Chris: “[Sevalan] Described by one doomed character as ““a credit to your background - spoilt, idle, vicious” … Servalan is a megalomaniacal schemer who does nothing that is not in her own interest. Indeed, Jacqueline Pearce once suggested that she played the character “as if she were the only real person in the universe,” … it is suggested that Servalan was set on her path when the man she was involved with in her youth went missing and, as she puts it, “power became my lover.”
This essay brings to mind the enduring fact of the inevitable tension between an individual’s need/compulsion for self-fulfillment and society’s bedrock requirement for group cohesion/welfare. There is no long-term solution to this situation, only continuous back-and-forth. America has managed to ride this tension to historical success for more than 200 years, but the inevitable march of nature toward ever greater complexity now threatens rupture, and possibly eventual darkness. Will the tug-rope hold? We’re about to find out.
Also mentioned here is the inevitable gordian knot at the source of this society/individual tension: nature or nurture? Understanding this knot is important because at least at present we can only influence nurture. But all such influences are intertwined with group<->self tension. As with all life-forms, successful long-term navigation depends on the successful application of wits.
Interesting commentary! Regarding 'nature versus nurture', for some time now the unchallenged answer has been an unequivocal 'both' - which makes attempts at social engineering often feel like wilfully pretending that the 'tabula rasa' theory still holds water!
But your remark here makes it sound as if influencing nature were *desirable* ("because at least at present we can only influence nurture.") I find that a little chilling to be honest. I can scarcely imagine anything more dangerous that giving the same humans who have done such dreadful things under the 'influence nurture' ideology the power to hack 'nature'. This is surely the pathway to utter disaster of one kind or another.
Not unrelatedly, a top alleged 'bioethics' journal recently published articles claiming that if we could 'hack nature', we would not only be obligated to do so, but we would be obligated to do so *in secret*. Music to the ears of a fair number of today's 'Nobles' I'm sure... but a long way from any viable form of ethics.
I do not think tension between 'society' and 'individual' is the wisest interpretation of our problem to be honest. The balance between these two seems to be fine everywhere that 'society' retains a means of expression (which is every social context imaginable, from churches and synagogues to gyms and pubs). The tension we are experiencing arguably lies instead between different visions of 'society' being imposed at the political level. But as I suggested earlier this year, following Hannah Arendt: Politics is not Society.
As long as anyone thinks the purpose of politics is the imposition of one set vision of 'society', there will be growing rifts and tensions in the electorates of democracies. We have lost too many of the principles that allow for a patchwork quilt of different societies to co-operate, and are further than ever from there being a single 'society' (which may not even be a desirable state of affairs now).
Indeed, an honest historian must confess that we never were a single 'society' - even the Celtic and Native American tribes etc. had to deal with their neighbours, who necessarily 'did things differently'. Today, too many people cannot tolerate 'doing things differently', and this problem spans the party divide in every country where I've been following the contemporary political circumstances.
I suppose one of the purposes of Stranger Worlds is to remind us of those principles that can hold together diverse ways of living such that we might all continue to live together peacefully.
As always, thanks for continuing our dialogue. In my fantasies you play the role of an Oxford tutor: critically commenting on my thoughts and forever introducing new questions for consideration. Also, your posts and comments give me a view into the workings of another mind. This helps me understand the workings of my own mind.
Stranger Worlds now has more than a hundred subscribers. Since a vanishingly few ever post comments, perhaps they subscribe mainly to receive a notification when you post. But except for personal comments which now happens occasionally, most appear not to be aware of our dialogues, which, as nearly as I can tell are a social media rarity.
Chris: “your remark here makes it sound as if influencing nature were *desirable* ... I can scarcely imagine anything more dangerous”
Oh, I agree. The idea of hacking human nature at the biological level is indeed chilling. We quite obviously do not have the knowledge to do this with any degree of predictability, and quite possibly never will. Any attempt to do so would probably result in unmitigated disaster.
In my initial reply I suggested that there is an innate tension between an individual’s need for self-fulfillment and a society’s need for group cohesion. You countered that “[the] tension we are experiencing arguably lies instead between different visions of 'society' being imposed at the political level.” I agree. At the event level American society is unraveling because overall it takes “the purpose of politics to be the imposition of one set vision over others” (paraphrased).
I imagine that when all human societies were just small bands of foragers daily surviving hand-to-mouth, what we think of as diversity did not exist. However, the intrinsic nature of the human mind is such that when a group gets beyond the “where’s our next meal coming from” stage it has to deal with diverse opinions. Basically, when the terms suitably defined, there are only two way of dealing with this situation: autocracy or democracy, although some societies developed ways of temporarily switching between the two to address immediate threats. Apparently, other intrinsic attributes of human minds, in combination with material and cultural environments, dictated that in the past autocracies became the nearly universal form of social organization. Since by definition in an autocracy all substantial decisions are made by the autocrat, politics plays a minor role.
