JULY 2010
A DISCOURSE: SOCIAL ECOLOGY
a new morality ?...alternative choices?
Diskurs: Soziale Ökologie .... eine neue Moral - alternative Möglichkeiten
Discours: l'écologie sociale ..... une nouvelle morale - les choix alternatifs
Discourse: Social Ecology ...... en ny moral - alternativa val
Дискурс: Социальная экология .... новую мораль - альтернативные выборы
Discurso: Ecología Social .... una nueva moral - las opciones alternativas
Söylem: Sosyal Ekoloji .... yeni bir ahlak - alternatif seçenekleri
Λόγος: Κοινωνική Οικολογία ..... μια νέα ηθική - εναλλακτικές επιλογές
Wacana: Sosial Ekologi ..... moralitas baru - alternatif pilihan
Discourse: Sociale Ecologie ..... een nieuwe moraal - alternatieve keuzes
Discurso: Ecologia Social ..... uma nova moralidade - escolhas alternativas
Дискурс: Соціальна екологія ..... нову мораль - альтернативні вибори
گفتمان : اجتماعی محیط زیست..... اخلاقیات جدید -- گزینه های جایگزین
لخطاب : الإيكولوجيا الاجتماعية...... أخلاقية جديدة لخيارات بديلة
Welcome.
This website has been developed by J.Kelvyn Richards,BA,MA,PGCE.
The web site is an open e-book, [first published Jan 2008]. A discourse, revised
and reorganised regularly. Read it regularly, tell your contacts,make web links, email me your
comments; and your corrections. Translate it for your communities.
This discourse is based on the facts of social interdependence, and social interaction;
and considers that
Social Ecology studies the impact of humans on the biosphere, the environment
and the atmosphere of the earth.
Social Epistemology considers the impact of human interaction upon theories of knowledge,
and establishes how we come to know anything?
Social Freedom is a construct that explains the interdependence of all humans in their search
for survival and identity.
These constructs have significant implications for our ways of life, and the education of our children.
The discourse recognises that we are living in a world in which violence is rife, and where governments
tell us what is knowledge and truth. However, the discourse proposes that Social Ecology will lead us to a
new morality, and alternative choices.
This discourse comprises a series of chapters: including
Calls for change: genetics, physics, ecology;a social ecology; social dependence; critique of
meritocracy and individualism; gemeinschaft, gesellschaft; social freedom -a theory of social relations;
social epistemology; a theory of knowledge; conflict, civil war; peace; negotiation; a theory of
interactive education; Development - capitalism, sustainability; profit,poverty; a theory of social
enterprise: that attempts to formulate a new mind set according to which human society will
not be constructed on the basis of the savage principle of the survival of the fittest; and will not be
characterised by islands of wealth surrounded by oceans of poverty.
And examines a series of issues:
Knowledge?
Peace?
Education?
Capitalism?
Green Living?
Development?
with the support of Web sites:
www.PoliticsResources.net
http://www.iNSnet.org.
www.planet2025.net
www.earthaction.org;
www.undp.org;
www.thegreenfuse.org;
www.crisisgroup.org;
www.globalissues.org;
www.wfp.org/1billion
www.livegreenordie.com
www.socialecologylondon.wordpress.com
http://socialecologyvashon.org
http://gardenearth.blogspot.com
http://kommunalismi.net
www.ecologiesociale.ch
www.grameenfoundation.org
http://www.mesotheliomaweb.org
http://www.community.nytimes.com
www.forumsocialmundial.org.br
My Web Log Expert reports 154,731 hits as at July 25th 2010 by 45,796 readers. The web logs tell
me that this Social Ecology web site is No.1 on Google; on Yahoo; on MSN; on ASK.
email comments to hmr@kelvynrichards.com.....
Calls for change: A Social Ecology
Genetics, Physics and Ecology are disciplines that have led the calls for changes in our thinking. Genetics and
Ecology have established the ways in which organisms and environmental systems are interconnected: Physics, the
relations between matter, anti-matter and solar systems. Alan Drengson suggests that
Individuals do not exist in isolation, but in relationships; and that individual existents are unique (and irreplaceable in
the future) by virtue of the special set of relationships in which only they are (and can remain) embedded. The world is
therefore seen in organismic terms rather than mechanical ones - in terms of interacting processes and fields rather
than isolated things, and socially, in terms of an extended ecological community rather than in terms of essentially
separate, competing individuals. (*Alan Drengson*, Fox, 1995)
[Fox, Towards a Trans personal Ecology, 1995]
A corollary of these communities is that humans are connected,
interdependent and interconnected, as in family groups.
The notion of the self as ' independent ' is a delusion. The
philosophy of individualism is false.
But the delusion is very strong and has led many individuals
to regard themselves as the 'centre of the Universe'. They
blatantly exploit others for their sole benefit, and aggrandizement.
Psychologists spend a lot of time analysing individual
behaviours.
As long as we are subject to the delusion, we will see
ourselves as individual and independent, and unable to
take others seriously,other than as means to ends. Some
will regard 'hell as other people''. Furthermore, we can
only regard ‘nature’ as part of our selfish demands and
as something to be exploited.
The notion of nature as commodity is a delusion.
In the words of Murray Bookchin:
"The notion that man must dominate nature emerges directly from
the domination of man by man… But it was not until organic
community relations… dissolved into market relationships that the planet itself was reduced to a resource for
exploitation . This centuries-long tendency finds its most exacerbating development in modern capitalism. Owing
to its inherently competitive nature, bourgeois society not only pits humans against each other, it also pits the mass of
humanity against the natural world. Just as men are converted into commodities, so every aspect of nature is
converted into a commodity, a resource to be manufactured and merchandised wantonly." (Post Scarcity
Anarchism 1971, p. 85) "The plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by the plundering of
the earth by capital." (/Ibid./, p. 86)
This view is confirmed by Oelschlager in his book, The Idea of Wilderness. He argues that the perception of
'wilderness' depends on the historical and cultural filters humans used in different periods. The modern historical lens
obscures the idea of wilderness in ancient times: 'Through the lens of history, human experience takes place outside
nature'. Nature is seen as a commodity. Other people are seen as commodities.
The calls for change lead us to review our assumptions, our perceptions, our cultural filters. According to David
Pepper, such perceptions function as cultural filters, determining how we perceive the environment, and other
people, now and in the past. For example, recent work, in 2008 by Mary Richardson of the University Laval,Quebec,
Polycultures of the Mind, has shown how changes in cultural values,rather than directives or orders, lead farmers
and consumers to be 'organic', and reject industrial farming.
It is important that we develop a ‘social ecology’, whereby we learn to exist in cooperation with each other, other
species, and with the environment, and accept our interdependence and interconnectedness and work together for
our mutual benefit by protecting each other and the environment in which we live ' as an extended ecological
community'.
GENETICS
We look at our bodies and see them as bounded and solid.
But in order to understand them, we have learnt to think of them as
a collection of 100 trillion cells, made up of molecules,genes,
chromosomes.
In 1953 Watson and Crick completed the analyses of genes and
created the double helix of DNA, the 'bar code' describing the complex
genetic network of each individual organism.
In 1976, Richard Dawkins published his work concerning
The Selfish Gene, in which he argued that the fundamental unit
of selection, and therefore of self interest, is not the species,nor the
group, nor even strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of
heredity.
However, a decade later, in June 2007, the United States
National Human Genome Research Institute published the findings of
an exhaustive four year research project, carried out by 35 groups
from 80 research organizations across the world. These findings
challenged the view of the way genes function. To their surprise, the
researchers found that the human genome might not be a tidy collection of independent genes after all, with each
sequence of DNA linked to a single function..........Instead, according to their findings, genes appear to operate in a
complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components.
Denise Caruso, a director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute, in an article in the Herald Tribune, July 4 2007, noted that
biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. She wanted to argue that these
effects are only reported as significant when observed in humans -the social genes.
This research is a significant call for change to genetic sciences, leading us to accept the interdependence and
interaction of humans and their genes within complex networks.
So the notion of the selfish gene is mistaken.
Physics : A Quantum universe?
We look at the objects and materials of the world as bounded and
solid.
The calls for change in the area of physics are perhaps
the most radical of all the movements in the scientific
disciplines, questioning the nature of scientific enquiry and
indicating that it is time to ‘re-seed’ our concepts of self and
others, and incorporate the implications of quantum physics into
our notions of the physical world. Modern developments in
Physics are questioning our present ways of interpreting the world,
and the things around us, suggesting that these are incorrect.
Albert Einstein observed :
A human being is part of the whole, called by us, universe ... We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as
something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for
us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free
ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature
in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have
obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive.
