or civilised, exerts some pressure on its members. Its role is to ensure social cohesion. This pressure manifests itself in a series of prohibitions and obligations to which individuals are subject: rites, taboos, customs, beliefs, respect for the word of the elders and, of course, laws. These social mechanisms are more pressing in a primitive society than in a civilised one, because the less understood and the more threatening the environment is felt, the more the individual feels precarious, vulnerable and the more he relies on his group to protect him; the reciprocal expectations of the members are therefore more demanding. What makes modern legislation so complex is precisely that social needs are to be married with individual freedom.
One effect of social pressure is the reproduction of modes of thought and modes of production from generation to generation. “We learned from our ancestors how to hunt, how to dwell, how to dress…; you, our children, you will continue to apply what their genius has transmitted to us”. If social pressure decreases, individuals can initiate new practices that will ultimately prove beneficial for the group, if not in absolute terms, at least in terms of its ability to find accommodation and food... Too much obedience, too much respect for traditions padlock change and therefore evolution.
So, let’s consider two primitive tribes A and B identical in all respects, except that in A, the social pressure is a little less heavy than in B. They will evolve differently. It will probably need centuries or millennia for the difference in development to be considerable; on the scale of human history, it is short.
My explanation for differentiated attainment of civilisation is that social pressure varied from one primitive society to another. Too much pressure has prevented some societies from civilising at the same rate as others. Individuals who were not less intelligent but more submissive could not evolve autonomously. On the other hand, when civilisation came to them from outside, the aborigines of Australia, to take an example, in a few generations took a great leap forward. Today, some attend Australian universities whereas their great-grandparents lived in the Stone Age. Individual abilities are not in question.
And why was social pressure higher in B than in A? Certainly not because the members of A had foreseen that it would allow their descendants to become civilised a few centuries later. It is quite simply chance, chance as a contingent entanglement of a multitude of factors.
NB: The term “civilisation” is used in its usual meaning by historians. Civilisation came with writing. This invention made possible a radical transformation of society. Political power took the form of State, with professional army and administration. A consequence is the advent of cities and of social classes. With groups freed of agricultural labour, science, technology progressed.
Paul Jael