This blog, through the last series of postings, has described
a foundational construct that is offered by Jonah Goldberg.[1] Assuming this writer has sufficiently
provided an accurate account of Goldberg’s view, what message should the reader
derive from that construct? This posting
attempts to begin answering this question by offering a restatement of Goldberg’s
explanation for why and how not only governments become established, but how
and why liberal values came to be accepted.
This posting uses a language that
better sets the stage for this blog’s critique of Goldberg’s view – possibly, it
can be considered the first stage of that critique. As for this review, it includes explaining what
led to the Miracle. The Miracle refers
to the most pronounce “hockey-stick” upward curve in human history; that being
of economic activity that Europeans initiated during the 1700s.
Current inhabitants of what is
generally called the advanced nations benefit from this historical turn in
countless ways, but just to mention one, the average life span has increased
from 35 years of age to over 70 years of age in the era of the Miracle. From people this writer knows, a household of
public servants (husband and wife), such as public-school teachers, who live
normal, modest lives with some industry, can accrue assets of over a million
dollars derived from a thirty-year career.
This might rely on a public pension
program and a viable union, but the examples are out there. One can safely say, such a retirement was not
available to any teachers back before the Miracle took hold. It might not be available to the current crop
of teachers since, in general, income distribution has not advanced during the
reign of Reagonomics initiated in the 1980s.
Initially, this posting was to begin
a critique, and, in a way, it does. But
an overall review of Goldberg’s explanation is felt to be in order. This posting, in a more narrative form,
reviews Goldberg’s account of how and why governments come about.[2] To begin this overall explanation, this
writer focuses on the contextual factors Goldberg establishes to make his
argument.
That, in turn, refers to that
writer’s view of what human nature is – where, by the way, most foundational
constructs of government and governance begin.
An initial question: how would
humans behave without the effects of civilization? More specifically, how would they behave
without being socialized to the values of a liberalized democracy?
According to Goldberg, without any
civilization, humans, roaming in a natural environment, would be almost totally
self-centered trying to eke out a way to survive the day. The individual would be devoid of any sense
of private property, especially any objects in the possession of others. If possible, the first party, if he/she
wanted something in the possession of another, would simply take it, if he/she
could.
One can question this basic view of life
– many think this isolated, nomadic life is unhuman in that archaeological evidence
places humans in social groupings, most often tribes, from the earliest found
remnants. But, for the sake of the
argument, accepting this basic framework – one used by John Locke to introduce
liberal thinking – one can make an important speculation. If it existed and prevailed, this state, for
obvious reasons, would preclude any social basis for coordination and/or
collaboration.
Therefore, humans would be unable to
enjoy any material-based assets – the stuff that makes life easier and even
enjoyable. Such developments call on
coordinated efforts which, in turn, depends on sufficient levels of trust and comradery
to make any efforts bearable over significant amounts of time.
But Goldberg’s construct provides the
possibility for such a development. He offers
an exception to the above description of an egoistic human. Humans, it turns out, have a natural
attraction for others that are seen as themselves.[3] That is, people naturally are attracted to
others that look like them, that are members of their tribe (which presupposes
a tribe). Once this attraction
functions, then limited abilities to coordinate and collaborate become possible
and takes place. This allows tribal,
social arrangements to take hold and allow for limited advancements.
A prior posting describes how, in
current days, this allure of others who belong to the “us” category provides
the motivation for troubled individuals to seek allegiances within the context
of say a street gang, the Klan, or the Mafia.
As such, this allure can be quite strong given the social dangers such
memberships entail.
Limiting social arrangements to local
tribes also results in debilitating consequences. That is, if one limits oneself to cooperating
and collaborating to fellow tribespeople, one can have a very limited autarky
(self-sustaining economy), but it will be:
·
Limited
to local resources – both physical and social;
·
Exhaustive
of local resources; and
·
Lacking
in competition which can/does lead to serious inefficiencies.
These factors are not important initially, but as the tribe,
the region, or the nation seeks to advance its economy, they can be very
important.
This bias for linking with others who
are like themselves also allows those in power, on a limited basis, to extend
this sense to larger social arrangements and, up to the 1700s, that process had
grown to an inclusiveness that corresponds to modern nation-states. Later in his account, Goldberg describes how
those who are ready and willing to take what they want – that is, steal – found
the taking more difficult given a more organized victim. This did not deter such stealing; in fact, an
organized tribe with more material assets, became a more alluring target.
They, the takers, had more to steal,
but there was a problem. If one takes by
raiding a tribe what the tribe has, a taker would not revisit the site, since
those of the site now have nothing. But
if one can figure out a way to steal but allows the victim to retain some of
their possessions and even leave them with ability to produce more, than the
robber can continuously steal. Hence,
the motivation to create government that the robbers, through some acceptable
rationalization, control and can, on an ongoing basis, continue to steal from the
victimized population.
And what better rationalization can
be used than one that exploits the tribal bias in which individual humans are
wired to feel. The nation is simply the
expression of “us, the people” of a given geographic place. And, as in the “natural rights of kings”
rationalization, God, in his beneficence, has ordained this king/queen to rule. That royal family, in Goldberg’s take, are,
with their necessary party of advisors and supporters, the established robber-class
who exploit the rest of the population on an ongoing basis.
Not only does the ruling class have
an ongoing victimized population, but certain social qualities are started and
advanced. Yes, economic activity can
transcend tribal, regional, or even national borders (depending on the level of
advancement). Institutions emerge and
they are those defining trade which naturally leads to advancement in legalisms
– between individuals, tribes, regions, and nations.
Higher levels of economic wealth –
and, therefore, higher payoffs for the ruling class – are further produced and
increased. All this is assisted by
higher levels of trust and feelings of empathy, benevolence, and even
friendship among those within and among populations. This, in turn, can lead to the development of
different ideas and, in the case of Europe, led to liberal supporting developments
– such as the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, exploration, the
Protestant Reformation, and other developments.
They were instrumental, in the case
of Europe, in initiating liberal governance.
But as these progressions took place, humans strayed from their natural
biases. To learn and accept these newer
values and perspectives, the individual needed/need to be taught to accept them. And that process is not natural; it is
unnatural and, therefore, a never-ending process is necessary to be
administered to each new generation.
In other words, people need to learn
to be accepting – or at least tolerant – of “foreign” customs, aesthetics, and
views of reality, be they next door or on the other side of world. Of course, this has its limits. And with this language, the next posting will
extend this “critique” with an account of a “primitive” people from an unlikely
source. Afterall, Goldberg’s view is
based on a view of what natural humans were like. That account is offered by, of all people,
Christopher Columbus.
[1] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide
of the West: How the Rebirth of
Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American
Democracy (New York, NY: Crown
Forum, 2018).
[2] While attempting to be true to Goldberg’s account,
this writer, to give the account a more narrative quality, adds some
descriptive elements. Hopefully, this
does not offend the points Goldberg makes.
[3] Robert Sapolski provides supportive evidence of this
human trait. See Robert M.
Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst
(New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2017).
No comments:
Post a Comment