Social Ecology: a moral opportunity....alternative choices

November 2008

SOCIAL ECOLOGY...... a moral
opportunity......... alternative choices!

Welcome.
This webite has been developed by J.Kelvyn Richards, Faculty of Education, Nottingham
Trent University,1979-2004 [with the support of Dr.Connie Marsh,previously of the University of
South Pacific; and Prof. Stuart Hill of the University of Western Sydney].
It is an open e-book, a discourse, not a blog; revised and reorganised regularly. If you find
it interesting, please read it regularly, tell your contacts, make weblinks, email me,
and comment .

This discourse is based on the
facts of social interdependence
and considers that

Social Freedom is a construct that explains the interdependence of all humans in their
search for survival and identity.

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.
How do we come to know anything?

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
choose to tell teachers what to teach and pupils what to learn.
Social Ecology will lead us to a new morality, and alternative choices.

This discourse will comprise a series of essays,
Calls for change:
social ecology;
meritocracy and individualism;
social dependence;
gemeinschaft;
social epistemology;
conflict, civil war; peace;
that attempt 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 [after Thabo Mbeki].

And then looks at these issues:
What are the implications for education?
What are the implications for capitalism?
What are the implications for daily life?
What are the implications for development ?

Refer to:
www.psr.keele.ac.uk;
www.insnet.org;
www.earthaction.org;
www.undp.org;
www.thegreenfuse.org;
www.crisisgroup.org;
www.globalissues.org;
www.livegreenordie.com
http://socialecologyvashon.org

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 solar systems. Alan Drengson suggests that

Individuals do not exist in isolation, but in relationship; 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 connections is that humans are connected,
interdependent and interconnected.
The notion of the self as ' independent ' is a delusion.
But the delusion is very strong and has led many individuals
to blatantly exploit others for their sole benefit, and aggrandizement.
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. Furthermore, we can only regard ‘nature’
as part of our selfish demands and as something to be exploited.
                                                                                                                       Family
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)
Humans are connected/interconnected/dependent/interdependent.

The cultural filter
According to David Pepper, each perception or 'myth', or delusion or illusion, functions as a cultural filter. This filter
determines how adherents of different perceptions perceive the environment at the present day and in the past.
The concept of the cultural filter is used by Oelschlager in his book, The Idea of Wilderness: according to which the
perception of wilderness depends on the historical and cultural filters humans used in different periods. He argues that
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.
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. Recent work by Mary Richardson of the
University Laval,Quebec, has shown how changes in cultural values leads farmers and consumers to be 'organic' and
reject industrial farming; ref: Polycultures of the Mind, 2008.

GENETICS

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 traditional 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..........
The delusion of the 'selfish gene' !
Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other
components in ways not yet fully understood.
Denise Caruso, a director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute, in a recent article in the Herald Tribune, July 4 2007, noted that
biologists have recorded these network effects for many years in other organisms. But she believed that in the world of
science, discoveries do not become part of mainstream thought until they are linked to humans.
This is to be seen as a significant call for change to genetic sciences. At the same time, could we not challenge the
mainstream view of human independence and individuality and accept the interdependence and interaction of humans
within complex networks?
We could reject the economics of the free market, and the rights of some to exploit others,and any notions that uphold
the view that there is no such thing as society; only collections of individuals.

Physics : A Quantum universe?

The calls for change in the area of physics are perhaps
the most radical of all the movements in the academic
disciplines. These changes are far-reaching, questioning the nature of scientific enquiry and indicating that it is time to
‘re-seed’ our concepts of self and others. It is also time to 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 applies 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, so the phenomenon of consciousness needs
this alternative 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 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. 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 the 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. 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 derived from a universe of particles [ref:Wikipedia.org]
These theories are making it possible to think that the separation into ‘me and we’, ‘thou/I’; ‘self and others’ is
suspect, and that once you conceive of bodies as particles and waves , then individual humans should be viewed as a
continuum in which ‘the one’ is an aspect of ‘the many’: that we are specific concentrations of particles and waves
amidst a universe of particles and waves.
The ‘Quantum message’ is that it is not possible to identify ‘out there’ and ‘in here’, only states of fluidity and merging.
This message indicates that any certainty of the independent, autonomous self; of the solid, independent object is an
illusion.

