For while the parable of the tribes says that the reign of power was inevitable with the rise of civilization, and the anarchic circumstance that implied, it by no means suggests that our civilization must continue to be warped indefinitely.
Anarchy would inevitably accompany the rise of civilization, but the continuation of that anarchy -- and its destructive consequences -- as civilization develops further is not inevitable. That overarching order that was impossible from the outset becomes increasingly conceivable the more the entire human world gets knit together on a global scale.
Creating wholeness in the overall system of civilization, heir as it is to such a history of traumatic brokenness, will not be easy. And we can readily see it will not be quick. But it is no longer impossible.
And that achievement becomes more possible the more we recognize that we are inherently better creatures than what we show, the more we look upon each other with the compassion that our predicament should evoke, and the more we understand the nature of what it is that we need to achieve to make the world safe for that better human potential.
WHY ELSE IT MIGHT BE WORTH THE WORK I'M INVITING YOU TO DO
I realize that this series is asking the reader to work. Each installment is of a length beyond what many people in our times are accustomed to tackling. And the various installments are, together, building something larger still.
I can readily imagine that readers can be asking themselves: Is it worth the work?
The benefits just described above -- a brighter understanding of the nature and possibilities of our kind -- may or may not meet any important need of yours. So the question may arise: Does this "integrative vision" -- this "Better Human Story" -- offer any other rewards to justify the effort it takes to gain the perspective I'm offering?
I believe the answer is yes, at least for a lot of people, and for some very important reasons. And in the next installment, I will address this "is it worth the work?" question, and provide the best answer I can.
I will also point toward one more main big idea -- apart from the parable of the tribes -- that is part of this vision. It is an idea that absorbs the parable of the tribes and goes beyond it.
But first, to conclude this installment, I want to offer some points to help assure that the main idea of this installment -- the parable of the tribes -- is properly understood. After long experience of trying to convey this understanding of what has driven much of the human story, I've learned about some possible misunderstandings of the parable of the tribes that are worth addressing.
SOME POINTS OF CLARIFICATION
The parable of the tribes does not argue that this "selection for power" is the only determinant of how civilization has developed. That same life-serving force of wholeness discussed in "The Sacred Space of Lovers" is built into us, and has led people throughout history to strive to create wholeness in their world -- beauty, justice, love, etc. -- even as they've had to struggle with the consequences of the disorder and brokenness into which civilized humankind inadvertently stumbled.
It is also not to say that weaker societies immediately get eliminated. It's not as though the interactions in the intersocietal realm are like an NCAA tournament that swiftly eliminates all but the champion. But eventually, the bill from the parable of the tribes comes due. It is in the nature of a consistent selective process that it need not be blatant to have an overwhelming cumulative impact.
It is also not to say that the history as we generally know it must be re-written. Things at the concrete and immediate level happen as they appear to happen. Rather, it is much of the overall sweep of history that is mandated -- and explained -- by this selection for power. And it is only when we step back and look at that sweep that we see a kind of social evolutionary "black hole" that, though not visible to the eye, pulls the destiny of civilized humankind off the course that people would choose if they could.
It is not that the people we think of as "history-makers" -- like the Romans, or like the Europeans that came to the New World -- didn't make history. Rather it is that their ability to have such a disproportionate role in shaping human history was conferred on them not by "humankind," but by a systemic circumstance that favored actors like them.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
