IN SEARCH OF REALITY XVI


Review I





A Study in Thought





by





Marius Heuff

@M.Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

The relevance of man's early developments for our contemporary self-awareness and understanding.
The potentially universal validity of man's self-image.
Re-interpreting historical trends.
The difficulty of anticipating future interpretations and concerns.

It is in those early years of mankind's development, when the human or pre-human animal was unfolding the characteristics that have been a puzzle to the reflective mind ever since; it is in those misty periods of trial and error, that we should seek the answers to the many questions that are relevant to us, now. We will always have to speculate upon the broad developments that took place in that distant past, yet, ironically, these developments are, only now, slowly materialising as conceptual entities. We will never be sure, what, or how, exactly, it happened, that we, the distant descendants of these creatures, are now able to think about the distant past of our origins, or the future course of our evolutionary destiny.

Our ideas about nature, (not only our own nature, but, also, the world of all observable phenomena around us), will always be subject to change, because the reality perceptions of a living organism do not remain static. Yet, this should not prevent us from developing, eventually, a point of view and a mode of living, that may endure for a long time to come, since we may find a remarkably satisfying way of life, as well as a highly useful imagery about ourselves. Just because we know, now, that no living entity enjoys an existence in perpetuity, we should not jump to the conclusion, that the human species can not formulate, eventually, a system of coherent thought and a code of globally relevant ethical behaviour.

Perhaps, we will agree so widely, all over the world, about a particularly useful and truthful perception of reality, that we may see a long period of maturation in wisdom and a blissful old-age for a large majority of the members of mankind, whenever we clearly understand our biological origins and our cultural responsibilities. Yet, at the same time, our reflective and reasoning powers would have secured, finally, a firm grip over our biological heritage, as well as its tendency towards dangerous and destructive behaviour-patterns.

If such a vision seems an idle hope in a period of turmoil, rapid change and ideological uncertainty, one may, indeed, wonder about the brazen confidence and naive attitudes that underlie such a line of thought. Our first reaction is a cynical shrug of the shoulder; a derisive laugh about entertaining such idle thoughts, let alone, the ridiculous futility of an actual attempt to start such an edifice of global wisdom and benevolent attitudes.

History does not seem to justify such a confident optimism either, but, then, let us not forget, that we always interpret history in the light of our present opinions and beliefs, and, we should acknowledge the possibility, that our views of the present reality, (including the perception of man's future existence), may change in such a way, that a re-interpretation of history is, not only, likely, but inevitable.

If so, we have to acknowledge the possibility of finding, later, in future studies of history, patterns of development that would, then, be interpreted as fore-runners of maturing thought- and behaviour-patterns, which, eventually, coalesced into a global cultural synthesis and an enduring attitude of mutual cooperation and trust. Such a possibility can not be denied, and may, once again, serve as a useful starting point for the realisation, that our reality experience, (be it a reality of the present, the past or the future), is a conceptual system, based, solely, on what we happen to believe at the present time.

In the future, we may well interpret historical developments in such a way, that they support, quite broadly, evidence for the evolution of a global belief structure, as well as a globally acceptable convention of behavioural guidelines. We will then be looking at a global culture, based upon the collective reality experiences of man in such a "present of the future", together with this "future-present`s" interpretation of its past and future. We may wonder why it took such a long time to recognise trends, that may then be considered as obvious.

Yet, such a possibility, (a typical anticipation and reflection of my particular interpretation of contemporary reality), is entirely speculative, and, the insights of future generations may well be entirely different. Even the questions we anticipated to be asked in the future, are a product of our contemporary anticipations of this potential future, and, these questions may be irrelevant to future generations, except, perhaps, as an illumination of our present way of thinking.

Let us, therefore, not speculate about the probable attitudes of the future generations, nor should we concern ourselves, unduly, about extra-polations of current reality experiences. Let us work and think, re-think and re-assess, where we are now, and, how we may help ourselves in our search for understanding. We may do so by speculating about the origins of mankind, and, in particular, about the origins of this remarkable human ability to form concepts and think. We may explore the tacit and explicit agreements, as well as the social contracts, which seem to have been such an important development in the unfolding of human behaviour. These agreements and contracts have been enshrined, (but often hidden from our conscious view), in those forms of existence we now call, collectively, a "cultural code".

.......

Chapter 2

Content

The irrelevance of the origin of an idea.
Biological constants and cultural super-impositions in man's reality perceptions.
The possibilities for interdependence and task-differentiation.
Recent conceptual refinements in the evolution of awareness mechanisms.
The communal re-living of experiences.
Increased communal cohesion through mutual cultural identification.
A lessened mutual recognition or identification on the basis of species specificity.
Another human being is man's only serious enemy.
Hierarchical relationships, based on the power of persuasion and conceptual skills.
The increased importance of persuasion in the functions of leadership.
The development of validity-gradients in the evaluation of a communication.
The ability to tolerate emotional variability, prior to the tolerance of intellectual differentiation.

This prelude is sufficient to set the tone for our aims and ambitions, which is nothing less than to contribute to a globally acceptable philosophy and a natural ethic. We will not embroil ourselves in futile speculations, whether or not such an attempt is worthwhile. The future will make this judgement abundantly clear. If most of these ideas remain largely outside the main-stream of human thought, it means, that such ideas are not relevant, nor meaningful, and they will be mercifully forgotten.

If such ideas find a response or a measure of resonance, they may be useful as centers around which further ideas and refinements may, eventually, crystallise, and their collective influence may be useful for the formation of a globally relevant cultural code. What does it really matter, whether the ideas expressed by me are an evolutionary dead-end or a useful stepping stone in the development of human thought? What does it really matter, whether the future generations of human existence do remember me, personally, or associate these ideas with a particular name?

The specific origins of an idea is an accident of history, a chance-circumstance, which does not reflect the essence of an idea, because the usefulness or relevance of every concept is determined, in essence, by the response and resonance of the audience; this large and nameless mass of human beings who carry the concepts and ideas in their belief structures and attitudes. These are the people, who determine, collectively, the relevance, importance and viability of every concept, because an idea does not survive, except as part of a living community, where the ideas are kept alive and are re-conceived, or slightly altered, as their meaning and usefulness are constantly being tested. In those misty beginnings of early intelligent life, with its discovery of the ability to represent sense impressions symbolically, lies the secret origin of human essence, as well as the cradle of man's cultural guidelines and belief structures.

We have seen, how early man lived in small social groupings, where the behavioural traits, necessary for a successful unit of organised or integrated existence, had been shaped in countless generations of genetic experimentation. With the rise of symbolic representations and communications, behaviour came also under the influence of the mental imagery and perceptions of a conscious reality. In other words; super-imposed on a biologically determined mechanism to interpret sense-impressions and circumstances into a sub-conscious reality image that is the foundation for an appropriate behavioural response, the development of symbolic representations, with the help of gestures and vocal sounds, led to a very rapid development of the ability to recall, frequently and nearly at will, a large number of specific sense-impressions, without the need to experience the actual circumstances.

We have also discussed, how the human being, eventually, had to orden this large mass of separate awarenesses into categories representing similar conceptual relationships, and, we have traced this development, to some extent, in previous essays. The mechanisms of symbolic representation take place in the form of a communication with other members of the social group, where secondary awarenesses with a regulating or classifying function become also represented symbolically as conceptual abstractions upon which, eventually, an elaborate system of belief structures is built. With this development, human behaviour does not depend, anymore, entirely, upon a neurological or biological organisation of an appropriate behavioural response, but, human behaviour comes under the guidance of a conscious reality perception that is represented symbolically by a more or less coherent structure of verbalisable ideas.

We would like to explore, here, the communal or social aspects of the development of conscious awareness and symbolic representation, and, we will see, that the trend towards interdependence and task-specalisation was enhanced, in many ways, by the capability of symbolic or conceptual awareness, while this same ability also played a role in sharpening the specificity of the human species. After all, the art of symbolic representation, and, in particular, the art of verbal communication, or "speech", made us specifically human, and speech gave us the possibility to create an elaborate belief structure; a conscious perception of reality; the ability to think and reflect with verbalisable concepts.

Only recently, have we become aware of the possibility to trace the evolution of our conscious awarenesses as a logical and gradual development from the common mechanisms of the living organisation, as they unfolded themselves in our terrestial environment. Our specialisation as a conceptualising animal, together with our near-total dominance over other life-forms, made it difficult for man to see this link with the rest of nature. As a result, the conceptual belief structures of the members of mankind, (which were, primarily, based on direct sensory experiences), led, nearly always, to a stucture of beliefs, where man thought himself more related to the creatures of his imagination, (the gods and the spirits), rather than the creatures of the field, whom he hunted or feared, and occasionally worshipped.

In those misty, vague beginnings, the discovery that it was possible to evoke a specific sense-impression by a gesture, a sound, or a rough imitation, opened the possibility to recall many specific experiences into a focus of awareness with the help of symbolic representations of an actual happening or a recent event. Other members of the group would frequently recognise such an imitation, and a similar experience would be re-called into their focus of awareness from their memory-banks. This ability to evoke memory-traces by symbolic representation and voluntary recall, (outside the actual circumstances of a similar experience), sharpened the awareness of past experiences to a remarkable extent.

The members of a small community developed the ability to re-live, together, an experience they all shared, and, in this way, it became slowly possible to communicate amongst themselves an event or a series of events. Specific awarenesses became now related into a more cohesive format, and recurrent similarities in the unfolding of events, stimulated the awareness of cause-effect relationships; a capability that became, later, ever more important, when the need for a comprehensive conceptual classification became more urgent as a result of the rapidly increasing complexity of the symbolic repertoir.

We assume, that, in the rudimentary forms of story-telling, the symbolically evoked imagery of events, as well as the emotional responses that would be associated with the actual experiences, were, as yet, intertwined, and, such an intimate relationship between the symbolic representation of an event and the existential significance of a recalled event, must have made these primitive stories and their story-tellers, more powerful in their hold over the audience than our most convincing audio-visual techniques of today.

What were the consequences of this remarkable development? The technique of recalling memory-traces with the help of a representative symbol opened the possibility to re-live experiences communally and simultaneously, and, the voluntary recall of such experiences led to an ever greater conceptual vocabulary, as well as an ever growing need for conceptual classification systems. Probably, the most significant result was a marked increase in the social cohesion of the group. It led to the ability to identify and recognise each other on the basis of conceptual skills and behaviour-patterns, which were guided by an understanding of the meaning of these conceptual symbols.

The process of mutual identification on the basis of cultural criteria had other implications as well, because it increased the gap between groups of human beings who were developing differing sets of representative symbols. In other words; a cultural divergence led to a break-down in mutual recognition on the basis of biological similarities. Increased cultural cohesiveness of the group took place at the expense of an increase in communal hostilities and attitudes of suspicion towards the "outsider", or, towards groups with a somewhat different repertoir of symbolic representations.

Increased viability on account of a greater cohesiveness and a greater technical skill in task-specialisation and cooperation in complex tasks, was traded-off against an increasing insularity in feelings and attitudes. It is likely, that cultural characteristics became so important, that a naturally occurring ability for an animal to recognise another member of the same species, was nearly completely lost in the atmosphere of suspicion and hostility that would occur, whenever groups of human beings with a divergent cultural code would come into contact with each other.

Sure, there were other reasons, why man's hostility became increasingly directed towards other human beings. There was the fact, that an increased mastery over the environment, (again, a direct result of the "culturisation" of mankind), left another human being, or group of human beings, as the only significant and dangerous competitor or threat. The growth of language communication, as well as the social developments that were made possible by the development of symbolic communications, were directly related to man's increasing powers over his environment, and, man's cultural divergence and solitary position in the ecological hierarchy was the main cause for the continuing ferocity of bloody conflicts between human beings, who were, usually, organised into small, competitive groupings.

Let us return, for a moment, to the mechanisms that took place, (as seen in our speculative mental imagery), within the social and cultural boundaries of a group of socially integrated human beings. The division between "author" and "audience", must have been quite flexible, and would change from time to time, giving rise to hierarchical relationships that were based upon a leadership in recalling experiences by symbolic stimulation. This type of leadership was, probably, more flexible than a hierarchy based upon physical power relationships.

Yet, it is easy to see, that there is a certain leadership function in the art of "telling a story". It is an act of leadership to initiate a symbolic communication and "lead" an audience through a spell-binding presentation of a significant, re-called event, where all the emotional responses of the audience are synchronised with each other, as well as with the author.

Probably, the natural leaders would also excel in the ability to communicate their experiences, and, vice versa, gifted story-tellers became powerful leaders by virtue of their ability to persuade the audience to share their experiences and their subconscious reality perceptions. This, I feel, is an important consideration, because we see, here, a marked enlargement of the role of persuasion, as it begins to occupy a dominant place in the functions and attributes of leadership. Admiration for ability and authority came to include the skill and art of symbolic communications, and, the functions of leadership began to include the intuitive skills of orchestrating the feelings and emotions of the audience, or a small community.

However, it would be somewhat artificial to make a sharp distinction between the functions of dominance, based on physical strength, and, dominance achieved by persuasive skills. These developments are so intricately interwoven, that the criteria of successful leadership always show a composite of skills in a wide variety of behavioural aspects. Therefore, the natural leader is, or remains, a leader, because, in the overall capabilities of his powers, he has no rivals or peers, in spite of the probability, that, in any particular skill or behavioural aspect, he may have an equal or a master.

We have seen, how the process of recalling common experiences by gesticulative mimicry leads, quickly, to a rapidly enlarging repertoir of representative symbols, and, soon, these symbols have to be arranged into a somewhat coherent system of relationships, representing the reality experiences of a small group. We may then speak of a "belief-structure", and, we have to assume, that the validity of a belief-structure was, at least, initially, complete and unquestioned, because a belief-structure, by definition, would mean, that all members of the community would accept a particular conceptual structure as real or valid beyond questioning.

Only much later, would the development of conceptual communications become sophisticated enough to raise a variety of questions, including the question of validity of a particular concept or belief. Questions about the validity of a commonly accepted belief or interpretation must have had a difficult time coming to the fore because of the fact, that, a commonly agreed-upon structure of beliefs had the quality of being innately logical and inescapable.

We should not visualise, therefore, a significant degree of individualised awareness in these belief- structures, because, even the concept of individual existence and individual uniqueness were the result of sophisticated reflections arising much later in the evolution of conscious awareness. The pressure to conform with the other members, and to show solidarity with the leadership, must have slowed-down any tendency towards individualising the personalities of a small socially integrated grouping. Obviously, individualisation carried the danger of fragmentation, and, it seems safe to assume, that, for the sake of social cohesion, the mechanisms of individualisation, as well as their verbalised or conscious expression, were suppressed, quite vigorously, from the beginning.

Probably, the only variability that would not be felt as "treacherous insubordination", would be a variability in the intensity of an emotional experience. It must have been unavoidable, that the processes of re-living, together, a set of experiences, would evoke a variable intensity of emotional reactions, and, therefore, different responses were given by the members of the group as they were guided through a communal re-living of a particular experience by their leadership. Therefore, it is logical to assume, that there would be a tacit and subconscious variability in the response to re-lived experiences, but, an open questioning of the validity of a story or experience, was, as yet, impossible.

As the human being developed an ever larger vocabulary or communal pool of concepts and symbols, we see, not only, a need for further classification and categorisation with the help of secondary abstractions or "organising principles", but, we see, also, that this vast repertoir of conceptual symbols and their expressions became impossible to master in its entirety. This led to task-specialisations and a variable content of the symbolic repertoir absorbed by each individual. Diversity in conceptual content between the members contributed to a variablity in the perceived meaning of a concept, and the experience of intentional and unintentional differences, or, the mechanisms of error and deceit, must have spurred the capabilities of questioning and scrutiny.

Man was already losing his innocence, as well as his innate tendency to believe everything he understood. The possibility to experience error and being deceived by a deliberate mis-representation, would, indeed, have spurred, quickly, the art of scrutiny and verification, and, even now, we realise, how necessary it is, for the sake of mutual trust, to be able to verify, scrutinise, investigate or question, whatever others convey to us and would like us to believe without questioning.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Speculating about early developments.
The many functions of cultural guidelines.
The development of task-differentiations.
Becoming a master in symbolic manipulations.
The variable fractions absorbed from the common cultural pool by individual members.
Task-differentiation, inter-dependence, mutual trust and reliance, seen as an intertwined complex of factors.
The need for behavioural predictability.
The interdependence of economic, cultural and social mechanisms.

We should not have any difficulties to agree amongst ourselves, that cultural innovations gave us the knowledge and technology by which we live today, but, the precise nature and the specific details of these processes will always be open to varying interpretations. It may be an opportune moment, here, to consider, how cultural traits, such as communal attitudes and beliefs, regulate our behaviour, and, how such regulatory mechanisms facilitate the processes of task-differentiation, mutual interdependence and the exchange of goods and services.

We have considered, briefly, how a group of human beings develops a common pool of notions, ideas and beliefs, which is, by definition, a "culture". Such a commonly shared pool of notions and beliefs guides the behaviour of the members in such a way, that the unity and cohesion of the group is enhanced, but, at the same time, we have seen, that, increased coherence on the basis of a shared culture, must mean, a decrease in the ability to recognise other groupings, with a markedly different culture, as belonging to the same species.

In other words, the gain of increased viability with a successful local culture is paid for by an increased tendency towards strife and combat with groups that have a different cultural repertoir. It means, that an increased sense of togetherness is, necessarily, associated with an increased sense of suspicion and hostility towards those, who do not belong to the group. Attitudes of interdependence, cooperation, trust and hierarchical positioning are facilitated by members who share cultural characteristics, and, at the same time, this increased cohesion allows for an efficient channeling of hostile feelings, or an aggressive energy, towards the "outsider", or, towards another grouping.

It is, therefore, inevitable, that the earliest forms of task-differentiation, the exchange of goods and services, as well as attitudes of trust and loyalty, were limited to members of the same group. In view of the stringent limitations that were imposed by the mechanisms of cultural differentiation upon the ability to communicate with divergent groupings, we should marvel at the fact, that such communications took place at all.

The mechanisms of task-differentiation within a social grouping began prior to the discovery of symbolic representation, because we see many socially integrated animals employ the beginnings of task-divisions, e.g., in hunting and defensive techniques, without any evidence for the ability to form symbolic representations. Yet, it is clear, that the human animal, after this epochal discovery of the ability to recall symbolically a memory-trace, showed an explosive growth of socially based patterns of differentiation. This explosive growth of social differentiations was, partly, due to the fact, that a rapidly developing repertoir of symbols became difficult to master in its entirety. Most members must have been able to communicate a number of symbols, representing a portion of the totality of the cultural pool. This implies the beginning of a conceptual differentiation of the human being. Every member of a community would share with the other members the contents of a common cultural pool, but the particular fraction that constituted the personal cultural "tool-kit" of a specifc individual, would, probably, be slightly different from the fraction his neighbour had absorbed from the same cultural pool.

A large conceptual repertoir must have led to the development of the "symbolic expert" who was capable of handling the totality, or, at least, a much larger fraction of the common cultural pool than the average member. Yet, it would be important, and relevant, to "know" a large portion of the cultural pool of notions, especially, when relating to a specific set of relevant circumstances. Here, we see a fore-runner of the "intellectual", or specialist in knowledge, but, probably, the specialist in handling the primitive cultural pool of an early nomadic social grouping was reflected, more accurately, in the functions of the "witch doctor", or "medicine man", because symbolic communications were primarily directed towards the gods and spirits of the anthropomorphic force-fields believed to be operating in man's environment.

Expertise in handling a large portion of the cultural pool of a community, led, inevitably, to a position of authority, but, at the same time, there would be a trend for the members to develop a particular field of expertise as a result of specific circumstances and events, as well as a result of specific talents or affinities. Yet, an increase in specialisation of function must be accompanied by an increase in mutual reliance and trust, otherwise, the development of a specialisation in function would be too vulnerable. Increased task-differentiation is, therefore, inextricably associated with increased interdependence, mutual reliance and reciprocated trust.

An increased interdependence, together with the need for mutual trust, also implies, that the behaviour and attitudes of the members must have become increasingly predictable, and, predictability means, that behaviour-patterns became increasingly subject to specific and stringent guidelines, in spite of the fact, that the members were not consciously aware to what extent their behaviour was being guided and regulated. Only behavioural codes that were adhered to faithfully, if subconsciously, allowed for an increased predictability of each other's behaviour, and this favoured, in turn, the feelings of familiarity and the attitudes of trust.

The exchange of trust is, indeed, the foundation for the development of interdependence, and, it is the basis for task-differentiations as well. "I must know, even, if it is only intuitively, that I can trust others to carry-out a vital function for me, before I will be confident and happy to allow someone else to take-over such a function".

These trends of social integration started, of course, long before there was any conscious awareness of these mechanisms, and, they arose long before there was any symbolic awareness at all, because in the early mechanisms of social integration, (the hierarchical order with the exchange of submission for protection), we recognise the biological beginnings of the processes of secondary socialisation. This means, that the development of symbolic representations, together with the growth of a common pool of notions, codes and beliefs, arose on a foundation of biologically encoded mechanisms of interdependence, but, the art of communicating symbolically added another dimension to the possibilities opened-up by interdependence and task-differentiation.

Every form of interdependence in behaviourally flexible animals has to be built upon a foundation of mutual identification and trust, and these attitudes are only possible, if the members can predict, and feel familiar with, the behaviour of their fellow members. There have to be guidance-structures or codes of behaviour for the members of a social entity, and, it does not matter, whether we are talking, here, about a modern and highly complex society with numerous economic interdependencies, or, a far more primitive society, where the main reason for togetherness is a vaguely perceived bond of common security requirements.

There must be an agreed-upon set of rules for commonly accepted behaviour-patterns in order to make interdependence possible for the conceptualising and behaviourally flexible human being, and it is, therefore, futile to consider the mechanisms of the voluntary exchange of goods and services as separate from cultural or social mechanisms, or, to separate "economic activities" from considerations of social justice or emotional reactions.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The experience of a "sense of justice", versus the "concept of justice".
Relationships between economic events, the sense of justice and behavioural regulators.
The transition of the hierarchical "pecking order" to a status of social equality.
The changes from territoriality, through hierarchical stratification, to essential social equality.
The importance of "equal treatment" by the leadership.
Favouritism and the disruption of natural hierarchical relationships.
Resentment caused by an experience of injustice, resulting from arbitrary changes in hierarchical positions, brought-about through leadership favouritism.
The importance of the need for social equality.
Mechanisms of the development and persistence of social classes.

Let us look, for a moment, at the concept of justice, as well as the "feeling" or sense of justice, which is a more emotional expression of our behaviour. A definition of this feeling of justice is important, because it reflects the tacit mechanisms that regulate our social contacts. Our feelings of justice reflect the way we feel about belonging to society, and, they reflect our understanding of the guidelines and belief structures that make our social structure a good place to live in.

Without a framework of just and acceptable social guidelines, these inter-actions become difficult or, even, impossible, unless the persuasiveness of a feeling of justice is replaced by a sense of fear for the powerful enforcement of the laws of society, and, even, then, social order is only maintained for a short period of time.

We have to look, also, at the relationships between economic transactions, the feeling or sense of justice, the enforcement of commonly accepted agreements, as well as the overall cultural characteristics of a social environment. We will come to the conclusion, that, to view any of these processes in isolation from the others, leads to a bewildering confusion about the events that take place within complex social environments.

The complexity of this framework of cultural guidance-patterns, represented by notions and ideas, concepts and laws, has led to a confusing fragmentation into specialised fields of expertise. The process of fragmentation has to be confusing, because the logical relationships between specialised fields are, often, lost by this process of fragmentation into specialised worlds, which exist on their own, and develop their own internal "language of communications", or "jargon". Our attempts to solve the problems of complexity by narrowing the scope of the field of vision, have clarified many small details within such a field of vision or expertise, but the price has been a loss of awareness, or "visibility", of the larger trends and logical connections, which were too broad to fall, in their entirety, within the scope of vision of one or other scientific area of investigation.

The "sense of justice" precedes the "concept of justice" by a very long time, because the sense of justice is an emotional reaction-pattern, while the concept of justice is an intellectual abstraction. What is the origin of the sense of justice, which may be defined as a tacit agreement between the members of a social grouping to behave within certain acceptable limits? In the small social grouping, we see, that the members are organised into a definite hierarchical relationship, the "pecking order", forming the basis for the biologically encoded instructions to organise a group of individuals into a functioning unit.

The most detrimental forms of conflict are associated with the behaviour of territoriality. With the development of a hierarchical order, the territorial fight is transformed into a test-fight, or a "contest of power", rather than an all-out fight for territorial control. With the establishment of a hierarchical order, the territories of the members fuse, but leadership aspirations remain. Each individual member finds his position in the hierarchy by testing his powers to dominate the other members, and, vice versa, a member accepts the dominance of those he can not subdue. This short summary of the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening does not do justice to these magnificent and complex processes, where, slowly, remarkable behavioural transformations take place in the collective search for enhanced security.

Within a socially integrated grouping, the behavioural limits are determined by an ordened relationship, or hierarchy, of individual personalities. Those, who are "high-up" in the hierarchy, can dominate most of the others, and, these members assume, automatically, the responsibility to defend the entire territory against intruders. Those, who are near the bottom of the hierarchical ladder, are tolerated at the fringes of the social organisation, as long as they accept domination by a majority of the members. Yet, there must still be an existential advantage for these lowly placed members to belong to such a group, otherwise, they would leave or break-away. A low degree of viability, or, individual force of existence, is, therefore, reflected by a low hierarchical position.

Internal fighting within a socially integrated grouping is minimised, as soon as each individual has learned to distinguish between those he can dominate and those who will dominate him. If a member encounters an individual he can not place in this hierarchical scale, a test-fight will take place to determine, where this individual belongs in the hierarchical order.

In the biological organisation of the small group with a definite "pecking-order", we see, that it is impossible for two individuals to belong to the same level, because the uncertainty of the reciprocal relationships between these two members demands immediate clarification. Do we see, here, a parallel with the Pauli exclusion principle in physics? However, let us not complicate matters by generalising too broadly, because we have no idea, whether there is any useful similarity between the ordening of electrons in their orbit around a nucleus, and the hierarchical ordening of animals, who have given-up their territories for the sake of finding a measure of enhanced viability within the common territory of a socially integrated grouping.

A clear pecking-order for individual members disappears rapidly in the larger human societies, partly, because the leadership functions become more flexible and shift easily from one individual to another, and partly, because it would be impossible for a large number of individuals, living together, to settle all differences of their hierarchical positions by test-fights.

A test-fight is a cumbersome, wasteful and potentially weakening method for settling hierarchical questions, and, therefore, the method of internal test-fights is gradually replaced by a tacit convention of equal relationships. Equal relationships, means, that the leadership treats everyone as "equal", and the members see themselves as being "essentially equal" to each other, with the exception of those, who occupy clear-cut leadership positions, as well as those, who have violated the rights and obligations of belonging to society.

We should mention, here, that the concept of "equality" is a late and sophisticated development in our ability to articulate awarenesses, but, in practice, we have already accepted, tacitly, a willingness to forego test-fights for a long time. We are willing to forego a test-fight, provided, that, each member receives equal rights and obligations under the cultural guidance-patterns and belief structures of the social environment. We have accepted a "hierarchical uncertainty" in relation to the people around us, in exchange for a social contract where we expect equal and fair treatment by those around us, as well as from the leadership.

Unequal treatment in the form of favouritism by the leadership would, immediately, position the "favourites" in an arbitrary hierarchical relationship with the other members. The artificially elevated position of the favourite has been "created" by the leadership. It has not been earned or proven in accordance with a natural hierarchical order, based on a test-fight or an acknowledgement of merit. As a result of the mechanisms of favouritism, we, as non-favourite outsiders, may, therefore, be placed, arbitrarily, in a position that is below the position we accept on account of our self-image, or, on account of the traditional status we have come to accept as "the norm".

It is this discrepancy between the actual position and the position we ought to be in according to our own evaluations, which gives rise to the sense of injustice, but, not necessarily, to the abstraction or the concept of injustice. The powerful emotional surges that take place whenever we experience such a sense of injustice, are clear to everyone, and, we all know, very well, the powerful feelings of hostility and resentment that are created by a strong sense of injustice. Again, let us re-iterate, for a moment, the concept, that this resentment and sense of injustice is related to an arbitrary lowering of our status in relation to those, who have received a special favour or protection from the leadership. Our intuitive feelings about our own self-worth, as well as an assessment of our own strength, do not correspond with the position we find ourselves in. This is the basic mechanism that underlies rebellious attitudes, either, of an individual within his group, or, of a group within a larger social environment.

The only alternative to a satisifed sense of justice is widespread dissent and feelings of a wounded justice, especially, in a large-scale social environment, where many members would, necessarily, be unable to find meaningful hierarchical positions. It becomes imperative, therefore, to maintain, scrupulously, the essential equality in status between the members of a large social grouping, as well as equal relationship between the leadership and the various segments of society. Only a sense of being treated equally, can, slowly, subdue suspicions and feelings of resentment. Only a transparent relationship between all the members of society, including the members of a fair and sensitive leadership, can prevent the powerful emotions of injustice and resentment from destroying the social fabric of trust and cooperation.

Equality in social status is vitally important for the peaceful co-existence of groups that can not develop a viable and natural hierarchical differentiation, and, we have seen, that, in every large society, there will, necessarily, be large groups of people who are essentially equal to each other.

The existence and acceptance of different classes within society, is, partly, due to the biologically inherited tendency of every group to stratify into a pecking order, but, the cultural beliefs and regulators of society have to justify and sanction the existence of such diverging classes, otherwise, the members can not see these differences in position and privilege as justified. Then, powerful emotions of resentment and a wounded sense of justice will come quickly to the fore. In other words; once a society questions the existence of social discrepancies, it means, that the traditional arguments or justifications for the presence of these discrepancies or disparities, have already been rejected as false or irrelevant.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Changes in social status, and the tendency towards social rigidity.
The time-lag between cultural traditions and the cultural regulators needed for stabilising prevailing conditions of existence.
Hereditary aspects in the mechanisms of social stratification.
An inevitable loss of leadership qualities with the hereditary succession of a leadership position.
Social tensions.
Slavery, the elan vital, and the chances of birth.

We do not have to search long in our historical records, to see, that powerful emotional surges of resentment between the various classes occur, time and again, and, we have to ask ourselves, what sort of developments in existing relationships, or, which changes in the perception of reality lead to a disturbance in a relatively stable social organisation.

Changes in status-quo occur all the time, because, after all, the society is an organism that grows, changes, matures, and, eventually, decays, but, we have to realise, that the growth-rates of the various segments within a social environment are different, and, the feeling of justification for a certain position within the social hierarchy, will change, if the status-quo changes. As the relative strengths of the individual members, or the various social groupings, begin to deviate from the status-quo, the traditional cultural guidelines that regulate the relative positions of these individuals or social classes, become less relevant, and, we have, here, one of the many reasons, why, eventually, tensions always come to the fore within a specific social environment.

In the early phases of the development of a social entity, the relative positions of various individuals, or sub-groupings, are determined by a tacit or explicit hierarchical arrangement. The leader assumes his role by virtue of the fact, that he provides protection to his followers. If this leadership becomes less successful, and, if another individual feels, that he has the power to challenge the existing leader, such an event will take place. There is, therefore, an element of fluidity in a natural leadership position, which is very much apparent in the behaviour-patterns of socially integrated animals, but, we can observe the same patterns, also, in the smaller social groupings of human beings.

A culturally encoded guidance-pattern for behavioural conduct assumes a position of influence and leadership, only, after it has proven to be useful, but, these cultural structures are not so easily discarded, whenever they become less relevant, because the members of a social environment are, frequently, not consciously aware of the function or nature of cultural guidelines, and, the members do not realise the reasons, why these cultural guidelines have become less useful or relevant.

While an excessive rigidity of the cultural code would be stifling, the slowly emerging social structures would collapse as a functioning entity, if the regulatory functions of a cultural code would be subject to very rapid changes, because a continuity of the guidance-patterns becomes a vitally important contribution to the stability of a social unit. If such a cultural pattern has established itself, time and tradition tend to preserve this pattern more or less intact for the subsequent generations, and, we see, then, that the meaning, or relevance, of many cultural traditions change quickly to "comforting routines". This means, that they do not function, anymore, as a highly meaningful symbol of an accepted and understood reality, but, they are largely accepted and transmitted as a well-established tradition.

Subsequent generations are increasingly born into pre-existing strata or classes of society, and, they tend to preserve their status-quo as a birth-right. They are not aware of the fact, that their status of privilege belonged to their fore-fathers, who earned, at least, a tacit approval from the social environment for their status of prominence and privilege. This is the reason, why a leadership may become irrelevant and a burden to society, as less gifted heirs fill the shoes of their fore-fathers, and, the increasing challenges to their undeserved positions of privilege and power become, rapidly, a focal point for egocentric and defensive posturing. Leadership can, then, only be maintained by the ruthless oppression of dissent and the terror of despotic behaviour.

Resentment and a feeling of injustice build-up, quickly, but, they are muted by fear and the need for secrecy. Slowly, however, the awareness of injustice spreads, as more and more people experience the hardships of oppression, exile, or arbitrary arrests. The tensions build-up, inexorably, until a revolutionary convulsion, an assassination, or an invasion by a foreign power, brings an end to the reign of terror. As a result, the pent-up hatred may be spent in a rage of retaliatory massacres and acts of destruction, often, creating a legacy of injustice all their own.

To come back on the inevitability of tensions arising from changes in hierarchical positions as time goes by, let us look, for example, at the justification for a position of slavery, which the prisoners of war, or a failed rebellion, may feel as a legitimate price to pay for the gift of life they received from their conquerer. However, those, born into slavery, will lack the experience of having been captured or defeated in a conflict or a revolt, which is the one crucial fact that made the position of slavery acceptable to their parents. The growth-pressure or elan vital of the healthy young slaves, suppressed by an inferior social status, makes it impossible to accept as justified a position of slavery, because it does not correspond with their feelings of healthy vigour, unless these rigid class-divisions have been strongly sanctified by a fully accepted religious belief structure.

Unless a strong cultural code provides an adequate brake upon their elan vital, a growing class of oppressed individuals will, inevitably, try to better their lot, because their position is increasingly perceived as unjust and a violation of their sense of dignity or self-worth.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

The law as an explicit behavioural regulator.
A complex web of mores, notions and atitudes.
The law, seen as a cause for the divergence between the social classes.
Social stratification; based on special skills.
The social contract, and the laws of society.
Mechanisms of social fragmentation and the wounded sense of justice.
Obsolescence of the cultural code.
Is it possible to change, deliberately, behavioural regulators?

The laws of a community are an explicit expression of the manner in which the members of society have to conduct themselves, and, these laws embody, at least, in part, the social contract of tacit agreements which lies at the root of the culture of a community. Long before such explicit formulations of the code of conduct were necessary, or possible, customs and mores would regulate the behaviour of the members in a much less formal manner, and, in a much less consciously articulated form. Such a system of mores, attitudes and tacit understandings functioned as a collectively adhered-to body of ideas, regulating, largely subconsciously, interpersonal relationships and providing for a continuation of this all-important feeling of justice.

The generally accepted codes of behaviour, as well as the more specifically formulated laws of society, became a major reason for the divergence between social classes, because the application of such laws and codes of conduct tended to sanction the status-quo of achievement, and continued the differences in status by discouraging assault upon a hard-won and deserved privilege, even, after the individual had grown old and feeble.

Leadership and other positions of privilege became inherited, as the natural fluidity of a position in society disappeared under the pressure of cultural sanctification. Stability and rigidity increased, but the natural sense of justice became strained. Yet, this stability encouraged the development of special skills, and promoted an attitude of reliance upon each other for carrying-out the overall complex of functions necessary to maintain existence. Mutual trust had to be based on stability, as well as the confidence, that a moment of weakness would not be abused ruthlessly, but, mutual trust also relied upon a sense of justice, which could suffer from a social stability that had become too rigid.

In every social entity, the culturally determined guidelines for justice and stability would try to find an intuitive or subconscious balance between the advantages of stability and continuity on the one hand, and, the need to avoid a stifling rigidity on the other.

Advancement in the social hierarchy shifted from the application of personal force or physical power, to the development of specific skills, as well as the application of a competitive or tenacious attitude, leading to a great variety of diverging abilities and life-styles where people tended to congregate into classes of similarity. These separate classes of artisans, tradesmen, intellectuals, military men or clerics and other professionals, jockeyed for a position of influence in the continuing struggle for dominance and power.

However, a successful class would, often, forget, that the rise in power, wealth and influence always remained dependent upon a tacit or explicit agreement with the rest of the social environment. The social surroundings had to agree, at least, tacitly, that such a position of privilege and power was deserved, and, therefore, acceptable. If such a feeling of tacit agreement disappeared, the privileged class would quickly be considered a parasite or an enemy, and, a surge of hostility and suspicion would initiate defensive and oppressive behaviour-patterns in the members of a privileged class.

In a purely biological power relationship, the powerful would only be able to hold-on to their positions of dominance, as long as they possessed the skill and strength to successfully meet any challenge or challenger. The cultural code sanctions the law-fully gained privileges of wealth and power for individuals as well as groups, regardless of the personal power of these people to defend their property or privilege. As a result, there is a strong tendency to extend these privileges to the offspring of prominent individuals and influential segments of society.

The strong authority of a cultural code of conduct tends to suppress the tendency to question a status-quo, long after inequities have become apparent. In addition, a privileged individual, or class, who forgets the responsibilities that are associated with a prominent position of influence or leadership, further alienates the rest of society, especially, when leadership duties are poorly fulfilled. Then, the sense of enlightened concern and compassion for all the members of society, which is the predominant characteristic of the behaviour of earned or deserved prominence, disappears in an ever more anxious, introvert and suffocating morass of egocentric concerns for one's own private security and personal comforts.

The deserving individual arrives, initially, at a position of privilege after hard work, or, after a period of danger and adversity. Society gives this person a position of prominence, as well as its admiration, but, the people quickly forget, and, the privileged individual becomes defensive. Naturally, he wants his children to share in his position of property, security and well-being. This means, that, this all-important sense of justice disappears, in particular, when we consider, how the next generation inherits, as a matter of chance, either, the status of wealth and privilege of its parents, or, the misfortune of poverty and deprivation of the parental generation. The differences in social standing can not be seen, anymore, as a justified result of personal merit, but, they reflect, merely, the chances of birth. A cultural code that tolerates, or, even, encourages the perpetuation of the status-quo, is increasingly seen as an obsolete structure; a structure, that benefits the wealthy and oppresses the poor.

The laws and customs of a socially integrated community developed as a valuable and necessary instrument to guide the unfolding of a socially integrated grouping of people, but, now, with the rise of inherited wealth and privileges, it has become an instrument of injustice, because these same laws tend to perpetuate the discrepancies that arise on the basis of personal merit, from one generation to the next.

The same cultural code that was the key to the successful growth of a society, has, now, become the key to the discontentment of its members and the dissolution of its social cohesion. This change from relevance to irrelevance is such a common paradox, that we seem to accept this chain of events as inevitable. Yet, there are good reasons to believe, that it is possible, by careful analysis and conscious awareness, to see, clearly, the factors that promote social cohesion and spur its growth. We can also see the reasons, why successful cultural regulators lose their usefulness, after a society reaches maturity and the conditions of existence are beginning to change.

The problem is, in essence, the fact, that, successful cultural patterns of the past which made a vigorous growth possible, tend to persist, long after they have outlived their usefulness, and, long after inequities, resulting from these same regulators, have begun to show-up. Most of the time, we are not able to put our finger, precisely, on the reasons, why an eminently successful society begins to deteriorate, while, at the same time, we see, that the meaningful cultural patterns of the past are losing their relevance for one reason or another.

If we could anticipate, better, what the effects or consequences would be for a society that has "matured", (when successful cultural guidance-patterns from the growth-period of the past are transmitted, rather slovenly, to the following generations, with less and less understanding of their meaning), we could begin to debate and plan for a conscious and deliberate change in these cultural guidance-patterns, as soon as their relevance would begin to diminish.

If we can see, clearly, that cultural patterns may foster mutual trust by guaranteeing everyone the right to security, an equal position in society, as well as the right to a measure of personal property, we should also be able to see, that, an unbridled continuation of the principle to own private property, will destroy the same basic equality and mutual trust, which the law, initially, intended to create and support. If we see, that the attitudes of honour and pride gave strength and courage to a beleaguered individual or social environment, we should be able to see, also, that these same attitudes may be responsible for oppression, injustice and a lack of insight, if they are applied under changed and inappropriate conditions.

The question is, whether or not we are indeed capable of changing our cultural guidance-patterns, deliberately and consciously; whether or not, most, if not all, the significant guidance-patterns for our behaviour remain independently growing phenomena, virtually beyond our grasp and influence, leading their own autonomous existence and regulating the people within a social environment, rather than being subjected to regulation by the informed decisions of a conscious, collective will.

Only, if we are clearly and precisely aware of all the reasons and mechanisms that make us flourish, stagnate or perish as a social entity or as a single personality, only, then, will we be able to choose, collectively and deliberately, where we want to go. As long as we are subjected to haphazard cultural regulators, (which we create ourselves in our collective sub-conscious), we have little control over our behaviour or destiny, and, we will remain a near will-less victim of our collective subconscious, rather than masters of a deliberately designed and chosen destiny.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

Analysing cause-effect relationships.
Statistical methods of correlation.
Differences in the level of comprehension and predictability.
Valid classification as a pre-requisite to a useful statistical analysis.
Classifying human behavioural phenomena.
A review of social regulators.
The historical perspective, seen as an aid to detect the influence of attitudes and prejudices.
Behavioural regulators and the sense of justice.

Before we are able to change the course of an event, we have to be able to analyse this event in cause-effect relationships. We have to understand what is happening, and why it is happening, before we can change one or several factors in order to make the event take place in such a manner, that the results are advantageous to us. This is the basic principle upon which all our mastery rests, and, we do not have to believe, that our analysis of the event in causal relationships is, in any way, a reflection of an absolute truth. However, we have to be able to experience a certain degree of predictability of the event on the basis of such a cause-effect analysis.

We can, also, develop a measure of predictability, solely, by noting the repetitiveness or regularity of an event, and, we can then predict, quite accurately, the next regular cycle of occurrence. This is the method of statistical analysis and extra-polation, which has enabled us, often, to predict very complex events with a remarkable degree of accuracy. However, this method does not allow us to see the reasons for the individual mechanisms or internal causal relationships of a complex event, which, collectively, exhibit predictable regularities, for one reason or another.

The foundation of this type of statistical predictability rests on the fact, that the appearance is similar from one event to the next, because almost all the variables operating in a random fashion within a complex event, are canceling each other out in a mass-action, and, we see, then, only the common or overall trends. The effects are, then, pooled and they express themselves as a collective result of their combined occurrences, which is similar from one event to the next. If we are dealing with a prediction that is based on the regular recurrence of a certain phenomenon, we can only predict its outcome on the basis of a process of recognition. We can not change the event in a predictable manner, because we do not grasp the underlying causal relationships that lead-up to the observed event.

If we have, however, a mental imagery of causal relationships that seem to forecast an event quite accurately, then, we are, often, able to forecast, with a measure of accuracy, the changes that will occur in such an event, whenever we make a small change in one of the many parameters or causative factors involved, provided, we keep the other factors as constant as we can. Frequently, however, our ability to change only one variable, is limited, because we are not quite aware of the effects upon the other parameters, when we change one of these variables or parameters deliberately.

The main point we want to emphasise, here, is the essentially different level of understanding, and, the different ways in which we can predict the outcome of an event. Predictability gives us a measure of mastery over our environment, but, statistical predictability, or extra-polation, rests, solely, on the assumption, that an observed regularity will repeat itself. Predictability rests, then, on the fact, that we have recognised that the change from a to b and from b to c, is similar or identical to a certain quantity x, which is the differential. Then, we are justified in assuming, that d will be occurring in the same regular pattern as an expression of c plus or minus x.

If, on the other hand, we know, that a becomes b because of a specific constellation of factors that operate in a predictable and understood framework of cause-effect relationships, we can also predict c by applying the same principles of operation in the transformation from b to c. In addition, we can also see, or, at least, "feel", that a minor change in the causal relationships will lead to a different c; a difference, that is more or less predictable because of our understanding of the causal relationships.

In many instances, our understanding of events is so poor, however, that we do not even see regularly recurring patterns, until we have found a classifying principle to orden our data in such a manner, that we can see, clearly, a regularly recurring feature. In our analysis of human inter-actions and motivations, our conceptual entities are often so fuzzy, so loaded with complex qualities and divergent characteristics, that our efforts to build a comprehensive framework of causal relationships, "explaining" or "comprehending" the many aspects of human behaviour, are still in their infancy.

However, why would it be impossible to come, eventually, to a mutually shared and agreed-upon framework of understanding about our own existence? Why would it be impossible to develop an imagery that would make sense to all of us, and allow us to correlate the numerous phenomena we can observe in our own behaviour?

Before we can come to such a framework of agreed-upon causal relationships, we have to see, more clearly, the various recurring patterns in our behaviour and motivations, and, even this type of statistical correlation with its possibilities for extra-polation, has to be based upon a more precise delineation of conceptual entities or categories of the phenomena we are dealing with. In addition, we have to be able to find a number of clarifying and classifying principles we can all agree upon. We have a long way to go, but, there are good reasons to believe, that we have progressed on this road, and, that we are beginning to discern some of the regularly recurring patterns and events that separate the accidental from the general or common characteristics of human behaviour.

The inability to see common cultural and biological traits in our human existence hampers the understanding of ourselves, as well as our efforts to cooperate with each other. Our concepts are still, far too often, determined by the cultural accidentals of our social environments. While the sciences have made great progress in their efforts to build a picture of reality that emphasises the common abilities of human perceptions, in matters that relate to our own existence, as well as our emotions and motivations, our beliefs are still dominated by traditional cultural characteristics and meta-physical images.

Let us go back to a discussion of the factors that regulate human behaviour in society, in particular, the behaviour of people as they relate to each other. The most specific, precise and conscious embodiment of regulatory principles we know of, is the "body of laws", which has been formulated by every sophisticated society. Because this body of laws is the most precise and most consciously formulated behavioural regulator, we can be sure, that it is the most recent factor in the development of social regulators. Underneath this body of laws, (which we still have to study, carefully, in order to determine its relationship with other regulating factors or guiding principles), we see a large but vague group of customs and mores; of traditions and conventions, which form a less precise collection of regulatory principles about the way people should behave under a variety of circumstances.

This large group of traditions and conventions is vague and only partially conceptualised in clear ideas and precise details, and, this group of customs, mores and notions merges, imperceptibly, with the even more vaguely outlined but important realm of attitudes. With our attitudes, we reach a layer of communal behavioural regulators that is, still, very much outside our conscious grasp. Attitudes are still vaguely conceptualised and poorly delineated or understood. Our attitudes are the most important factors that decide, how we relate to each other, and, our attitudes are, to a large extent, dependent upon the emotional resonances taking place within a social environment. The prevalent mood of a society is shaped, at any particular time, by the shared reality perceptions of the people and their common ideals, ideas and beliefs. These factors determine their reactions to the circumstances and events of the present.

It is clearly inaccurate to see these three levels of laws, customs and attitudes as distinct, separate entities. They are intertwined, and the only reason, why it is helpful to describe this layering, or stratification, of the influences that determine and regulate our behaviour, is the observation, that we are dealing with varying gradations of conscious awareness and varying degrees of precision in meaning. Our attitudes are very important for the interpretation of the laws of society, as we are acutely aware of, whenever we review the history of judgements made by the members of the judiciary in matters of criminal or offensive behaviour.

Only in a wide-ranging historical perspective, is it possible to see to what extent prevalent opinions and attitudes influence judicial decisions. Often, the influence is so great and so overwhelming, that we despair at the possibility of obtaining real impartiality, real justice and real objectivity in our sense of justice. Again, we should acknowledge, here, that we can obtain a far greater degree of objectivity in judgement, if we are aware of all the influences that are playing a role in our awarenesses and attitudes. The better we know ourselves, the more knowledgeable and sensitive we can be to the needs of impartiality, as well as the possibilities for a widely shared sense of justice.

We should keep in mind the existential implications of every regulatory mechanism operating in society. This compensatory insight into the mechanisms and feelings of justice has the potential to secure or safeguard the sense of justice for a great majority of the people. If people do not experience a basic sense of fairness, the tensions between the various groupings in society will rapidly rise to the breaking point, and, if we see, that the effects of a well-intended law or regulatory function are an ever-widening gap between the various segments of society, we have to conclude, that such a law is a hindrance and a liability to the sense of justice, and, that it should be corrected as quickly as possible.

Obviously, every set of laws or guidelines that has been designed to enshrine the power of a privileged elite, is a mockery of justice, and, we should, always, scrutinise, carefully, the behaviour of a leadership that does not have a broadly based support from the people. Such a leadership is likely to exploit the laws of society and the powers of its position for egocentric purposes, perverting their use and alienating the people ever further as a result of the rising tensions of oppression and tyranny.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

The development of task differentiations.
Criteria of viability.
Shifting emphasis; from individual to group viability.
Parallels between social and multi-cellular developments.
Differences between genetic and cultural instructions.
Social task-differentiations, depending on acquired skills, rather than genetically encoded instructions.
Areas of concern; security, sex and food.
The differences between trust and a biologically determined predictability of the behavioural response.

Please, do not forget that this is a summarising essay, where we recapitulate ideas that have been discussed before, and the focus of attention is, therefore, shifting rapidly and frequently. Let us now have a look at the processess that take place, when task-divisions or specialisations in function begin to develop within a community. The fundamental principle underlying this course of events, is the fact, that it is easier for an organism to carry-out one, or a few functions, than to shift, continuously, throughout the entire range of existential requirements, which is the essence of a position of complete independence. This entire range of existential chores has to be carried-out in order to secure the viability or continued existence of the organism as an individual entity and a healthy contributor to the gene-pool. However, an organism may not have to carry out-all the functions itself, if it can make use of a function provided by another organism.

When similar individuals are locked into a state of competitive strife, every organism will have to carry-out the entire range of vital functions, and, its viability is, therefore, determined by the totality of its behaviour. The emphasis of survival will be on the individual who is most capable in executing swift changes or adaptations, and makes, therefore, best use of the prevailing circumstances. Contacts between competing individuals are a form of confrontation, where the strongest takes all, and the loser, either flees from the scene, or dies. The only exception may be a temporary sexual union, but it is interesting to note, that, in the highly combative adults of a ferocious species, such a sexual contact will have to be prepared, carefully, with the appeasing signals of an elaborate mating ritual, before it becomes possible to approach each other without combat, and, even so, there are several examples in nature, where sexual union leads, eventually, to the death of one partner or the other.

Whenever the members of a species are locked into a competitive battle for the available food- or energy-supplies, a strong trend towards the operating criteria of natural selection will make itself felt, because only the most viable life-forms survive this competitive struggle. This leads to a rapid adaptation in the constitution of the genetic make-up of the gene-pool, since the pressures of natural selection continuously favour a narrow segment of the spectrum of genetic variability; nl., the segment that proves itself to be, with each generation, the most successful segment of the actualised gene-pool.

While this form of natural selection is the most familiar mode of evolutionary adaptation we know, we should not forget, that, nature has sought, and found, a remarkable viability of living existence by exploring the mechanisms of interdependence. These mechanisms led to the evolution of the multi-cellular species' of life, ranging from the tentative cell-colonies of the earliest multi-cellular entities, to the highly organised, multi-cellular organisms of the behaviourally flexible mammals and anthropoids, including man himself.

However, we see, also, that viability has been sought in the cooperation between large multi-cellular organisms in a process of secondary social integration or interdependence. Natural selection is, then, carried-out by selecting the most viable group, rather than the most viable individual, and, we have discussed, on previous occasions, the existential advantages of such a development. Viability becomes intertwined with the ability of the members of such a group to inter-act in a socially integrated manner, because the functioning unit of the group determines, ultimately, the level of viability for each individual.

Task-differentiation, or specialisation in function, arises as a method to ease the pressures upon existence, and, these mechanisms become, therefore, a tool to increase the chances of survival. The viability of such a development is somewhat similar to the developments that took place, far back in evolutionary history, when the multi-cellular community developed its specialisations in functions, leading, eventually, to the successful emergence of the multi-cellular organism. The social unit of the members of mankind is far less stringently organised than a multi-cellular organism with is intricate patterns of internal organs and organisational principles, and, we see, clearly, how the multi-cellular community has been forged by the forces of natural selection into an astonishingly efficient entity of individualised existence.

The social trends that underly human societies, as well as other animal societies, have also been molded by natural selection and are genetically encoded. The human species has been given an "anlage", or a genetic endowment, to form a social organisation, but, we have also seen, that this biologically inherited behaviour-pattern falls far short of what is needed, whenever we review the task for these organising guidelines and principles to transform a large human grouping into a viable, socially integrated unit. We have reviewed the ideas and concepts that relate to the cultural forms of behavioural regulators, and, it is there, that we have to look for the reasons for, and possibilities of, human task-divisions and specialisations in function.

Just because we are not dealing with genetic instructions, but with cultural guidance and belief patterns, we see, that the processes of specialisation in function within a complex human society do not lead to a differentiation in anatomical or organic characteristics. Task-differentiation at a genetic level leads to anatomical and physiological changes, as we see in the formation of the organs of a multi-cellular organism. Human task-differentiation is, almost entirely, a result of differences in acquired knowledge and expertise, because individual members choose, either, a specific direction of development on a voluntary basis, or, they have been exposed, by accidental circumstances, to a particular environment in which they have taken an interest and have become an expert.

We can all learn, provided, we are functionally intact and have an average intelligence. Most of us can carry-out most of the functions that are required in a social environment, with the exception, perhaps, of those extremely specialised functions that require an extra-ordinary athletic or artistic ability. However, society relies only minimally for its viability on such highly specialised artistic and athletic capabilities. It is, therefore, reasonable to exclude these specialised differentiations in function from our considerations about the range of existential requirements for a socially integrated grouping, and, we should look, only, to those task-specialisations that are needed for the maintenance of our existence and fall within the potential of every normally endowed member of the human species.

We have discussed the fact, that a social organisation is based, primarily, on the establishment of a "pecking order", or hierarchical stratification, because it would be impossible for large, multi-cellular organisms to exchange essential services for each other, unless close contact has been made possible by a hierarchical ordening. Some forms of task-differentiation were prepared by the differing roles of the sexes in the reproductive requirements of the species, and, we have seen, how differences in protective and provisioning behaviour can be traced to these biologically determined differences in physical existence. Even the pre-linguistic and pre-conceptualising social groupings of the anthropoids were already pre-occupied with these three criteria of viability; existential security, provided by hierarchical positioning and the exchange of submission for protection; the realm of activities related to reproduction and the up-bringing of their vulnerable offspring, and, this entire complex of activities which is organised around the gathering and hunting of food.

We may well argue, that the early human beings, who were experimenting with the possibilities of symbolic representation, behaved in a similar manner. They were, almost certainly, pre-occupied with the activities of survival; classified under the headings of security, sex and food.

"What is the difference, now?", you may well ask. Man is still pre-occupied with these major organising principles, and, this points-out, quite clearly, the biological link of our existence with the other mammals. However, we should also use this link with our biological past as a conceptual tool to classify the great variety of human inter-actions in a coordinated manner; by classifying human behaviour-patterns around these same basic existential needs as mentioned above.

Before task-divisions and specialisations in function can become a viable way to organise a socially coherent group, the behaviour of each individual has to become reliable and predictable. Without reliability and predictability, there can not be an attitude of trust, and, without trust, an organism can not overcome its strong egocentric anxieties, which have been programmed into its existence by countless generations of natural selection.

Without reliability and predictability of the behaviour of the members of a social grouping, there is no possibility to develop useful recognition patterns, because recognition depends on regularly recurring patterns of behaviour. We have discussed, how important recognition is in providing the appropriate trigger for an appropriate emotional response. However, trust in the conceptual meaning of the word, is not quite the same as the biologically determined predictability of a behaviour-pattern, which leads to an unquestioned trust in the biologically perceived truth.

The human being never achieves such a high degree of biologically encoded predictability in his behaviour, because the main regulators of human behaviour have not been shaped biologically, but, they are cultural attitudes and structures of belief, and, they are, therefore, much more vulnerable to rapid change and they are likely to become a focus for intense scrutiny.

.......

Chapter 9

Content

The possibility to deceive.
The voluntary exchange of goods and services.
The lability of a balance of power in voluntary exchange mechanisms.
Relationships of mutual interdependence and inequalities in the balance of power.
Modern examples of enslavement.
The role of social leadership in regulating the mechanisms and consequences of barter.
Task-differentiations between unequal groups of individuals.
The fragility of the mechanisms of the voluntary exchange.
Difficulties in regulating the economic processes.

A biologically determined predictability of behaviour can not really be disturbed by an act of the arbitrary will, as we can in our human relationships. If there is no concept or idea of a "truth" upon which expectations and predictions have been based, then, there is no possibility to influence or alter a physiological perception of the truth by an act of deception.

We have argued, before, that, in the human animal, a behavioural response is determined, not only, by biological and physical factors, but also, by a conscious perception of reality, reflecting the cultural guidelines of a community or the beliefs of an individual. In other words; man will behave according to what he believes to be true, but, we can clearly see, how the awareness of this fact, (the awareness that someone else will react depending upon his perception of the truth), provides an opportunity to deliberately mislead this perception; by providing a false or erroneous input, or, by trying to manipulate the mood of an individual in order to colour the reality perceptions in such a way, that the behavioural response becomes advantageous to the manipulator.

We, human beings, have learned, from an early age in our evolutionary history, to gain an existential advantage over someone else by deliberately manipulating, and misleading, the belief structures of another individual. This makes human behaviour much less predictable than that of any other animal, and, it makes the human being deceptive and treacherous, but, we should consider these developments as inevitable consequences of our evolutionary search for viability. These developments are inevitable "side-effects", so to speak, of the ability to conceptualise and to be guided by a conscious structure of beliefs.

Relationships between socially integrated human beings are, therefore, more complex and more fragile than those of other animals. Yet, social co-existence has become a vital way of life for the human species, and, we need a reliable and predictable form of behaviour. We have to ensure such a reliable and predictable form of behaviour by developing a generally accepted code of behaviour. We have already developed an intuitive ability to gauge the reliability of someone's behaviour by scanning, subconsciously, the consistency of this behaviour and its motivations, but, we need to refine this process with the development of consciously formulated criteria of judgement and evaluation.

The voluntary exchange of goods and services is, by definition, based on a reliance upon a predictable form of behaviour, because in a setting of confrontation, the stronger individual would take everything from the weaker party, and, there would be no need to exchange anything. We would, then, be back to a primitive, hierarchical stratification, where the dominant individual acquires privileges as a natural right, and, the granting of favours and privileges to others becomes, then, once again, a matter of arbitrary choice.

We have discussed the break-through that occurred in human relationships, when this biologically determined behaviour-pattern of dominance and submission was transformed, by insight and a voluntary act, to a status of essential equality. This represents a form of behaviour, where equality under the law replaces the more primitive pecking order of the hierarchical stratification. If this largely sub-conscious social contract of essential equality is violated, the immediate result is a sense of having been deceived; a sense of injustice, because the fundamental, if tacit, code, regulating behaviour-patterns and generating trust, has been destroyed by an arbitrary act of favouritism.

A truly equitable exchange of goods and services reflects, therefore, a mutual agreement from a position of essential equality. There is, then, an agreement to forego the use of force and to rely on mutual consent to complete a transaction. This element of mutual consent became sanctified in a generally accepted code of conduct, attitudes, customs and laws. Without this code of mutual consent between parties that are essentially equal in status, the whole transaction of trade, barter, economic development, as well as all interdependent relationships, would have been impossible. Any development that tends to destroy the basis for such an agreement or tacit contract, will favour a resurgence of force, exploitation and deceit, and, with the break-down of the social contract, we see, inevitably, a renewal of the attitudes of hostility, contempt and resentment, as well as the play of power and dominance.

However, it seems almost inevitable, that a relationship of mutual interdependence, starting-out on the basis of a social contract between essential equals, becomes quickly unbalanced, with one party holding power over the other, even, in the absence of any deceit or a deliberate breach of contract. As soon as one of the parties becomes more dependent than the other on the exchange-mechanism, the balance of power shifts towards the less dependent party, and, a review of human history shows, that this advantage is frequently abused by extorting the maximum possible contribution from the more dependent and more vulnerable party.

This, however, is a break of the subconscious contract of mutual agreement from a position of essential equality, because the attitude of exploitation and advantage-taking is a tacit recognition of the fact, that the original status of essential equality between two consenting partners, has disappeared. Whenever such a development has taken place, the more dependent party has been enslaved or entrapped, and the bond of mutual consent has disappeared. The original advantage of the mutual contract has been destroyed, and a feeling of exploitation, injustice, frustration and resentment replaces the initial feelings of trust and consent.

This sliding-away from the balance point of mutual agreement and essential equality, occurs surreptitiously and easily. Neither party is initially aware of what is happening. The dominant party becomes steadily and subconsciously more exploitative in its behaviour, as it feels the heat of suspicion and resentment rise in the more dependent party. The more dependent party does not realise the full implication of this slide into dependency, until it is too late, and the trap has been sprung. The worker allows himself to become completely dependent on a steady influx of cash by moving to a city, and buying all kinds of items he thinks are necessary. Indeed, many items are necessary for going to work, rather than merely to live, and, the worker is trapped, because his dependence on the income from his employer is far greater than the employer depends on the worker's contributions.

Collective bargaining for a better labour contract, as well as the use of the collective threat to "strike", or stop work, has been, for a long time, the only way for the workers to counter-act the enormous powers of the industrial concerns, but, this does not mean, that we will have to continue such a primitive way to redress an imbalance. Surely, impartial judgement and balanced social legislation should now make it possible to prevent an abuse of the work-force, and, competent legislation and an adequate judiciary is the only method, whereby the society as a whole can get control over the gigantic monopolies of big business and big labour unions.

However, let us return to the basic mechanisms that played a role in the development of social interdependencies, including those, that made economic task-differentiations possible. The earliest forms of "barter" may have been based on a vague realisation by the members of an early human grouping, that it was easier, and far less dangerous, to acquire something you want by giving-away something in return. Besides, we have seen, that the establishment of an overall leadership and a hierarchical order tended to suppress severe fighting between the members, and this may be an additional reason, why the practice of a voluntary exchange found a possibility to flourish.

Therefore, communal attitudes and mores started to favour, increasingly, a practice of exchange by mutual consent, rather than a forcible acquisition by conquest. This development within a socially integrated environment was in sharp contrast with the communal attitudes towards outsiders or strangers. Only much later, must it have dawned on early man, that it was also possible to barter with a member of another tribe, and, we have seen, throughout recorded history, that these pathways of mutual advantage, expressed in the transactions between foreign or non-integrated groupings, became a powerful fore-runner and stimulus to increased contacts and understanding, as well as a powerful stimulus for envy, hatred and conquest.

Parallel to the development of a mutual agreement in the form of a voluntary exchange between equally placed members in a socially integrated environment, we see, that the leadership becomes increasingly more important in the organisation and development of task-differentiations; by instructing or imposing upon the members of society certain tasks that are necessary for the common good and the benefit of the social leadership. We have argued, before, why successful leadership implies a combination of persuasion and power in ever varying proportions, and, this form of task-specialisation is, therefore, partly persuasive, (influenced by common belief structures), and partly, it is exacted as a toll for the privilege of belonging to society and enjoying the protection and favours of the leadership.

The relationships mentioned above, are an example of task differentiations and specialisations in function occurring between unequally placed individuals or segments of society, while the economic mechanisms of barter take place between essentially equal members of a social grouping. It would be erroneous to see these developments as taking place separately or independently from each other. This difference in emphasis is useful as a conceptual tool to grasp two different aspects from a complex entity that is developing simultaneously and intertwined.

Let us go back, for a moment, to the development of the relationships between equally placed members in a mutually agreed-upon exchange, after this relationship begins to change because of an inequality in the existential significance of a growing interdependence. As soon as we see, that one party to a barter or voluntary exchange has a product that is wanted by several, or, perhaps, even, many others, this party can demand more in return for its products, and the individual with the sought-after product has come into a position of power, because he can choose from several products that are offered in return. Even, if the essential equality of the members in a barter-exchange has been sanctioned by the laws of society, and, even, if the society safeguards the voluntary aspects of the barter-agreement, the very fact, that the product of one is more in demand than the product of another, means, that one member has more power than another, and, as a result, the position or status between the members has changed in a subtle manner.

If the product of one person or group becomes very popular, and is heavily relied-upon by others, a state of dependence develops, where certain members start to rely upon the fact, that they can obtain a certain product or commodity from someone else. The more dependent a party becomes upon a product obtained from someone else, the more enslaved this party becomes to its supplier.

It is safe to say, that these developments took a long time to reach viability, and, on many occasions, the principles of barter, as well as the benefits associated with a voluntary exchange of goods and services, must have disappeared again, essentially, for two reasons; either, the social safeguards for a status of equality disappeared and made the acquisition by force, again, possible and attractive, or, the rapid development of inequality as a result of the concentration of economic powers, led, quickly, to envy and strife, because the sense of justice and the hierarchical relationships that follow from a differentiation on the basis of the personal strength, were distorted by this strange force of "economic power".

The latter development became, quickly, a matter of concern for the leadership, because the unexpected consequences of the barter process led to profound distortions in hierarchical positioning, and, it had a tendency to disturb the peace of the established social order. Ever since the development of trade and industry, the leaderships of each and every society has interfered, in one way or another, with these forces because of their impact on social well-being.

If the leadership interferes very little, we see a system of "free-enterprise", where the functions of social leadership are more or less limited to enforcing the laws of property and acquisition, as well as the rules of voluntary agreement in the exchange-process. In spite of attempts by a social leadership to intervene, wealth and power had a strong tendency to accumulate into the hands of a few successful members, who would try to perpetuate the position of power and privilege for their heirs and friends, creating a class of elitist attitudes and privileged life-styles.

On the other hand, a rigid leadership control over the economic processes led, quickly, to a stifling and corrupt bureaucracy, and, as a rule, the viability of such a society with a State-controled economy, was rather low, unless the society happened to be undisturbed for a long period of time. The most successful, but, usually short-lived social units, were those, where the leadership left the enterprising classes relatively free in their activities. At the same time, the leadership had to be competent and wise enough to use its powers to tax fairly all incomes, and use these revenues to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor, thereby slowing-down this pernicious process of polarisation and mutual alienation, which always comes to the fore whenever there are diverging social classes.

We do not want to trace, here, the historical high-lights of the various social experiments in order to see, which system of economic development had the highest level of success, because there are numerous factors that play a role in the determination of social health. Many of us will look, time and again, to historical data, in order to see, whether or not we can understand the reasons, why a certain society would flourish at a particular time, and, why it would crumble and decay, again, within a few short generations.

There seems to be a precarious balance that is very difficult to maintain, whenever we examine the essential requirements for a voluntary transaction between equals engaging in an exchange of goods and services. This voluntary consent lies at the root of a just economic prosperity. The mechanisms of supply and demand lead, immediately, to a divergence in power and economic status, and, the difficult task for every complex society is to ensure the maintenance of an equality in mutual benefits resulting from enterprising activities.

In a historical perspective, we see this dilemma quite clearly; whenever a leadership tried to regulate these processes too precisely, and limited the degree of freedom of development too much, the stimulus of personal initiative would be lost and stifled by a cumbersome and, eventually, corrupt bureaucracy. If a society allowed too great a measure of freedom in the development of the economic mechanisms and force-fields, the society would, quickly, fragment into diverging social classes, which lose all sense of togetherness. Justice disappears, and the rapid rise of frustrations and feelings of resentment lead, eventually, to a revolt.

A traditional view has always looked upon these developments as inevitable alternatives, and, the art of wisdom in leadership seemed to be the definition of the "golden rule", combining the virtues of both. Yet, in a modern interpretation of human motivations, we are able to see, that it is erroneous to rely upon egocentric motivations for personal financial gain, when trying to harness individual energies for the common good.

.......

Chapter 10

Content

A review of early task-differentiations.
Hierarchical versus equally-placed task-differentiations.
Social stratification, and a "hereditary rigidity" of the cultural code.

We tend to look upon the social consequences of economic trends and developments from the point of view of our own society, or, the modern, industrialised world, but, if we go back to the earliest developments of trade, long before the introduction of a monetary unit or the techniques of mass-production, we get a clearer picture of the role of task-differentiation in the growth of a social entity. Task-differentiation enforced, not only, the attitudes of cooperation with the stamp of necessity, but, it made it possible to accomplish projects that were completely out of reach for the single individual.

Efficient task-divisions and specialisations in function increase the scope of mastery over the environment, and, the earliest forms of task-differentiation must have occurred, when food-gathering roles became separated from the chores of the defense. Probably, the hunt remained, for a while, intricately associated with the function of fighting, but other food-gathering functions, as well as the tasks of cultivating food resources, the manufacture of weapons, household goods and utensils, or, the care of children, were all-important break-throughs in task-differentiation, and, these break-throughs occurred, probably, before, as well as after, the birth of man's ability to use symbolic representations.

Task-differentiation led to a separation between those, who stayed home, and those, who hunted or fought, and this separation explains already, to some extent, the need to exchange "information", or, "tell" each other about their experiences, whenever the parties were re-united at the end of the day, or, perhaps, after several days of absence. From this early form of task-differentiation, (which took place, primarily, along lines of sexual differences), we can imagine the origin of many sub-specialisations in function, as the chores and tasks became more complex. The variety of objects, tools and weapons increased, and, the vocabulary of symbolic representations enlarged rapidly, all at the same time.

However, reliance upon task-specialisations must have remained flexible for a long time, because such a reliance introduced a measure of vulnerability. Besides, the ability to carry-out a specialised task depended upon learned skills, and, the members of society retained a more or less complete genetic endowment of the ability to learn, (regardless of the specific content of acquired skills or knowledge). This meant, that, most members could still "shift" through a range of specialised functions, if there would be a need to do so.

From an early stage in the evolution of mankind, task-differentiation must have been associated with the mechanisms of hierarchical differentiation, and, we have argued, before, that this form of specialisation in function was essentially different from the economic processes, where differentiation and interdependence started as a voluntary exchange between members who were essentially equal in position. With the hierarchical form of task-differentiation, a certain place in the pecking order of the social grouping became associated with certain tasks, privileges, as well as obligations, but, once again, a measure of flexibility must have remained intact in order to make swift adjustments to changing circumstances possible.

We will, probably, never know, precisely, in what order these task-differentiations took place, and, we may safely assume, that this development was different from one society to another. The meaning and nature of the various tasks would differ from time to time, as well as from place to place, and, it is, therefore, more useful to consider, here, only the overall principles. It is more important for us to understand the reasons, why these developments of specialisation and mutual interdependence took place, rather than to know, exactly, how they took place, but we acknowledge, that a greater factual knowledge about how they took place, may help us to understand, better, why these developments occurred in the first place.

Task-differentiations took place along two different lines. One line of differentiation, probably the oldest, is associated with different levels in the hierarchical order. The other line was based on the voluntary exchange of goods and services between essentially equal individuals or groupings. As we have seen, the latter introduced the possibility of a "social contract", where mutual consent was perceived to be preferable over the force of conquest. We have discussed, how this economic principle led, quickly, to the formation of a "secondary hierarchy" because of the development of differences in economic power or "wealth".

The problems with task-differentiations that are based on hierarchical positions are related to the fact, that the biological scale or pecking order is not determined once and for all, but, often, several, or, even, many times during the life-time of an individual. Because the pecking order results, in essence, from an acceptance of the fact, that an individual can dominate some of the members but not the others, the place in the hierarchical order is found by a process of trial and error. The sense of justice is, therefore, automatically satisfied, since any discrepancy with the sense of justice would induce the individual to seek for himself, again by a process of trial and error, a new place in the hierarchy.

However, a larger social entity that becomes divided into different classes because of hierarchically determined task-differentiations, tends to develop a fixed hierarchical order that is perpetuated in the off-spring through the inheritance of a social position. A culturally determined social order may, therefore, not correspond with the capabilities of individuals born into the various social strata, and, we have, here, an enormously important source of strife, frustration and turmoil. Above all, this is an important cause for a feeling of injustice, especially, if the socially determined hierarchy does not correspond with a biologically determined constellation of abilities or flow of vital energies. This sense of frustration and injustice may break loose in rebellion or civil warfare, as soon as such a course of events becomes feasible.

Social strata tend to become fixed and perpetuated by a mechanism of cultural inheritance. The chance-event of having been born into a specific class determines one's position in society for life, and, this feature characterises the social stratification based on an inherent class-system, as well as the secondary economic hierarchy, which comes to the fore whenever wealth and power, acquired by a generation of capable individuals, is transmitted to their offspring.

Social stratification seems to have an almost unavoidable tendency to become rigidly perpetuated by "cultural inheritance", and, it is the failure of so many societies to correct or compensate with a conscious and deliberate effort for this tendency, which leads to chaos, strife, corruption and decay.

Incidentally, it is ironic to note, here, that the genetically endowed tendency to form a hierarchical order is, in essence, a flexible situation, because an actual position depends on the performance of an individual member. On the other hand, the cultural stratification of a large society into classes has a tendency to become rigid and "inherited", while the purpose of the cultural code was, initially, to ensure a remarkable degree of flexibility for the behavioural response-patterns.

Sure, the turmoil caused by an inappropriate degree of "cultural rigidity" is only one aspect of the process of decay, but we should look into the question, why there is such a strong tendency for the hierarchical position to become inherited with the position at birth.

.......

Chapter 11

Content

Culture and sub-cultures.
The transfer of a sub-cultural identity to the younger generations as an explanation for the tendency to inherit cultural differences.
Deliberate efforts to prevent a rigid sub-cultural inheritance.
The fragility of the meaning of the larger social entity.
Are there possibilities for a class-less society?
The natural tendency to sub-group formation, and possible safeguards against social fragmentation.

The answer to the question raised at the end of the previous chapter, is to be found in the function of this remarkable phenomenon; "culture". However, it would be more accurate to say, that the emergence of cultural sub-divisions in society leads, often, to a "hereditary stamp" on the position of an individual.

It is natural, and logical, for people, who are placed in similar circumstances, to work together. After all, they share the same problems and suffer the same hardships. It is natural for them to bond together into a socially integrated grouping, and, during their frequent contacts, their particular life-style or social situation finds, slowly, a specific cultural expression. This results in a type-specific characterisation of the group in the way the members behave, talk, eat, dress, treat each other, or entertain themselves.

This "cultural identity" is, inevitably, transferred to the youngsters who grow-up within a certain sub-culture, and the youngsters take-on the characteristics of this particular sub-grouping, which marks them often for life. Within a sub-culture, the individual find his place more or less according to a natural pecking order; by virtue of individual talents or force of personality, unless further sub-divisions develop within a specific cultural milieu, restricting the social movements of the growing individual even further.

Most complex societies show intricate patterns within their varying sub-cultures, with numerous secondary sub-divisions, but the degree of rigidity with which an individual is chained to his specific cultural sub-division as a result of his place at birth, may vary widely. It is interesting to note, that the effort to liberalise the movement of individual members throughout the strata of a large and complex society, has to be a deliberate policy of the overall social leadership. It has to be a conscious effort, because it is contrary to the natural tendency for people to cling to the roots of their up-bringing.

There are dangers for the society as a whole, resulting from a rigid stratification of the various sub-cultures. These dangers and disadvantages have been recognised many times throughout history, and, this recognition has spurred frequent attempts to prevent cultural specialisations and rigid class-divisions. The inevitable divergence of sub-cultures will cause an increasing alienation between them, and the mechanisms of divergence destroy, eventually, the overall bonds of social cohesion for the larger society. The reason for this increasing alienation is clear, because most people identify, primarily, with the sub-culture of their origins, and, the "raison d`etre" for the larger, overall society, is, often, far from clear.

So often, a muted and suspicious hostility towards other sub-cultures overrides any feeling or appreciation for a common bond, and, when this stage has been reached, the larger society has already decayed and fragmented, in spite of an outward appearance of structural integrity.

Task-specialisation in its many forms is a prelude to the sub-division of the cultural pool into a variety of sub-cultures. If these mechanisms take place under conditions of peace and prosperity, the tensions between the sub-cultures build-up slowly, until the larger society has lost its meaning as a foundation for the security and possibility of existence for these sub-groupings. Outside pressures and unfavourable circumstances may pull the diverging elements together, at least, for a while, and yet, if we see a large society with a remarkably amorphous and fluid social and cultural sub-structure, we are looking at a society that is chaotic, slow to respond, and barely surviving, unless it finds its conditions of viability quickly.

Ironically, then, the processes of task-division and specialisation in function are the foundation upon which a growing society rests its viability, together with an adequate and adaptable cultural structure that provides the elements of trust and interdependence. However, in the long run, the consequences of task-division, specialisation in function and a divergence in living conditions, lead, invariably, to the development of numerous divergent cultural sub-structures that threaten the existence of the overall society, in spite of the fact that the overall society made their existence possible in the first place.

Is a class-less society, then, really possible? Certainly, we should be able to overcome, now, many of these natural trends to fragmentation, because we understand, better, when sub-groupings are a strength and when they become a liability. The natural tendency for people to group together into small clusters with similar interests and life-styles, is understandable, and, this tendency does not have to be suppressed, as long as these groupings continue to acknowledge the meaning and existence of the overall society, which gives them, after all, their security and possibility to exist. If we forget what binds us together, we decay, and, if the sub-cultures lose sight of their common bonds and interests, the society has died already.

.......

Chapter 12

Content

The monetary unit and the function of a currency.
The role of trust in government and the value of a currency.
The difficulties to prevent stifling, inefficient and corrupt bureaucracies.

Finally, in the remaining pages of this essay, we should focus our attention on this remarkable invention of the "monetary equivalent" for value, which is the main mechanism behind a truly rapid flow of economic transactions. The really large societies became only possible with the introduction of  this remarkable financial "lubricant" for inter-individual, as well as large-scale economic transactions. The substitute of money in the exchange of goods or services is based upon a tacit trust, or social contract, that has to be present between the members of a society; nl., the trust, or tacit agreement, that this monetary equivalent will provide them with the ability to acquire other goods or services from someone else, whenever the desire or need arises. People have to be able to trust the fact, that they can use the substitute of "money-value" at the same level of value agreed-upon, when money was accepted as a substitute for real value.

Money represents a value, expressed as a quantity, or, as a measure or amount of a standard commodity, and, the use of money allows a convenient way to express the value of a certain commodity as a specific portion or amount of the standard commodity to which the value of the money-substitute has been pegged. Implied in the use of money is the social agreement, as well as the attitude of trust, that all the trading partners will honour the acceptance of such a monetary unit, and, that the society, or its leadership, agrees to accept this monetary equivalent as a contribution or tax. At the same time, the leadership agrees to guarantee the value of money by allowing money to be exchanged for a fixed measure of the standard commodity, usually, a precious metal.

However, before we can appreciate the impact of such a relatively modern concept as "money", or "currency", (an arbitrary value that can quickly "flow" from hand to hand), we see, how societies searched for an acceptable and convenient way to "price" their goods. Without any means to standardise the value of goods and services in relation to each other, the exchange-procedure becomes a rather haphazard affair, because it would be difficult to come to an agreement, whenever there was some sort of "mis-match" between the partners who were trying to exchange a commodity or a serivce. The "feeling", or estimate, of value of a certain commodity would change from one moment to the next, and other pressures may influence pricing mechanisms as well. These fluctuating judgements of relative value would, quickly, invalidate this important condition of a trusted, voluntary contract between equal partners.

What a great invention must have been the discovery, that it was possible to "price" an item against a well-known commodity, which functioned, then, as an agreed-upon yard-stick of value. What this agreed-upon item of value would be, varied from one social environment to the next, but this commodity would reflect a commonly known and acknowledged standard of value, often, kept in a public place of worship, or, in a warehouse controled by the social leadership.

Once the idea of "pricing" had been developed, all goods and services could be expressed in a numerical ratio, or value, in terms of a monetary substitute that was linked, in a fixed relationship, to a certain amount of the standard commodity. This conceptual invention suggests the use of a "coin" as a logical next step. The currency would be a standard "I owe you", where the coin, and, in particular, the paper currency of the later societies would function as a negotiable "declaration of debt". (The coin was, initially, issued in an attempt to actually represent the "standard value", by including a certain amount of precious metal in the coin.)

Probably, the commonly shared standard commodity would serve as a payment in large exchanges, but, it is also possible, that an early system of "credit" was developed, where the standard commodity was kept in a central location; e.g., a temple or some other sanctuary. People could claim a certain portion of this value, or, they could release to someone else a certain portion of their claim to a certain part of the centrally kept standard commodity; whenever a negotiable declaration of ownership served as a method of payment.

With the introduction of easily handled items, such as a coin or a letter of credit, it became possible for the accepted commodity to flow quickly between people, greatly facilitating the exchange-procedure. Now, a transaction could take place without regard for an appropriate matching of the goods desired in the exchange, nor, was it necessary to match, carefully, the credit-rating or credit-worthiness of the partners, but the transaction could take place with the exchange of an agreed-upon value in coins or generalised letters of credit; "money". The vendor could go somewhere else with this money and buy what he needed, and, he became, in turn, a buyer, who would be freed from the reponsibility to supply the vendor with a particular item he wanted, nor, would it be necessary to prove his credit "personally", as long as the letter of credit was legitimate "legal tender".

We see, therefore, that the leadership of a society began to play a vital role in stabilising the flow and value of a currency, in particular, when the currency did not represent, anymore, an intrinsic value, such as in the use of "paper money". The government has to supervise the manufacture of coins, or, it has to issue the monetary currency itself, because the leadership guarantees, after all, the value of its money; at least, it should guarantee the value of the currency in circulation in order to retain a measure of trust and confidence in this currency.

The value of the various commodities offered on the market could be fixed by a government decree, but, it could also be left to the forces of supply and demand. The philosophy of free-enterprise has explored, extensively, the virtues of such a free determination of price-levels, based on the mechanisms of supply and demand, and, we have discussed the many problems that are associated with either system; a system of fixed or decreed prices and wages, as well as a system that relies on the forces of supply and demand to determine the level of prices and wages.

Ever since the introduction of a coin-currency, as well as the more complex monetary systems that came to the fore, later, (and were based on the universally valid, impersonal letter of credit), a variety of bewildering forces have been unleashed upon society, often, with confusing and contradictory effects. If the level of trade was increasing swiftly, the number of coins, or the amount of money in circulation, could be insufficient. This would lead to an artificial increase in the value of money, and, it would, at the same time, slow-down the processes of trade and economic expansion. Governments, eventually, learned the art of introducing a supply of new money into the system, and, the consequences of these policies are still being debated.

If a government would succumb to the temptation to introduce more money into society than could be justified on the basis of its back-up guarantees and assets in the form of a commonly agreed-upon "standard commodity", (e.g., gold), trade and economic processes would grow quickly, but, there would always be the possibility that trust and confidence in the value of the money would be undermined. In such a case, a stampede to exchange money for the standard commodity could result, and this would quickly deplete the "treasury". We see, indeed, throughout history, that, governments, or their banking institutions, had to default on their promise to back-up the monetary system with a fixed or specified amount of the standard commodity.

In a free-market economy, excess money would drive-up prices, because there would be a surplus of money in relation to available goods, and, in a price-fixed economy, scarcities would be the result of too much money in circulation. If there is too much money around, eventually, the people, who deal with this money will lose confidence and the value starts to drop. The incentive to work and produce in return for a fixed price, is undermined. Both mechanisms are an example of the process of "inflation", or "devaluation" of a currency.

The over-supply of essentially worthless monies is often caused by huge government expenditures, such as a war-effort, ill-advised ventures of all sorts, and irresponsible attitudes and corrupt practices of the leadership and its government bureaucracies. In modern times, we still see government expenditures and irresponsible fiscal policies as a major cause of inflation, but, in addition, many citizens and enterprises participate, also, in a reckless attitude of over-spending, borrowing and debt-financing, leading to enslavement, impoverishment and inflation.

Governments have learned, that, a judicious infusion of money into society is justified as a cautious "lubricant" for the economy, but, we should never forget, that a gradual erosion of the value of the currency in which the worker is being paid, constitutes a form of deception. It is a form of "theft" from the citizen by the leadership, because the citizen receives less in value than he has been promised, and, his income is less than he agreed-to at the beginnning of a work-contract. Monetary erosion, inflation, or, the gradual devaluation of a currency, is a major cause of chronic social unrest and promotes the attitudes of distrust and cynicism, as well as irrealistic and ever-rising expectations. Future historians will, probably, see the collapse of our modern, free-enterprise societies, primarily, as a result of the unrecognised deterioration of the attitudes of confidence and trust associated with inflationary pressures.

The idea has been advanced, that the true wealth of a society lies in the accumulated value of its goods and services, the "gross national product", and, common wisdom holds, at the present time, that the money-supply may reflect the growth in this gross national product without running the risk of undue inflation. I believe, that this is incorrect, because the value of money should be linked to a clearly visible standard commodity, or, a standardised grouping of existential needs, even, if it is unlikely, that the pegging of monetary value against a standard commodity, or a standard "basket" of necessities, will remove all fluctuations in the value of money, or, the commodities bought with it.

A society that taxes or levies some kind of compulsory contribution on its members, will have to return a tangible benefit to its citizens, otherwise, trust in the sanity and justice of the leadership will disappear. The need for the leadership to raise taxes for government expenditures has been the main pathway for the people to secure an ever greater influence and control over the leadership and its government, and these inter-actions between the members of society and their leadership led to the establishment of a forum for a continuing debate, which became a fore-runner of our contemporary Parliamentary systems of government.

.......

Chapter 13

Content

The Parliamentary organisation of leadership functions.
Fragility of the multi-individual leadership functions and institutions.
A review of the laws of supply and demand.
The likelyhood of exploitation and disruption during the implementation of freely competitive enterprise.
Modern economic trends, and a blind trust in the mechanisms of economic salvation.
Inflationary demands and the vulnerability of supplying unnecessary goods and services.
A gloomy outlook for the Capitalist system of freely enterprising, affluent societies.
A speculative view about the future of our contemporary, affluent societies.

Certainly, many early tribal societies had an essentially Parliamentary form of leadership with their councils of elders, but, we see a long succession of societies in recorded history, where the only way to avoid a hopeless and chaotic confusion during a leadership transition, was the establishment of a monarchy with absolute powers. There is no doubt, that it is difficult to govern a complex society with a council, a Parliament or a Senate, and, time and again, the people, instinctively, preferred to take their chances with a monarch or an absolute ruler, rather than suffer the perpetual intrigues and power-struggles of a multi-individual leadership or an unregulated leadership succession.

We know, now, what chances a society takes, when opting for absolute rule, and, we see in history an incredible assortment of poorly suited individuals gain access to absolute power. As a result, the fortunes of societies, nations, or, even, large empires, swing wildly, and the toll is often catastrophic, when we look at the consequences of irresponsible leadership.

The reason, why complex societies remained, for so long, and, perhaps, still are almost refractory to efficient, multi-individual leadership, lies in the difficulties of constructing and maintaining efficient leadership channels. The complexity of a large society makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for a single individual to become, and remain, adequately informed about everything that is going-on within society, and, as a result, leadership judgements are impaired.

Secondly, the executive channels were always, and still are, difficult to keep free from serious inefficiencies, as well as incidences of incompetence and corruption. Even now, in spite of our efforts to work with a set of Constitutional Guidelines and a clearly defined structure of guidelines for the behaviour of beneficial leadership, we run into the same problems. We have discussed, extensively, how the insights we gained from studying the afferent and efferent pathways of the central nervous system of an animal organism, will help us to construct similar pathways for society, in order to organise ourselves into an effective and viable multi-individual organism.

The mechanisms of monetary stability seem to rest, time and again, on a condition of social stability with a competent leadership, and, if we realise to what extent we have to trust the currency of our society, we should not be surprised to find, that, inflation and trust are playing a major role in the causes and effects of social and economic mechanisms.

Taxes are the monetary contribution people have to make to their society. These contributions are imposed by the leadership, but the continuing debate between a leadership and the people about taxes and government expenditures increases the level of awareness of the people, and, such an awareness enlarges the influence of the people upon the decision-making mechanisms of the leadership. Taxation becomes, eventually, a conscious and voluntary contract between the leadership and the people, and, that is the way it should be.

In a free-enterprise society, levels of value for the many goods and services that are being exchanged, are determined by the forces of supply and demand, but, we have seen, how quickly the supply of labour becomes an issue of deep existential concern for the worker. This leads to a position of weakness for the individual worker, and, one way to compensate for this weakness was found in the organisation of workers into "unions". These unions, or labour organisations, would bargain, collectively, on behalf of their members, who would be prepared to use the weapon of the collective work-stoppage as a means to get a more advantageous work-contract.

However, as governments are employing ever more workers in the various sectors of their bureaucracies, we see, that labour unions use their weapons and tactics, increasingly, against the other members of society, rather than against a privately owned industry or enterprise. While the ruthlessness of the private industrialist, or powerful land-owner, justified the formation of labour unions, (prior to the introduction of numerous laws regulating the working and living conditions of people), we have to acknowledge, that it is incongruous for these unions to strike at the institutions of society, in particular, when its leadership has been elected democratically and represents the interests of all citizens.

We can not allow a society to be held to ransom by the demands of its government employees, because it would violate the principles of essential equality, if these employees could use their expertise or function as a tool to bargain for a personal gain.

Similarly, the ideals of freely competitive enterprise, and the expected lowering of prices by competing manufacturers, have largely disappeared in a complex web of mergers and monopolies, and, the inscrutable complexity of the multi-national corporations has led to a suspiciously hostile public, because we fear that we are being controled and exploited by these giant industrial enterprises.

The worship of the profit-motive, as well as the unbridled expansion of industries, have led to unacceptable levels of wasteful consumption, environmental pollution, as well as a rapid rate of resource depletion. All these factors have shown, once again, that economic developments, even, in our modern societies, have to be under the control of the people. We can not afford, any longer, to leave the economic and financial controls, nor the instruments of public communications channels and electronic media, in the hands of large conglomerate corporations that are exclusively motivated by a search for profits.

Governments have always spent more than they can afford, partly, because of a prestigious, sumptuous life-style of their leaders, and, partly, because of pressures from various segments of society to engage in costly projects. Occasionally, the gamble would pay-off; a war was won, and a rich territory annexed, taxed and heavily exploited. In our modern times, we have embarked upon more subtle ways to mask inflationary government expenditures and the gluttonous consuming habits of us all. A rapidly expanding money-supply could, at least, to some extent, be covered by a rapidly developing economic growth-rate, and, in recent decades, we have become extremely dependent upon this process of continued economic expansion to stave-off high inflation, social unrest, unemployment and chaos.

So many people in our affluent societies are now earning their salaries by working in fields that are not really contributing anything to society or our collective and individual well-being, and yet, we spend and consume products and services generated by other people. How can we avoid inflation, if the value of our work does not match the value of the products we buy, or the money we earn? Government bureaucracies continue to grow, but, even, many industries are engaged in providing essentially useless and unnecessary products and services in a desperate gamble to keep the economic momentum going their way.

These developments lead to a surreptitious increase in the level of mistrust and cynicism between groups and individuals. As a result, we see, that the money earned is not determined anymore by the value of the work one does, but, it is determined by the force and power employees can bring to bear, collectively, upon an employer. Similarly, the prices we have to pay for our goods and services have a tendency to escape from genuine competitive pressures.

If people begin to distrust their dependence upon other people for all kinds of goods and services because of the ever-increasing costs and the deteriorating quality of these goods and services, then, we will see a rising trend towards a life-style of self-reliance and simplicity, whenever possible. Such a turn-around in attitudes would decrease our needs and requirements drastically, and, the demand for many products and services would cease to exist. People would rely much more upon their own time and skills to do things for themselves, and, they would regain their self-confidence, while by-passing the need for a large cash-income. They would take themselves out of government tax-brackets by lowering, voluntary, their cash-income and expenditures.

The cash-flow though society would be cut dramatically. Taxation income would drop. Many industries would be lying idle and a very large proportion of the population would be unemployed and require social assistance. Many of those who are trapped in cities, would still be burdened with high income requirements because of outstanding debts, and, they could not so easily revert to a life-style of self-reliance and frugality. Their entrapment would make them into an angry, frustrated and potentially explosive mass of people.

The level of mistrust would be rising continuously, while the usual outlets, such as continued economic and military expansion, have been blocked. However, there is still this enormous dependence upon material and energy consumption. How, then, can we avoid to become somewhat apprehensive and gloomy about the long-term outlook of our large, conglomerate societies, as long as we have not been able to shed our dependencies?

Of course, the direction of social developments can be changed, and it is possible, that such a change will take place, gradually, without a collapse, but, the momentum we have built-up in our consumerist societies is so large and so powerful, that it will take an extra-ordinary effort, as well as a magnificent feat of collective will-power, to change direction without provoking a collapse into chaos.

The economic momentum is so large, because we all are dependent upon the regular income of our pay-cheque. We need this money desperately, because we have engaged in a life-style where we have spent, already, the next ten to fifteen years of our income.

Are we going to admit to ourselves, that our jobs are useless, and, that we have become a parasite of society; getting paid for work that nobody needs or cares about? We are all in favour of conserving energy, as long as it does not affect our job, but it will. We are all for "trimming the fat" off the government bureaucracies, as long as we do not get the ax. We all applaud a frugal and wholesome way of life, as long as we do not have to give-up our cars and other luxuries.

Therefore, the level of frustration, mistrust and cynicism is going to rise even further. Incompetence, inefficiency and corrupt practices will be on the increase, as we all become locked into immobility by the rising tensions of our egocentric anxieties. Eventually, all we can do is wait, helplessly and bewildered, for the final collapse to come. What this collapse will be like, is difficult to predict. Will it be an actual conquest from the outside, or, a swift take-over by a left-wing or right-wing dictatorship, or, perhaps, the complete anarchy of nuclear terrorism? It is hard to predict what is going to happen, but, it seems inevitable, that the people will, eventually, give-up, once again, their democratic rights in exchange for a sweeping vision of strength and social order, as well as the promise of a radical re-structuring of society.

Is this harmful or beneficial? It will depend, to a large extent, upon our point of view, and, it is, in essence, a question to be answered by posterity. It may well be, that future generations will see the affluent societies in the twentieth century as people, who had a curious pre-occupation with their newly discovered technological toys; as a people, who were fascinated with consumption and the immediate gratification of their whims and desires.

Future generations may understand, better than we can, now, why we gorged ourselves in a manner that has made many of us lazy, unconcerned and decadent. An aberration? Perhaps, but it seems certain that a somewhat primitive passion for immediate sensual gratification, as well as a pre-occupation with consumerism, will look rather unproductive and juvenile to future historians, especially, when compared to the passions and concerns of people in other times; e.g., in the Middle Ages, when they were obsessed with the Absolute Truth of a God-given Reality.

.......

Summary

1. The relevance of man's early developments for our contemporary self-awareness and understanding.
   The potentially universal validity of man's self-image.
   Re-interpreting historical trends.
   The difficulty of anticipating future interpretations and concerns.
   
   
   
2. The irrelevance of the origin of an idea.
   Biological constants and cultural super-impositions in man's reality perceptions.
   The possibilities for interdependence and task-differentiation.
   Recent conceptual refinements in the evolution of awareness mechanisms.
   The communal re-living of experiences.
   Increased communal cohesion through mutual cultural identification.
   A lessened mutual recognition or identification on the basis of species specificity.
   Another human being is man's only serious enemy.
   Hierarchical relationships, based on the power of persuasion and conceptual skills.
   The increased importance of persuasion in the functions of leadership.
   The development of validity-gradients in the evaluation of a communication.
   The ability to tolerate emotional variability, prior to the tolerance of intellectual differentiation.
   
   
   
3. Speculating about early developments.
   The many functions of cultural guidelines.
   The development of task-differentiations.
   Becoming a master in symbolic manipulations.
   The variable fractions absorbed from the common cultural pool by individual members.
   Task-differentiation, inter-dependence, mutual trust and reliance, seen as an intertwined complex of factors.
   The need for behavioural predictability.
   The interdependence of economic, cultural and social mechanisms.
   
   
   
4. The experience of a "sense of justice", versus the "concept of justice".
   Relationships between economic events, the sense of justice and behavioural regulators.
   The transition of the hierarchical "pecking order" to a status of social equality.
   The changes from territoriality, through hierarchical stratification, to essential social equality.
   The importance of "equal treatment" by the leadership.
   Favouritism and the disruption of natural hierarchical relationships.
   Resentment caused by an experience of injustice, resulting from arbitrary changes in hierarchical positions, brought-about through leadership favouritism.
   The importance of the need for social equality.
   Mechanisms of the development and persistence of social classes.
   
   
   
5. Changes in social status, and the tendency towards social rigidity.
   The time-lag between cultural traditions and the cultural regulators needed for stabilising prevailing conditions of existence.
   Hereditary aspects in the mechanisms of social stratification.
   An inevitable loss of leadership qualities with the hereditary succession of a leadership position.
   Social tensions.
   Slavery, the elan vital, and the chances of birth.
   
   
   
6. The law as an explicit behavioural regulator.
   A complex web of mores, notions and atitudes.
   The law, seen as a cause for the divergence between the social classes.
   Social stratification; based on special skills.
   The social contract, and the laws of society.
   Mechanisms of social fragmentation and the wounded sense of justice.
   Obsolescence of the cultural code.
   Is it possible to change, deliberately, behavioural regulators?
   
   
   
7. Analysing cause-effect relationships.
   Statistical methods of correlation.
   Differences in the level of comprehension and predictability.
   Valid classification as a pre-requisite to a useful statistical analysis.
   Classifying human behavioural phenomena.
   A review of social regulators.
   The historical perspective as an aid to detect the influence of attitudes and prejudices.
   Behavioural regulators and the sense of justice.
   
   
   
8. The development of task-differentiations.
   Criteria of viability.
   Shifting emphasis; from individual to group viability.
   Parallels between social and multi-cellular developments.
   Differences between genetic and cultural instructions.
   Social task-differentiations, depending on acquired skills, rather than genetically encoded instructions.
   Areas of concern; security, sex and food.
   The differences between trust and a biologically determined predictability of the behavioural response.
   
   
   
9. The possibility to deceive.
   The voluntary exchange of goods and services.
   The lability of a balance of power in voluntary exchange-mechanisms.
   Relationships of mutual interdependence, and inequalities in the balance of power.
   Modern examples of enslavement.
   The role of social leadership in regulating the mechanisms and consequences of barter.
   Task-differentiations between unequal groups of individuals.
   The fragility of the mechanisms of the voluntary exchange.
   Difficulties regulating the economic processes.
   
   
   
10. A review of early task-differentiations.
    Hierarchical versus equally-placed task-differentiations.
    Social stratification, and a "hereditary rigidity" of the cultural code.
    
    
    
11. Culture and sub-cultures.
    The transfer of a sub-cultural identity to the younger generations as an explanation for the tendency to inherit cultural differences.
    Deliberate efforts to prevent a rigid sub-cultural inheritance.
    The fragility of the meaning of the larger social entity.
    Are there possibilities for a class-less society?
    The natural tendency to sub-group formation, and possible safeguards against social fragmentation.
    
    
    
12. The monetary unit and the function of a currency.
    The role of trust in government and the value of a currency.
    The difficulties of preventing stifling, inefficient and corrupt bureaucracies.
    
    
    
13. The Parliamentary organisation of leadership functions.
    Fragility of the multi-individual leadership functions and institutions.
    A review of the laws of supply and demand.
    The likelyhood of exploitation and disruption during the implementation of a system of freely competitive enterprise.
    Modern economic trends, and a blind trust in the mechanisms of economic salvation.
    Inflationary demands and the vulnerability of supplying unnecessary goods and services.
    A gloomy outlook for the Capitalist system of freely enterprising, affluent societies.
    A speculative view about the future course of our contemporary, affluent societies.

.......