Ecology
Of the environment, and societies.

Another academic discipline in which the
demands for change have been developing is
that of Ecology. 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.

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 opening address of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in the summer of 2002 by
Thebo 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 mindsets: and our cultural filters; to alter the seeds of our thinking,
attitudes, and beliefs. This is because he is facing, along with his peoples, a future that will involve significant change :
the most significant of which will be the total abolition of apartheid in all its forms, and the establishment of a society, in
which we care and share for all, not simply the political elites.
This is the latest in a long history of challenges to the misuse of human rights; of the earth’s resources, and the
poverty, famine and gross inequalities which have been at the center of our global society.

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 which generated debate 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]

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. This situation
may be seen as another version of 'chaos theory' whereby the wings of the butterfly across the world in the Pacific can
lead to a hurricane in the Caribbean.
This is yet another reason for Mbeki’s call for leaders of the industrialized world to abandon the principle of the ‘survival
of the fittest’. If we move away from trying to build a ‘meritocracy’ which gives all the social goods of society to the most
able, those judged to be the ‘fittest’; and think instead about the equitable distribution of goods, then we have to
challenge the notion of the survival of the fittest and replace this idea with an alternative vision about human
relationships; as a statement about the ways in which we are all interdependent.    For example, it is no good the USA
refusing to control its industrial emissions on the grounds that such things are part of its national politics, to the
exclusion of international interest !

What has to be questioned 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. For example, the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and the Duke of Westminster,
Abramovitch and the other Russian oligarchs, as well as the House of Windsor,and the other Royal Houses, will have
to accept the need to distribute their billions of dollars for the benefit of whole communities who are living in abject
poverty.

The nature of our interdependence is such that the greed of some brings about the hunger of others; that in order to
secure the greatest happiness of all we must act in consideration of all others. 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, 2008,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.
A Social Ecology means that in order to protect the environment we must alter our lifestyles, our
economics, our notions of self.

Recently in 2006 the Central planning committees in China have 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 the capitalist economics.

The combining 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. Just as the imperative to change our consumption
patterns goes largely ignored, despite the increasing impact of environmental changes in the form of earthquakes,
tsunamis, storms and hurricanes, so calls for change in education are also being rejected.
To understand this rejection we need to think about the values and beliefs, the cosmology which is being rejected.
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
local as well as global’. If your local communities think nothing of dumping any item by the roadside; are happy about
setting up shopping malls in nature reserves; do not worry about pollution from cars and insist on buying large gas
guzzling vehicles; do not allow petrol taxes because they want cheap fuel; are not concerned about oil exploration in the
seas and the forests, if it means cheaper fossil fuels; then the global debate about conservation is of no consequence
and we shall all have to take the consequences: the destruction of the human race by hunger, disease, catastrophe.

The combination of individualism, existentialism, post modernism, and capitalism has led to an epistemology of
independence and selfishness. This has led to the development of cultural filters that ignore the consequences of
selfish behaviour.
The principles of the free market and the policies of monetarism, as promoted by Milton Friedman, argued that wealth
does not have to be actively redistributed as it will essentially redistribute itself. Prosperity will gradually trickle down
from the spending of the rich to the poor. Monetarism has been a global phenomenon. But at the turn of the 21st
Century increasing numbers of people across the world are beginning to realize that ‘Capitalism’ represents a call for
the rich to exploit the poor so as to become richer. It is to do with the protection of individual entrepreneurs and their
corporations to allow them to become richer than many countries. One of the richest corporations in the world is
Microsoft; and the individual, Bill Gates,has more wealth than many developing countries and their populations.

A recent report by the United Nations into poverty across the world reported that despite the economic growth globally
0.01% of the world’s population still controls 98% of the wealth and the other 99.99% of the population live in relative
poverty, many on less than $1 a day,and even more on less than $10 a day. Many without drinkable water; without
sanitation. Many malnourished. This situation is unacceptable,unjust.

A measure of the changes in the distribution of wealth is the fact that the Forbes 500 list of the richest people in the
world now has to talk about multi-billionaires, and recently trillionaires, and no longer bothers to identify millionaires.
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.

