Herb Gintis Offers an Heroically Short History of Inequality
He gets it down to a page:
[H] uman technology ... is a seriously two-edged sword, in some
eras liberating, and others enslaving, the human passions. Let me
explain. Hominids developed lethal weapons at least 400,000 years
ago, in the Middle Pleistocene ... . Most
important were sharpened wooden thrusting and throwing spears developed
for hunting, but quite effective in killing or maiming the strongest
male while asleep or otherwise inattentive. Because of these lethal
weapons, there was no possibility of maintaining a political hierarchy
based on physical prowess alone. By contrast, non-human primates never
developed weapons capable of controlling a dominant male. Even when
sound asleep, an accosted male reacts to hostile onslaughts by awakening
and engaging in a physical battle, basically unharmed by surprise
attack.
The reaction of hominid political structure to the
emergence of lethal weapons was, logically, either to sustain leaderless
social coalitions, or to find some other basis for leadership. The
superior survival value of groups with leadership doubtless led to the
demise of leaderless hominid social formations, and the consolidation of
new hominid social relations based on novel forms of leadership. What
might these may be? Clearly, if on cannot lead by force, one must lead
by persuasion. Thus successful hominid social bands came to value
individuals who could command prestige by virtue of their persuasive
capacities. Persuasion depends on clear logic, analytical abilities, a
high degree of social cognition (knowing how to form coalitions and
curry the favor of others), and linguistic facility. For this reason,
the social structure of hunter-gatherer life favored progressive
encephalization and the evolution of the physical and mental
prerequisites of effective linguistic and facial communication. In
short, 400,000 years of evolution in the presence of lethal weapons gave
rise to Homo sapiens.
If this argument is correct, it explains
the huge cognitive and linguistic advantage of humans over other species
not as some quirk of sexual selection (the favorite theory through the
ages of Charles Darwin, Ronald Fisher, Geoffrey Miller and many others),
but rather as directly fitness enhancing, despite the extreme energy
costs of the brain: increased cognitive and linguistic ability entailed
heightened leadership capacities, which fellow group members were very
willing to trade for enhanced mating and provisioning privileges.
With the development of settled trade, agriculture, and private
property some 10,000 years ago, it became possible for a Big Man to
gather around him a relatively small group of subordinates and consorts
that would protect him from the lethal revenge of a dominated populace,
whence the slow and virtually inexorable rise of the state both as a
instrument for exploiting direct produces and for protecting them
against the exploitation of external states and bands of private and
semi-state-sanctioned marauders. The hegemonic aspirations of states
peaked in the thirteenth century, only be driven back by the serious of
European population-decimating plagues of the fourteenth century. The
period of state consolidation resumed in the fifteenth century, based on
a new technology: the heavily armed cavalry. In this case, as in some
other prominent cases, technology becomes the handmaiden to oppression
rather than emancipation.
That's Gintis reviewing Fukuyama's End of History. Jump cut to the 20C:
It is clear today that the material basis for liberal democracy is no longer the armed infantry but rather a combination of the willingness of ordinary people to rise up, fight, and die for freedom, together with modern communications and transport technologies that are virtually impossible to suppress, especially if authoritarian states have an interest in promoting economic development. ... For the most part, modern technology is highly emancipatory.
Where [Fukuyama] is wrong, however, is in not contemplating the possibility of new technologies capable of controlling masses of people by a powerful few...
Gintis gives Fukuyama four stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment