Science versus Peace? Deconstructing Adversarial Theory
Objectives: Performance Objective: By the end of this session, the participants will be able to discuss the weaknesses of various theories that support the adversarial culture. Learning Objs: During this session, participants will: 1. Discuss the results of a survey on what people think about human nature. 2. Make a list of why many believe that world justice, unity and peace are impossible. 3. Develop responses to some of the reasons identified.
Survey on Human Nature (1) 1. Human nature is inherently selfish and aggressive. 2. World peace is impossible, because there have always been wars and always will be. 3. The law of entropy means that, in time, society will fall apart and disappear. 4. Because of the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest, natural selection has favored greed and violence in human evolution. 5. Throughout our history of hunting and war, human beings have evolved a violent brain or killer instinct.
Survey on Human Nature (2) 6. Since we inherited the Original Sin, human beings have been born tainted with evil. 7. Competition is good and necessary, as it makes people try harder and develops character. 8. The unity of humanity is impossible, due to the diversity of peoples, cultures and beliefs. 9. Because of diverse interests and power relations, all sectors of society will never be able to cooper- ate in harmony towards the same ends. 10.The world is as it is, and we cannot change it, so we had better learn to conform.
Average score: / 40 Open Question: What people or influences led you to believe what you said in this survey? Reflections: At what stage in life do you think this influence occurred? How are people s concepts of human nature empowering or disempowering them to work for a better world?
Study Questions: Introduction What is adversarial culture or culture of adversarialism? What do we mean by culture of peace? In your own words, what is the main purpose of Peter s study?
Culture of Adversarialism Characterized by divisionism, conflict, competition, struggle, strife, aggression, violence, and wars. Socio-structural aspects consisting of win- lose relationships. Psycho-structuralstructural aspects based on belief that win-lose relationships are inevitable and/or beneficial. Current globalized Western culture is a culture of adversarialism.
Culture of Peace The opposite of adversarialism: a society of mutualism, cooperation and mutual aid. A complex concept that continues to evolve and develop as the outcome of practice. A growing body of shared values, attitudes, behaviors, and lifestyles based on: Non-violence, Respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, Understanding, tolerance and solidarity, Co-participation, Free circulation of information, Full involvement and strengthening of women. A vast project of multidimensional, world-wide wide scope.
Basic Theses: Human nature makes us just as capable of cooperation as competition, of aggression as tenderness, of greed as generosity. Which we express is influenced but not determined by our culture; and can be changed. The world status is a fruit of collective, historical choices, greatly influenced by 500 years of Western cultural hegemony. Human nature poses no obstacle to exchanging the current culture of violence for a culture of peace, and to building a world of justice, unity and peace.
Group Discussion Social dilemmas (win-lose) are destroy- ing our society. The solution is to reboot all institutions (as win-win relations). Many people think this is impossible. Question: What arguments do they use?
Epistemological Borrowing What is epistemological borrowing? From physics From evolution From ethology From psychology From theology Reductionism: what is wrong with it? What happens when the theory changes?
Study Questions: Physics How did classical physics further the develop- ment of the human and social sciences? How did it lead to the worldview for the culture of adversarialism? How have the new physics opened the door to a new worldview? What is the matter with Social Entropy?
The Legacy of Physics Many current sciences were then branches of philosophy. Newtonian physics gave them: A model of scientific study A coherent epistemology A ready-made meta-paradigm It also gave them theories from which to borrow.
Social Physics Physics Society Atoms Collisions Momentum Direction Mass Individuals Conflicts Motivation Interests Power
Philosophical Implications Classical Physics Atomistic Reductionist Mechanicism Deterministic Materialistic New Physics Systemic Non-reductionist Organicism Self-determination Integrality
Social Entropy Entropy: Disorder in a system grows or remains stable. Social entropy: Society will disintegrate and finally collapse. Reason: More individuals, drivers and interests multiply complexity of society to unsustainable point and collapse. Collapse: Spend more energy maintaining social structures than providing benefits, leads to social disorder. Chardin: Expansion > complexification > interiorization Systems: Not adapting to change > tension > turning point > collapse of old system > rise of new system.
Study Questions: Evolution How did the concept of survival of the fittest come about, and what are its adversarial implications? How can survival of the fittest be interpreted to support non-adversarial conclusions? Which applies best to human society: natural or artificial selection? Why?
Survival of the Fittest Darwin: From artificial to natural selection Spencer: Best fit in the struggle for life Survival of strongest vs. most adaptable Merged under name of Darwinism (over Darwin s dead body) It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change.
Non-Adversarial Survival Humans: not adaptive physiology but behavior. Individual survival requires community survival. Community survival requires mutualism. Adversarialism is just maladaptive! Violent, conflictive members punished.
Artificial Selection Plant wild species > reproduce the best. Institutions: no randomly mutating genes. Society building is conscious, deliberate. Adapting structures to change is, too. Natural selection is excuse for injustice. Each failed attempt is costly for society. Learn from experience and grow together.
Study Questions: Genetics How did genetics support adversarial findings of evolutionary theory? On what assumptions does socio- biology base its conclusions? What is the problem with genetic determinism? How does the New Biology answer these ideas?
Genetics and adversarial evolution It provided the mechanism by which characteristics are passed from one generation to the next. Genes were attributed adversarial intentionality Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene
Problems with genetic determinism Double reductionism: gene man man society (no proof of behavior or social dynamics) Universality of feature proves genetic origin (from gender relations to religious creed) Genetic continuity: from animals to humans (mere analogies; evolutionary distance) Inherited personality: chip of the old block (no sure evidence; circular arguments) Genetic capacity: not enough DNA
Problems with Sociobiology Edward O.Wilson, Sociobiology The New Synthesis Three basic steps: Describe human nature by observing society Assume widespread = genetically determined This nature coded in us through social Darwinism Errors: reductionist, biased, ideological, essentialist Lewontin: An attempt to convince people that life is what it has to be and perhaps even ought to be. Karlberg: A justification of injustices and inequities.
New Biology s Answers DNA is a self-organizing force, not blindly led by natural selection. Organisms experience and respond to their environment, but also create it. Symbiogenesis: organisms were formed by symbiotic relations turned permanent. Natural selection adjusts population levels, but usually does not destroy gene base.
Seville Statement on Violence It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behavior Violence is neither in our evolutionary legacy nor in our genes.
Study Questions: Ethology Is there a killer instinct in human beings? Do humans beings have any instincts? Do humans have a violent brain? (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans
Do we have a killer instinct? Evolutionary distance from animals too great Hunting is not murder War is unique to humans Most youth are peaceful Training changes this NationNation-states impose war Even this is relatively new in human history (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans
Are there any human instincts? Depends on common or scientific definition definition:: A repetitive pattern of specific and often complex behaviors, common to entire species, automatic, irresistible, unalterable, not due to learning Man has no behaviors that meet this definition! definition! Reflex Reflex:: simple, automatic reaction from spinal cord or local nerves Biological predisposition predisposition:: innate, more complex behavior that requires learning to express itself Drive Drive:: biological need that grows until satisfied (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans
The Violent Brain Limbic center lets us feel fear and anger A normal person has full control over it Surrounded by many control functions Pathologies heighten feeling; lose control Not define human nature by pathology Most brain centers for peaceful activities It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have a violent brain There is nothing in our neurophysiology that compels us to react violently. (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans
Behavior and Fitness Behavior Effect on actor Effect on receiver Effect on Society Selfishness More fitness Less fitness 0 sum Cooperation More fitness More fitness + sum Altruism Little less fitness Much more fitness + sum Vengeance Less fitness Less fitness sum (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans
Children see, children do (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans
Study Question: Good/Evil What are possible consequences (positive or negative) of the beliefs: that human beings are evil or sinners by nature? that we are inherently good? Is there an alternative approach? What might be some of its potential consequences? (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans
Borrowing from Theology From fatalism to determinism From original sin to genetics The problem with innate goodness The alternative of a double human nature (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans
Myths of Origin Say where we came from and how Timeless: cover past, present, future Give us an identity: good or bad Define prospects: empower or limit us Some contemporary examples: Creation myth in Book of Genesis Evolution myth in (Neo(Neo-)Darwinism We need an empowering myth of origin (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans
Science & SocioSocio-cultural Reality Science justifies historical events Science legitimizes the status quo Science reinforces social attitudes Science can be a source of socio socio--cultural change It s up to us (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans
THE END Or just the beginning? (c) 2012 - Peter C. Newton Newton--Evans