But why do we think that it is acceptable for 'elites' to act according to their own rules? and to exploit all those who are
'inferior' ?.........meritocracy and individualism!

MERITOCRACY AND INDIVIDUALISM
VICES NOT VIRTUES

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 two key assumptions are [1] the
value of meritocracy and individualism, which define [2] education as selection, and curriculum as prescription.
Meritocracy upholds that some individuals are superior to all others, and that they are independent, and have the rights
to exploit the inferior.

Meritocracy
The concept of ‘meritocracy’ espouses the role of education as to select the most able, ‘the golden people’, and give
them the best education. But these ideas can be traced back to Platonic notions of dividing people into ‘gold’, ‘silver’
and ‘bronze’ individuals in which the gold knew the truth and were entitled to lead and organize the silver and bronze
people. This has justified the identification of elites for grooming to lead society. In the past, gold people were born into
that position, but in modern times, testing and certification have been used to identify that group. Meritocracy justifies
elitism.
State Education systems ostensibly provide opportunity for all but the real purpose is to select this elite. Mechanisms,
such as the 11+, 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.
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 the processes whereby education selects, differentiates, and legitimates that selection and
differentiation. He argues 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; and tradesmen and traders in the second place;
and then the workers. They act as agents of selection and discrimination.
Schools are organized in ways that even where ‘liberation’ is 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.

Other calls for change. It has been recognised that in the 21st century all economies need workers who are able to
understand and apply technology as lifelong learners in a complex and continuously changing world. For economic
and social success, educational institutions must change their ways in relation to knowledge, learning, teaching,
grading, and pedagogy to develop the flexible, creative and motivated workforce needed to survive. Education systems
should be opening up to sponsor as many skilled workers as possible. But this is not what is happening. Across the
world more and more governments are developing elitist systems obsessed with the attainment of the highest academic
standards. Funding Agencies prefer to operate elitist rather than open systems.
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.
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 section 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 deserve the goods of society.

The belief that those who are able, and good, and deserve the goods of society, acts as a justification for the selection
of the ‘chosen’; for the rich to get richer and those riches to be seen as evidence of their goodness, rather than
evidence of the extent 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 meritocracy,
and elitism……whether capitalist or socialist.
Building a society upon such a cycle impacts upon all aspects of that society. Relationships between individuals
become depersonalized so that 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 profit dominates thinking and
decision-making.
The metaphor of “the rat race” summarizes the developments we are describing – people feel themselves to be out of
control, competing with others, running over others, ‘eating’ them if they get in the way.
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 few capitalist entrepreneurs and their companies such as General Motors, Ford, Microsoft, Intel, Dell, IBM,
Caterpillar, Boeing, Esso, BP, Texaco, along with many others from Russia, China, and Japan, and Capitalism has
created wealth for some but left the poor even poorer..…..it is just as well that ‘they will inherit the kingdom of god’ for
their lives will be of abject poverty and wretchedness. 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.

Assumptions about ‘Gods’, which are accepted by many communities, allow 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, for the misuse of the environment; to regard disasters as punishments by ‘Gods’; and to look
forward to a better life in ‘heaven’. Many people think that they have ‘souls’, and think that the body is not important;
their souls will go to heaven, so 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. If such beliefs were not so widespread,
one could be led to regard the whole thing as a clever conspiracy designed to let ‘might be right’ and for the rich to get
richer by exploiting the lesser, the poor. Different Religious organisations must be seen as the right hand of ‘the
privileged’.
These beliefs can be used to allow any individual to defend all those actions that aggrandize the self to the sacrifice of
others and result in the constant exploitation of manufacturing, until we have reached the point where our activities
have led to climate change and global warming, and the transformation of ecology and our environment.
But 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.

individualism
The concept of individualism and individual freedom, has become the basis upon which western societies have built
their economic prosperity. Such a belief was given significant impetus when Margaret Thatcher as leader of the
Conservative Party in the UK, declared that ‘there is no such thing as society’!

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.

*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.
Such notions can and do lead to unfairness, injustice and inequality when the rights of the powerful 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 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 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 dollars. 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.

