Civilised by Choice and Decision?
I think it s fair to say that Man regards himself as civilised and presumably societies in general are progressing in the same manner today, becoming more civilised as time goes on. The inference and presumed assumption, as I see it, is that man sees this on going process of civilisation as being made by some virtuous conscious decision. The evidence for this, being that we can look back into history and by contrast with to day, see ourselves as becoming more civilised than we were. However, the assumption that this civilisation (if true) was made by specific decisions, (to become civilised) and that society at large is the orchestrator of this progression is far from being, in my opinion, without debate. "So What" you ask? Well alternately, we are not trying to become civilised, if we are more civilised, it must be a happy accident! What then my three questions:
Is man in control of his own destiny?
Dose he know what he wants?
Dose he know how to get it?
Thing I Want to Consider
As I have said before I first need to have some understanding of what I meant by many of the terms I wanted to use; society, civilised etc. Also, if man, as I contend, is claiming to have been the orchestrator of his own civilisation, to look at what decisions man has made to support this claim, why and how he made them. An other aspect that needs clarifying is an understanding of the relationship between the individual of a society and the collective- society itself, and the factors that motivated each.
What do we mean by the word Civilised?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
The Wikipedia entry above is very good and if I may paraphrase it: it makes a difference between a civilisation and civilised. Colloquially, a civilisation can refer to a society or markedly identifiable group of peoples that mostly live in a hierarchy social structure and are identifiable by the development of amongst other things: art and architecture, social structure, and technology. Where-as civilised has a connotation of "better social behaviour" as contrast to a pejorative barbaric behaviour. I feel there is a suggestion of some form of moral context to the word civilised. A betterment of behaviour, a corporate scene of morality for societies, but like morality I am not sure as to what criteria is being employed to quantify the relative betterment.
A History Full of Change.
Throughout our history societies have taken many forms, from King's and dictators, despotic or benevolent, to republics and democracies, I think all forms of society have an echo of our animal past in being made up by a hierarchical structure. Although the basic structure of a hierarchy remains in some form, one thing is true of all of them, the nature of the hierarchy changes! Society seems to have been in a sporadic state of flux of varying magnitude. Periodic phases of stability coming to sometimes an abrupt end by war or revolution. It would be true that some of these changes are just the natural demise of a king or government.
Relevant and apposite
History is clearly the totality of events that happen to a peoples. In terms of the relevance to my question: Did man decide to become civilized? Some aspects of history will be more relevant than other's and although some will relate to civilisation in a broader sense, I am really wanting to look particularly at the notion of becoming more civilised in terms of my quasi "moral behavioural attitude" one to another. Although contributions to the quality of living like art architecture and technology are aspects that can be said to be civilising they are not apposite in that they are made more as discovery than a decision and are not of a moral context.
Change generally
The causes of change within a society is initiated by something more than whim but as a consequence to a given situation. So change can be said to be the result of a cause and effect: but is change the result of consciously made decisions? Are those decisions just a reaction to a circumstance or was the origins of that which one is reacting to of our own considered construction, what motivation is it that is being employed? Are decisions being made by societies in order to become civilised?
The fact that change takes place is not in question, that some of these changes are deemed to be civilising is probably not also but as to whether these changes were orchestrated with the express intention of making man more civilised is very questionable. However if one is not to believe that man collectively decided to become civilised, one might deduce that man "civilisation" is either a complete accident, or the workings of some mechanism out with his control. I feel equally uncomfortable with the "accidental civilisation" as I do with society laying claim to the virtues of becoming civilised.
Behaviour: specifically how we treat each other.
Man's past activities, as related in in history would appear to be mostly a catalog of man's inhumanity to man. In many ways looking at historical events that specificity relate to how man treats his fellow man, may be reasonable method of seeing if we can recognise any evidence of man deciding to become civilised.
I know of no society that has absolute equality. Presumably coming from our animal ancestry as a troop animal, we have inherited a hierarchical social structure. Inevitably such a structure will produce a relative haves and have nots. At times within history the disparity between these two have become so polarised as to produce conflictual change. Revolutions represent major change within a society: an adversarial conflict between the oppressed, have nots and an oppressor, the haves.
A Revolutionary conflict have an oppressed protagonists, that will be for "the change" and the oppressor antagonist "the status quo". There must be sufficient "passion and force" on the part of the protagonist for change to take place, that will usually relate to the degree of the oppression. The “the social elasticity of tolerance” must first be stretched to the point of breaking. In other words things must become so bad before a people resort to violence with which to change the state of affairs. There is a reticence on the part of the oppressed to take action: people engrained with a sense of disempowerment, confronting the established might of the current ruling powers, requires time, as much as anything to make a psychological change: and a build up their confidence to challenge the status quo.
A Simpler View
But its all very well analysing these events in intellectual terms but they can be looked at in a simpler fashion. Is there not a sense that the relationship between the haves and have nots with in a society is similar to that of a pack or troop leader with the pack or troop its self? From a silver back leader (in a troop of gorillas) to the chief in a tribe to kings and his subjects to ultimately governments and the people. It sound preposterous to suggest that the relationship of a government with the people equates with "silver-back" in a troop of gorillas. After all the sliver-back is in that position as "leader" primarily for procreation reasons: survival of the fittest, so as his genes as the biggest, strongest are passed on. I would have to concede that in terms of procreation the comparison is not directly apposite, but in terms of how we look at the relationship we have with leaders and the led, it must be the case that there is still a dominance and subordinate roll as part of our animal instincts. It is true that the "macro" nature of larger societies as opposed to smaller tribes, has changed part of the substance of the hierarchy structure of today's societies but in essence "the survival of the fittest" attitude to one another still remains, in spite of a larger scale to society.
I am saying that the motivation behind a revolution can be interpreted as just part of our survival instincts: nothing more than just the instinctual leadership tussle for dominance of the pack, both in terms of the antagonist wanting to maintain its dominant status and the necessity of change on the part of protagonist to survive and gain supremacy. It is the case, that in such events our history shows us that the manner in which we treat each other dose reflects our "survival of the fittest" attitude.
However if I was to suggest that all happenings in history was nothing more than that the working out of "survival of the fittest", I'm not sure if we would have become civilised and that certainly any claim to revolutionary conflicts being part of a decision making process leading towards a virtuous civilisation, would be spurious to say the least. So what is it that makes a revolutionary event to so often seen historically, as the very things which we attribute to being civilising?
