Another book report for the same class (same score too). I ended up pulling together a lot of things I've already written about here. So you might find it interesting to read.
This book explores the topic of human diversity on both the genetic and cultural level. Diversity, especially human diversity, is a very interesting topic to me because I hold diversity to be a primary good. The forces of this universe all generate diversity. It is the variation inherent in diversity that made evolution possible. Diversity creates more diversity. That which promotes diversity is a good because diversity builds integrity and strength into systems. Diversity is stabilizing but not static. That which hinders or eliminates diversity, conversely, is not good. In the realm of human culture, globalization (which could alternately be called Americanization) is creating a monoculture, destroying the rich traditions of indigenous peoples in every corner of the world and replacing them with one set of values, one worldview. It is a worldview in which the natural order of things is flipped and diversity is seen as a hindrance instead of a treasure. This worldview seeks to make all conform to single “right” way of living in this world, and this way is greatly deleterious to both the biological world and to humanity.
expand to read full post
While diversity is the primary good, humans are social animals and must relate to each other and cooperate to survive. Their strength as a species is found in their shared cultural traditions – the wisdom of ancestors. As such, it is commonality within such social groups that allows them to function. The important thing here to realize is that while a group may be homogenous within themselves, that group is distinct from every other group around it, and therein lies the strength of diversity. Each distinct human social group can fill a specific niche in the environment. The problem today is that our social groups have expanded to be so large that when we attempt to become homogenous, we are no longer able to fit into any niche that might promote a healthy relationship with the rest of the biological world. The solution is to promote diversity without and commonality within (and to greatly reduce the size of human social groups). Anthropologists have shown that there is an upper limit on human social network complexity based on the size of the human brain. The number of other people that humans are neurologically capable of treating as other human beings (and so would be members of their tribe) is about 150.[1] Instead of identifying with groups of this size, modern humans attempt to belong to such unwieldy groups as “the United States” or “the Democratic Party” or “the Catholic Church”, but such identification and homogenization within such humungous groups causes a lot of problems socially among humans. The most basic (i.e. smallest) unit of social organization in today’s society is the nuclear family, spawned from the industrial revolution and normalized after World War II in order to increase the efficiency of production among society’s members. This unit of social organization is greatly dysfunctional for the opposite reason that fictitious monolithic superorganizations are dysfunctional – there are too few people involved in sharing the burdens of daily life (not to mention how much the stresses of daily life have increased in spite of (or because of) all of the technological advances that have taken place. For children to be raised in a healthy manner, parents need the ever-present support of extended family. People evolved to thrive in tribes – households governed by extended kin networks, not a solitary mother and father.
Regarding my own experience of the nuclear family, I would consider myself to have been raised in a relatively functional family (as functional as a nuclear family can be). My parents are married and love each other. My dad works full time to provide for us and my mom retired partway through my childhood, becoming a stay-at-home mom, focusing on volunteering at my brother’s and my schools and at our church. My mom especially made sure that my brother and I knew we are loved no matter what we do. Nevertheless, I developed an addiction to praise, and I gained that praise through pleasing other people, especially authority figures. This addiction to praise allowed me to do very well in school and to appear on the surface as a very good kid. I took what was expected of me by all the authority figures in my life and excelled at it. In doing so, I unknowingly built up identifying labels that facilitated my receiving praise. I adopted the religion of my parents wholeheartedly and also their independent, but liberal, politics. This is an example of cultural transmission, but it is also an example of me not maturing appropriately. While assuming a common culture with my family and community is beneficial to prolonging the existence of that community, what if that community should not necessarily be prolonged? In my process of maturing, I have grown to realize that I was not being myself by wearing the specific masks (really well) that people wanted me to wear. My religion has changed, and so has my politics. It has taken some getting used to, but I am still in very good terms with my parents. I need to work with my extended family a bit on that yet. While the tribe is what needs to be built back up to promote healthy human culture, complete with internal commonality, such tribes should be open, allowing people to freely move from one to another based on where they fit best. I do not pretend that tribes prior to civilization were “noble savages.” They certainly had their own faults, but the basic structure of human organization found there is still sound, but the meme of extracultural intolerance could go by the wayside.
Language is the foundation of such an expansive human culture. With a species that uses culture so much to shape the environment to their own likings, language could be said to shape reality itself. It is a very powerful force and should therefore be used with caution. Words used as labels are capable of masking all sorts of hidden complexity. They are efficient in communicating things quickly, but they are not necessarily effective. I have personally been trying to not apply labels so easily to myself so that I give other people less of a chance to pass me off without needing to think because they think they understand my complexity because they hear a label applied to me. There are other things that bother me about dominant languages, especially English. For example, the use of the word “to be” in the identifying sense makes a huge unsubstantiated claim that one thing “is” another thing, often without needing to provide any proof that such a relationship actually exists. The possessive form of nouns should be done away with in my opinion. “Property by right” instead of property by use is theft, and the language including built in markers for such theft only promotes its continued existence. Language is very powerful in allowing humans to shape their environment through culture, but it can be so easily misunderstood, which can lead to dire consequences for the culture and environment both.
Cavalli-Sforza’s book looks into mostly how genes affect human diversity, but it also dips into a broader look at cultural diversity and its evolution, especially through language. It is an important work for the new perspective it provides in the relationship between genes and culture. My closing thought is that humans were genetically and culturally shaped to live in certain conditions over millions of years. Those conditions no longer exist as we have started to build civilizations, only 10,000 years ago. We are not adapted to live in the conditions created by civilization. Why not resume the diverse ways of life we were shaped to thrive in?
No comments:
Post a Comment