At the same time, the United Nations reported that 0.15 percent of the world’s population owned 76% of the wealth. This
means that 99.85 owned only 24% of that gross wealth. The wonder of a global capitalist system is that poverty
is the norm. The belief that more and more are getting richer and richer pales into insignificance beside the growth in
the numbers of the poor!
Capitalism, that promotes the enterprise of individuals, is in a dilemma. How can any political and economic system that
supports the poverty of the vast majority, and the prosperity of the few, expect to continue? Surely a point will be
reached whereby the majority will overthrow the ‘rich’ and claim their riches! As Michael Young claimed any system of
meritocracy will lead to social breakdown. Capitalism can only be justified if there is a ‘trickle down’ effect and a sharing
of the profits.
There could be a ‘trickle down’ effect if the rich invested their personal fortunes in other enterprises, and created jobs
for many others; or financed charitable operations designed to allow the poor to work and generate income. 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. On the other hand,
it does not seem to have occurred to him to follow the lead of Linux, and make his operating system available free of
charge to all.
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 of
self -ishness as expressed in rationalism, individualism, existentialism, and post-modernism 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. Ideals of
individual freedom and freedom of choice and free will are 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.
We are living under the delusion of independence, accepting the epistemology of individualism, and the belief that ‘I’
am the centre of the universe. This ideology is developed within families many of whom see their role as encouraging
the growing independence of their offspring: within schools, where individual effort is rewarded, but where cooperation
with others is classified as cheating or plagiarism; and in the workplace where workers are often separated from each
other and social interaction is restricted so as to avoid team work or ‘skiving’. In some industries, the growing
recognition of the value of teamwork is introducing some fundamental challenges to this ideology of individualism. Such
an individualized focus masks the reality of our interdependence and effectively prevents us from developing a
freedom, which recognizes, and is based, on our interdependence: a Social Freedom.
This could be seen as the delusion of independence, in which we feel ourselves to be separate individuals able to
survive alone. The reality is that we are never alone and are interdependent throughout our lifetime.
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. The present establishment of ‘Academies of Excellence’ and the perpetual demand for
the return of Grammar Schools are manifestations of this ideology.
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. I wish to argue 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. The delusion of the independent individual is a vice not a virtue!

ALONE IN A CROWD?
A CASE STUDY OF SOCIAL DEPENDENCE

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'.

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,
rheumatic fever ,scarlet fever, pneumonia, bronchitis. For me, 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, St.Peters; 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. The standard treatment was aspirin, in its time a miracle drug, and bed rest.
My parents sacrificed a lot, travelling miles from one hospital to another. Making special arrangements when I was
home.
This is an example of an individual being part of a social matrix, being 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. And then, a swollen mitral valve, and a swelling
heart. It is interesting to note that I 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.
Such a serious illness was serious living, leading to a predicted death. A lot of time was spent asleep: bed rest.
Over a period of six years of life in hospital, I regarded my ‘parents’ as those people who came bearing gifts at visiting
times.
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 I 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 was awful. It was bitter. The sugar helped the medicine go down. The
medicine had to be taken regularly several times everyday. I 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 time. He was about to be released from his cycle of illness by the product of
researches across the world.

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.

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 I 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 I got a cold, and a sore throat, the penicillin tablets had to be taken as well. Whenever I went to
the dentist I would have to take a course of anti-biotics for several weeks before and after the dental treatment. Today,
I still have 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.
My survival did not depend on my family at all. They were not capable of looking after me for most of the time. I spent
that time in hospitals. By the time I was 11 and finally discharged from regular hospital care and supervision, I was the
stranger at home, living amongst strangers.

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 want to call this ‘social freedom’. You may want to say that I have finally
achieved my ‘individual freedom’. Such a notion, by emphasizing the ‘individual’, ignores 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.