The Moral High-Ground
Not with-standing my assertion of revolution just being an example of our animal nature at work, there is a perception of something heroic about the down trodden and oppressed rising up in the name of justice and fairness. Perhaps it is the romanticism of of the freedom fighter a la Che Guevara that shows us, revolution as fighting from a "moral high ground". There is a defiantly a moral perception to revolutionary change: an awareness of the injustice being perpetrated on the oppressed by the oppressors, giving the protagonists the "higher Ground" morally speaking. But can it be said that the revolutionary's are being motivated, at the time, by virtuous thoughts of morality or is it only with the befit of hind-site that historians can romanticise events to a perception of such.
Dose a just cause make men righteous or do righteous men only fight just cause? ( to be answered later)
Although not wishing to dictated that all changes must be with made utopic altruism, it has to be said that the pursuit of justice in these cases can also be seen as the pursuit self interest, and is attitudinally speaking, no better than those trying to preserve the injustice. Further more although It may appear cynical to suggest that revolutionaries in spite of having a sense of moral superiority are motivated more from self interest than philanthropy, one must remember that "the revolutionary change" slips again into the "status quo." How often can one say of revolutions, that one bad lot has been replaced by another, who's vindictive retribution matches or even surpasses their predecessor, so much for moral causes.
However "the change" is fighting a morally righteous cause even if some of it's adherents are not motivated by the same . So may be any claim to virtuous changes that might lead to civilisation can be found in the morally righteous causes? (I do concede that if I was to say “justice was only to be pursued by those that did not have a self interest in the same,” that would be nonsense.)
So Far
What can I draw from this debate so far? It would appear that because we live in a hierarchical structured societies there has and is always going to be a "struggle", sometimes violent, between the "upper" and subordinate levels with in a society. That although the apparent motivations of these struggles may have appearance of being moral, in that they are often born of injustice, they can in fact be attributed to an animal instinctual mechanism of realigning the dominant leader ship of the pack. How ever to say that no moral influence was involved would I feel be inaccurate. It would appear that there is an example of the Duality of motivation, this is a topic of my writing which is next in this chapter: that although the general line of things is being dictated by our instincts there are definitely observable influences emanating from out side of that environment. In terms of whether or not any of my exploration so far would suggest that there has been any specific decisions to become civilised would be inconclusive but probably not. One would need to take a closer look at specific happenings to have a more conclusive evidence.
Confession
Unfortunately my ignorance of the details of history leaves me a bit embarrassed. I would have loved to have spouted a ream of references to particular historical events to support my assertions but alss my limited knowledge dose not permit. However from the limited knowledge I have I would like to delve into some particulars in order to progress my thoughts.
sisideas
An Explosion of Revolutions: The Age of Enlightenment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848
With the Norman conquest, early in the second millennia, came the feudal system which really remained with us in Britain for the next 500 yeas or there abouts. Giving Britain a very hierarchical structured society. Although kings and queens came and went, the basic relationship of the relative positions of the peoples with in society remained the same. As well as the institution of monarchy, the other controlling constant in everyone's life was religion: Christianity. Both theses institutions had dominance over the masses, but they sometimes saw each other as rivals for power and so it was, till something began to happened around the 1500 that progressed in the later two centuries to produce a plethora of revolutions throughout Europe.
The Original Causes
The mechanism that is the progression of man's social interactions: what becomes history, can be said to be a true example of a chaotic system. A system that is so complex by virtue of the multiplicity of interacting influences that act upon it. As such to label one factor as being responsible for a particular set events would be facile. but conversely to extrapolate every nuance of influence on a given subject, down to the proverbial "butterflies wings" would like wise be an absurdly over burdened undertaking. I say all this, both as an acknowledgement of over simplification and by way of a an apology to ward this next statement: I believe that one event can be seen to represent a moment in history of fundamental importance. Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on 31 October 1517, to the Door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg (now thought to be dubious but that's what I was taught). This act was momentous: Not because its was part of the birth pains of protestantism, not as a continued expression of the reformation, nor as the culmination of dissatisfaction with the Roman Catholic church, but in being such a defiant demonstration against, what had been for the last of 1000 yeas, the single most controlling influence on man's thinking: the Christian church. The audacity of this action I feel represents the moment when the shackle's of an over-baring religion lost its grip on man's thinking and opened the flood gates for people to think beyond the constraints of religious dogma and in time helped to give birth to the Age of Enlightenment.
Morality through fear
Not wanting to over dwell on this aspect but for it to be noted: that although the church is seen as the "mother" of morality the nature of it's "rein" in terms of the relationship between the church and the laity was one of fear and superstition, rather than that of considered morality, one of an controlling adherence to a set of rules and laws than that of a freedom of thought.
Rene Descartes
Below is an exert from the Wikipedia Rene Descartes, the portion highlighted in blue would substantiate my assertion that the spell of Christian dogma ruling the thoughts of man were broken. In many ways I feel that the turbulent revolutions of the following 300 years are attributable at lest in part to man's emancipation from the excesses of religion allowing him to think for himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Age of Enlightenment: Emancipation from Church doctrine
Descartes has been often dubbed as the father of modern Western philosophy, the philosopher that with his sceptic approach has profoundly changed the course of Western philosophy and set the basis for modernity.[7][35] The first two of his Meditations on First Philosophy, those that formulate the famous methodic doubt, represent the portion of Descartes' writings that most influenced modern thinking.[36] It has been argued that Descartes himself didn't realize the extent of his revolutionary gesture.[37] In shifting the debate from "what is true" to "of what can I be certain?," Descartes shifted the authoritative guarantor of truth from God to humanity. (While the traditional concept of "truth" implies an external authority, "certainty" instead relies on the judgement of the individual.) In an anthropocentric revolution, the human being is now raised to the level of a subject, an agent, an emancipated being equipped with autonomous reason. This was a revolutionary step that posed the basis of modernity, the repercussions of which are still ongoing: the emancipation of humanity from Christian revelational truth and Church doctrine, a person who makes her own law and takes her own stand.[38][39][40] In modernity, the guarantor of truth is not God anymore but human beings, each of whom is a "self-conscious shaper and guarantor" of their own reality.[41][42] In that way, each person is turned into a reasoning adult, a subject and agent,[41] as opposed to a child obedient to God. This change in perspective was characteristic of the shift from the Christian medieval period to the modern period; that shift had been anticipated in other fields, and now Descartes was giving it a formulation in the field of philosophy.[41][43]
This anthropocentric perspective, establishing human reason as autonomous, provided the basis for the Enlightenment's emancipation from God and the Church. It also provided the basis for all subsequent anthropology.[44] Descartes' philosophical revolution is sometimes said to have sparked modern anthropocentrism and subjectivism.[7][45][46][47]
Whether you agree with my interpretation of events or not, the fact is, the repressive influence of the church was diminished, (in some respects) the psychologically controlling effects of the church over society was lessened. This New freedom allowed man from the 1600 on wards, to look towards reason and understanding for the answers to all manner of questions both philosophical and temporal, Including an understanding of social structure.
