Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
History and Evolution:
By William E. Steinman:
Part 9, Social Development:
May 19, 2003:
In most views, man's history is seen as the history of an almost
continuous process of conquest and warfare. That is just one way
to view history. Another way is to view it as an expanding series
of inventions or technical developments. I have already taken
a brief look at that. These things have been covered most adequately
by a number of very capable historians. There would be no sense
in my reiterating them.
The history of war, after all, is really nothing more than the history of man's savagery. That is what I hope we can outgrow. We must outgrow it if we are to survive. Our bad behavior will eventually destroy us. In my look at historical evolution, I am not so much interested in the wars or even in our technical evolution except as these things have influenced our growth and survival as a species.
I am most interested in the political, spiritual, and philosophical developments of mankind. In particular, I want to examine the various forms of government and their associated philosophies. My focus will be on our social evolution. This, I believe is the true reflection of the growth of human consciousness. Through this I hope to reveal our future path. I want to answer the questions, where are we going and where should we be going?
The history of man can be viewed as a history of experiments in social organization. Through all of this we must notice the role of the dominant male. Most of these social organizations were based on a dominant male control mechanism. This was true as far back as we can go in history, beginning with the tribe. If we are to make representative democracy work we must take the dominants into account because they will be present. In history, the model that has worked and the only one that has worked consistently is this dominant male form.
Now, don't get yourself in an uproar. Before we continue let us briefly challenge this notion of male dominance. What about the dominant female? We must look honestly at this, because women are beginning to step forward. I can only say, it's about time. Throughout history, women have been generally regarded as second class citizens or worse. However, when I think of the best and the worst of the women and men I have know, I find no inherent differences except the obvious ones. As the French fellow said, "viva la difference."
I think one of the basic errors of the so called feminist movement has been the notion that women must be given positions of power. Now I see signs of a difference in attitude wherein women create their own power base. This is as it should be. Dominants do not ask for permission. They step up and assume control. Now, as women step forward and assume the dominant role, I see no reason to suppose they will not excel. Now that it has begun, I fully expect women to continue taking major roles in leadership. There is no glass ceiling. There never has been.
The fatal flaw of the dominant control mechanism in government lies in the matter of succession. Just like the rest of us, dominants die. Even Castro will die eventually. We can be reasonably confident that a person who gains power through his own effort will be an effective leader. By effective I do not necessarily imply good. I mean effective as regards maintaining his power and the stability of his government. We can make no such assumption about his offspring or otherwise appointed successor. In fact, history is replete with examples of incompetent successors to the throne. Louis V of France, James II of England, and, of course, good old King George III of England come to mind. One of the strengths of democracy is it does tend to diminish the problems of succession.
The transfer of power presents only one problem of government. The success of any social organization including government will depend completely on the effectiveness of the leadership in maintaining control. In leadership, we must consider the span of control. There is a very hard upper limit to the number of people who can be controlled directly by a single person. The last I remember, the United States Army considered that limit to be between eight and twelve. By that measure the President's cabinet and their departments are definitely out of control.
The point is, because of the limits to the span of control, we have a strong necessity for a dependable chain of command. The limits of effective control will depend on this chain of command. As we get further into the bureaucracy, control from the top will necessarily diminish and local control will begin to predominate. The phenomena usually called empire building will begin to manifest. This will eventually led to bureaucratic inertia and rising costs as control degenerates.
Succession and control are two of the issues I want to keep in mind as I look at the rise and decline of various governments throughout man's history. Whether they are kings, pharaohs, emperors, or presidents these issues always determine the success and failure of the governments they lead.
Another thing that has had enormous influence on man's social development is our spiritual experience and the exploitation thereof. There can be no doubt that we do have genuine religious or spiritual experiences. It is not all set up and manipulated by professional holy men. That corruption always comes after the fact of revelation. I can guess in the first attempts by a person to share a profound spiritual experience the communication becomes corrupted.
Perhaps initially the spiritual experiences came to single individuals as some form of insight or revelation. We can accept that sometimes a particular individual will experience some form of revelation or insight into the nature of the life-force. This is entirely possible. Regardless of that, it is clear that these spiritual gifts quickly degenerated into something else.
We cannot argue over the sincerity of these first attempts at religion, but we can despair at what they quickly become due to a certain class of men. I suspect these people are the clueless second generations of disciples. From these bumbling believers it is only a short progression to a Pope and an entrenched bureaucracy. Then the purity of the initial experience is simply lost and forgotten. What remains is ritual and control for power and profit.
All major religions that we see now are nothing more that thinly disguised tools of control for power and profit. Invariably, what begins as insight or inspiration becomes just machinery for control in the hands of a priest class. The ultimate fraud is the Pope, the Prince of God on earth. Through him and others like him, our spiritual nature gets exploited instead of explored. Our human spirituality does not need mindless faith. It needs thoughtful exploration. True spirituality has no institutions and no spiritual leadership.
By the eighteenth century this control mechanism had become so transparent that even the rabble drifted away from it. They mostly went off by themselves and became uncontrolled rabble. Since then, there has been no guiding ideals and mechanisms to hold the rabble on course. That is the situation we currently face. Organized religion has lost them and has not been replaced. Government by itself, no matter how noble, cannot hold the rabble without some kind of ideals and principles.
It is clear that we have been striving to understand our spirituality, our existence, and our relationship to this universe throughout history. In spite of that it all remains a compelling mystery. For the record, let's be clear. Not all men try to understand. The best of us strive for some form of insight. Others strive only for power while much of the rabble are simply oblivious. This is something I want to keep in mind as I go over this evolution of democracy.
Finally, and most important, I want to look at the various
philosophies that have influenced our history. I particularly
want to examine those which directly influenced the evolution
of democracy. These are the philosophies which led to direct action
and the only ones I consider to be valid. I have said this before.
Philosophy that does not lead to action is irrelevant.
Back to History and Evolution
Archives.
|
|
|
|