Once settled back at home, it was necessary to arrange to go to school.
In 1951 I was 10 years old. Arrangements were made for me to start at the local Junior school in September. My 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 I to get to the school, which was three miles away? An ambulance car took me to school everyday. Was I to be
allowed to play in the playground? No. I will stay in the classroom; preferably with the teacher. Will I be able to go
through the school day without a rest ? No. I will have to have a rest during the lunch break. Where and what? The NHS
will provide a campbed, and I will lie down in the classroom during the break. All these arrangements identified me as a
freak!…..which indeed I was!
The complexity of the support network for me is impressive. I 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, I failed the 11+, and I failed to get to the Grammar School. Arrangements were then made for me to go to
the local Secondary Modern School. But this was complicated. I was still under close medical supervision and
medication. I 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 I would have to stay on the ground floor. No going up stairs. So a
unique timetable was devised whereby I went only to the classrooms on the ground floor. I cannot remember any of the
lessons during this time. But I do remember going to school by car. It was still the case that any slight infection was
treated by antibiotics and led to weeks off school. A home tutor would come to help me 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 is 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, I had a recurrence of scarlet fever and
rheumatic fever, and had to spend 3 months in hospital and 3 months on convalescence. My memories of this illness
are clearer. I can remember the pains and rheumatic paralysis. They did not come suddenly but slowly. Over a period
of a week I became incapable of moving my arm to shave. Over 3 weeks I could not move my limbs at all. This meant
that all functions that involved movement had to be carried out with the help of someone else. One day, I 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 - I could move all my 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 for me. I survived. All the
other patients of all ages in the ward with me died of flu. I was the sole survivor.

It is correct that John’s entry to University can be attributed to his hard work and determination, and his ability
to pass the necessary exams. But the very fact that he was alive was due to the complex networks of support
that had worked for him since 1945. It is clear that he was oblivious of these networks. His mindset was one
which emphasized his needs and not the work of others.
It is my view that his freedom to become an active, healthy adult was the direct result of the support provided
by social networks. His freedom is best described as ‘social freedom’. He is an individual existing within
processes of social interaction and dependency. His survival was an expression of social interdependency and
social interconnectedness. His social freedom is a fact based on his dependency on a range of social
networks.
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 a delusion. We are
never free to do as we please without regard for others. We exist as elements that comprise patterns of social
freedom.

Gemeinschaft, Gesellschaft;
Independence, Interdependence;
Freedom, individual or social?

The Concept of Social Freedom

The concept of ‘Social freedom’ is an attempt to describe 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 )

New research in genetics reinterprets the evidence about genes and their impact on altruism.
New theory: Selfish genes make humans selfless
By Diane Swanbrow
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, the 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.
For example, the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, did not achieve his riches on his own. He did it by working with
teams of brilliant technologists and marketing experts to devise Microsoft systems; and then he constructed a legal
framework in which a significant percentage of all profits came to him only. At some point, he and his lawyers took the
decision to exploit the efforts and support of the workers and managers so as to maximise the profits for Bill Gates. Why
would anyone do this? Is it because the one believes him-self to be more worthy and deserving than any others? Does
the one see him-self as superior to others? They could have decided to form a cooperative in which all the workers
shared the profits of their labour. Microsoft Corporation could have decided, as did Linux with their systems, to make
the Windows operating system free to all users and to make profits through applications and programmes. There are
many alternatives. It is argued that Bill Gates, et al, deserve the profits because they took the risks. Such special
pleading is nonsense. No entrepreneur takes risks in isolation. The initial capital is put up by Banks, and other
companies, and individuals. In any case the Banks and companies are not using their own money, they are using the
monies of their customers and investors. The ‘double whammy’ in such capitalist systems is that while the chief
executives maximise their personal profits, s/he avoids the losses. The system is so constructed that the workers lose
their jobs and income, and the many investors lose their money. For example, the credit crisis of 2007/08 saw the
collapse of many investment houses, and hedge funds, across the world. It was the investors that suffered losses. The
senior executives had already taken their fees up front, and were able to survive the crisis. After all, if you had paid
yourself $1.5 billion for the year, who cares about the other ‘fools’ who were caught napping!

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.
Some may not like the term ‘social freedom’, or even see it as a contradiction in terms, but it is coined so as to express
the ways in which our social interactions involve us all. 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. So the notion of
individual freedom as freedom from others 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.