Except for a few places and times, autocracy ruled the world until advancing cultural, environmental, and economic changes created conditions in which democracies could be widely established and held together over several centuries. In a democracy politics, the rule of establish law, and majority rule are logically a necessary part of the culture. In a democracy diversity of opinions must be reckoned with, and politics holds sway.
It is very difficult for a society to replace an autocracy with a democracy. I would argue that now technology has made this neigh-on impossible. On the other hand, a democracy is always fair game for a demagogue and his followers. It is here where the dynamic between the compulsion for self-fulfillment (domination and material enrichment) and society’s need for cohesion comes into play. In any society there is always a group of disgruntles that see salvation and enrichment in an autocrat.
Thanks for these continued remarks, Frank. Regarding your autocracy-democracy binary, recent anthropology suggests it may be premature to treat all tribal organisation as autocratic. I would venture to suggest that the rise of autocracy corresponds specifically to the rise of the city state. I might have a go at expanding your binary into a triangle at some point, but for the purpose of the large scale political systems of today your model holds quite well enough, rather like Newtonian calculations are good enough for orbital dynamics.
However, it is not only the demagogue who provides a risk to democracy - any fervent belief system can swamp democratic ideals, and has done at various times and places. I have an invited paper coming out in the International Journal of Play soon that addresses this two pronged risk in the terms set out by the Dutch Historian Johan Huizinga: the extinction of the play element of culture. I hope to be able to share a preprint version later this week.
It is also very good to know you share my concerns about 'hacking' the genome, for there are many people who do not seem to have spent much time considering the risks of taking this path. Likewise, I share your view that to engage with another mind is an opportunity to examine our own thought processes - one that cannot be achieved any other way! It is always welcome.
In this regard, it would be lovely to have more people engaging... but I have struggled to foster dialogue on all blogs and Substacks for the last decade - before this, I was doing fine provoking online discussions, so the step down is jarringly evident! In some respects Stranger Worlds has been my most successful Substack in this regard (so it's not the topics that are the problem). I fear that social media is sucking up the time required from part of the audience, while another subset of people would love to engage as we do but do not feel they have the time to put into it. All the more reason that I value our exchanges!
Chris: “[Sevalan] Described by one doomed character as ““a credit to your background - spoilt, idle, vicious” … Servalan is a megalomaniacal schemer who does nothing that is not in her own interest. Indeed, Jacqueline Pearce once suggested that she played the character “as if she were the only real person in the universe,” … it is suggested that Servalan was set on her path when the man she was involved with in her youth went missing and, as she puts it, “power became my lover.”
This essay brings to mind the enduring fact of the inevitable tension between an individual’s need/compulsion for self-fulfillment and society’s bedrock requirement for group cohesion/welfare. There is no long-term solution to this situation, only continuous back-and-forth. America has managed to ride this tension to historical success for more than 200 years, but the inevitable march of nature toward ever greater complexity now threatens rupture, and possibly eventual darkness. Will the tug-rope hold? We’re about to find out.
Also mentioned here is the inevitable gordian knot at the source of this society/individual tension: nature or nurture? Understanding this knot is important because at least at present we can only influence nurture. But all such influences are intertwined with group<->self tension. As with all life-forms, successful long-term navigation depends on the successful application of wits.
Dear Frank,
Interesting commentary! Regarding 'nature versus nurture', for some time now the unchallenged answer has been an unequivocal 'both' - which makes attempts at social engineering often feel like wilfully pretending that the 'tabula rasa' theory still holds water!
But your remark here makes it sound as if influencing nature were *desirable* ("because at least at present we can only influence nurture.") I find that a little chilling to be honest. I can scarcely imagine anything more dangerous that giving the same humans who have done such dreadful things under the 'influence nurture' ideology the power to hack 'nature'. This is surely the pathway to utter disaster of one kind or another.
Not unrelatedly, a top alleged 'bioethics' journal recently published articles claiming that if we could 'hack nature', we would not only be obligated to do so, but we would be obligated to do so *in secret*. Music to the ears of a fair number of today's 'Nobles' I'm sure... but a long way from any viable form of ethics.
I do not think tension between 'society' and 'individual' is the wisest interpretation of our problem to be honest. The balance between these two seems to be fine everywhere that 'society' retains a means of expression (which is every social context imaginable, from churches and synagogues to gyms and pubs). The tension we are experiencing arguably lies instead between different visions of 'society' being imposed at the political level. But as I suggested earlier this year, following Hannah Arendt: Politics is not Society.