Developments in physics suggest that our delusions and fantasies are not restricted to values. Our perceptions of the
external world are distorted. Whilst recognizing the dramatic achievements of science, particularly the remarkable
levels of accuracy of physical theories, Penrose (1989) has raised questions about the basic assumptions underlying
the Classical approaches to Science. He argues that just as many aspects of our physical reality require the theories
of quantum physics to explain them, this may apply also to our understanding of the social world.
"Perhaps our minds are qualities rooted in some strange and wonderful feature of those physical laws which actually
govern the world we inhabit…We must indeed come to terms with Quantum theory — that most exact and mysterious
of physical theories — if we are to delve deeply into some major questions of philosophy…how does our world behave,
and what constitutes the ‘minds’ that are indeed ‘us'? Yet some day science may give us a more profound
understanding of Nature than quantum theory can provide. It is my personal view that even quantum theory is a stop-
gap, inadequate in certain essentials for providing a complete picture of the world in which we actually live." (Penrose,
R.(1989)p.291)
The work of Richard Feynmann (1985) winner of the
Nobel Prize and a central figure in the changes within
Physics, links Physics with Psychology and Philosophy,
denying the existence of a reality ‘out there’ or indeed
a static/measurable universe anywhere and considers
what Physics and Mathematics can tell us about the
nature of the mind and consciousness. He explains
that the essence of Quantum Mechanics involves going
against our common sense. The questions raised by
quantum physics touch on the very deepest issues of
philosophy. The phenomenon of consciousness needs
alternatives to classical approaches. It seems that
the things that we see and feel and manipulate as solid
objects are both particles and waves, and can only
be explained, measured, and predicted in terms of such, not as solid, static objects.
The notions of a solid, static world, out there, is an illusion.
The inheritors of the quest for understanding the nature of the Universe have to come to terms with the limitation of
order and predictability at the heart of quantum physics which leads to questioning all notions of solid reality, since
atoms can appear as particles or waves simultaneously; as particles of energy. At one point atoms were thought to be
indivisible. But research over the last 30 years has shown that atoms comprise protons,neutrons, electrons; which in
turn are made up of quarks. The very latest research is indicating that quarks are divisible! Hadrons. These particles
come together to create matter and anti-matter, positive/negative. If matter collides with antimatter there is a big bang.
It is argued that our universe came into being following a 'Big Bang', 15 billion years ago. After which the universe,
space,and time began; matter super heated,expanded, and then cooled to form galaxies, stars, earth, life-forms. It is
thought that there has not been another 'big-bang', because there is an excess of matter in the universe. Therefore,
this universe is assymetrical, lopsided; with more matter than antimatter. Of course, we could ask where the antimatter
is? Galaxies,stars,planets,organisms are made from matter, particles. Human organisms are collections of particles of
energy derived from a universe of particles [ref:Wikipedia.org], generated by a collision of matter and anti-matter.
These theories are making it possible to think that the separation into ‘me and we’, ‘thou/I’; ‘self and others’ is false.
Individual humans should be viewed as particles and waves, as part of a continuum in which ‘the one’ is an aspect of
‘the many’. What we see as objects and organisms are specific concentrations of particles and waves amidst a
universe of particles and waves. The ‘Quantum message’ is that there is no ‘out there’ and ‘in here’, only states of
particles and waves. This message indicates that any notion of the independent self, and the solid,
independent object of our experiences, is an illusion. We are temporary concentrations of particles.
Ecology
Of the environment, and societies.
Peace activists,Conservationists,and Environmentalists
have long been asserting that if we continue to seek our
individual gratification by consuming all the products and
all the global resources, then there will be no
sustainable future for our children. Yet this has
been largely ignored. Freya Matthew argues that
The Deep Ecology of Arne Naess is concerned with
the Metaphysics of Nature, and of the relation of the
Self to Nature. It sets up ecology as a model for the
basic metaphysical structure of the world, seeing the
identities of all things- whether at the level of elementary
particles, organisms, or galaxies- as logically
interconnected: all things are constituted by their
relations with other things ..Applying this principle of interconnectedness to the human case, it becomes apparent that
the individual denoted by ‘I’ is not constituted merely by a body or a personal ego or consciousness. I am, of course,
partially constituted by these immediate physical and mental structures, but I am also constituted by my ecological
relations with the elements of my environment- relations in the image of which the structures of my body and
consciousness are built. I am an holistic element of my native ecosystem, and of any wider wholes under which that
ecosystem is subsumed ............
From the point of view of deep ecology, what is wrong with our culture is that it offers us an inaccurate conception of
the self. It depicts the personal self as existing in competition with and in opposition to nature .We fail to realise that if
we destroy our environment, we are destroying what is in fact our larger self. (*Freya Matthew*) (Fox, 1995)
The notion of the personal self in competition with nature is a delusion.
The opening address of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in the summer of 2002 by
Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa, eloquently summarized the nature of the changes needed if we are to
achieve sustainability. He stated that
"a global human society….characterized by islands of wealth, surrounded by a sea of poverty is unsustainable. …for
the first time in human history, society has the capacity, the knowledge and the resources to eradicate poverty" (http:
//www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/openingsaE.htm)
He called for a ‘seed’ change in our attitudes.
"We do not accept that human society should be constructed on the basis of the savage principle of the survival of the
fittest." (http://www.un.org/events/wssd/statements/openingsaE.htm)
He is arguing for the alteration of our cultural filters, and mindsets, to alter the seeds of our thinking, attitudes, and
beliefs.
It is clear now that such calls for change are growing in urgency and that they are coming from a wider range of
different sources. Initially it was concerns about the Environment and the debates about the impact of our use of
nuclear power, of fossil fuels, of deforestation and consequent global warming. Increasing amounts of data have been
collected showing the consequences of our continuing depletion of our natural resources — yet we continue to live in
unsustainable ways.
"What we do about Ecology depends on our ideas about the Man-nature relationship…. More science and more
technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis…We must rethink and re-feel our destiny…. We
deserve our increasing pollution because according to our structure of values, so many other things have priority over
achieving a viable ecology." (White ,L.(1967)p.28)
There is a need to re-think our attitudes towards our global environment. But we must also alter our ideas about profit
and poverty. Anthony Browne in an article in the New Statesman Aug 2002 states that:
"The World Summit on Sustainable Development…is the culmination of a new theory sweeping charities, national
governments, the UN., and at least the press releases of the World Bank: fighting poverty and saving the environment
are in fact the same battle… the summit is about how we can reduce poverty and save nature at the same time. This
theory is not just that it is desirable to do both at the same time…but rather that you have to do both at the same time,
that you can’t do one without the other. It turns the old theory of trade-offs between development and the environment
on its head; they are now part of the same bargain."
The common thread in all the calls for change and warnings of impending doom is the need for common action.
Joanna Macy argued :
I consider that this shift [to an emphasis on our capacity to identify with the larger collective of all beings ] is essential
to our survival at this point in history precisely because it can serve in lieu of morality and because moralising is
ineffective. Sermons seldom hinder us from pursuing our self-interest, so we need to be a little more
enlightened about what our self-interest is. It would not occur to me,for example, to exhort you to refrain from cutting
off your leg. That would’t occur to me or to you, because your leg is part of you. Well,so are the trees in the Amazon
Basin; they are our external lungs. We are just beginning to wake up to that. We are gradually discovering that
we are our world. [Joanna Macy, eco philosopher, Berkeley,USA]
A SOCIAL ECOLOGY
Many writers have argued that in order to make an impact on world pollution, all governments will have to work
together. It is only a token for individual governments to take certain actions. If the world is to survive as an 'eco
system' and be sustainable, we will all have to act together. Every individual and every government will have to agree
to take specified actions designed to reduce pollution and reduce global warming. The argument is that, whether we
like it or not, we only have a sustainable future by acting together and in the interests of our neighbours.
For example, the hole in the ozone layer does not just effect Antarctica, it impacts upon the meteorological systems of
the earth. The peoples and other organisms of the world form an extended ecological community within
complex networks.
What is the definition of ‘the fittest’ ? In a capitalist global society, the fittest have always been defined as those
most able to make as much profit from others as possible. In a sustainable global society we have to share with each
other. The 'winner 'does not take all, but shares it with the 'losers'.
‘Development’, ‘Conservation’ and ‘Environmentalism’ cannot mean that we all seek the ways of living of the richest,
but that we all share the resources of the globe so that we all achieve a satisfactory sustainable standard of life.
It means ‘redistribution’. It means that the ‘rich’ will have to give back much of their riches to the poorer citizens so that
we can all live sustainable lives.
The nature of our interdependence is such that the greed of some brings about the hunger of others. In order to
secure the greatest happiness of the greatest number, we must act in consideration of all others. In 2002, the graphic
images of a group of cosseted elite attending the World Summit within a stone’s throw of the abject poverty of large
groups of Black South Africans bear witness to the increasingly large divide between those who have access to
resources and those that do not.
