--------
Nietzsche argues against Christianity as a system of values. My view is that he is dangerously close to invoking social darwinism as the replacement for those religious values – as a secular alternative. Let me say that in many ways, this is precisely the scenario we have today, in Western societies – the replacement of Christian values with a social Darwinist belief system. This is a secularist mystification of society and the people in it.
Now if we take Nietzsche exactly at his word, it was Darwinism – the biological theory of origins – that Nietzsche wanted to use, to replace Christian ideology within society. This would mean that exposure to a biological theory of origins could be used to undermine the force of Christianity in society, since it would give a competing and scientific view of our origins.
Nonetheless, what we have today in Western societies is hardly so much a belief in Darwinism as a belief in social Darwinism, which is an entirely different thing. Social Darwinism is the belief that those who are objectively superior will automatically rise to the top of society, as its cream, whereas those who are lacking in biological (meaning mental, physical, and so on) capacity will automatically sink to the low levels of society, and stay there. There is an element of truth to all ideologies, and of course, social Darwinism is no exception to the rule. There are all sorts of elements of truth to Christianity as well – eg, such morally sound advice as “judge not lest thee be judged.” Often those with exceptional mental and physical abilities do rise to the top of their respective societies. However, look up, at the echelons of business people, politicians and spokespeople of your society today. The variables that lead to an outcome of social success are actually too complex to be limited by simple and direct postulations of mental and physical superiority. Nepotism biological or cultural, shrewdness (a quality that Nietzsche himself saw as being the mark of an inferior character), tradition, material inheritance and opportunity, these are also influences that can determine success or failure within society. Yet the dangerous tendency of the ideology of social Darwinism is to impart the mystification – lookest up and thou wilt see thy elders and thy betters.
So there are difference between social Darwinism and Darwinism itself. The latter produces a body of evidence about our origins -- material artefacts to back it. To date, however, there is no evidence for the truth of the ideology of social Darwinism. Like Christianity, it is merely another belief system, in some ways worse than many aspects of the Christian ideology, which at least counseled “do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. Many social Darwinists use their belief system incongruously, as a theory concerning the nature of morality – which is meant to excuse them from what they do to others.
Despite its failure as a scientific theory or as a system of morality, social Darwinism is still embraced by many – whether implicitly or in an overt and more conscious manner – because it fills an ideological vacuum produced by a diminishing faith in Christianity. (Yet, watch an Australian soap opera, such as Neighbours or Home and Away, and you will be able to guess how much religious mysticisms do continue to hold sway, in the popular consciousness, even today.)
My view is that social Darwinism must be rejected, as just another religious mysticism, which clouds moral and scientific judgement about society itself, and how it functions. There is another aspect, too, that I want to address. The subconscious image that we can tend to carry around in our heads, the subconscious image that comes from a social Darwinistic ideology, is that of a gesticulating ape, who, nonetheless through sheer determination and self-will has made himself king of the castle. To be honest, as a tutor for all subjects for high school in the area of Perth, I have never found anyone more hard to teach than the children of secularists. I believe it is this subconscious image of success that is to blame. For all I know, perhaps the several students I have taught of a religious background have an image of Christ on the cross in the back of their minds. It is very possible that they expect learning to be a crucifixion, and therefore knuckle down and take it. However, the ones who expect to climb to the top of the tower without learning, through sheer swagger and bravado – but with very little effort -- are the hardest to teach. For this reason, they are the ones who are most likely to remain mystified for the rest of their lives.
There is also the aspect of gender to consider. Social Darwinism tends to reinstate a very primitive notion of gender roles. There are perhaps mitigating factors in an advanced society such as ours that can limit its worse effects. I won’t go into that right now, but they includes rule of law, training in the humanities, and so on (in a few words, education and moral discernment, backed up with force, if necessary). The rhetoric of social Darwinism, it seems to me, adopts an imagistic rather than intellectual form, most of the time. The image of so-called “alpha male”, the head honcho of the monkey tribe, who beats his breast whilst standing on a sand castle, is absolutely indispensable for an emotional grasp of social Darwinistic society. His contemporary manifestations are as the head of the corporation, the king of the capitalist jungle who has really made it, and therefore gets to order others around and make them do his bidding. Due to his might, (which makes right), he can choose from the throngs of the female masses, a trophy wife for himself, at will. The so-called “Beta males” – the rest of you who are still fortunate enough to be direct participants in the success game on your own behalf, and not relegated to the sidelines like some mere female – are able to choose from the females that remain, after the alpha male has taken his selection.
