knowledge-database (beta)

CAPABILITIES, NOT RIGHTS

Joseph H

From:	Joseph H
Subject:	CAPABILITIES, NOT RIGHTS
Date:	10 Dec 2004 10:50:41 -0800

> ...I think your analysis rests on two mistaken assumptions. Both are
> frequently envountered in contemporary social/political philosophy. I
> call these 1) The Organic Fallacy, and 2) The Fallacy of Value.

Interesting! Looking forward to this...

>
> The Organic Fallacy is the mistaken view that societies are organisms---
> that they are constituted, like plants and animals, of organs and cells,
> and that like persons, they have goals, values, and destinies of their
> own, distinct from and transcending those of the individual persons---the
> cells---of which they are composed.

>
> The longing for an organic society is an atavism. Homo sapiens, if the
> anthropologists are right, has been on Earth for about 200,000 years.
> Until the last 10,000 or so of those years, he lived in small tribal
> villages, consisting of a few dozen to a few hundred members---small
> enough that all of its members knew all of the others, indeed, had known
> each other all of their lives. They midwifed one another's births, tended
> one another's illnesses, shared one another's possessions, and married
> one another's cousins. They knew and trusted one another, and had dense,
> intimate relationships among one another. They needed no formal ethics
> nor any political structure to govern their affairs, simply because each
> was and had always been a part of every other's life.

Hmmmm. I think you've created an undue harmony at one end of
history...just as you also created a soulless leviathon at the other
end. I'm sure these people had their ethics and their politics. They
may not have been classified in our sense - but I'm sure they were
very formal indeed and exceedingly subtle.
>

But with the rise of civilization---the culture of cities---
> that model began to break down. People found themselves living in large
> communities in which most of the people around them were strangers, with
> whom they had no familial or other personal ties, and often very little
> in common. People began to notice the differences among them---
> differences in coloration and bone structure, in habits of dress, in
> temperament and mannerisms, in interests and tastes, and eventually even
> in religion and language. They discovered individuality.
>
> That was a huge transformation, not merely of the social structure, but
> of the human psyche. The traditional tribal control mechanisms, based on
> age and personal stature, gave way to formal systems of governance---
> politics. The tribesman's intuitive sense of right and wrong, which
> derived primarily from his personal ties to and regard for his fellows,
> gave way to formal systems of ethics. Indeed, ethics, like law, is a code
> for regulating behavior among *strangers*---among people who have no
> personal interest in one another's welfare.
>
> That change has had psychic costs. Most of us long to be a part of
> something larger than ourselves. But the organic society that continues
> to beckon from our long primate ancestry is lost to history. It is
> irrecoverable. Modern societies are meta-communities---public venues for
> personal interactions. They provide opportunities for individuals to
> forge relationships with others, but supply no content for those
> relationships. They are like public playing fields---they offer space and
> seating, but each team brings its own gear, its own personnel, and its
> own game with its own rules. The house rules are few and general: "No
> reservations accepted: first-come, first served," "Do not intrude on
> others' games," and "Pick up your litter."

Okay, can't disagree with most of that. Bit stark, maybe. The fact
that our typical society has changed from community to meta-community
doesn't alter our wish to be part of something larger than ourselves
and doesn't alter our wish to value that which we do. We certainly
have to work harder to reach this state. But that doesn't mean that it
is impossible to reach it. During particular situations - warfare, for
example, extreme climatic conditions, nationwide sporting contests etc
- a renewed consensus is often achieved. There is no reason why people
shouldn't look at our society today and seek to find new modes and new
sources of value without in any sense descending to the appalling
scenarios you describe.
>
> Every totalitarian movement that emerged in 20th Century began with some
> version of the organic sociolological assumption. But that premise is
> false, destructive, and obsolete.

The premise has changed. But it is not obsolete - I hope!

Best wishes

Joseph H
>
Post a follow-up to this message