The warnings are all around us — from scientists, activists, and, increasingly, from our personal experiences of climate
change with flooding, droughts , and other natural disasters. Economic instability is being experienced even among the
relatively affluent citizens of the developed world: job insecurity, the migration of corporate capital, downsizing and
unemployment are common features of our day-to day experience. The current credit crisis, 2007/8/9, triggered by the
sub-prime mortgage deals in the USA, emphasise the facts of our interdependence and interconnectedness. Families
in Ohio defaulting on their loans set the world financial systems into free fall ! In many parts of the world famine and
destitution are prevalent. Despite such evidence of the need for a radical re-thinking of our global community, few
contemplate changes in their lifestyle. Many blame the poor for their poverty!
Social Ecology means that in order to protect the environment, and expect a sustainable future, we must
alter our behaviour, our lifestyles, our economics, our notions of self; our cultural filters, our priorities,
our morality.
Recently in 2006 the Central planning committees in China challenged the expansion of individualism and capitalism
within their systems, and called for the reassertion of the needs of communities, and the redistribution of resources for
the benefit of all, rather than the wealth of the few. They have become aware that while some have become very
wealthy since the liberalization of China’s economy, the vast majority of their peoples, over 3 billion of them,remain in
abject poverty and ignorance. They may have a different political agenda to other governments, but they have
identified the critical dilemma of capitalist economics. Unfortunately, in 2009, little has changed in China. It has become
an example of state capitalism whereby the governing party controls the corporations, making profits for the party,
and for the executives. Most of the poorest, and some of the richest people in the world, live in China.
The combination of developmental issues and relief of poverty may be one small step towards recognition of our
interrelationships within our global society. It is naïve, however, to assume that just by such a change the challenges
can be overcome.
We have an enormous capacity for self-delusion and compartmentalized thinking. The development of Deep Ecology
and ecosophy represents one attempt to overcome these delusions and compartmentalism as Naess (1990 ) states:
"Ecology is a limited science which makes use of scientific methods. Philosophy is the most general forum of debate on
fundamentals…By an ecosophy I mean a philosophy of ecological harmony or equilibrium. A philosophy is a kind of
sophia, wisdom, is openly normative, it contains both norms, rules, postulates, value priority announcements and
hypotheses concerning the state of affairs of our universe."(Naess,A.(1990)p.155)
Thus, within Deep Ecology there is a broadening of the sphere of concern of Ecology, outlining a structure of values,
which are seen, as radically different from those dominant in present societies. The central feature of difference with
other types of Ecology is the merging of issues, which have previously been seen as philosophical, yet including also a
requirement to action in order to effect a change in behaviour.
Roszak (1973) argues that:
"What is important in the examination of a people’s mindscape is not what they articulately know or say they believe….
What matters is something deeper; the feel of the world around us, the sense of reality; the taste that spontaneously
discriminates between knowledge and fantasy."(Roszak,T.(1973)p.403-4)
A notion supported by Pepper (1989) who states that:
"It is of prime importance for us to study, as well as the ‘real’ and tangible physical environment, how different groups
and individuals perceive that environment and the nature of the ecologically, socially and culturally based
presuppositions which colour this perception, or as some express it, the cultural filter.."(Pepper,D.(1989)p.6)
If we are to alter the ways in which people behave, we are going to have to alter the ways in which they conceive their
culture and traditions, and their relationships with all others, not just their family. This means that we have to ‘ to think
and act, local as well as global’.
The United Nations is leading the call for rethinking our political parameters and polarities. Concern for the
Environment, conservation, development, and ecology are not only about ‘nature’, they are calling for social
changes….
a social ecology, according to which we realize that we are interdependent and connected to each other,
within complex networks.
I want to call for rethinking our social relations; a realisation of our social dependence and interdependence, and a
rejection of our social independence, and individualism.
a story : ALONE IN A CROWD?
A CASE STUDY OF SOCIAL DEPENDENCE,and the delusion of personal independence.
In 1960 when I gained entry to the University of London to study Geography at Queen Mary
College, I believed that I had achieved it 'all by myself': I was subject to the delusion of
independence.
1945 was the start of a new era. The second world war in Europe almost ended; In England there was a new Labour
government, promising a new deal, based on the principles of welfare provision established in the Beveridge Report.
Aneurin Bevan was pushing through the legislation for the National Health Service, and schemes of National
Insurance, taking over control of the municipal and voluntary hospitals, and all doctors, so as to provide free medical
care for all at the point of need. The 1944 Education Act was already providing, for the first time, opportunities of
secondary education for all boys and girls. For many, such as those returning home from battle, life would never be
the same. For many children, who had been born during the war, their lives were blighted by
disease……………diptheria, polio,tuberculosis, rheumatic fever ,scarlet fever, pneumonia, bronchitis....and could only
get better! For John, at the age of 4, a childhood of illness and hospitals had just started. 1945, through to 1951, was
spent in and out of hospitals. First, Walton Municipal; later, over the years, Chertsey; Woking; Windsor;
Westminster; Kingston, Lancing. A cold…a sore throat…swollen glands…scarlet fever….rheumatic fever, mitral
stenosis, heart disease.
In 1945 rheumatic fever was a child killer. Death was on the horizon. The standard treatment was aspirin, [in its time a
miracle drug,] and bed rest. His parents sacrificed a lot, travelling miles from one hospital to another. Making special
arrangements when he was home.
John is an individual being, part of a social matrix, supported by members of his family, and the nurses
and doctors in the hospitals. But he was subject to the delusion of independence, unaware of the extent
of his dependence.
At 5 years old , there were sore throats, swollen joints, and pains. Fever. And then, a swollen mitral valve, and a
swelling heart. It is interesting to note that John did not know about these complications until much later. And even then
it was referred to as ‘having a bad heart’. At one point it was reported that the heart had filled the chest cavity, and
was four times normal size. It slurped and whistled and gurgled. The mitral valve had become damaged, rendering
blood circulation around the body irregular and haphazard. Death was round the corner. John did not know. Such a
serious illness was serious living, leading to a predicted death. A lot of time was spent asleep: bed rest.
We are talking about someone who was not alone, but who was always lonely. He was concerned with his own inner
world, placed in a complex world of carers, nurses, doctors, surgeons, specialists. They were all equally concerned
about his inner world, his state of body. While John was living from minute to minute, all these others were collectively
trying to formulate a future for him.
One day he was woken up by the ward sister, and doctor, and given some sugar and a beaker of ‘medicine’. The
reason for the sugar soon became clear. The medicine tasted awful. It was bitter. The sugar helped the medicine go
down. The medicine had to be taken regularly several times everyday. John had been introduced to penicillin.
John had become part of an international network working for the introduction and development of one
of the most significant drugs of recent times. He was about to be released from his cycle of illness by the product
of researches across the world, and across time.
Sir Alexander Fleming, a Scotsman, had first discovered penicillin in 1928, in a petri dish that he was about to throw
away. Having returned from the Great War in 1919, he was determined to find an antibiotic that would control those
bacterial infections that had been responsible for killing more people than the fighting during the war. However, few
agencies were interested in developing the penicillin. It was not until 1938 that a team of researchers, led by Florey
and Chain, at Oxford invited Fleming to join them and continue the work. And it was not until 1941, when the USA
joined the 2nd World War, and wanted treatments for injured soldiers, that funding was provided by the Rockefeller
Foundation to complete the development and testing of penicillin. In 1943 the large quantities of penicillin that were
demanded for treatments by the military were being produced in an agricultural research centre in Peoria in Illinois in
the corn belt of the USA. And in 1946?, John received his first doses of penicillin.......a link in a social network that went
back to 1928.
The life of a little boy in Walton on Thames in the UK was about to be revived as a result of these developments over a
20 year period following the efforts of three Nobel laureates, and the massive funding by the US government, and the
National Health Service in the UK.
The provision of penicillin meant that he could now fight the bacteria that were generating the cycle of sore throats,
scarlet fever, and rheumatics and heart disease. But it also meant a lifetime of medical dependency, of drug treatment.
In the future, whenever he got a cold, and a sore throat, the penicillin tablets had to be taken as well. Whenever he
went to the dentist he would have to take a course of anti-biotics for several weeks before and after the dental
treatment. Today, he still has to take doses of a powerful anti-biotic before proceeding with dental treatment.
