THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE


man's conscious search for better living conditions





A Study in Thought

sa056



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

A constant search for better living conditions.
The results of a status of fierce competitive strife.
Growth and decline.
A mosaic of motivational forces.
An essential inability to learn.
Ever-recurrent follies.
Leaders and the mob.
There are always a few exceptions to every social or historical trend.
Looking at history from a great distance.
The drama and fascination disappear, whenever we try to generalise on too large a scale.
The functions of the genetic code.
The social units of mankind make also use of a reproductive and regulatory code.
Objections to considering the societies of mankind as "living entities".
A look at the "slime-mold".
A look at highly specialised, small-scale, socially integrated units.
Living together in large societies is a matter of necessity.
The background of socially integrated human existence.

Man has always searched for improvements in his way of life, his level of well-being and security, as well as his ease of existence. Long before the faculties of conscious awareness added a dimension of deliberate purpose to this instinctive search, nature developed the possibilities of flexible behaviour-patterns to enhance this essential quality of viability for some of the large, complex, multi-cellular species'. The faculty of conscious awareness in the species of mankind added the possibility of deliberate reasoning and long-term planning, as well as the weapons of treachery and deception, to the struggle for survival.

Unfortunately, a solution to the search for security seems to cause, so often, the ruination, destruction and death of someone else, and recorded history, as well as the known facts of human existence before the invention of the art of writing, seem to give us a never-ending series of wars and disasters, triumphs and massacres, glorious achievements and utter devastations.

We see, throughout history, the resurgence of the attitude of "hope" after defeat; of a supreme effort to overcome difficulties, followed by a heady conquest, as well as a shift of the "darker side" of existence to the enemy. Inevitably, the pendulum swings again, and, the society that was vigorous and victorious, not so long ago, becomes lazy, decadent and ignorant, within a few short generations.

As strength declines, corruption flourishes. Inequities rear their head, and, the strains and stresses upon society increase. Soon, there is an outburst of rebellion; a riot or revolt against the practices of favouritism and oppression, creating, often, their own incidences of injustice. Or, the enemy, (somewhere, there is always an enemy), awaits his chance to conquer and destroy the miserable remnants of a degenerate society.

If we take a close look at the historical events of human efforts and follies, we see the entire spectrum of human behaviour unfold, and, as we become more adept at unraveling human motivations, the logic and innate inevitability of many of the events that took place in the drama of existence, become much clearer to us. The distinctions between good and evil, God and Satan, right and wrong, seem to blur into a mosaic of motivational forces that clash and erupt, killing thousands, even, millions of people, who thought, that they were eradicating an evil empire or an utterly damned and God-forsaken enemy, while, in reality, they were fighting people, who functioned and thought, loved and hated, just like themselves.

History is depressing, because we get the uneasy feeling, that people, throughout the many centuries, have not learned much, and, that they are behaving roughly the same, regardless of the time-period or civilisation we are looking at. Their beliefs may change somewhat, but they still tend to reach, so quickly, for their weapons as a means to solve a situation of conflict, and, they always see the clash of existential interests as a struggle between good and evil.

Many innocent and credulous people have been persuaded by their leaders to believe, that they have to sacrifice their possessions, their children, even, their own lives, for the love of God and the glory of their country. In modern times, leaders have become primarily strategists, who sacrifice their subjects as dispensible pieces in the chess-game of war, in stead of leading their armies into battle themselves. This is the reason, why our leaders can wine and dine each other at a "peace conference", after their pawns have sacrificed themselves and annihilated each other on the battle-field.

Perhaps, we can, indeed, analyse the recurrent follies of mankind as the follies of their leaders. Their motivations seem to be driven by the instincts of arrogance and egocentricity, which are, so often, the hallmark of forceful personalities who have appropriated the right to become leaders, to do battle, and, to uproot many thousands of their followers.

We pay a high price for such "leadership". Perhaps, too high a price, because, we, as followers, have very little power to remove a leader who starts to behave in a narrowly nationalistic and destructive manner, but, then, we look around a little further in history, and, we also become aware of the brutality and coarseness of "mob rule". The mob without a leader is a lumbering giant, extremely vulnerable to swift and decisive counter-attacks, and, in its undifferentiated and indiscriminate violence, the mob may, for a short while, equal or surpass the brutality and cruelty of a despotic and psychopathic leadership.