How ever there are aspects that I would like to consider:
1) The "natural" nature of "discussion" is one of being adversarial. Although it may seem obvious it is worth noting that, our nature is drawn to seeing differences of opinion as being conflictual, looking to find fault or difference as opposed to looking to find consensus. In broader terms this adversarial attitude is indicative of an animal that is more reactive to its environment than proactive. We don't on the whole anticipate or construct choices out with the immediate stimuli set before us. This is indicative of management by crisis.
In terms of a mechanism for society to make decision, an adversarial approach lends itself to being determined by an egotistical force of will and dominance rather than by strength of argumental and principle.
2) The collective dose not have ideas of its own. A body of support gives wait to a discussion, finding allies, with a common perspective, makes up a collective thought and becomes an entity "larger" than the initial sparks of its creation. That initial spark, appears only to be initiated from individuals. Society takes on or hijacks ideas from individuals. Society's apparent lack of creativity would suggest it is an unlikely candidate for being the instigator civilising decisions, its roll is more one of being a form for an arbiter than a creator.
Movers and Shakers
Clearly the time of the reformation can be seen as a time of readjustment, primarily of religion but not exclusively. Although we now, with historical hind-site see it as a moment within societies, the inspiration for change being a wide-spread dissatisfaction with the established Roman Catholic church but it was individuals that orchestrated its development. It was the movers and shakers that voiced the dissatisfaction. To take but two out of many, obviously Martin Luther as one and Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam as an other. In terms of their approach to discussion and debate of controversial issue these two exemplify very different approaches and I believe can show us examples of behaviour patterns in discussion that could lead to a view on "decisions of change". I don't thing I would be being uncharitable to label Luther as being a typical firebrand reactionary. Where as in contrast, Erasmus was, with out being placating a Liberal in nature or a lest a more reasoned man, recognising the potential for civil disorder in Luther's inflammatory approach. To start with, the two shared a commonality of purpose against the established church and had a mutual respect for each other but the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was short lived as Erasmus's moderated approach to the excesses of the church were incompatible with Luther's demand for the radical. Erasmus, ahead of his time in my opinion as a reason pragmatist, (exemplified in his propagation of religious tolerance,) became "Piggy in the middle" between the radical and the established, and as such was disdained by elements of both factions. None the less it was them and individuals like them that lead the argument.
Revolution by Any Other Name
Although we call it "Reforming" it was for all intents and proposes a revolution if not in actuality against a state. The architecture of the Reformation's construction had all the components of a revolution: It had a oppressed protagonist looking for change from a corrupt and oppressing antagonist, that wanted to hang on to its abusive power. Even down to the protagonist being "worse" than the antagonist: in many ways the excesses of some of the branches that grow out of the protestant church such as the puritans that came later, were even more controlling in some respects than that of the original Roman Catholic church. And this was a very bloody affair: the religious intolerance that was to follow was terrible as many a slaughtered Huguenot, would testify to. Not just in France but all over Europe. Why? Was this the result of emblazoned passions and zeal of religious fever? At face value the answer would have to be yes, yes at the time, I believe, that for most who were active in these events did see them- selves as being the agent of God, (what ever side one was on) doing his will, in punishing or destroying the heretics. In reality I don't believe it . I don't know if a society can collectively act in such manner to a subconscious motivation. But this revolution like all revolutions was about the rearrangement of power.
A Civilising Change?
So here we have a fundamental change in the manner with which we think. Was it "civilising": if yes, could it be construed as having been made by society at large?
The Reformation or "The Revolution of Freedom to Think" was just the beginning, and of it's self was not civilising but it was, I feel, the beginning to a fundamental change that was civilising. Although at face value the argument was one of doctrine and the church in reality the change was in the nature of the relationship of the "silver back to the troop: of leadership to the lead. The full ramifications of this race having started with Luther's "pistol" was not to be full worked out for several hundred years later.
What followed, amongst other things was a growth in wealth from new industries, changes to agriculture practises and new found sense of reasoning (freedom to think beyond the dictates of the then Roman Catholic church) all of which would herald a wave of revolution of the 1848.
Although the late revolutions had an echoed (in substance) to "The Revolution of Though", they were more overtly about the relationship of the people and leaders. The disparity between the haves and have nots was stretched beyond the point of elasticity.
The Civilising Bit
In my mind the civilising aspect of all the revolutions, was that the power of leadership could no longer be wielded without consent and consideration of the people. I would call this civilising because it changed the nature of the relationship between people and the leadership. But it has to be noted that this was an enforced pragmatism, and as such can not be construed as being brought about by man's design either its conceptualisation nor its implementation. Mankind/society at no point sat down and suggested he would be nicer to his fellow man and then implement it. But there were individuals that did just that. It would appear that individuals have the ideas for good or bad, they alone (as individuals) can be leaders and thorough there endeavours and passion persuade the collective. Our civilisations (or otherwise,) it would appear is the result of the inspiration and passion of individuals. As to the specific motivations of those inspired leadership minds, will undoubtedly vary from individual to individual.
Is man in control of his own destiny?
Dose he know what he wants?
Dose he know how to get it?
Thing I Want to Consider
As I have said before I first need to have some understanding of what I meant by many of the terms I wanted to use; society, civilised etc. Also, if man, as I contend, is claiming to have been the orchestrator of his own civilisation, to look at what decisions man has made to support this claim, why and how he made them. An other aspect that needs clarifying is an understanding of the relationship between the individual of a society and the collective- society itself, and the factors that motivated each.