No matter how independent I thought I was, I was an individual that could only survive to be on my own by
being part of a complex matrix of specialists – doctors, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, hospitals, clinics,
medication, tablets. I have achieved a future as a result of the dedication and actions of my family, and teams of
medical staff locally, nationally, and internationally. I gained a freedom to study, to graduate, to be a teacher, as the
direct result of a complex network of social support. I want to call this ‘social freedom’. You may want to say that I
have finally achieved my ‘individual freedom’. But this is to ignore the significance of the others in the many social
networks that have enabled me to thrive. I want to underline that individuals are dependent, interdependent,
interconnected to all others, in patterns of social interaction as part of social networks generating social
freedom.
Once settled back at home, after the treatments had controlled the illness, it was necessary to arrange to go to school.
In 1951 John was 10 years old. Arrangements were made for him to start at the local Junior school in September. His
future was to be based on one year of primary education! There were a number of problems that had to be overcome.
First, how was he to get to the school, which was three miles away? An ambulance car took him to school everyday.
Was he to be allowed to play in the playground? No. He will stay in the classroom; preferably with the teacher. Will he
be able to go through the school day without a rest ? No. he will have to have a rest during the lunch break. Where
and what? The NHS will provide a campbed, and John will lie down in the classroom during the break. All these
arrangements identified him as a freak!
The complexity of the support network is impressive. John now had a future as a result of the efforts of medical
researchers across the world; of Socialist politicians setting up the NHS; of specialist care by hospital doctors and
nurses; and now, by the special arrangements made by the teachers at the local primary school.
Of course, he failed the 11+, and failed to get to the Grammar School. Arrangements were then made for him to go to
the local Secondary Modern School. But this was complicated. He was still under close medical supervision and
medication. He was the boy with the ‘bad heart’. The local secondary school, more than 3 miles away, had two floors,
with steep steps. For the first year it was decided that he would have to stay on the ground floor. No going up stairs.
So a unique timetable was devised whereby he went only to the classrooms on the ground floor. He got to school by
car. Any slight infection was treated by antibiotics and led to weeks off school. A home tutor would come to help work
through the lessons from school.
The extensive support for this one boy with the ‘bad heart’ was enabling him to get a grip on his life and to have a
future. We have to conclude that, whether he knew it or not, his freedom to act was based entirely on his
dependence and interdependence on these social networks, a social freedom.
In 1958, with the onset of the major international epidemic of Asian Flu, John had a recurrence of scarlet fever and
rheumatic fever, and had to spend 3 months in hospital and 3 months on convalescence. The memories of this illness
are clearer. The pains and rheumatic paralysis. They did not come suddenly but slowly. Over a period of a week he
was incapable of moving an arm to shave. Over 3 weeks he could not move any limbs at all. This meant that all
functions that involved movement had to be carried out with the help of someone else. One day, he was given new
medication – cortisone. The ‘miracle’ drug developed by an American chemist , Edward Kendall in 1950, for which he
was awarded a Nobel Prize. Overnight - he could move all limbs. The fever went. The rheumatism disappeared. Saved
by a miracle drug, again! Research carried out on the other side of the world provided a cure. He survived. All the
other patients of all ages in the ward died of flu. John was the sole survivor.
It is correct that my entry to University can be attributed to my hard work and determination, and ability to pass the
necessary exams. But the very fact that I was alive was due to the complex networks of support that had worked for me
since 1945. It is clear that I was oblivious of these networks. My mindset was one which emphasized my needs and not
the work of others, the delusion of independence.
I would argue that we are all dependent, from the moment of our conception to our death. The current notions of
independence and individuality whereby we are free to do as we please are based on the delusion of independence.
We are never free to do as we please without regard for others. We exist as elements that comprise patterns of
social interdependence leading to our social freedom.
INDIVIDUALISM and MERITOCRACY
VICES NOT VIRTUES
individualism
The concepts of individualism, and individual freedom, led John, among many others, to believe that he had achieved
everything 'on his own'. The notions of the egoistic, self interested, independent individual have become the basis
upon which capitalist societies have built their economic prosperity. The obsession with the rights of the individual to
exploit others and enrich themselves has been supported by philosophy. The critical discourses of Descartes,
leading, in later centuries, to the philosophies and epistemologies and psychologies of self -ishness as expressed in
rationalism, individualism, existentialism, and post-modernism, as well as phenomenology, have not only allowed ‘me’
to regard ‘myself’ as ‘certain’, and at the center of the universe, but also to see ‘hell as other people’, and possibly to
consider ‘others’ as phantasms or tricks played by gods, or even by my imagination.
In societies in which there are ‘elites’, it is not surprising that ‘I’ can feel free to pursue my own interests without any
regard for others. Individual freedom, freedom of choice and free will, are regarded as ideals to be pursued by
individuals for their own aggrandizement. Philosophical discussions are based on the need to demarcate the
boundaries between individuals, to ensure that one person’s freedom is not interfered with by that of another person.
Such beliefs were given significant impetus in the 1980's when Margaret Thatcher, as leader of the Conservative
Party in the UK, declared that ‘there is no such thing as society’! and Allan Greenspan asserted the necessity of
unregulated capitalism, whereby individuals must be free to exploit and profit from their initiatives......and, of course,
take the consequences!
Individualism is a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and
the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the exercise of individual goals and
desires. They oppose most external interference with an individual's choices - whether by society , the state , or any
other group or institution , which stress that communal, group, societal, racial, or national goals should take priority
over individual goals. Individualism is also opposed to the view that tradition , religion , or any other form of external
moral standard should be used to limit an individual's choice of actions. Some argue that individuals are not duty-
bound to any socially-imposed morality and that individuals should be free to choose to be selfish (or to choose any
other lifestyle) if they so desire. Others still, such as Ayn Rand , argue against "moral relativism" and claim selfishness
to be a virtue. [source: Wikipedia 2007] Freedom of will and of choice are virtues. The vitality of these ideals has been
recently revealed as part of the Health Care debate,2009, in the USA, whereby Republicans have been demanding
that citizens should not be told by the government how to spend their money, nor how to look after their health.
Libertarians: Prof. Amitai Etzioni has asserted that libertarians actually think that "individual agents are fully formed
and their value preferences are in place prior to, and outside of, any society." They "ignore robust social scientific
evidence about the ill effects of isolation," and, yet more shocking, they "actively oppose the notion of 'shared values'
or the idea of 'the common good.'" (American Sociological Review,_ February 1996).
Washington Post columnist, E. J. Dionne Jr., argued, in his book ‘Why Americans Hate Politics’ that
"the growing popularity of the libertarian cause suggested that many Americans had even given up on the possibility of
a 'common good,'’ In a recent essay in the Washington Post Magazine, he wrote that "the libertarian emphasis on the
freewheeling individual seems to assume that individuals come into the world as fully formed adults who should be held
responsible for their actions from the moment of birth."
The late Russell Kirk, in a vitriolic article titled "Libertarians: The Chirping Sectaries," claimed that
"the perennial libertarian, like Satan, can bear no authority, temporal or spiritual" and that "the libertarian does not
venerate ancient beliefs and customs, or the natural world, or his country, or the immortal spark in his fellow men."
Cato Policy Report, Tom Palmer 1996.
Such notions of individualism, liberty, individual freedom, and freedom of will, can and do lead to unfairness, injustice
and inequality when the rights of the powerful individual take precedence over others: when might is right.
For example, the annual reporting season for companies and corporations is in full swing each spring across the
globe. While many forecasters continue to worry about the onset of depression or recession, an amazing feature of
the reports each year is the enormous amounts of money that executives are being paid by boards of governors, or
simply paying themselves. In the USA, in April 2007,at the onset of the global recession, it was reported that such
individuals as T.Boone Pickens, Carl Icahn, George Soros, Kenneth Griffin, Edward Lampert, Loyd Blankfein, James
Simon, all took home over 50 million dollars each for the year, and some more than $1.5 billion. April 2010 : the New
York Times reports that hedge fund managers David Tepper, George Soros, James Simon, John Paulson, Steve
Cohen, Carl Icahn, Edward Lampert, Kenneth Griffin, John Arnold, Philip Falcone had a gross income of more than
$10 billion [$1 billion each] .At a time when millions have lost their jobs and their savings and their pensions. One
must assume that this is done on the grounds that ‘I am free to do as I please! I have taken risks, and made the plans,
so I am entitled to the rewards and bonuses - if you are poor, that is your problem
One could argue that the likes of George Soros and James Simon do return significant amounts of money to others
and set up new initiatives. And it is reported that Bill Gates of Microsoft has recently been in China offering a cheap
version of Windows XP. And the Gates Foundation is offering funds to help farmers in various parts of Africa.
