01-13-2011, 12:47 AM
I'm a senior taking an introductory sociology class though I'm an IT major, in order to fill some of my graduation requirements.
We had a 30 page reading. I'm very well read on history and religion, so I noted a few actual historical errors, one very serious, but the bulk of this post is to note the extreme negative bias the author has about the development of human society in general, which he teaches in such a trite and nonchalant way as if it were actual fact.
"In actual practice, cultural evolution works in as cruel and random as physical evolution. There are survivors and failures, and for individuals in those cultures that fail, the price may range from gentle absorption into other cultures to very severe suffering and widespread premature death"
Cultural Darwinism?
Thankfully I've read the Ra material and see biological evolution as having it's basis in consciousness, the difference between humans and animals being self-consciousness.
"changing it from a Republic run by a tiny group of landowners to an empire run by whoever could control the army. This was one of the most momentous political changes in the ancient world, yet it did not change the fundamental structure of society, only the makeup of the elite"
I do admire classical Rome to the extent that I admire classical Greece, it was larger and longer lasting, and yet it's technical, philosophical, and political innovations are all much less. Western civilization started with Greece, and without it would not exist. Rome was not, say, entirely Democratic, but Greek achievements survive us because of Rome.
There would not be any semblance of Democracy in a major country until the Magna Carta and the slow rise in power of the English parliament hundreds of years later.
"What has come down to us was primarily a culture of the elite. ... Yet at the same time they worked out a high culture of their own, these people had to keep their populations under control, and they were always looking for ways of legitimating their rule and the blatant inequality and unfairness of agrarian society.
"Among the Tiv in central Nigeria, for example, anthropologists found a society on the verge of creating a state. Until then, this had been avoided because the Tiv could expand as they overcrowded, but by the time they were absorbed into colonial Nigera, the situation was coming to a close. Some individuals were accumulating greater wealth and power as leaders and the Tiv were convinced that such individuals possessed a magical, evil organ inside their bodies that gave them access to power. The Tiv were on the verge of what might have been an involuntary, resented, but
nevertheless necessary change to a state society."
The author clearly delights in this strange example. The historical accuracy sounds dubious but I'm going to give it to him for now.
"At the other end, the ordinary peasants, who formed well over 90 percent of the population of most agrarian societies, actually fell to positions lower than their ancestors who had been free of states"
So, states are "necessary" even though well over 90% of the population is worse off?
Is anyone else disturbed at the combination of various messages here?
1. Cultural evolution is "cruel and random"
2. That states are "necessary"
3. That states create an inevitable elite, and most people are worse off
Now let me say that I do not quite see states as much distinctly separate from the rest of society, but it is more important to see the STO or STS philosophy being promoted by various actions.
Generally any time one appeals to base instincts, and says something is "neccessary", like torture, or "thou shalt not", that is STS.
We had a 30 page reading. I'm very well read on history and religion, so I noted a few actual historical errors, one very serious, but the bulk of this post is to note the extreme negative bias the author has about the development of human society in general, which he teaches in such a trite and nonchalant way as if it were actual fact.
"In actual practice, cultural evolution works in as cruel and random as physical evolution. There are survivors and failures, and for individuals in those cultures that fail, the price may range from gentle absorption into other cultures to very severe suffering and widespread premature death"
Cultural Darwinism?
Thankfully I've read the Ra material and see biological evolution as having it's basis in consciousness, the difference between humans and animals being self-consciousness.
"changing it from a Republic run by a tiny group of landowners to an empire run by whoever could control the army. This was one of the most momentous political changes in the ancient world, yet it did not change the fundamental structure of society, only the makeup of the elite"
I do admire classical Rome to the extent that I admire classical Greece, it was larger and longer lasting, and yet it's technical, philosophical, and political innovations are all much less. Western civilization started with Greece, and without it would not exist. Rome was not, say, entirely Democratic, but Greek achievements survive us because of Rome.
There would not be any semblance of Democracy in a major country until the Magna Carta and the slow rise in power of the English parliament hundreds of years later.
"What has come down to us was primarily a culture of the elite. ... Yet at the same time they worked out a high culture of their own, these people had to keep their populations under control, and they were always looking for ways of legitimating their rule and the blatant inequality and unfairness of agrarian society.
"Among the Tiv in central Nigeria, for example, anthropologists found a society on the verge of creating a state. Until then, this had been avoided because the Tiv could expand as they overcrowded, but by the time they were absorbed into colonial Nigera, the situation was coming to a close. Some individuals were accumulating greater wealth and power as leaders and the Tiv were convinced that such individuals possessed a magical, evil organ inside their bodies that gave them access to power. The Tiv were on the verge of what might have been an involuntary, resented, but
nevertheless necessary change to a state society."
The author clearly delights in this strange example. The historical accuracy sounds dubious but I'm going to give it to him for now.
"At the other end, the ordinary peasants, who formed well over 90 percent of the population of most agrarian societies, actually fell to positions lower than their ancestors who had been free of states"
So, states are "necessary" even though well over 90% of the population is worse off?
Is anyone else disturbed at the combination of various messages here?
1. Cultural evolution is "cruel and random"
2. That states are "necessary"
3. That states create an inevitable elite, and most people are worse off
Now let me say that I do not quite see states as much distinctly separate from the rest of society, but it is more important to see the STO or STS philosophy being promoted by various actions.
Generally any time one appeals to base instincts, and says something is "neccessary", like torture, or "thou shalt not", that is STS.