What do we mean by the word Civilised?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
The Wikipedia entry above is very good and if I may paraphrase it: it makes a difference between a civilisation and civilised. Colloquially, a civilisation can refer to a society or markedly identifiable group of peoples that mostly live in a hierarchy social structure and are identifiable by the development of amongst other things: art and architecture, social structure, and technology. Where-as civilised has a connotation of "better social behaviour" as contrast to a pejorative barbaric behaviour. I feel there is a suggestion of some form of moral context to the word civilised. A betterment of behaviour, a corporate scene of morality for societies, but like morality I am not sure as to what criteria is being employed to quantify the relative betterment.
A History Full of Change.
Throughout our history societies have taken many forms, from King's and dictators, despotic or benevolent, to republics and democracies, I think all forms of society have an echo of our animal past in being made up by a hierarchical structure. Although the basic structure of a hierarchy remains in some form, one thing is true of all of them, the nature of the hierarchy changes! Society seems to have been in a sporadic state of flux of varying magnitude. Periodic phases of stability coming to sometimes an abrupt end by war or revolution. It would be true that some of these changes are just the natural demise of a king or government.
Relevant and apposite
History is clearly the totality of events that happen to a peoples. In terms of the relevance to my question: Did man decide to become civilized? Some aspects of history will be more relevant than other's and although some will relate to civilisation in a broader sense, I am really wanting to look particularly at the notion of becoming more civilised in terms of my quasi "moral behavioural attitude" one to another. Although contributions to the quality of living like art architecture and technology are aspects that can be said to be civilising they are not apposite in that they are made more as discovery than a decision and are not of a moral context.
Change generally
The causes of change within a society is initiated by something more than whim but as a consequence to a given situation. So change can be said to be the result of a cause and effect: but is change the result of consciously made decisions? Are those decisions just a reaction to a circumstance or was the origins of that which one is reacting to of our own considered construction, what motivation is it that is being employed? Are decisions being made by societies in order to become civilised?
The fact that change takes place is not in question, that some of these changes are deemed to be civilising is probably not also but as to whether these changes were orchestrated with the express intention of making man more civilised is very questionable. However if one is not to believe that man collectively decided to become civilised, one might deduce that man "civilisation" is either a complete accident, or the workings of some mechanism out with his control. I feel equally uncomfortable with the "accidental civilisation" as I do with society laying claim to the virtues of becoming civilised.
Behaviour: specifically how we treat each other.
Man's past activities, as related in in history would appear to be mostly a catalog of man's inhumanity to man. In many ways looking at historical events that specificity relate to how man treats his fellow man, may be reasonable method of seeing if we can recognise any evidence of man deciding to become civilised.
I know of no society that has absolute equality. Presumably coming from our animal ancestry as a troop animal, we have inherited a hierarchical social structure. Inevitably such a structure will produce a relative haves and have nots. At times within history the disparity between these two have become so polarised as to produce conflictual change. Revolutions represent major change within a society: an adversarial conflict between the oppressed, have nots and an oppressor, the haves.
A Revolutionary conflict have an oppressed protagonists, that will be for "the change" and the oppressor antagonist "the status quo". There must be sufficient "passion and force" on the part of the protagonist for change to take place, that will usually relate to the degree of the oppression. The “the social elasticity of tolerance” must first be stretched to the point of breaking. In other words things must become so bad before a people resort to violence with which to change the state of affairs. There is a reticence on the part of the oppressed to take action: people engrained with a sense of disempowerment, confronting the established might of the current ruling powers, requires time, as much as anything to make a psychological change: and a build up their confidence to challenge the status quo.
A Simpler View
But its all very well analysing these events in intellectual terms but they can be looked at in a simpler fashion. Is there not a sense that the relationship between the haves and have nots with in a society is similar to that of a pack or troop leader with the pack or troop its self? From a silver back leader (in a troop of gorillas) to the chief in a tribe to kings and his subjects to ultimately governments and the people. It sound preposterous to suggest that the relationship of a government with the people equates with "silver-back" in a troop of gorillas. After all the sliver-back is in that position as "leader" primarily for procreation reasons: survival of the fittest, so as his genes as the biggest, strongest are passed on. I would have to concede that in terms of procreation the comparison is not directly apposite, but in terms of how we look at the relationship we have with leaders and the led, it must be the case that there is still a dominance and subordinate roll as part of our animal instincts. It is true that the "macro" nature of larger societies as opposed to smaller tribes, has changed part of the substance of the hierarchy structure of today's societies but in essence "the survival of the fittest" attitude to one another still remains, in spite of a larger scale to society.
I am saying that the motivation behind a revolution can be interpreted as just part of our survival instincts: nothing more than just the instinctual leadership tussle for dominance of the pack, both in terms of the antagonist wanting to maintain its dominant status and the necessity of change on the part of protagonist to survive and gain supremacy. It is the case, that in such events our history shows us that the manner in which we treat each other dose reflects our "survival of the fittest" attitude.
However if I was to suggest that all happenings in history was nothing more than that the working out of "survival of the fittest", I'm not sure if we would have become civilised and that certainly any claim to revolutionary conflicts being part of a decision making process leading towards a virtuous civilisation, would be spurious to say the least. So what is it that makes a revolutionary event to so often seen historically, as the very things which we attribute to being civilising?
The Moral High-Ground
Not with-standing my assertion of revolution just being an example of our animal nature at work, there is a perception of something heroic about the down trodden and oppressed rising up in the name of justice and fairness. Perhaps it is the romanticism of of the freedom fighter a la Che Guevara that shows us, revolution as fighting from a "moral high ground". There is a defiantly a moral perception to revolutionary change: an awareness of the injustice being perpetrated on the oppressed by the oppressors, giving the protagonists the "higher Ground" morally speaking. But can it be said that the revolutionary's are being motivated, at the time, by virtuous thoughts of morality or is it only with the befit of hind-site that historians can romanticise events to a perception of such.
Dose a just cause make men righteous or do righteous men only fight just cause? ( to be answered later)
Although not wishing to dictated that all changes must be with made utopic altruism, it has to be said that the pursuit of justice in these cases can also be seen as the pursuit self interest, and is attitudinally speaking, no better than those trying to preserve the injustice. Further more although It may appear cynical to suggest that revolutionaries in spite of having a sense of moral superiority are motivated more from self interest than philanthropy, one must remember that "the revolutionary change" slips again into the "status quo." How often can one say of revolutions, that one bad lot has been replaced by another, who's vindictive retribution matches or even surpasses their predecessor, so much for moral causes.