This ideology of individualism is fostered [a] within families, many of whom see their role as encouraging the growing
independence of their offspring: [b] within schools, where individual effort is rewarded, but where cooperation with
others is classified as cheating or plagiarism; [c] in the workplace where workers are often separated from each other,
and social interaction is restricted so as to avoid team work or ‘skiving’; [d] in religions, which assert that 'I can only
know through my worship of god';' I can know god'; 'I will be saved by god'; 'I must work for god'; 'I must sacrifice myself
for god!'.
In some industries, the growing recognition of the value of teamwork is introducing some fundamental challenges to
this ideology of individualism.
Such a focus on the individual masks the reality of our interdependence and effectively prevents us from developing a
freedom, which recognizes, and is based, on our interdependence on others: a Social Freedom.
The delusion of independence encourages us to feel ourselves to be separate individuals, able to survive alone.
The reality, as revealed by my case study, is that we are never alone and are interdependent throughout our lifetime,
and cannot survive alone.
This delusion of individualism, and the belief in meritocracy in education, leads to a focus on individual achievements,
the identification of the elites, and their separation from the others; while at the same time talking about equal
educational opportunity for all.
Of course, it would be foolish to conclude that there are no ‘individuals’. I have a strong sense of being an individual:
looking at the world through my eyes; and devising my ideas within my mind and communicating with others, and
being influenced by others. However, I wish to support the symbolic interaction of Mead[1934] and Blumer [1969]; that
individual people exist in relation to others; are interdependent and interconnected with all others. To believe that I can
exist, independent of others is a delusion. I exist as part of a network of others. My knowledge is based on the
testimony of others. I learn the family language that allows me to explain what is going on, describe my experiences,
phenomena, events. I exist as part of a complex matrix of particles, and genes. The delusion of the independent
individual is a vice not a virtue!
MERITOCRACY
In the Guardian, June 2001, Michael Young commented: “I have been sadly disappointed by my 1958 book, The Rise
of the Meritocracy. I coined a word which has gone into general circulation,especially in the United States, and most
recently found a prominent place in the speeches of Mr Blair,” Prime Minister of UK until June 2007.
“The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might
happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy. Much that was predicted has
already come about. It is highly unlikely the prime minister has read the book, but he has caught on to the word
without realising the dangers of what he is advocating. Underpinning my argument was a non-controversial historical
analysis of what had been happening to society for more than a century before 1958, and most emphatically since the
1870s, when schooling was made compulsory and competitive entry to the civil service became the rule.”
As indicated by Michael Young, one has to conclude that in modern capitalist societies key assumptions are [1] the
significance of individualism, and the value of meritocracy, which leads us to identify the most able individuals, [2] by
developing education as selection of this elite, and offering a curriculum that prescribes the necessary knowledge
and skills, enabling them to enter the 'top jobs'. Meritocracy upholds that some individuals are superior to all others,
and that they are independent, and have the rights to exploit their inferiors and to receive the best rewards.
The concept of ‘meritocracy’ espouses that the role of education is to select the most able, ‘the golden people’, and
give them the best education. These ideas can be traced back to the Platonic notions of ‘gold’, ‘silver’ and ‘bronze’
individuals in which the gold knew the truth and were entitled to lead and organize the silver and bronze people. These
notions have justified the identification of elites for grooming as the leaders of society. In the past, in the UK, for
example, it was thought that the gold people were born into that position, the aristocrats. In more modern times,
testing and certification have been used to identify that group. Meritocracy justifies elitism.
State Education, today, such as in the UK, and in Greece, is designed, both, to provide opportunities for all; and to
select this elite. Examinations, such as the 11+, or school grade certificates have been used for this selection - to
grade and separate the able from the rest and to provide an exclusive education for them. For this selection to happen
it is necessary to identify individual differences and to legitimize separate educational provisions. This has led to
competition for selection, the separation of communities and inequality.
Michael Young asserted that education provision can be easily used to engineer a ‘meritocracy’, providing the seal of
approval on the few, and disapproval on the many. Meritocracy has nothing to do with equality of opportunity, only with
the provision of the best education for the ‘most able’, and justification for their superiority in society and their elitism.
Systems of meritocracy encourage us to compete with each other through exams, declaring those with the highest
marks as superior and more worthy than all others, and classifying those with low or no marks as failures. For many
years it has been used to exclude women, ethnic minorities, and the poor, and support class divisions in any society.
Paolo Freire alerted us that
‘The elite naturally believe that they are better,and anything else is naturally inferior. We have a strong
tendency to affirm that what is different from us is inferior. We start from the belief that our way of being is
not only good but better than that of others who are different from us. This is intolerance. It is the irresistible
preference to reject differences. The dominant class, then, because it has the power to distinguish itself from
the dominated class, first, rejects the differences between them but, second, does not pretend to be equal to
those who are different; third, it does not intend that those who are different shall be equal. What it wants is
to maintain the differences and keep its distance and to recognize and emphasize in practice the inferiority of
those who are dominated.’
Bourdieu (1998) describes these processes, whereby education selects, differentiates, and approves selection and
differentiation, by arguing that educational institutions whilst declaring themselves as providing educational
opportunities for all, are actually closed and discriminatory. It is obvious, as part of the ideology of meritocracy, that
state and private schools are run so as to select the ‘best’ and make sure that they become part of the dominant class,
the civil service, entrepreneurs, and the professions in the first place [the gold]; administrators, tradesmen and traders
in the second place [the silver]; and then the labourers [the bronze]. They act as agents of selection and
discrimination.
Schools are organized in ways that even where ‘liberation’ may be the goal, elitism is the result. The liberation that is
on offer is that of providing a wider range of learners with the opportunities to take the exams, to enter into the
meritocracy. The result of this selection and discrimination is the classification of large numbers of learners as failures
who do not see themselves as successful learners.
Bourdieu (1998) explains this process in terms of ‘The Left Hand and the Right Hand of the State’:
“ the set of agents of the so-called spending ministries which are the trace, within the state, of the social
struggles of the past….I think that the left hand of the state has the sense that the right hand no longer knows,
or worse, no longer really wants to know what the left hand does. In any case it does not want to pay for it.
…the state has withdrawn…from a number of sectors of social life for which it was previously responsible;
social housing, public service broadcasting, schools, hospitals, etc., which is all the more stupefying and
scandalous, in some of these areas at least, because it was done by a Socialist government, which might at
least be expected to be the guarantor of public service as an open service available to all, without distinction.”
(p.2)
This unequal system is maintained through several different mechanisms, for example, what Bourdieu refers to as
‘Habitus’ :
“Habitus refers to the internalization of structures during the process of socialization. Habitus is expressed in
culture by translating structures of oppression into symbolic representations that mask their social origin; ( for
instance when one blames the destitute for their poverty). These oppressive relationships in symbolic form
develop perceptions that nature and biology are responsible for unequal power relations instead of social
practice”.
( http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~curth/papers/bourdieu.html]
Meritocracy and individualism are structures of oppression for the majority.
Educational Institutions claim to be widening access but exclude many from entry. Within a meritocracy, the providers,
and the successful students, agree with the special provisions, because it ensures their futures, to the exclusion of
others.
Within educational institutions, the ‘habitus’ includes messages of elitism in that students are selected to gain access
to skills and certification, which excludes the many who will then be denied such opportunities. Individual achievement
is celebrated and the system of grading and differentiation is legitimated. [please go to chapter on Education]
Meritocracy and individualism are expressions of the following key assumptions:
Society is a hierarchy of the leaders and the led.
Inequality is inevitable.
Inequality is right.
Those who are able deserve all the goods of society.
Those who are clever should lead communities.
Those who lead, the chosen, deserve the goods of society.
The belief that those who are able, and good, deserve the goods of society, acts as a justification for the selection of
the ‘chosen’. This belief is used to justify that the rich get richer, and those riches are seen as evidence of their
goodness, rather than evidence of their exploitation of others. Such beliefs develop into an acceptance of a ‘natural
order’ in which some are chosen to flourish. Those who flourish are confirming their cleverness and skill, which
inevitably makes them the best leaders and decision-makers, which in turn provides them with the opportunity to
continue the cycle of exploitation and acquisition. This state of affairs describes the mindset, or the cultural filter,
embodied in individualism, meritocracy, and elitism……whether capitalist or socialist.
As Michael Young argued, building a society upon such assumptions and beliefs impacts upon all aspects of that
society. Other learners are seen as ‘enemies’ with whom you are in competition and conflict as each strive for their
own survival. Relationships with the environment also become distorted as individuals are separated from the natural
world, and they inevitably lose sight of their own humanity as success and profit dominates thinking and decision-
making.
The ethics of meritocracy and individualism have given all the ‘goods’ of society to the few, and left the majority in
poverty and ignorance. The spread of corporate globalization has meant the dominance of many national economies
by a few capitalist entrepreneurs, and their companies, such as V W, Ford, Microsoft, Intel, Dell, IBM, Caterpillar,
Boeing, Esso, BP, Texaco, along with many others from Russia, China, and Japan. Capitalism has created wealth for
some but left the poor even poorer..…. All of this is legitimized by the following assumptions:
Profit is made by discovery, exploitation, innovation, manufacture, trade, exchange.