The nature of our interdependence and interconnections is illustrated by the occurrence and spread of diseases.
Irrespective of where the disease started. There are diseases now that are world wide, presenting a danger to
everybody- HIV Aids [recent research shows spread to USA from Haiti]; Influenza [from Spain;from Asia], avian flu [from
China], colds, foot and mouth disease [the UK], mad cow disease [the UK], dysentery, malaria. So we are living within a
social matrix that operates across time and space, and between people, and between species. Other people, and other
animals, are not phantasms sent to trick us. They provide each individual with their genes, their habitat, their cultural
milieu.
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 have to see that they are responsible for all the damage and destruction, the inequality and exploitation. They
are responsible for conservation and renewal; and 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, 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
Social interdependence .......Social networks..... Social action.....Social freedom.....Social knowledge.......
Social epistemology ~ that knowledge is 'socially mediated' and that we know 'a posteriori': a social epistemology.
For a long time, people analysed the validity of ‘experience’, and the ‘knowledge’ derived from ‘experiences’. They did
not deny that we have 'experiences', and that we see and touch and feel and hear and think. But if you are seeking 'the
truth', then you will be concerned about the nature of these experiences,and whether they are sufficiently reliable to
generate knowledge. If you think them to be reliable, then they will form the basis of your knowledge and truth. If you
think they are unreliable, then you will challenge their validity and regard them as figments of your imagination: and as
ephemeral. As such they cannot lead to knowledge, and the truth.
For the 'idealist' you can only know 'the truth' by contemplation,and reflection upon the concepts and ideas in your
mind, disregarding any experiences you are having.
For the 'rationalist' , you will accept your experiences, the body, but deny that they are sufficiently reliable to lead to
knowledge or truth. To generate knowledge, and identify truth, you will have to exercise your reason, the mind, using
the constructs and concepts as expressed 'a priori' by intuition, and deduction, to enable you to organise your
experiences into knowledge and find the truth by logical analysis.
Both the idealist and the rationalist place the mind at the centre of the discovery of knowledge and truth. When such
philosophies adopt a religious perspective, the contemplation of god is necessary to identify knowledge and truth, for
god is the source of all truth. In this way, religious beliefs resolve the dilemmas of experience, knowledge, and truth.
Social ecologists belong to the schools of 'empiricism' according to which sense experiences are the ultimate source
of all concepts and knowledge and truth. We know, ‘a posteriori’. We do not come into the world already 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 framework, we have to learn it from other adults.

‘Epistemology’ is devoted to the nature, sources, and limits to knowledge, and undertakes to devise theories of
knowledge. The classical and analytical thinkers of the past carried out their meditations and reflections alone, trying to
justify the validity of their knowledge and truth with reference to the rules of logic or to word of god[s].
But during the 20th century some philosophers [e.g. Hegel, Marx, Durkheim, Vygotsky, Popper, Kuhn, Foucault, Fuller,
Goldman, to name a few] began to ponder on the central role of society in the knowledge forming process, and tried to
identify the social forces and influences that were deemed as responsible for knowledge production as well as
acknowledge that ‘truth’ may be influenced by the institutional arrangements that affect what one hears from others.
The facts of observations and experiences were recognized as sources of knowledge. But what was regarded as ‘truth’
by any group was thought to be based on the values and assumptions of that group [community, tribe, nation and
society.] These philosophers stopped looking for ‘absolute truth’. They recognized that time and space and society
influenced the products of knowledge acquisition: that truth is relative.
Social Epistemology is the study of the social dimensions of knowledge. It represents a break with classical analysis in
general as it adopts a common sense acceptance of the validity of social experiences.
Alvin Goldman defined it in the following way in a paper he presented for the ‘Philosophy of Education’ 1995:
‘I have characterized my form of epistemology as "veritistic" epistemology, but the title of my paper makes reference to
social epistemology, and I have not fully explained what that is. I think of individual and social epistemology as two
sectors of the subject.    Individual epistemology studies intellectual activities of single cognitive agents in abstraction
from others in order to see how modes of belief formation promote or impede knowledge acquisition. 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 putting these differences aside, we can say generally 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, they maintain, must involve an
examination of the “deeply collaborative and interactive nature of knowledge seeking” (Goldman 1999, 4). 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 not the postmodernist one of reducing
knowledge claims to raw exercises of political power, but rather to acknowledge and examine the ways in which social
institutions and relations influence, constrain, and enable knowledge-seeking. Social epistemologists aim to evaluate
modes of social organization in terms of their propensity to further our epistemic ends. Certain modes of social
organization will tend to enable an effective division of cognitive labor and will tend to promote true beliefs and inhibit
false beliefs. Other styles of social coordination will tend to breed ignorance, superstition, and falsehood.

