Egalitarianism

Some of you - well, if I'm honest, both of you - know that I have applied to do an MSt in Practical Ethics at Uehiro Centre at Oxford. It would be great for me - if I can afford it after this era of misery... and indeed if university courses remain an option. Oh dear, I'm catastrophising. Anyway, Ethics is a deep interest of mine and I guess that this enforced sabbatical gives me time to think and read. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm spending enough of my time thinking and reading. I'm also battling iMovie, trying to find things of interest on Amazon Prime ('The Good Fight'! Yay!), worrying and washing my hands and everything else.

Still, I have been reading Christopher Boehm's Moral Origins.

First to encapsulate very briefly the premise which Boehm explores in great detail with evidence from anthropology, evolutionary psychology and ethology. His hypothesis is that the origins of morality came about through our species-specific niche as big-game hunters. Homo sapiens appears more territorially violent than both species of chimpanzee, and thus potentially more violent per se. In addition, the species retains the capacity for hierarchical domination within the group (alpha males) as seen in the other Great Apes. However, big-game hunting demands co-operation and also the fair sharing of food, to ensure that all hunters, whether they caught the game or not in a given instance, remain fit enough to take part in a subsequent hunt. This led to the need for extreme egalitarianism - as is still seen today in hunter-gatherers who appear to be living as our ancestors did in the Late Pleistocene.

This egalitarianism demanded the suppression of alpha males, who would otherwise, as in chimpanzees, commandeer the majority of the meat and share it out only with friends and cronies. Bands thus developed punishments - 'social distancing', ostracising or even killing - to prevent individuals asserting excessive authority. They also punished those who cheated or stole, as collectivism was the one major 'virtue' that would aid survival for the whole tribe.

Boehm further suggests that this was why extrafamilial altruism developed. Every member had a survival interest in the whole band, not just their own kin, as it took large numbers to hunt big mammals. In addition, gossiping developed as a kind of no-tech 'big brother' system. Everyone would know if a member cheated, lied or tried to assert authority. Gossiping also reinforced knowledge of the rules under which the band operated.

He goes on to claim that this explains a way out of the 'free-rider problem' while also offering an evolutionary explanation for one of humanity's USP - the conscience. Tribe members had to internalise the edicts of their band, feeling internally the threat of punishment at infractions of the code. Those with 'alpha' tendencies had to learn self-control - or else they would be wiped out.

Of course, when we stopped being in tribes, all that went to pot. Egalitarianism? Yeah, right. All the traits of 'alpha male-ness' that had been suppressed - he suggests much would have been edited out of the gene pool as those who were sociopathic could not have survived as they'd have been killed, cast out or seen as unattractive mates - have reared their ugly heads again. And increased exponentially in what, in evolutionary terms, is the blink of an eye for our species.

Anyway. Unfair of me to doubt his argument as my Kindle tells me I'm only 31% through the book so far.

This interests me because egalitarianism is so difficult to achieve these days. The social edict against boasting and self-aggrandizement among hunter-gatherer tribes appears to have been somewhat reversed, notably if you look at Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. Many appear all too eager to respect Big Daddy figures, celebrities, giants of industry, gurus and the like.

At the same time there can be a peculiar aggrandisement of humility (think of Uriah Heep!) and a judgemental attitude among the humble that can become a sweeping contempt, antagonism and aggression towards 'tall poppies' or the fortunate, who might not be actually be causing any (direct) harm by their actions. Both of these attitudes seem to me to be morally negative and societally unpleasant.

Nonetheless, I do know people who strongly condemn arrogance and see humility as a real virtue. A virtue famously castigated by Nietzsche. He saw the liberation of the spirit and the assertion of one's power (take that to be not 'power over others', necessarily, but power to fulfill one's own excellences) as the only means to reach full human maturity.

And that leads me to be somewhat critical of an outright condemnation of 'greatness'. The quelling of the self for the collective could be seen as anti-progress. After all, great art, great discoveries, great insights do not come from the humility of the soul but from the ambition to excel, express and achieve. Hunter-gatherer societies were stable and static, staunchly traditionalist and lacking in cultural creativity. Is that the world we wish to inhabit?

It seems to me that there is a great upside to valuing excellence - as it can act as an inspiration or an encouragement. Further, in areas where one's natural talents are limited (in my case, in art, say, or engineering or medicine or teaching or athleticism or countless others) it takes nothing from me to honour the achievements of those who excel. In fact, it adds value to my life to be able to experience and celebrate the successes of others, rather than to limit all achievement to my lowly level.

So, does that mean that egalitarianism and strict collectivism are utterly incompatible with social development?

The demand for egalitarianism arises out of a single shared project in a quest for survival in dangerous times when living is difficult. In addition, at those times the battle for resources is a zero-sum game - if Mr. Big gets more mammoth meat, Miss. Small gets less. If Mr. Bossy takes charge, Master Nervous is forced into subservience.

That is not how modern societies work - for the most part. If, say, a football columnist in a broadsheet newspaper earns a lot of money, that does not impact my earning capacity as a football broadcaster. (Of course, vast wealth inequalities are a real and dangerous problem - but of a different order and do not form part of this argument. I might try to explore that when I get onto some of the interesting Scandinavian thinkers I've been reading - though my grasp of economics is pretty shaky... make that very shaky. Back to the task at hand...) If an artist has more talent than me, that does not mean there is less talent in the world available for me to tap into. If a person is more confident and charismatic than me, it is open to me to admire them and attempt to emulate them. They might rightly garner more attention from an audience as they might be more interesting, inspiring and cheering to be around. It would seem inappropriate to insist that they make themselves more boring so that they do not out-shine me.

Of course, there are finite commodities - notably our time alive. And because that time is finite, it is thereby precious. Consequently, time I spend on projects of no value to me (say working for a programme whose ethos I do not agree with and where the producers are unappealing) requires that I be remunerated. Where I do projects that have value to me and I also get paid, however, then I am truly fortunate. And in an ideal world, all of us would be able to spend our finite time engaged, for the most part, in pursuits that have meaning.

Meaningful pursuits, though, may not of necessity be carried out in an egalitarian fashion. It may be appropriate that certain individuals take the lead and may get remunerated more generously - yet fairly - for various reasons: 1) greater excellence in the pursuit, 2) a greater past investment to reach a high level of excellence, 3) a greater burden of responsibility and accountability, 4) greater experience and knowledge.

All that said, right now, there are various shared projects on an international scale - finding a vaccine, finding therapeutic medicines and a test for immunity. In these realms, scientists in a global community are acting in a relatively egalitarian fashion - sharing resources and information. So critical projects can sustain this way of being. Is this because the stakes are so high?

Consider climate change. Could nations work toward the project of slowing global worming in a more egalitarian fashion - for this one shared project with existential threats looming? Perhaps only if all saw the same meaning in the project. And there is the rub.