Profit is good.
Those who make profit are good.
Profit is to the glory of ‘God’.
Those who make profit should give to the worship of ‘God.’
They are the chosen of ‘God.’
‘God’ is our father.
We must obey him in all things.
We must not question his rule
He will look after us in heaven
The disasters of today are visited on us as punishment for our sins
Inequality is inevitable.
Inequality is right.
These assumptions of meritocracy, accepted by many communities, allow some humans to see themselves as special;
allow those who make profit, and lead others, to be seen as to be blessed by ‘god’; as ‘not to blame’ for all the
inequality and injustices in the world, nor for the misuse of the environment; to regard disasters as punishments by
‘Gods’; and to look forward to a better life in ‘heaven’. The link with 'god' leads many people to think that they have
‘souls’, and think that the body is not important; their souls will go to heaven. It is not necessary to do anything about
the earth. What is more, such people will suffer the insufferable on earth in the belief that they will enter the kingdom of
heaven.
These beliefs can be used to allow any individual to defend all those actions that aggrandize the self to the sacrifice of
others. The religious mind set persuades us that we are not responsible, for we are in the hands of god and destined
for another and better life in heaven. For example, Curt Whitworth, Texas, USA [ 22 August 2008], in the
International Herald Tribune, commented in the Globalisation blog, that if you believe that “global warming” is
a valid issue and concern, you either have a lack of faith, or a lack of intelligence. If one believes that God
exists, that He created the earth, and that He is in control, then the entire issue becomes a moot point. Curt
believes that we should be moderate and wise in the way we utilize the resources that God placed on this
earth for our benefit. He asks 'since when has man the power to create or destroy this earth? Since when has
man been in control of the destiny of God’s creations?'
This discussion highlights the tensions between individuals and groups in that the selection mechanisms systematically
separate particular individuals to form elite groups, but in doing so generates a delusion of individualism which enables
individuals to persuade themselves that they are ‘gold’ , independent of their ‘habitus’, and are the blessed of god.
The delusion of god supports the delusion of individualism, and meritocracy and the delusion of elitism.
Gemeinschaft, Gesellschaft;
Independence, Interdependence;
Freedom, individual or social?
The Concept of Social Freedom
The concept of ‘Social freedom’ describes the ways in which we are all interdependent, and exercise our freedoms in
relationships with others. We cannot survive alone. Indeed it is impossible to be alone in any meaningful way. Even in
isolation we carry the ideas, images and relationships of others within our heads. We exist within a social matrix of
relationships with others [gemeinschaft ] We may be lonely, but not alone.
The conditions of society that have been described and criticized in this discourse are the by products of the mindsets
and cultural filters that inform the behaviors of capitalist communities, which ignore the reality of our interdependence.
They are built upon the delusion of independence which assumes that individuals can be free to pursue their own
freedom and aggrandizement regardless of others, and of the impact on others [gesellschaft ] Such assumptions
have to be challenged. And are being challenged! on several fronts.
Bourdieu (1998) argued for the need to analyse the work of what he terms the 'new intellectuals' whom he blames for
creating a climate favourable to the withdrawal of the state and to the dominance of the values of the economy.
"I'm thinking of what has been called the 'return of individualism', a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy which tends to
destroy the philosophical foundations of the welfare state and in particular the notion of collective responsibility which
has been a fundamental achievement of social (and sociological)sciences ….The intellectual world is now the site of a
struggle aimed at producing and imposing 'new intellectuals', and therefore a new definition of the intellectual and the
intellectual's political role, a new definition of philosophy and the philosopher, henceforward engaged in the vague
debates of a political philosophy without technical content, a social science reduced to journalistic commentary for
election nights and uncritical glossing of unscientific opinion polls. Plato had a wonderful word for all these people;
doxosophers. These 'technicians of opinion who think themselves wise'…What I defend above all is the possibility
and the necessity of the critical intellectual, who is firstly critical of the intellectual doxa secreted by the doxosophers.
There is no genuine democracy without genuine opposing critical powers. The intellectual is one of those, of the first
magnitude.(p.7/8)
http://oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_schugurensky/assignment/1986bourdieu.html )
Diane Swanbrow returns us to the issue of the selfish and the altruistic, exploring a new theory that selfish genes
make humans selfless. She reports that humans are altruistic by nature, according to a new theory published in the
current issue of Psychological Inquiry [2006]
The theory focuses on explaining the kind of altruistic behavior that involves costly long-term investment in others,
such as parenting,caring for the sick or injured, and protecting family and comrades in times of conflict or war. This
behavior typically entails considerable sacrifice-of time, effort, health, and even life itself. "Considering the self-
centered motives that are evolutionarily ancient and that continue to drive human behavior today, it's worth
considering why people make these kinds of sacrifices," says U-M psychologist Stephanie L. Brown, who developed
the new theory in collaboration with her father, Michael Brown, a psychology professor at Pacific Lutheran University.
Brown and Brown argue that the social bond - the glue of close interpersonal relationships- evolved to discount the
risks of engaging in high-cost altruism. They propose that social bonds override self-interest and motivate costly
investment in others. The formation of social bonds must have occurred mainly between individuals who were
dependent upon one another for reproductive success, or whose evolutionary fates were linked. "This linkage would
have provided givers with a genetic safety net, making them resistant to exploitation," says Brown, an assistant
professor of general medicine at the Medical School
<http://www.med.umich.edu/medschool/> and a faculty associate at the Institute for Social Research <http://www.isr.
umich.edu/> (ISR), affiliated with the ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program.
Effectively, this selective investment theory presents a striking alternative to traditional self-interest theories of close
relationships that tend to emphasize what individuals get from others, not what they give.
"Viewed through the lens of selective investment theory," Brown says,"the fabric of close relationships appears
different. Sacrifice becomes a characteristic feature of healthy, enduring relationships rather than aberrant,
inexplicable, or diagnostic of pathology" What makes selective investment theory distinctive not only is its focus on
high-cost altruism, but also its premise that "selfish genes" ultimately are responsible for selfless, other-directed
behavior.
"Selfish genes can produce selfless humans," says Brown, explaining that high-cost altruism helped insure the
survival, growth and reproduction of increasingly interdependent members of ancestral hunter-gatherer groups.
"Viewed in this way, the spread of altruism in humans is no surprise," she says. "Even altruism directed to genetically
unrelated individuals is not as mysterious as some have supposed." In support of their theory, Brown and Brown cite
evidence from a wide range of fields, including neuroendocrinology, ethology and behavioral ecology, and relationship
science.
"The same hormones that underlie social bonds and affiliation, such as oxytocin, also stimulate giving behavior under
conditions of interdependence," Brown says. The Browns say their theory has important implications for relationship
science. "We do not deny that close relationships involve selfish motivation," says Stephanie Brown, "but the picture
may be more complex. If social bonds evolved to support altruism then we may need to re-think the way we view
human sociality. Models of psychological hedonism and rational self-interest may need to be expanded in order to
describe our behaviors in families, at work and even on the national stage."
Copyright 2006 The Regents of the University of Michigan
<http://www.umich.edu/~regents/>
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA 1-734-764-1817.
Can we reconcile the models of hedonism and self-interest with those of social bonds and
interdependence?
All the evidence of our personal lives as children, and as adults; as pupils, friends, brothers, sisters, parents, teachers,
family, workers, employers,and so on, indicate that we exist within various social networks, providing mutual support.
However, despite these facts of dependence and interdependence, many individuals disregard this evidence, and
construct personal visions in which they are free to do as they please, and exploit others for their own aggrandisement.
The concept of Social Freedom is offered as an alternative to hedonism, self-interest, and individualism. Social
Freedom involves an epistemology of social interaction, dependence and interdependence. It is not ‘communist’ in the
modern sense, according to which each person is subject to the dictates of the leaders of the commune, or the political
party. Nor is it ‘communitarian’ whereby individuals have to do as ‘the community’ demands. Nor is it to be regarded as
any type of nationalism, which claimed to develop ‘social freedom’ as exclusive, fascist and racist, fostering the
freedoms of the national society. Some of these doctrines were the most extreme forms of elitism such as Nazism.
Our Social Freedom, or as Murray Bookchin described it, Social Ecology, recognizes the actions of individuals by
drawing attention to the social networks in which they are enacted. It means that we become free by learning and
interacting with others. We cannot be free as ‘one’, only as ‘many’. This means that we have to develop a philosophy
and a morality that sees ‘others’ as significant, not just figments of our imaginations or as lesser people. We act and
interact together.
