Can we make wiser collective decisions as one human family, save ourselves from extinction along with the living world in which we are immersed (and should be wise stewards of)? Are we as a species more flexible to self-construct ourselves, our societies, or do we necessarily have to go slowly through developmental stages until reaching those associated with universalist values? The new magnus opus (seven years in the making) "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity" by Graeber and Wengrow challenges the developmental, evolutionary view of stage-by-stage progression typically associated with Integral Theory, but is it accurate or is it a reflection of the authors ultra-egalitarian, even anarchist, "green altitude" thinking?
Depending on how valid the main thesis of the book is, it
would bring hope to the possibilities that humanity may have by showing that at
least it is more possible to re-define ourselves experimentally in different social
arrangements and thus, possibly, to move away from our current destructive
consumption and growth-based, nationalist, and regressive, illiberal course. In
some ways, it coincides with the - hopeful and empowering belief (or
fact) of "you create your own reality found in New Age/New Thought
postulates. The argument in "The dawn of Everything" offers a greater
degree of latitude for self-creation and for self-modification as per adopting
social arrangements and cultures and, it would coincide with international
relations political scientist Alexander Wendt's acceptance of
"Constructivism." Constructivism means that "the
structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather
than material forces, and that the identities and interests of purposive actors
are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature."
(Wikipedia).
On the other hand, in Integral Theory, adaptation to our
current complex conditions would (to begin with) require a sufficient large
percentage of the population reaching the modern, "orange"
developmental altitude in order to be able to impose forms of living more
rationally under universal, world-wide attitudes and rules of
behavior. Otherwise, too many individuals will exploit any technology or
systems available (including those which are modern) either for their selfish
aggrandizement (and imposition over others) or to aggrandize (and also impose)
their cultures above the rest.
Are our minds sufficiently flexible to intelligently adapt
fast-enough on a world-wide scale to the human predicament referred to by
sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, a predicament based on having an immediatist
paleolithic brain, godly technology, and medieval institutions? If we wait
for stage-by-stage cultural and psychological evolution to catch up with
technology as expected in Integral Theory it may be too slow.
On the other hand, Graeber and Wengrow contend that it is in
our nature to shift social arrangements more easily. But have Graeber and
Wengrow accumulated enough anthropological evidence to challenge a (normally
slower) developmental, evolutionary view or have they simply found that the
human species is a bit more flexible and varied than expected? Does the basic,
developmental, (more pessimism-inducing) evolutionary view (especially
compatible with Integral Theory) still get the upper hand? If (without
reaching a situation in which a majority of individuals primarily exist in
conventional-modern and post-conventional stages) we can nevertheless (by human
nature) be flexible enough to re-create our social arrangements, we may have
greater possibilities of adapting to our current predicament of living in
highly complex, interconnected circumstances.
So, the question boils down to whether enough of us can live
in global cooperation without a suppressive dictatorship or external force
imposing it even if most of us are still holding on to a "me first"
or to a tribal, "our people versus the others" way of thinking,
feeling and being? Can we re-design our social arrangements more flexibly than
expected or are we at the whim of how developments in technology will
unexpectedly combine with our paleolithic brain-minds? Should we embrace
genetic modification, surrender control to Artificial Intelligence governance,
maybe welcome some particular 'aliens' as overlords, or continue in our current
ethnocentric and individualist course towards a daily extinction of species and almost complete eradication of natural life on earth?
However, I'd say that there is a second ray of hope in that
Integral Theory, Constructivism, and the capacity for flexible human social
experimentation defended by Graeber and Wengrow also coincide on something
basic: That - as a species - we can overcome our focus on immediate
threat-based experience, stubbornly holding on to beliefs, and other (now
dangerously limiting) heuristics associated with "our paleolithic
brain."
Another coincidence between Graeber and Wengrow's proposal
that humans have a flexible social experimentation capacity, Wend't
constructivism, and Wilber's Integral Theory is that they all agree with the
need for social activism. None of them propose that being happy with personal
change and speaking to our cultural in-group choir is enough to save the world.
As per Graeber and Wengrow's study, individuals in pre-modern cultures would
have actively decided to change their social arrangements rather than passively
waiting to see what happens. In Wend't Constructivism, the fact of actively
sharing ideas can change societies as they also change the identities and
interests of purposive actors. In Wilber's Integral Theory there is a
well-established tradition of social activism. In traditional Inca wisdom
we have the wisdom of conceptual knowing and know-how (yachay); the wisdom of feeling
or sentiment (munay), and the wisdom of actively doing (llancay), and I think
that the union of these three is a universal requirement, especially if we
attempt to be fully human and conscious and "integral" manner.
Even if the importance of developmental stages still holds
as paramount, there might just be sufficient flexibility in human nature and in
the human mind to purposefully adapt to our current conditions, especially if
challenged by unheard-of circumstances like the unsustainable disappearance of
the life-world, an overload of technology/an inability to distinguish between
the natural and virtual worlds, and the collective awakening to the realization
that we share activities in the planet with other (generally more advanced)
intelligences.
Sources
“The Dawn of Everything”: David Wengrow & the Late David
Graeber On a New History of Humanity. Democracy Now. Nov 18, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDO28CPAPuM
“The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity.” The British
Library. Nov 23, 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkm-BhtjASs
Comments
Post a Comment