However "the change" is fighting a morally righteous cause even if some of it's adherents are not motivated by the same . So may be any claim to virtuous changes that might lead to civilisation can be found in the morally righteous causes? (I do concede that if I was to say “justice was only to be pursued by those that did not have a self interest in the same,” that would be nonsense.)
So Far
What can I draw from this debate so far? It would appear that because we live in a hierarchical structured societies there has and is always going to be a "struggle", sometimes violent, between the "upper" and subordinate levels with in a society. That although the apparent motivations of these struggles may have appearance of being moral, in that they are often born of injustice, they can in fact be attributed to an animal instinctual mechanism of realigning the dominant leader ship of the pack. How ever to say that no moral influence was involved would I feel be inaccurate. It would appear that there is an example of the Duality of motivation, this is a topic of my writing which is next in this chapter: that although the general line of things is being dictated by our instincts there are definitely observable influences emanating from out side of that environment. In terms of whether or not any of my exploration so far would suggest that there has been any specific decisions to become civilised would be inconclusive but probably not. One would need to take a closer look at specific happenings to have a more conclusive evidence.
Confession
Unfortunately my ignorance of the details of history leaves me a bit embarrassed. I would have loved to have spouted a ream of references to particular historical events to support my assertions but alss my limited knowledge dose not permit. However from the limited knowledge I have I would like to delve into some particulars in order to progress my thoughts.
sisideas
An Explosion of Revolutions: The Age of Enlightenment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1848
With the Norman conquest, early in the second millennia, came the feudal system which really remained with us in Britain for the next 500 yeas or there abouts. Giving Britain a very hierarchical structured society. Although kings and queens came and went, the basic relationship of the relative positions of the peoples with in society remained the same. As well as the institution of monarchy, the other controlling constant in everyone's life was religion: Christianity. Both theses institutions had dominance over the masses, but they sometimes saw each other as rivals for power and so it was, till something began to happened around the 1500 that progressed in the later two centuries to produce a plethora of revolutions throughout Europe.
The Original Causes
The mechanism that is the progression of man's social interactions: what becomes history, can be said to be a true example of a chaotic system. A system that is so complex by virtue of the multiplicity of interacting influences that act upon it. As such to label one factor as being responsible for a particular set events would be facile. but conversely to extrapolate every nuance of influence on a given subject, down to the proverbial "butterflies wings" would like wise be an absurdly over burdened undertaking. I say all this, both as an acknowledgement of over simplification and by way of a an apology to ward this next statement: I believe that one event can be seen to represent a moment in history of fundamental importance. Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses on 31 October 1517, to the Door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg (now thought to be dubious but that's what I was taught). This act was momentous: Not because its was part of the birth pains of protestantism, not as a continued expression of the reformation, nor as the culmination of dissatisfaction with the Roman Catholic church, but in being such a defiant demonstration against, what had been for the last of 1000 yeas, the single most controlling influence on man's thinking: the Christian church. The audacity of this action I feel represents the moment when the shackle's of an over-baring religion lost its grip on man's thinking and opened the flood gates for people to think beyond the constraints of religious dogma and in time helped to give birth to the Age of Enlightenment.
Morality through fear
Not wanting to over dwell on this aspect but for it to be noted: that although the church is seen as the "mother" of morality the nature of it's "rein" in terms of the relationship between the church and the laity was one of fear and superstition, rather than that of considered morality, one of an controlling adherence to a set of rules and laws than that of a freedom of thought.
Rene Descartes
Below is an exert from the Wikipedia Rene Descartes, the portion highlighted in blue would substantiate my assertion that the spell of Christian dogma ruling the thoughts of man were broken. In many ways I feel that the turbulent revolutions of the following 300 years are attributable at lest in part to man's emancipation from the excesses of religion allowing him to think for himself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
Age of Enlightenment: Emancipation from Church doctrine
Descartes has been often dubbed as the father of modern Western philosophy, the philosopher that with his sceptic approach has profoundly changed the course of Western philosophy and set the basis for modernity.[7][35] The first two of his Meditations on First Philosophy, those that formulate the famous methodic doubt, represent the portion of Descartes' writings that most influenced modern thinking.[36] It has been argued that Descartes himself didn't realize the extent of his revolutionary gesture.[37] In shifting the debate from "what is true" to "of what can I be certain?," Descartes shifted the authoritative guarantor of truth from God to humanity. (While the traditional concept of "truth" implies an external authority, "certainty" instead relies on the judgement of the individual.) In an anthropocentric revolution, the human being is now raised to the level of a subject, an agent, an emancipated being equipped with autonomous reason. This was a revolutionary step that posed the basis of modernity, the repercussions of which are still ongoing: the emancipation of humanity from Christian revelational truth and Church doctrine, a person who makes her own law and takes her own stand.[38][39][40] In modernity, the guarantor of truth is not God anymore but human beings, each of whom is a "self-conscious shaper and guarantor" of their own reality.[41][42] In that way, each person is turned into a reasoning adult, a subject and agent,[41] as opposed to a child obedient to God. This change in perspective was characteristic of the shift from the Christian medieval period to the modern period; that shift had been anticipated in other fields, and now Descartes was giving it a formulation in the field of philosophy.[41][43]
This anthropocentric perspective, establishing human reason as autonomous, provided the basis for the Enlightenment's emancipation from God and the Church. It also provided the basis for all subsequent anthropology.[44] Descartes' philosophical revolution is sometimes said to have sparked modern anthropocentrism and subjectivism.[7][45][46][47]
Whether you agree with my interpretation of events or not, the fact is, the repressive influence of the church was diminished, (in some respects) the psychologically controlling effects of the church over society was lessened. This New freedom allowed man from the 1600 on wards, to look towards reason and understanding for the answers to all manner of questions both philosophical and temporal, Including an understanding of social structure.
How ever there are aspects that I would like to consider:
1) The "natural" nature of "discussion" is one of being adversarial. Although it may seem obvious it is worth noting that, our nature is drawn to seeing differences of opinion as being conflictual, looking to find fault or difference as opposed to looking to find consensus. In broader terms this adversarial attitude is indicative of an animal that is more reactive to its environment than proactive. We don't on the whole anticipate or construct choices out with the immediate stimuli set before us. This is indicative of management by crisis.