What we do, we learn from others; and impacts upon others. Once we accept our social interdependence, we can work
together to secure the freedom of all. The notion of individual freedom is a delusion. An individual human cannot exist,
nor survive, nor thrive, alone. For example, John after many years in hospital returned home and was free to develop
his ideas and skills through interactions with his family, with schools and the myriad of educational opportunities which
then became open to him. Without these opportunities John could never have gained access to Higher Education,
qualifications for employment and the freedom to establish his own family. John may have believed that his
achievements were his alone but in fact they were the result of his social support, his individual freedom was social
freedom. Whether we recognize it or not, our social interdependence is a social fact. Our social lives are a continuum
in which the actions of all affect all.
So there is a moral responsibility for the one, and the many, to realize their interdependence. Ignoring our
interdependence has drastic consequences particularly on the environment. Conservationists assert that if we
continue to seek our individual gratification by consuming all the products and all the resources, then there will be no
sustainable future for our children. The nature of our interdependence is such that the greed of some brings about the
hunger of others; that in order to secure the happiness of all we must act in consideration of all others.
Humans are responsible for all the damage and destruction, the inequality and exploitation. They are responsible for
conservation and renewal; and have to accept that this world is the only ‘home’...not a temporary stop on the way to
‘heaven’. All people are responsible for each other, and need to care and share; not disregard and destroy others
because they have different beliefs; or look different; or speak different languages. It is necessary to adopt a different
mind set, to use another cultural filter.
Nelson Mandela, after 27 years in prison, and his walk to freedom
in February 1990, and the final collapse of Boer apartheid
in South Africa, emphasized the truth of the ancient Bantu adage:
‘numuntu ngumuntu ngabantu’ (we are people through other people).
And he saw, the inevitability of "mutual interdependence" in the
human condition, that "the common ground is greater and more
enduring than the differences that divide.".
http://www.nobel.se/peace/articles/mandela/index.html
If we consider humans as problem solving, tool using animals that live in communities, then the dilemmas set by
environmental issues, poverty, capitalism, globalisation, and others are another set of problems that may only be
solved by social action based on our interdependence, and recognition of the need to gain social freedom through
this social interaction.
Kofi Annan, in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize states that:
We have entered the third millennium through a gate of fire. If today,
after the horror of 11 September, we see better, and we see further,
we will realize that humanity is indivisible. New threats make no
distinction between races, nations or regions. A new insecurity has
entered every mind, regardless of wealth or status. A deeper
awareness of the bonds that bind us all ‘ in pain as in prosperity ‘
has gripped young and old.
Researches into environmental changes have indicated that some actions have global impacts. The use of certain
chemicals; the widespread use of coal and lignite; the combustion of oil products; the discharge of sewage into the
sea, and lakes; have catastrophic effects upon the atmosphere and the lithosphere of the earth.
Environmental studies, and the development of ecology, have revealed that the actions of humans in one part of the
world impact directly upon those in other parts. We can no longer pretend that what we do locally has no impact
globally.
Ecology has indicated that we are all embroiled in environmental networks, and that we have to think of all humans as
part of our global societies, and as active elements in the environment.
Social Ecology leads us to see that we are a global community, able to act and think locally and globally.
Once I see that I am socially interdependent on everyone, and that I gain any freedoms in unison with others, then I
can see the moral imperative to care and share for others. I must look after my 'sisters and brothers'. Once I give
everybody else 'value' and recognise that they are 'worthy', then I must look after them. I do not need any belief in
'god' to give me the authority to care for others: only to believe in the value and worth of all others.
A Social Epistemology: Knowledge and Truth
‘Facts are socially independent; truth is socially mediated’
Social dependence, social interdependence, Social networks, Social interaction, Symbolic interaction, Social freedom,
Social knowledge, delusions, illusions; Sociology; Social Ecology, Social Epistemology.
The science, philosophy, morality of Social Ecology, as developed in this discourse, can be regarded as significant,
only if one believes that the facts of our social interactions, our experiences, experiments, and observations, provide
us with knowledge, and lead us to truths, which guide our lives, actions, perspectives, and relations with other
organisms.
'Idealists', from Plato, Kant, Berkeley, Hegel, asserted that you can only know 'the truth' by deductions from the
contemplation, reflection, and analysis of the concepts and ideas in your mind. The worlds of objects and experiences
are too unreliable to provide knowledge, and are best regarded as shadows: therefore social ecology is illusion.
'Rationalists' such as Socrates, Descartes, Liebniz, Spinoza, proposed that one may have bodily experiences, but
they are not sufficiently reliable to lead to knowledge or truth. If you want to gain knowledge, and identify truth, you
exercise your reason, the mind, using the constructs and concepts as expressed 'a priori' by intuition, deduction, and
the laws of logic to organise your experiences into knowledge, and find the truth by dialectic and analysis. Therefore,
social ecology is mistaken.
‘Theists’, the philosophers who place ‘god/s’ at the centre of their contemplations, assert that knowledge and truth
are expressions of the laws of ‘god’. God and his prophets are the source of all truth. For them, any analysis of our
social relations or social ecology is irrelevant nonsense.
Social ecology is based on realism [ there is something outside the mind that causes mind to know objects]; on
materialism [the material world, that is outside of consciousness, is primary to thought]; on empiricism [sense
experience is the ultimate source of all concepts and knowledge]; social dependence, [resulting from interaction with
others]; social constructions [the products of words and categories, languages devised by others]; and social
relativity [in the sense that different communities give different significance to different objects].
We have to accept that Social Ecology, as an expression of empiricism, realism, and materialism, is in opposition to the
values of most peoples in the world, today. For example, it is estimated that out of 6.8 billion people, there are 2.1
billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, 900 million Hindus. These communities believe that knowledge and truth are
given in the scriptures, prophecies, or dictates of some god, priest, pope, prophet, archbishop or oracle. For these
people, the events in the world are experiences leading them to ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’, salvation or damnation. They uphold
that to know the truth is to know the laws of ‘God’. Knowledge and truth are given, a priori, not discovered!
Social ecologists, on the other hand, belong to the school of 'empiricism' according to which sense experiences, based
on facts, observations, investigations, experiments, evidence, are the ultimate source of all concepts and knowledge
and truth. We know, a posteriori. We do not come into the world already equipped with constructs and concepts,
knowing facts and truths. We discover them by experience. We learn them from others. We are not born with a
conceptual and language framework, we have to learn it from other adults. Knowledge and truth are not given,
they are discovered. Truth is not universal; it is temporary; dependent upon the current state of our knowledge.
Social Ecology, along with many other sciences, finds support from the field of social epistemology. Social
epistemology postulates that knowledge is factive, and truth is 'socially mediated'. We learn the facts from others and
from our experiences: 'a posteriori'.
Social Epistemology is the study of the social dimensions of knowledge, based upon the validity of social
experiences. Alvin Goldman defined it in the following way in a paper he presented for the Philosophy of Education
1995: ’ as veritistic epistemology....... that is, propositions can be verified by evidence….. Social epistemology studies
the social or interactive practices of multiple agents in order to see how their interactions encourage or obstruct
knowledge acquisition’.
Robert B. Talisse of Vanderbilt University argues that social epistemologists maintain that the cognitive
individualism associated with the Cartesian tradition is a flawed-- or at best incomplete-- model for thinking about
knowledge. A full analysis of knowledge must involve an examination of the deeply collaborative and interactive nature
of knowledge seeking (Goldman 1999 ). Hence social epistemologists are concerned to evaluate the social processes
by which information is gathered and transferred, the social institutions responsible for disseminating knowledge, the
reliability of accepted experts and epistemically esteemed institutions, the social norms governing dissent, and so on.
The aim is to acknowledge and examine the ways in which social institutions and relations influence, constrain, and
enable knowledge-seeking. The argument is a social epistemic one insofar as it emphasizes the moral and prudential
risks to which we are all subject in virtue of the fact that each of us is profoundly and unavoidably dependent for true
beliefs upon social institutions. That is, each of us is individually, epistemically, dependent upon others for many of our
factual and normative beliefs. This dependency consists not only in the fact that many of our beliefs ultimately have
their source in the testimony, experience, research, and expertise of others, but also that our epistemic habits are
socially derived. Our epistemic habits include not only the ways in which we form, revise, and maintain our beliefs, but
also how we select those to whom we show epistemic deference and the extent of that deference.
The exposition of ‘a social ecology’ has led us to explore the evidence and reformulate the basis of our relationships
with each other, with nature, and the environment, and the universe, including genes, particles and waves. We have
already seen how it is not possible for an individual human to exist or to know in isolation.