I’m not sure who could be happy under this arrangement, unless it be the figurative monkey-king himself, and he alone. Perhaps resorting to a Bronze Age arrangement of society seems necessary, even today, in the face an apparent lack of ideological alternative to a religious social matrix. Yet speaking as a female, and indeed, Darwinistically, I have to say that I lack any respect for this gesticulating ape. I don’t admire him or his ways. I experience no romance in a return to the jungle. Speaking Darwinistically, the kind of male I have always admired is not this product of the social Darwinist imagination, but rather the product of my own imagination, which is perhaps an echo of my own biology and its inherent wisdom. Some may have seen the works of David Attenborough, particularly in his recording of the fascinating Lyre bird. Its weak point it that it is merely a mimic – however, the noises that it is capable of reproducing, to attract a mate, are wildly varied and complex. Let it be noted that I am continuing to speak very figuratively, when I suggest that I would consider it wise and socially advisable to replace our fascination with the image of the Alpha ape with the much more melodic and fascinating image of the Lyre bird, who actually is still capable of learning, and applies his knowledge to create all sorts of melodies in order to seduce his mate.
In closing, I want to suggest the lyre bird as the new symbol of secularism.
2. Bataille
To understand Bataille, it pays in any case to have read some Nietzsche, Marx, Hegel and Freud, since he draws a lot from these. Visions of Excess has a simply premise from Nietzsche, that when we are unhappy we lose all moderation and go into excess. Another Nietzschean premise is that those who a psychologically rich can afford to go into excess more than those who are psychologically impoverished. So it is that Bataille tries to appeal to a particular segment of society -- those who have been made to feel unhappy by their lack of power in relation to society's hierarchical structure, but who are nonetheless intrinsically rich enough, within themselves, to express a different kind of spirituality than those who are on top.
Nietzsche argues against Christianity as a system of values. My view is that he is dangerously close to invoking social darwinism as the replacement for those religious values – as a secular alternative. Let me say that in many ways, this is precisely the scenario we have today, in Western societies – the replacement of Christian values with a social Darwinist belief system. This is a secularist mystification of society and the people in it.
Now if we take Nietzsche exactly at his word, it was Darwinism – the biological theory of origins – that Nietzsche wanted to use, to replace Christian ideology within society. This would mean that exposure to a biological theory of origins could be used to undermine the force of Christianity in society, since it would give a competing and scientific view of our origins.
Nonetheless, what we have today in Western societies is hardly so much a belief in Darwinism as a belief in social Darwinism, which is an entirely different thing. Social Darwinism is the belief that those who are objectively superior will automatically rise to the top of society, as its cream, whereas those who are lacking in biological (meaning mental, physical, and so on) capacity will automatically sink to the low levels of society, and stay there. There is an element of truth to all ideologies, and of course, social Darwinism is no exception to the rule. There are all sorts of elements of truth to Christianity as well – eg, such morally sound advice as “judge not lest thee be judged.” Often those with exceptional mental and physical abilities do rise to the top of their respective societies. However, look up, at the echelons of business people, politicians and spokespeople of your society today. The variables that lead to an outcome of social success are actually too complex to be limited by simple and direct postulations of mental and physical superiority. Nepotism biological or cultural, shrewdness (a quality that Nietzsche himself saw as being the mark of an inferior character), tradition, material inheritance and opportunity, these are also influences that can determine success or failure within society. Yet the dangerous tendency of the ideology of social Darwinism is to impart the mystification – lookest up and thou wilt see thy elders and thy betters.
So there are difference between social Darwinism and Darwinism itself. The latter produces a body of evidence about our origins -- material artefacts to back it. To date, however, there is no evidence for the truth of the ideology of social Darwinism. Like Christianity, it is merely another belief system, in some ways worse than many aspects of the Christian ideology, which at least counseled “do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. Many social Darwinists use their belief system incongruously, as a theory concerning the nature of morality – which is meant to excuse them from what they do to others.