In terms of a mechanism for society to make decision, an adversarial approach lends itself to being determined by an egotistical force of will and dominance rather than by strength of argumental and principle.
2) The collective dose not have ideas of its own. A body of support gives wait to a discussion, finding allies, with a common perspective, makes up a collective thought and becomes an entity "larger" than the initial sparks of its creation. That initial spark, appears only to be initiated from individuals. Society takes on or hijacks ideas from individuals. Society's apparent lack of creativity would suggest it is an unlikely candidate for being the instigator civilising decisions, its roll is more one of being a form for an arbiter than a creator.
Movers and Shakers
Clearly the time of the reformation can be seen as a time of readjustment, primarily of religion but not exclusively. Although we now, with historical hind-site see it as a moment within societies, the inspiration for change being a wide-spread dissatisfaction with the established Roman Catholic church but it was individuals that orchestrated its development. It was the movers and shakers that voiced the dissatisfaction. To take but two out of many, obviously Martin Luther as one and Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam as an other. In terms of their approach to discussion and debate of controversial issue these two exemplify very different approaches and I believe can show us examples of behaviour patterns in discussion that could lead to a view on "decisions of change". I don't thing I would be being uncharitable to label Luther as being a typical firebrand reactionary. Where as in contrast, Erasmus was, with out being placating a Liberal in nature or a lest a more reasoned man, recognising the potential for civil disorder in Luther's inflammatory approach. To start with, the two shared a commonality of purpose against the established church and had a mutual respect for each other but the adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" was short lived as Erasmus's moderated approach to the excesses of the church were incompatible with Luther's demand for the radical. Erasmus, ahead of his time in my opinion as a reason pragmatist, (exemplified in his propagation of religious tolerance,) became "Piggy in the middle" between the radical and the established, and as such was disdained by elements of both factions. None the less it was them and individuals like them that lead the argument.
Revolution by Any Other Name
Although we call it "Reforming" it was for all intents and proposes a revolution if not in actuality against a state. The architecture of the Reformation's construction had all the components of a revolution: It had a oppressed protagonist looking for change from a corrupt and oppressing antagonist, that wanted to hang on to its abusive power. Even down to the protagonist being "worse" than the antagonist: in many ways the excesses of some of the branches that grow out of the protestant church such as the puritans that came later, were even more controlling in some respects than that of the original Roman Catholic church. And this was a very bloody affair: the religious intolerance that was to follow was terrible as many a slaughtered Huguenot, would testify to. Not just in France but all over Europe. Why? Was this the result of emblazoned passions and zeal of religious fever? At face value the answer would have to be yes, yes at the time, I believe, that for most who were active in these events did see them- selves as being the agent of God, (what ever side one was on) doing his will, in punishing or destroying the heretics. In reality I don't believe it . I don't know if a society can collectively act in such manner to a subconscious motivation. But this revolution like all revolutions was about the rearrangement of power.
A Civilising Change?
So here we have a fundamental change in the manner with which we think. Was it "civilising": if yes, could it be construed as having been made by society at large?
The Reformation or "The Revolution of Freedom to Think" was just the beginning, and of it's self was not civilising but it was, I feel, the beginning to a fundamental change that was civilising. Although at face value the argument was one of doctrine and the church in reality the change was in the nature of the relationship of the "silver back to the troop: of leadership to the lead. The full ramifications of this race having started with Luther's "pistol" was not to be full worked out for several hundred years later.
What followed, amongst other things was a growth in wealth from new industries, changes to agriculture practises and new found sense of reasoning (freedom to think beyond the dictates of the then Roman Catholic church) all of which would herald a wave of revolution of the 1848.
Although the late revolutions had an echoed (in substance) to "The Revolution of Though", they were more overtly about the relationship of the people and leaders. The disparity between the haves and have nots was stretched beyond the point of elasticity.
The Civilising Bit
In my mind the civilising aspect of all the revolutions, was that the power of leadership could no longer be wielded without consent and consideration of the people. I would call this civilising because it changed the nature of the relationship between people and the leadership. But it has to be noted that this was an enforced pragmatism, and as such can not be construed as being brought about by man's design either its conceptualisation nor its implementation. Mankind/society at no point sat down and suggested he would be nicer to his fellow man and then implement it. But there were individuals that did just that. It would appear that individuals have the ideas for good or bad, they alone (as individuals) can be leaders and thorough there endeavours and passion persuade the collective. Our civilisations (or otherwise,) it would appear is the result of the inspiration and passion of individuals. As to the specific motivations of those inspired leadership minds, will undoubtedly vary from individual to individual.
Relationship The collective vrs the individual
So what is the nature of the relationship between the individual and the collective? I wondered if the collective (society as a whole) is purely the fractal of the individual. By that I mean, would it be possible to view the mechanics of society's with all its individuals components, as an identical "up fractal" of the psyche part of the human mind. The "mind" of society being a truly homogeneous some of the total minds within society? can we view a society as an "animal"? Why do I postulate this idea? If it were true by understanding the workings of an individual, we might gain an incite as to the mechanics of the mind of a society.
I feel that society as an animal is not quite the same as a "big individual", it is crude, conservative in nature, devoid of integrity and ideas but maybe there are aspects of similarity. Within the mind of an individual there can be many conflicting arguments going on to any particular issue not dissimilar to the adversarial voices of a society. Both can be influenced intellectually and emotionally, both can be subject to irrational beliefs and self-delusion, both have the appearance of being driven to persuade others by passion, and that which makes up the mind of an individual on a particular issue will be from a balanced consensus, a majority "vote" as it were from the warning factions with the mind. To day societies vote is that a mirror of our internal method of decision making? To be honest I'm not sure if this consideration get us any where, I would still assert that it is the individual that has vision and from where creative passion emanates, so in terms of becoming civilised it still remains with the individual.
But then.....
In terms of progressing my look at the nature of the relationship between the individual and the collective one might look at the relationship of a Parent to a Child : in a very real sense a father as the alpha male has similarities with the leadership of a society, in that towards the outside world there is an attitude of defensive about children and yet internally it can be a power dominance. There is I feel a mirror echo of the type of relationship between parents and their children and leaders and the people: if you remember I suggest that there was a instinctual power "thing" going on where parents are sometimes reluctant to share there humanity with their children as this might relinquish a sense of dominance over them. but again although aspects of this are true it dose not describe in any grater detail the relationship of the individual to the collective, society, leaders. Yes what am I talking about? leaders, society, the collective? I have used a lot of terms to describe that which is NOT the individula but not all these terms are synonymous with each other so what is it I am talking bout?
