Chapter 6. (continued)
The
mechanism of cultural evolution being described here deserves some digression. The
fact is that humans often do behave in ways that seem irrational by purely
Bayesian standards. Even in our time, some adults still spank kids. Some men
still bully women. Some states still execute their worst criminals. Research
that includes careful observation and analysis of these patterns of behaviour
suggests strongly that they don’t work; these behaviours do not achieve the
results that they aim for. In fact, they reduce the chances that we will
achieve those results. These behaviours and the beliefs underlying them are
exactly what is meant by the term counterproductive.
Therefore, we must ask an acute
question: Why do we as rational humans who usually operate under a rational, Bayesian
belief-building system hold on so obstinately, in a few areas of our lives, to
beliefs that cause us to act in utterly irrational ways?
The
reply is that we do so because our culture’s most profound programming
institutions—the family, the schools, and the media—continue to indoctrinate us
with these values so deeply that once we are adults, we refuse to examine them.
Instead, our programming causes us to bristle, then defend our good old ways,
violently if need be. If the ensuing lessons are harsh enough, and if there is
a reasonable amount of available time, sometimes a society learns, expels the
reactionaries, and then adapts. But the process of deep social change is always
difficult and fraught with hazards. Alfred Whitehead, in his 1927 essay Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect,
wrote, “It is the first step in sociological
wisdom, to recognize that the major advances in civilization are processes
which all but wreck the societies in which they occur.”4
Alfred North Whitehead,
mathematician and philosopher.
It
is also worthwhile to say the obvious here, however politically incorrect it
may be. All our obsolete but obstinate beliefs, moral values, morés, and
behaviour patterns did serve useful ends and purposes at one time. For example,
in some but not all early societies, women were programmed to be submissive,
first to their fathers and brothers, then to their husbands. The majority of
men in such societies were far more likely, in purely probabilistic terms, to
help to nurture the children of their socially sanctioned marriages because
they were confident their children with these submissive women were biologically
their own.
Raising
kids is hard work. In early societies, if both parents were committed to the
task, the odds were better that those children would grow up, marry, have kids
of their own, and go on to program into those kids the same values and roles
that the parents themselves had been raised to believe in. Other
non-patriarchal societies taught other roles for men and women and other
designs for the family, but they weren’t as prolific over the long haul.
Patriarchy isn’t fair. But it makes more babies.
Magazine image of the
American family, 1950s.
Traditional
beliefs about male and female roles didn’t work to make people happy. But they
did give some tribes numbers and thus power. They are obsolete today partly
because child nurturing has been taken over to a fair degree by the state
(schools), partly because no society in a post-industrial, knowledge-driven
economy can afford to put half of its human resources, that is the female half,
into homes for the stagnant, bored, and dejected, and partly because there are
too many humans polluting this planet now. Population growth is no longer a
keenly sought goal because it no longer brings a tribe or nation power. But
more on this matter later. It is enough to say here that all of our traditional
values, morés, and roles once did serve useful purposes. Many of them clearly
don’t anymore, even though it is like pulling molars without anaesthetic to get
the reactionaries among us to admit that many of their cherished “good old ways”
are just in the way in today’s world.
No comments:
Post a Comment
What are your thoughts now? Comment and I will reply. I promise.