Jul
27
An Empathic Civilization
I’ve been watching a bunch of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts’ videos lately, and I especially have been enjoying their animated lectures. There’s one narrated by Jeremy Rifkin that talks about the myths of human nature and the need to achieve an empathic civilization. It raises important issues about human consciousness and how humans have related to each other in the past and how we need to learn to relate if our survival is worth ensuring.
Rifkin, in this video, shows the progression of communal relations by a series of periodic examples tied together by his axiom that “to empathize is to civilize.” The hunter/gatherer saw her community as those immediately around her and those that lived over the next hill as the “Other”, thus empathy only stretched as far as one could yell. With written language and theology this sphere grew to include anyone of the same faith system. When technology erased enough of the distance between people, nation-states became the new borders of empathy and the Others were those that belonged to other nation-states. How then, he leaves open, can we make the next step to a global community? Or is that even the next possible step?
We can make no mistake that the need is there to disregard the fiction of nation-states in order to survive as a species. Sooner or later, if left as is, the horrors of war will destroy us (if our destruction of the natural environment doesn’t do it first). Accepting this, it now becomes an issue of how humanity moves to that next step. In Rifkin’s examples, he always presented an Other that united Us against Them, with the Other always assuming an opposite correlation with our new uniting factor. So, assuming Rifkin’s premise is correct, who or what becomes the new Other? I’ve talked with a couple friends on this and received responses ranging from, “the Other becomes obsolete as an after-effect of globalization”, “Others will be those that negatively define themselves, so as to separate themselves from the community”, “we need to discover life outside of this planet, intelligent or not, to announce the meme that we are not so special and actually exist in fragility, thus our interdependence is paramount.”
So, is any of this correct? Do we need to first unite on a continental level like the European Union? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, and let me know if Rifkin is full of shit as I hardly know anything about him other than he made an intriguing lecture in a Youtube video.
07/27/10 1:32 PM
“Do we need to first unite on a continental level like the European Union?”
I think this question has leapfrogged over some important issues:
1) What kind of unity are we talking about? Governmental? Authoritarian? Hive-mindedness?
2) What has caused the problems we face now in North America? What type(s) of dis-unity are we facing, and what are the reasons therefor?
3) Can the need for unity be demonstrated generally, BEFORE we assess whether it needs to happen first, second, or anywhere else in a stepwise prioritization of action?
There’s probably other questions/issues, but those are the 3 that pop into my mind immediately.
I tend to focus on (2) and note that the dis-unity itself isn’t the cause, but rather is a symptom of tribalism, and I also notice that the tribalism is fertile ground for those who can profit from dis-unity. Divide and conquer, eh?
I think balkanization is the path forward, not massive unification. I think this because I do not see one-world government serving anyone’s interests except those who would profit financially, power-wise and socially (strictly for themselves, I mean) from such a unified formal social order.
United social orders reduce individuality. Rifkin seems to suggest that individuality is the problem. I would disagree, and would say that the problem isn’t individuality in itself, but rather, the effect of various individuals having varying levels of knowledge or wisdom (or interest) regarding the long-term effects of their individual preferences and acts.
07/27/10 3:07 PM
Hi CF, those are really great questions! Your first one really forces one to set the stage in a way I hadn’t fully thought out before. I know that your questions are not necessarily for me but here’s how I’m reacting to them: I don’t necessarily think the need is governmental but rather, whatever metaphysical property that makes one empathize for their fellow country(wo)men, race, sex religion, and family. Sure, there may need to be some sort of governmental presence (and hopefully temporarily), but I really think that authoritarian government would be an enemy to any sport of empathic civilization, as well any form of government way be. I would almost always prefer some sort of direct-democracy.
Your second question makes me at a loss for words when I think of the enormity of our situation. To be over-simplistic I would succinctly say: capitalism. From racism, sexism, class, religion, nativism, environmentalism (or a lack thereof) and a myriad of other ways that those in power have divided and subdivided us has, I think, that create an imperative need for unity. We agree on the point that I also don’t think that the divisions are the problem but rather the symptom of a system that profits (literally and figuratively) from our divisions. Divide and conquer, indeed.
Unfortunately, I don’t quite have an answer for the third question, but I’m going to love posing it to those who have had similar conversations with me to get their thoughts on it.
In your last paragraph you disagree with Rifkin’s apparent attack on individualism. There I also agree with you but I wanted to make sure that I understand your reasoning: Is education the answer, in your eyes? Thanks so much for your feedback, CF!
07/28/10 12:07 AM
Yep, education.
But I would define that term literally, not in the American Colloquial sense — I would not say “everyone needs a college degree” or the like.
There lots of ways to learn — I prefer my own intellectually starved approach of looking at everything and learning as much as I can about whatever interests me, but I recognize others need a more structured system because they’re not auto-didacts by nature and possibly can’t ever learn to be one.
I’d say my most valuable lessons about how the world works have been experiences, not formal education. Of course, some of those experiences depended on extensive formal education as the groundwork to the experience (i.e. things I learned while practicing law), but I’ve known people who lacked a bachelor’s degree, let alone an advanced post-grad degree, who were wise and insightful. The pre-requisite to being an informed, wise person is the combination of several traits: skepticism, open-mindedness, and a hunger or thirst for knowledge. It also helps to have a strong sense of individuality, to combat the impulse toward tribalist alignments, which is a serious weakness of a great many smart folks.
07/28/10 9:38 AM
Do you have any ideas on what needs to happen to our culture for us to treasure knowledge instead of denigrating it? So many people I know are proud of their ignorance.
07/28/10 10:17 AM
I would attribute mine to two things, one of which can be implemented socially.
1) Whatever I inherited, brain-mind-psychology-wise, from my parents as a genetic gift.
2) My education K-6 at a private school that encouraged individual student development and fostered an environment where intellectual curiosity and learning were valued, rather than mocked-scorned-disdained.
From 7-12 I went to public schools where I saw the pride-in-ignorance attitude well on display. I think that attitude came both from the public school environment itself, and the families from which those proudly ignorant kids came. Which is the primary cause, the family or the public school to which the family sends its kids? Dunno, good question. One thing I know is that the kids I went to K-6 with, they came from families who wanted their kids to LEARN and I don’t recall a single classmate who sought or treasured that proudly ignorant status. And I don’t think my lack of recollection is due to a bad memory; I think that’s how it really was.
I’m afraid public schools have grown much, much worse. My present job is serving as a counselor of sorts to kids in middle and high school, and the crap that passes for “education” in the public schools in my town… ridiculous. It’s more like a breeding ground for apathetic ignorance.
The process of changing social attitudes in this field we’re discussing, it’s not a quick-turnaround project. It’s a generational project, one that would require teaching in a totally different manner. I think Socratic learning is the best, at least for those whose intellectual capacities will tolerate it. If it were up to me to create an educational system for Americans, I would make Socratic learning the centerpiece of such teaching. By its very nature, Socratic Method encourages independent, self-reliant analysis of the subject matter, it encourages self-confidence, it encourages curiosity, it encourages one to have the type of mind that is skeptical, holistic, and eager to learn.
The main problem I see with that approach is that most public school teachers I know don’t want to work that hard.