Despite its failure as a scientific theory or as a system of morality, social Darwinism is still embraced by many – whether implicitly or in an overt and more conscious manner – because it fills an ideological vacuum produced by a diminishing faith in Christianity. (Yet, watch an Australian soap opera, such as Neighbours or Home and Away, and you will be able to guess how much religious mysticisms do continue to hold sway, in the popular consciousness, even today.)
My view is that social Darwinism must be rejected, as just another religious mysticism, which clouds moral and scientific judgement about society itself, and how it functions. There is another aspect, too, that I want to address. The subconscious image that we can tend to carry around in our heads, the subconscious image that comes from a social Darwinistic ideology, is that of a gesticulating ape, who, nonetheless through sheer determination and self-will has made himself king of the castle. To be honest, as a tutor for all subjects for high school in the area of Perth, I have never found anyone more hard to teach than the children of secularists. I believe it is this subconscious image of success that is to blame. For all I know, perhaps the several students I have taught of a religious background have an image of Christ on the cross in the back of their minds. It is very possible that they expect learning to be a crucifixion, and therefore knuckle down and take it. However, the ones who expect to climb to the top of the tower without learning, through sheer swagger and bravado – but with very little effort -- are the hardest to teach. For this reason, they are the ones who are most likely to remain mystified for the rest of their lives.
There is also the aspect of gender to consider. Social Darwinism tends to reinstate a very primitive notion of gender roles. There are perhaps mitigating factors in an advanced society such as ours that can limit its worse effects. I won’t go into that right now, but they includes rule of law, training in the humanities, and so on (in a few words, education and moral discernment, backed up with force, if necessary). The rhetoric of social Darwinism, it seems to me, adopts an imagistic rather than intellectual form, most of the time. The image of so-called “alpha male”, the head honcho of the monkey tribe, who beats his breast whilst standing on a sand castle, is absolutely indispensable for an emotional grasp of social Darwinistic society. His contemporary manifestations are as the head of the corporation, the king of the capitalist jungle who has really made it, and therefore gets to order others around and make them do his bidding. Due to his might, (which makes right), he can choose from the throngs of the female masses, a trophy wife for himself, at will. The so-called “Beta males” – the rest of you who are still fortunate enough to be direct participants in the success game on your own behalf, and not relegated to the sidelines like some mere female – are able to choose from the females that remain, after the alpha male has taken his selection.
I’m not sure who could be happy under this arrangement, unless it be the figurative monkey-king himself, and he alone. Perhaps resorting to a Bronze Age arrangement of society seems necessary, even today, in the face an apparent lack of ideological alternative to a religious social matrix. Yet speaking as a female, and indeed, Darwinistically, I have to say that I lack any respect for this gesticulating ape. I don’t admire him or his ways. I experience no romance in a return to the jungle. Speaking Darwinistically, the kind of male I have always admired is not this product of the social Darwinist imagination, but rather the product of my own imagination, which is perhaps an echo of my own biology and its inherent wisdom. Some may have seen the works of David Attenborough, particularly in his recording of the fascinating Lyre bird. Its weak point it that it is merely a mimic – however, the noises that it is capable of reproducing, to attract a mate, are wildly varied and complex. Let it be noted that I am continuing to speak very figuratively, when I suggest that I would consider it wise and socially advisable to replace our fascination with the image of the Alpha ape with the much more melodic and fascinating image of the Lyre bird, who actually is still capable of learning, and applies his knowledge to create all sorts of melodies in order to seduce his mate.
In closing, I want to suggest the lyre bird as the new symbol of secularism.
2. Bataille
To understand Bataille, it pays in any case to have read some Nietzsche, Marx, Hegel and Freud, since he draws a lot from these. Visions of Excess has a simply premise from Nietzsche, that when we are unhappy we lose all moderation and go into excess. Another Nietzschean premise is that those who a psychologically rich can afford to go into excess more than those who are psychologically impoverished. So it is that Bataille tries to appeal to a particular segment of society -- those who have been made to feel unhappy by their lack of power in relation to society's hierarchical structure, but who are nonetheless intrinsically rich enough, within themselves, to express a different kind of spirituality than those who are on top.
1 comment:
Hitler was your classic "Alpha/Omega" mixed type.
One of my favorite recordings of Handel's 'Messiah' is Christopher Hogwood on L'Oiseau-Lyre. AND I'm a string player/vocalist. So I LOVE the Lyre-bird as a symbol.
Post a Comment