A key institution for the acquisition of knowledge is the family. The new born baby is able, naturally, to cry, hold,
suckle, excrete, sleep. S/he learns words, names, categories, constructs, concepts, the language of their cultural
community, from their parents, siblings, friends, and relatives, over a long period of time. The language structures,
whereby children express themselves, and which are used to describe the world around them, and identify knowledge,
are learnt from others. They know as a result of social interaction. They are epistemically dependent upon others.
Their knowledge filters are learnt, not given. We come to acquire knowledge and truths from the testimony of trusted
others, such as our parents, and family. We know ‘a posteriori’ from others. Knowledge is socially mediated by
symbolic interaction.
Individual organisms are not independent of all others. They exist as part of nature, a matrix of extended ecological
communities [not a complex of commodities to be destroyed.] Humans are not to see themselves in competition with
nature or the wilderness, but as part of nature.
Individual genes, and the individual organisms that they create, are not only selfish, but cooperative, altruistic,
contributing to all ecological communities. The universe is not a product of the efforts of a ‘god-architect’, but made up
of particles that oscillate as waves, and come together at random to form all the various objects, from suns, planets,
moons, mountains, volcanoes, water, oceans, animals, plants, and so on. Organisms are collections of particles, and
genes, formed at random by evolution, over millions of years. The particles are centres of energy enabling the
organisms to function.
For many people, this summary of key points of social epistemology, and the development of a social ecology, is seen
as a fantasy at best, and a collection of lies at worst.
How do we come to know ‘the truth’?
DAVID BROOKS, writing in the International Herald Tribune, and New York Times, April 6 2009, proposed that
the Socratic method of dialectical analysis may well be the rational, deliberate identification of principles, but has had
little influence over behavior.
He agreed that there are times when we do use reason to override moral intuitions, but often those reasons — along
with new intuitions — come from our friends, not our dialectics.
He argued that people are not discrete units coolly formulating moral arguments as in the Socratic dialectic. They link
themselves together into communities and networks of mutual influence.
For humans, as Darwin speculated, competition among groups has turned us into pretty cooperative, empathetic and
altruistic creatures — at least within our families, groups and sometimes nations. Humans have long lived or died,
based on their ability to divide labor, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats. We don’t just
care about our individual rights, but also the rights of other individuals. We are all the descendents of successful
cooperators.
These statements recognize the social nature of moral intuition, knowledge, and truth . This social, or what Brooks
calls, emotional approach to philosophy is an epochal change. It challenges all sorts of traditions. It challenges the
bookish way philosophy is conceived by most people. It challenges the Talmudic tradition, with its hyper-rational
scrutiny of texts. It challenges the new atheists, who see themselves involved in a war of reason against faith.
SOME KEY POINTS
First, in the discourse, I described how some groups are subject to delusions and illusions. For example, it is argued
that humans in nature are all interdependent. But I live in a society where many believe that individual independence is
more significant than interdependence. This has led to the philosophy of individualism and the morality of selfishness,
and the economy of capitalism. According to social ecology, these people are subject to the delusions of individualism.
Second, when outlining the experiences of John, I wanted to make it clear that his personal interpretation of events
was partial and incomplete. It was only when he became aware of the complete picture of events that it was possible
for him to acknowledge the truth of his interdependence.
Third, these discussions have led me to distinguish between different categories of facts, knowledge and truth: that is,
between a personal interpretation of events, an observational one, and an explanatory interpretation.
Social epistemology as developed by Alvin Goldman, and others, proposes that truth is factive, and that facts are
socially independent. He wishes to emphasise that ‘facts’ are observed, not phenomena constructed, by society. For
example, a river is a river whatever the society. It exists before, and after, observation. We can regard facts as socially
independent: that is, they exist……waiting to be observed, experienced by individuals in their communities. A planet, at
the edge of the universe, observed by the Hubble telescope, existed before it was observed. Astronomers will tell us
that it has been ‘there’ for millions of years. Facts are socially independent, and are not social constructions.
And are certainly not ‘shadows’.
But observations do not necessarily lead us to the truth. For example, we live on earth and everyday we observe the
rising and the setting of the sun and the moon: these facts of observation lead us to conclude that the sun and the
moon revolve round the earth; and that the earth is flat: possibly, a stationary disc suspended in space. But these
observations, although sufficient for every day, are not the truth. The truth will be revealed by explanations provided
by hypothesis and experiment.
Facts of explanation indicate that the earth, along with other planets, revolve round the sun, and the moon revolves
round the earth, and by implication these planetary bodies are circular and in orbit. Communities accept this testimony,
even though it does not accord with what they observe. Another example: the facts of explanation show that animals
are made up of genes which combine together to create the different organs and species; whereas our observations
lead us to see them as ‘solid bodies’. What is more, we see humans and animals and nature as gatherings of solid
bodies. The quantum world tells us that they are collections of particles and waves.
While we are able to consider science as factive, and knowledge as factive, we have to accept that ‘truth’ is socially
mediated. What is considered ‘truth’ will vary from community to community, at different times. The important aspect of
both social epistemology, and social ecology, is that phenomena and experiences are socially independent facts. But
different communities pay attention to some facts, and not others.
Facts are socially independent, and truth is socially mediated. What is regarded as ‘truth’ by a group will be
based on the values and assumptions of that group [community, tribe, nation, society.] It may be possible to identify
‘absolute truth’ as embodied in the explanations of facts, but this may not be sought and recognized by communities
whose ‘truths’ are relative to their social group. For example, while our experiences and observations and experiments
reveal facts such as ‘clouds are in the sky’; ‘rivers flow in valleys’; ‘rain falls from the clouds’, ‘earth revolves round the
sun’, other facts can be used to support the opinions and the dreams of communities. The existence of the bible, and
other such books, are facts. The stories told in these books are regarded by many communities as statements of fact.
The stories form the basis of various religions amongst communities looking for salvation and relief from their struggles
of living. Such facts can be used to support the beliefs of these peoples. Facts are socially independent; truth is
socially mediated.
The discourse on social ecology suggests that these communities are deluded and suffering illusions. But I want to
suggest that statements of facts can be used as part of these delusions and illusions. Goldman would protest that
stories and dreams are not verifiable, nor veritistic; and cannot be used as facts, only as fantasies. The biblical stories
would only form part of a truth if they were factive. But for these religious groups, faith is more important than fact. We
are left with the possibility that a collection of facts, verified and veritistic, may be used as part of a religious, divine
philosophy e.g. deep ecology, and the gods of nature. The debates would be about the interpretation of the facts, not
the facts.
This is not to say that there is no truth. It is to say that what is seen as truth is filtered according to the values of
multiple agents - the family, community, tribe, village, religion and so on, and may change over time. There is not a
‘fixed truth’: it alters according to the facts and values of the communities at the time. For example, at one time, in
industrial UK, and elsewhere, the amount of waste and effluent and emissions that were produced by the factories was
not considered of any material significance - they were all escaping into the air! No thought was given to the effects on
the biosphere of the earth. This is no longer the case. More and more communities are struggling to reduce pollution
and environmental destruction. There is not one truth, there are many, and their relevance varies over time and
space from community to community.
In this open e-book, I am applying the arguments of social epistemology - that we know from others, a posteriori; and
that we learn how to interpret nature from individuals, groups, and institutions; - to the constructs of social ecology
and social freedom. We are born with abilities, attributes and aptitudes. We have the ability to speak and learn
languages: but the exact language depends upon where, and to whom, we are born. Our abilities and skills are
determined culturally. We are epistemically dependent upon others. We become free in association with others, a
social freedom. Social Epistemology, by recognizing that knowledge and truth are factive, makes it possible to develop
social ecology as a science and a philosophy.
Social Ecology arises from the growing awareness amongst those of the natural sciences, the Green Movement,
ecology, environmentalists, animal welfare groups, development agencies, peace organizations, and world trade
organizations, that the nature and the future of the animals and plants on the land, in the seas, and in the atmosphere
are subject to the actions and priorities of humans across the world. The range and diversity of animals and plants is
subject to the actions and decisions of human groups. Nature is not independent of humans. It is dependent upon
humans to survive and thrive, and so are humans dependent upon nature. They are interdependent. We are nature.
Daily, there are reports of the extinction of species of plants and animals due to clearance of forests, as well as
increasing temperatures in critical zones. Ecology studies the nature and distribution of the bio-sphere, and Social
Ecology the impact of human priorities upon that bio-sphere. It provides explanations about our knowledge of the
environment, and all species. It offers prescriptions about how we ought to behave in relation to these species so as to
ensure our mutual continuation. Social Ecology is a philosophy and a morality.
with reference to: Social Epistemology: theory and applications, A. Goldman, Rutgers University.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| | | | | | | | | | |