Buchanan (2004; 2002) argues that a social epistemology of the sort developed by Alvin Goldman (1999) provides a
powerful case for “key liberal institutions” (2004, 99).4 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 broadly defined” (2004, 102). 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 in 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. Insofar as such habits are truth-conducive, they are epistemically virtuous;
insofar as they are not, they are epistemically vicious.

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 others - individuals, groups, and institutions; to the constructs of social
ecology and social freedom.
We are born with abilities, attributes and aptitudes. For example, 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.
While it is true that present day societies place strong emphasis upon ‘individual freedoms’, I want to argue that as we
are epistemically dependent, so we are morally and legally dependent, upon others. We are ‘free’ in association with
others, a concept of ‘social freedom’. I cannot do as I please, without regard for the presence of others. For example, I
may want to tell others what to do. But I can only do so if they give their permission, and do as I tell them. At another
time, I may want to express certain ideas. For example, the ideas being developed in this website. But such expressions
are useful only when others want to hear, and read, what I have to say: that is, when the ideas are deemed
epistemically virtuous.
To accept Social Ecology, and the concepts of Social Freedom, and social interdependence, means that one is
accepting the analysis of Social Epistemology, recognizing that knowledge is ‘socially mediated’. 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, and so on, and may change over time. For example, at one time, in industrial UK, and
elsewhere, the amount of waste and effluent and emissions that were produced was not considered of any material
significance. No thought was given to their effects on the atmosphere of the earth. This is no longer the case. There is
not one truth, there are many, and their relevance varies over time and space.
Goldman’s definition of epistemology reminds us that a single individual studies knowledge, that is epistemically
virtuous, ‘in abstraction from others’. The impact of such meditations will lead the individual to think about the validity,
the verity, the truth, of what ‘I know’ and ‘we know’. How do I know? How do I know what is true? How do I know that I
exist? How do I know that ‘others’ exist?
Social Epistemology reminds us that knowledge is acquired as the result of social interactions. We have already seen
how it is not possible for an individual to exist in isolation. I would argue that it is not possible for an individual to know
‘in isolation’. A key institution for the acquisition of knowledge is ‘the family’. For example, the new born baby is able,
naturally, to cry, hold, suckle, excrete, sleep. But it will take up to a year for the baby to acquire a vocabulary that will
enable s/he to name what they need. It is easy to forget that babies will generate their own words, using them
incessantly to express themselves, until they learn the ‘correct’ words. It will be up to three years before an adult can
have a conversation with a child. These times are not hard and fast: as some children have better memories than
others and will learn the names and phrases quickly. Be that as it may, the critical point is that children learn words,
names, categories, constructs, concepts, the language of their cultural community, from their parents, siblings, friends,
relatives, over a long period of time. The language structures whereby they express themselves, and describe the
world around them and identify knowledge, are learnt from others. They know ‘in interaction’. They are epistemically
dependent upon others. Their knowledge filters are learnt, not given. The classical and the analytical philosophers
meditating in their isolation do not acknowledge these facts. They write as if they came into the world complete. But we
all know that this is not the case. We come to acquire knowledge from trusted others such as our parents, and family.
We may cease to trust them after we have acquired knowledge from trusted others who seem to be more expert. If we
remember how we come to know anything as children, then it is obvious that we do not know anything ‘a priori’. We
know ‘a posteriori’ from others.
If it is agreed that we are learning from others, then we can agree that social epistemology is based on ‘realism’ [that is,
there is something outside the mind that causes mind to know objects];‘materialism’ [the material world, that is outside
of consciousness, is primary to thought]; ‘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, language devised by others]; and social ‘relativity’ [in the sense that different communities give
different significance to different objects].
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’. We are interdependent. 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 their
continuation. It is a philosophy and a morality.