Power of Story Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 1 (1 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   3 comments
Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

THE PARABLE OF THE TRIBES After a Quarter Century: A Revision

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Andrew Schmookler       (Page 1 of 2 pages)     Permalink

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags  Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 1   Inspiring 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 9/14/09

Author 53
Become a Fan
  (31 fans)
- Advertisement -
SOCIAL EVOLUTION, was intended to be a book of timeless relevance and
importance: to make sense of the story of humankind; to put
the evolution of civilization into the larger context of the history of
the evolution of life on earth; to identify the dynamics behind the
problematic, agonizing aspects of the history of the past ten
millennia; to illuminate, based on that diagnosis of the problem, the
general nature of how humankind can better control its destiny and
create a more humane and viable civilization.

(The first chapter of THE PARABLE OF THE TRIBES has been posted
previously here on opednews, and it can also be found at
click here

Timeless though its ambitions were, the book was also --like every
other human creation-- developed in a particular time. I
experienced the vision containing this idea in August of 1970, and the
book developing that vision was finally published in May of 1984.
In between those dates, I had conducted research into the many diverse
relevant subject areas to check out and flesh out the main thesis and
the numerous subordinate hypotheses that formed the components of the
overall theoretical edifice. My exposition was thus affected by
the state of research in the various fields as they stood during that

In the years since, I've continued to keep an eye cocked, albeit
informally, for new information coming in that might call into
question, or contrariwise might confirm, any of my arguments in THE

- Advertisement -

There's been one area that's been troubling, where the new information
coming in has been at variance to what I was getting from the
literature during the 1970s: it's about the question of how much
bellicosity there was before the rise of civilization, both in our
pre-civilized (hunting-and-gathering) ancestry and among our closest
primate relatives.

It seems pretty clear, for example, that chimpanzees are not nearly so
pacifistic as was earlier believed in the 1970s, e.g. in Jane Goodall's
then-famous book IN THE SHADOW OF MAN. (The other line off the
chimpanzee branch, that of the bonobos, presents a far more benign

Likewise, with respect to the role of warfare/violence among
pre-civilized societies. (It should be noted that, in THE PARABLE
OF THE TRIBES, the dividing line of concern to me --when I speak of
"pre-civilized" versus "civilized" societies-- is not that between
tribal societies and the full-blown states that begin to appear 5,000
years ago, but between the hunter-gatherer bands that operated still
essentially within their biologically evolved niche and those social
forms that began to be possible with domestication of plants and
animals and more settled existence more like 10,000 years ago.)

- Advertisement -

The evidence developed since I studied the subject in the 1970s would
compel me, if I were to write the book today, to revise the part of the
third chapter (pp. 74-81) that's entitled "Red Sky at Morning:
The Dawn of Civilization and the Rise of Warfare." It now seems
probable that my view of hunting-and-gathering societies and of
non-human primate societies --like the views of many anthropologists,
primatologists and archaeologists of several decades ago-- was overly
sanguine, or not "sanguine" enough, depending on which sense of the
word one has in mind. :)


That said --and it does feel important to say it, confession being good
for the soul-- it is also important to note what that revision does and
does not mean for THE PARABLE OF THE TRIBES.

I call "the parable of the tribes" says, in essence, that the rise of
civilization inevitably would lead to a ceaseless struggle for power
among societies, and that it also opened the door for an open-ended
process of innovation in all areas of culture; it asserts further

This would be true regardless of whether hunter-gatherers were
peace-loving or warlike. And I said, explicitly, in the book: "To
be valid, the parable of the tribes...does not require...that warfare
among human societies began only with civilization." (p. 75)

In other words, as an explanation for the overall thrust of social
evolution for the past 10,000 years, the theory's basic validity would
be unaffected by any such revision of the image of human nature.

- Advertisement -

What would be affected by a more war-like image of pre-civilized humans
is our view of the EXTENT to which we would see this selection for
power as having WARPED human beings into a shape contrary to our inborn
nature. I use imagery, in the book, of our nature being
"warped" or "twisted" (in one instance, I use the image of the bound
foot of the traditional Chinese woman as such a metaphor). And to
the extent that bellicosity was there from the start, and not forced
upon us by civilized systems shaped by power (and not by human needs or
human nature), to that extent the human tragedy would seem
reduced, "our sympathy for our species' plight would be diminished."
(ibid) In that light, humankind would seem somewhat less like
innocent victims, even if, in the course of the evolution of
civilization, we were swept along by forces beyond our control.

Either way, though, "The structure of the overarching system mandates
that some of the worst sins of such a [civilization-making] creature
would inevitably be magnified into laws of its social existence." (ibid)

Also, to the extent that aggressiveness is WITH THE GRAIN of human
nature, rather than against it, the task of remedying of the problem
would have that much more to overcome. This is not, however, a
reason for despairing of a solution: just as the power of culture
-- under the impetus of the selection for power-- could intensify human
aggressiveness, so also could the cultural creature show the same
flexibility in the other direction, becoming LESS aggressive than it is
by nature, once civilized culture became freed from the systemic pull
toward power-maximization.

Next Page  1  |  2


- Advertisement -

Well Said 1   Inspiring 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It


Andy Schmookler, an award-winning author, political commentator, radio talk-show host, and teacher, was the Democratic nominee for Congress from Virginia's 6th District. His new book -- written to have an impact on the central political battle of our time -- is (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why Do Conservatives Like Colbert? Article Plus Critique

Mel Gibson's Rant as Profound Clue

To Anti-Obamite Lefties: It Doesn't Matter If You're Right

How Important is the Loss of Friendship?

# 8 Beliefs that Make Liberal America Weak: Barriers to the Source of Moral and Spiritual Passions

The Mystery of Obama's Relationship with Power