Naming the Edifice
There is a sense in which what I seek to name is to a degree nebulous: where as the collective: is just that which is not the individual. Society: really refers to everyone and although it dose represent a consensus of opinion it is not specific. Leaders: is too specific and although represents the seat of power is not quite what i mean. Clearly what I am trying to describe is made up of people but that is not its summation.
Part of a society is made up of people who are successful, by successful I think without exception, I mean the rich, and the powerful, the successful (to some extent) but it is not so much on the people themselves but more there involvement in what they represent.:the establishment. as he name implies, that which as been made up by successive generations. The edifice that contains all the institutions of a society from government to judiciary from education to social welfare from banking to commerce it represents a structure. in part it is nebulous and yet people are apart of it, It represents many years of construction and so much of it has been fought for and with out doubt a lot if not most of it can be seen as Good: good in as much as its various aspects are beneficial to society at large. But I suspect that if we take any of the above aspects we would find an individual at its base and that all of them have been brought into existence not from a consensus of deliberated choice and decision but as the result of an adversarial contention. The two Wikipedia articles relate to two movements of the 18th century the Radical Movement and the Reform Movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_%28historical%29
Contained in these articles are the names of thousands of individuals who's passion and vision have influenced societies all over the world both for good and sometimes bad, its is from them that the world has changed, has become civilised.
Good Establishment
The establishment represents the successive historical influences of many man and women through the ages. A society is built from the bones of their thinking and ideas. We live today in the the manner we do, seldom fully concious of the foundations on which we stand and the price that has been paid it. In many ways the nature of the relationship an individual has with the collective-society will depend to some extent on the historical awareness he or she has, an appreciation of anything is a study in comparatives, with out a knowledge of the past we cannot fully appreciate the present. It must there for be of great benefit for a society to be as well informed of its origins as it can be in order to appreciate its present settings, unfortunately I don't feel this is the case, we tend to live in the now and have a degree of ignorance as to how we got here.
The establishment is there and what it gives a society is order and stability. Shake it in any way and it will react just like a frightened animal bent on either protecting itself from harm from with in or defend its self from attack from with out. I contend that the establishment /leaders like the nature of a good silver back, being outwardly a defender of the troop and inwardly the maintainer of stability order is solely motivated by the instinctual qualities.
And what is the individuals attitude to wards the establishment? A love hate relationship?
Stability from with in, security from with out and prosperity with out oppression/; sound like a very simple receipt for harmonious living. So why, when we look at history, would it appear that we have such little evidence of these conditions existing for any length of time?
Well of course there where at times, periods that were just that, but "History" being what it is, tells us the story of events and as we all know there's no news like bad news: history by definition tends to look at the "negatives", they are the events that have an obvious influence on a society. But besides that there is the natural effects of our existence to contend with: a desire for control and wealth. Greed and power are seen as pejorative vices and yet they are two powerful elements of survival with in a "survival of the fittest" regime.
Power Disseminated: Democracy
So driven by our desires for constant improvement to our chances of surviving, we are never satisfied, we like to moan: to blame either the real or perceived failings of our situation on what ever aspect of the establishment we feel is responsible. or similarly we all can have a critical consideration on what ever political issue our particular circumstantial idiosyncrasies dictate. So we like to "hate" the power of the establishment And yet, particularly in the defused power structure of our modern democracy, we all want a slice of the establishments cake, we want to be a part of the ultimate "in crowd" that goes to make "the successful". Democracy, I contented, having come about from the enforced dissemination of power from the age of revolution, has given people more than just a "say" in government, (an ability to vote) but more importantly a belief in being able to join "the in crowd", "the successful": we call it social mobility, to climb the greasy pole to wealth and power and security. Whether this social movement really exists or is just an illusion is immaterial, belief of attainment of success is all that matters. All that matters in terms of the establishment is the maintenance of internal stability and from the peoples point of view, believing in the chance of embetterment to their lot. All are happy?..... with the "American dream"? well nearly....
Justified by meritocracy
There is, I think today, the perception of fairness to the possess of climbing the greasy pole. Although without doubt it is a competitive struggle and seen as such, but there is a meritocratic adjudication to the climbing. Unlike the the excesses of past regimes where "climbing" was not even necessary at all, as patronage and inherited position gave one status by birth. We value this meritocratic system of rewarding endeavour but this merit driven version of survival of the fittest struggle dose have a caveat to the notion of equality: it would seem to be dependent on one very important premiss: that there exist an equality of opportunity. That our children can have a "level playing-field" in terms of education. It would appear that we recognise the nature of birth as being inherently "unfair" a lottery as to the situation that we a born to and consequently, actively wish to compensate for it, and yet that done allow the game of "survival" to take over in adult hood. Why the apparent inconsistent paradox? That we see that existence is "unfair" and yet we still are happy to play the game. A game that by its nature will have winner and losers.
Just how civilised is it, to knowingly embark on an inherently unfair venture where we know some will "have" at the expense of the "have nots", and to justify the same by reason of meritocracy, when we know it to be anything but a level playing field...... We love the establishment, to be part of the power that can give "anyone" the dream, the success, the Fittest.
We love it, not the establishment per say, but to be apart of the "in group"... because we are the animal that is driven to survive.
So what is the nature of the relationship between the individual and the collective? I wondered if the collective (society as a whole) is purely the fractal of the individual. By that I mean, would it be possible to view the mechanics of society's with all its individuals components, as an identical "up fractal" of the psyche part of the human mind. The "mind" of society being a truly homogeneous some of the total minds within society? can we view a society as an "animal"? Why do I postulate this idea? If it were true by understanding the workings of an individual, we might gain an incite as to the mechanics of the mind of a society.
I feel that society as an animal is not quite the same as a "big individual", it is crude, conservative in nature, devoid of integrity and ideas but maybe there are aspects of similarity. Within the mind of an individual there can be many conflicting arguments going on to any particular issue not dissimilar to the adversarial voices of a society. Both can be influenced intellectually and emotionally, both can be subject to irrational beliefs and self-delusion, both have the appearance of being driven to persuade others by passion, and that which makes up the mind of an individual on a particular issue will be from a balanced consensus, a majority "vote" as it were from the warning factions with the mind. To day societies vote is that a mirror of our internal method of decision making? To be honest I'm not sure if this consideration get us any where, I would still assert that it is the individual that has vision and from where creative passion emanates, so in terms of becoming civilised it still remains with the individual.
