29 October 2010

William Grassie; Nationalism, Terrorism, and Religion: A Bio-Historical Approach

This is a part of a lecture that William Grassie gave in 2008: February at the Subodhi Institute, April at the University of Peradeniya and again in May, BMICH Committee Room B, Colombo, Sri Lanka;
http://www.grassie.net/pdfs/2008_A_Biohistorical_Approach.pdf viewed on 29.10.2010 at 13:53(GMT+10)

“Discussing the phenomena of nationalism, terrorism, and religion. It is wise to take a bio-historical, evolutionary perspective, because I think this will help us best understand and transform many conflicts [and dilemmas] throughout the world.
I am inspired to take this evolutionary approach in part through my encounters with the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a French Jesuit Paleontologist who died in 1955.
He writes:
For our age, to have become conscious of evolution means something very different and much more than having discovered one further fact...
Blind indeed are those who do not see the sweep of a movement whose orb infinitely transcends the natural sciences and has successfully invaded and conquered the surrounding territory – chemistry, physics, sociology, and even mathematics and the history of religions. One after the other all the fields of human knowledge have been shaken and carried away by the same under-water current in the direction of some development. Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is more: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.

By taking this broad evolutionary approach, we gain the most leverage in both understanding and transforming [our] countries and the world. So [it is good to] begin globally and end locally [wherever on Earth].

Nationalism
Nationalism can be understood as an evolutionary outgrowth of our natural tribal passions and rationalities, which were imprinted in the human psyche and genome over millions of years. Humans are profoundly social animals with a highly evolved capacityto engage in symbolic thought. One of the fundamental challenges in social species is how to ensure cooperation within the group and sacrifice on behalf of the group. The wellbeing and survival of the group depends on this cooperation and sacrifice. In humans, this is accomplished by a mix of evolved primate behaviours, as well as, newer cultural adaptations in the realm of religions, ideologies, and cultures.

It is no simple evolutionary trick to get individuals to cooperate and to sacrifice their own wellbeing, or that of their immediate offspring, for the benefit of the group. And yet, we cannot imagine that a human society would long endure if it could not 1) organize its members to cooperate and 2) in extreme instances, ask individuals to sacrifice their wellbeing for the benefit of the group. The latter is particularly troublesome to evolutionary biologists, because true altruism would contradict Darwin’s theory of natural selection. There are various theories within evolutionary biology that try to explain other-regarding behaviour. They go by names like kin selection and reciprocal altruism. At this stage, we need only consider a few of the proximate mechanism, rather than their ultimate explanations, and think about how these scale up from the level of the tribe to the dynamics of a nation state.

Remember that the dark side of this in-group altruism is that it is often employed in the most brutal manner against outsiders. Humans are clearly capable of great evil, as manifested in warfare, massacres, pillaging, raping, and enslavement, which have been the norm for most of human history and presumably much of our pre-history. This evil is partly a function of our evolved nature.

Of course, humans have natural dispositions towards living in groups. It hardly needs to be said, but no human is self-created. There is no such thing as a fully autonomous individual human. We speak languages we did not invent; we use tools that we did not design; we benefit from a vast library of knowledge that we did not discover; and we are nurtured as infants and children into “individuality” by families and societies that we did not choose.

14 October 2010

What does Henry Lawson’s story “Drifted Back” tell us about the experience of the Australians in 19th century? What two themes we can identify in the story?

File:Henry Lawson photograph 1902.jpgIn this essay I will present my view on Henry Lawson’s perspective on the life and experience of white settlement pioneers in outback Australia described in a sketch story “Drifted Back”. Lawson (17 June 1867 – 2 September 1922) absolutely had no romantic illusions about a 'rural idyll'. His bitter view of the outback life was far removed from the romantic idyll of brave horsemen and beautiful scenery depicted in some other Australian novels and poetry of his time. He touched two themes in the story: loneliness and change.

From the story we learn that the stranger, perhaps a white old man, has come back after 15 years to the town he knew very well. He enquired about number of people he knew from this desolate town. He listed them surname by surname expecting to find a few of his old friends. He seemed very surprised to find that most of the people were no longer in the town. He did not expected so big a change. It seems like he did not realise that time is flowing. He came alone to his hometown after years of his swagman journey “(…)I've tramped and travelled long ways since then” expecting to reunite with his family - old friends, to find a home again and spend Christmas-time like everyone likes to spend – with family, among people where one feels safe and comfortable.