As long as anyone thinks the purpose of politics is the imposition of one set vision of 'society', there will be growing rifts and tensions in the electorates of democracies. We have lost too many of the principles that allow for a patchwork quilt of different societies to co-operate, and are further than ever from there being a single 'society' (which may not even be a desirable state of affairs now).
Indeed, an honest historian must confess that we never were a single 'society' - even the Celtic and Native American tribes etc. had to deal with their neighbours, who necessarily 'did things differently'. Today, too many people cannot tolerate 'doing things differently', and this problem spans the party divide in every country where I've been following the contemporary political circumstances.
I suppose one of the purposes of Stranger Worlds is to remind us of those principles that can hold together diverse ways of living such that we might all continue to live together peacefully.
With unlimited love,
Chris
Dear Chris,
As always, thanks for continuing our dialogue. In my fantasies you play the role of an Oxford tutor: critically commenting on my thoughts and forever introducing new questions for consideration. Also, your posts and comments give me a view into the workings of another mind. This helps me understand the workings of my own mind.
Stranger Worlds now has more than a hundred subscribers. Since a vanishingly few ever post comments, perhaps they subscribe mainly to receive a notification when you post. But except for personal comments which now happens occasionally, most appear not to be aware of our dialogues, which, as nearly as I can tell are a social media rarity.
Chris: “your remark here makes it sound as if influencing nature were *desirable* ... I can scarcely imagine anything more dangerous”
Oh, I agree. The idea of hacking human nature at the biological level is indeed chilling. We quite obviously do not have the knowledge to do this with any degree of predictability, and quite possibly never will. Any attempt to do so would probably result in unmitigated disaster.
In my initial reply I suggested that there is an innate tension between an individual’s need for self-fulfillment and a society’s need for group cohesion. You countered that “[the] tension we are experiencing arguably lies instead between different visions of 'society' being imposed at the political level.” I agree. At the event level American society is unraveling because overall it takes “the purpose of politics to be the imposition of one set vision over others” (paraphrased).
I imagine that when all human societies were just small bands of foragers daily surviving hand-to-mouth, what we think of as diversity did not exist. However, the intrinsic nature of the human mind is such that when a group gets beyond the “where’s our next meal coming from” stage it has to deal with diverse opinions. Basically, when the terms suitably defined, there are only two way of dealing with this situation: autocracy or democracy, although some societies developed ways of temporarily switching between the two to address immediate threats. Apparently, other intrinsic attributes of human minds, in combination with material and cultural environments, dictated that in the past autocracies became the nearly universal form of social organization. Since by definition in an autocracy all substantial decisions are made by the autocrat, politics plays a minor role.
Except for a few places and times, autocracy ruled the world until advancing cultural, environmental, and economic changes created conditions in which democracies could be widely established and held together over several centuries. In a democracy politics, the rule of establish law, and majority rule are logically a necessary part of the culture. In a democracy diversity of opinions must be reckoned with, and politics holds sway.
It is very difficult for a society to replace an autocracy with a democracy. I would argue that now technology has made this neigh-on impossible. On the other hand, a democracy is always fair game for a demagogue and his followers. It is here where the dynamic between the compulsion for self-fulfillment (domination and material enrichment) and society’s need for cohesion comes into play. In any society there is always a group of disgruntles that see salvation and enrichment in an autocrat.
Fond regarads, Frank
Thanks for these continued remarks, Frank. Regarding your autocracy-democracy binary, recent anthropology suggests it may be premature to treat all tribal organisation as autocratic. I would venture to suggest that the rise of autocracy corresponds specifically to the rise of the city state. I might have a go at expanding your binary into a triangle at some point, but for the purpose of the large scale political systems of today your model holds quite well enough, rather like Newtonian calculations are good enough for orbital dynamics.
However, it is not only the demagogue who provides a risk to democracy - any fervent belief system can swamp democratic ideals, and has done at various times and places. I have an invited paper coming out in the International Journal of Play soon that addresses this two pronged risk in the terms set out by the Dutch Historian Johan Huizinga: the extinction of the play element of culture. I hope to be able to share a preprint version later this week.
It is also very good to know you share my concerns about 'hacking' the genome, for there are many people who do not seem to have spent much time considering the risks of taking this path. Likewise, I share your view that to engage with another mind is an opportunity to examine our own thought processes - one that cannot be achieved any other way! It is always welcome.
In this regard, it would be lovely to have more people engaging... but I have struggled to foster dialogue on all blogs and Substacks for the last decade - before this, I was doing fine provoking online discussions, so the step down is jarringly evident! In some respects Stranger Worlds has been my most successful Substack in this regard (so it's not the topics that are the problem). I fear that social media is sucking up the time required from part of the audience, while another subset of people would love to engage as we do but do not feel they have the time to put into it. All the more reason that I value our exchanges!
With unlimited love,
Chris.