But then.....
In terms of progressing my look at the nature of the relationship between the individual and the collective one might look at the relationship of a Parent to a Child : in a very real sense a father as the alpha male has similarities with the leadership of a society, in that towards the outside world there is an attitude of defensive about children and yet internally it can be a power dominance. There is I feel a mirror echo of the type of relationship between parents and their children and leaders and the people: if you remember I suggest that there was a instinctual power "thing" going on where parents are sometimes reluctant to share there humanity with their children as this might relinquish a sense of dominance over them. but again although aspects of this are true it dose not describe in any grater detail the relationship of the individual to the collective, society, leaders. Yes what am I talking about? leaders, society, the collective? I have used a lot of terms to describe that which is NOT the individula but not all these terms are synonymous with each other so what is it I am talking bout?
Naming the Edifice
There is a sense in which what I seek to name is to a degree nebulous: where as the collective: is just that which is not the individual. Society: really refers to everyone and although it dose represent a consensus of opinion it is not specific. Leaders: is too specific and although represents the seat of power is not quite what i mean. Clearly what I am trying to describe is made up of people but that is not its summation.
Part of a society is made up of people who are successful, by successful I think without exception, I mean the rich, and the powerful, the successful (to some extent) but it is not so much on the people themselves but more there involvement in what they represent.:the establishment. as he name implies, that which as been made up by successive generations. The edifice that contains all the institutions of a society from government to judiciary from education to social welfare from banking to commerce it represents a structure. in part it is nebulous and yet people are apart of it, It represents many years of construction and so much of it has been fought for and with out doubt a lot if not most of it can be seen as Good: good in as much as its various aspects are beneficial to society at large. But I suspect that if we take any of the above aspects we would find an individual at its base and that all of them have been brought into existence not from a consensus of deliberated choice and decision but as the result of an adversarial contention. The two Wikipedia articles relate to two movements of the 18th century the Radical Movement and the Reform Movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalism_%28historical%29
Contained in these articles are the names of thousands of individuals who's passion and vision have influenced societies all over the world both for good and sometimes bad, its is from them that the world has changed, has become civilised.
Good Establishment
The establishment represents the successive historical influences of many man and women through the ages. A society is built from the bones of their thinking and ideas. We live today in the the manner we do, seldom fully concious of the foundations on which we stand and the price that has been paid it. In many ways the nature of the relationship an individual has with the collective-society will depend to some extent on the historical awareness he or she has, an appreciation of anything is a study in comparatives, with out a knowledge of the past we cannot fully appreciate the present. It must there for be of great benefit for a society to be as well informed of its origins as it can be in order to appreciate its present settings, unfortunately I don't feel this is the case, we tend to live in the now and have a degree of ignorance as to how we got here.
The establishment is there and what it gives a society is order and stability. Shake it in any way and it will react just like a frightened animal bent on either protecting itself from harm from with in or defend its self from attack from with out. I contend that the establishment /leaders like the nature of a good silver back, being outwardly a defender of the troop and inwardly the maintainer of stability order is solely motivated by the instinctual qualities.
And what is the individuals attitude to wards the establishment? A love hate relationship?
Stability from with in, security from with out and prosperity with out oppression/; sound like a very simple receipt for harmonious living. So why, when we look at history, would it appear that we have such little evidence of these conditions existing for any length of time?
Well of course there where at times, periods that were just that, but "History" being what it is, tells us the story of events and as we all know there's no news like bad news: history by definition tends to look at the "negatives", they are the events that have an obvious influence on a society. But besides that there is the natural effects of our existence to contend with: a desire for control and wealth. Greed and power are seen as pejorative vices and yet they are two powerful elements of survival with in a "survival of the fittest" regime.
Power Disseminated: Democracy
So driven by our desires for constant improvement to our chances of surviving, we are never satisfied, we like to moan: to blame either the real or perceived failings of our situation on what ever aspect of the establishment we feel is responsible. or similarly we all can have a critical consideration on what ever political issue our particular circumstantial idiosyncrasies dictate. So we like to "hate" the power of the establishment And yet, particularly in the defused power structure of our modern democracy, we all want a slice of the establishments cake, we want to be a part of the ultimate "in crowd" that goes to make "the successful". Democracy, I contented, having come about from the enforced dissemination of power from the age of revolution, has given people more than just a "say" in government, (an ability to vote) but more importantly a belief in being able to join "the in crowd", "the successful": we call it social mobility, to climb the greasy pole to wealth and power and security. Whether this social movement really exists or is just an illusion is immaterial, belief of attainment of success is all that matters. All that matters in terms of the establishment is the maintenance of internal stability and from the peoples point of view, believing in the chance of embetterment to their lot. All are happy?..... with the "American dream"? well nearly....
Justified by meritocracy
There is, I think today, the perception of fairness to the possess of climbing the greasy pole. Although without doubt it is a competitive struggle and seen as such, but there is a meritocratic adjudication to the climbing. Unlike the the excesses of past regimes where "climbing" was not even necessary at all, as patronage and inherited position gave one status by birth. We value this meritocratic system of rewarding endeavour but this merit driven version of survival of the fittest struggle dose have a caveat to the notion of equality: it would seem to be dependent on one very important premiss: that there exist an equality of opportunity. That our children can have a "level playing-field" in terms of education. It would appear that we recognise the nature of birth as being inherently "unfair" a lottery as to the situation that we a born to and consequently, actively wish to compensate for it, and yet that done allow the game of "survival" to take over in adult hood. Why the apparent inconsistent paradox? That we see that existence is "unfair" and yet we still are happy to play the game. A game that by its nature will have winner and losers.
Just how civilised is it, to knowingly embark on an inherently unfair venture where we know some will "have" at the expense of the "have nots", and to justify the same by reason of meritocracy, when we know it to be anything but a level playing field...... We love the establishment, to be part of the power that can give "anyone" the dream, the success, the Fittest.
We love it, not the establishment per say, but to be apart of the "in group"... because we are the animal that is driven to survive.