The mob may be fortunate, and find an intelligent and compasionate leader who is able to restore peace and a sense of justice. This is usually sufficient to let the forces of exuberance and innovation create prosperity and a rapidly diversifying populace. It is interesting to see, how quickly the accumulation of a few assets suffices to bring-out the "conservative instincts" in people, because the less intelligent, wasteful and dull members of society become envious and pose, quickly, a threat to those, who have "established" themselves.

A bit of property, spread widely amongst the people, reduces the chances of rampage or mindless violence, and, it increases the dominance of those, who have something to lose from a state of anarchy.

However, prosperity seems to invite, inevitably, the inheritance of fortune and privileges by a generation that is spoiled and soft, and, because soft and spoiled members lack leadership qualities, they form quickly a class that tries to cling to power and wealth by oppression, exploitation or corruption. What started-out as a differentiation in living standards based on merit, becomes, quickly, an anxious and defensive preservation of the status-quo resulting from a complete dependence upon this position of wealth and privilege.

It seems inevitable, that the spirit of exuberance and the sense of justice become frustrated within a few generations. Invariably, the phenomena of indifference and corruption emerge, foolish and indulgent behaviour comes to the fore, as well as a rapid rise in the level of frustration and injustice.

Nevertheless, a close look at any particular historical situation reveals a wide-spread spectrum of attitudes and motivations. While some people in power become corrupt and incompetent, others do their best to govern and rule fairly. While the upper classes have a general tendency to relapse into an attitude of indifference and exploitation, here and there, we always see a few exceptions. While the incidences of injustice and disparity are accumulating rapidly, it may take a surprisingly long time before a collapse is actually imminent, and serious counter-measures are taken. Even so, the winds of change are often fickle, and they may die-out prematurely.

In short, a close look at any historic event or situation, in particular, when there is a wealth of data, will always show contradictory trends, and, this makes it possible to interpret the events or happenings of the past in many different ways. Perhaps, this is the reason, why history remains so fascinating, because we can nearly always vary the interpretation or meaning of a certain event. We can do this by emphasising different facts or features from a contradictory or confusing background.

It is still difficult to formulate reliable and useful generalisations about the reasons, why certain historical events took place. If we look at history from a great distance, the human events seem to blur into a nearly random confusion of contradictory forces, where societies behave like primitive organisms, tentatively seeking a level of viability, or a possibility of existence, trying-out a variety of functional arrangements and structural patterns. The drama and fascination disappear, when we try to generalise on too large a scale, and, we get the feeling, that such an overall approach is not going to provide us with worthwhile insights. Perhaps, the number of historical events is not really large enough to let us group-together truly homogeneous populations of events that can be analysed statistically.

However, there is another reason, why this type of generalised approach is less useful in the field of history. The natural biochemical experiments that led to the origin of the living cell, together with the equally random experimentation of multi-cellular life-forms with a number of existence possibilities, provide us with a clue about the slow emergence and evolutionary history of the genetic code, which repeats the organisation of a successful organism, time and again, creating a faithful duplicate of a member of a living species.

Yet, in the succession of societies, we can not discern anything like a "reproductive code", because the death of one society, or, the birth of another, do not seem to evolve along lines that are guided or regulated by some sort of code or set of guidelines. While we see a distinct aspect of organicity in the birth, growth, maturation, decay and death of a social entity, we find it much more difficult to recognise the guidance-patterns and reproductive functions that characterise the existence of the cellular and multi-cellular life-forms.

Indeed, we should ask ourselves, whether or not we can identify in the tentative and ever-changing units of multi-individual societies, any function or structure that is analogous to, and comparable with, the genetic code of a living cell. We know, that the genetic code in a cell regulates, not only, the exact duplication of a cell by cellular division, or, an "a-sexual mitosis", but, it also guides the production of key regulators during the existence of a cell.

In the case of the sexual mode of reproduction of a large organism, such as a multi-cellular individual, we see, how the fusion of two specialised sex-cells results in a most complicated and carefully guided embryological development, where, in the security of a stable environment within the maternal womb, the processes of cellular division and specialisation are geared towards the production of a miniature but complete multi-cellular organism.

It is clear, then, that the genetic code regulates the metabolic or biochemical machinery of cellular and multi-cellular existence, as well as the reproduction of uni-cellular and multi-cellular organisms. Is there in the human society, be it small or large, a similar structure, or, a similar guiding principle, regulating the happenings and events between the members of such a social unit? Is there a structure that regulates the events of social existence and functions as a template, able to secure the continuation of such a unit over a period of generations?

We see, indeed, a parallel between the social units of man and the living cell, because the members of a biochemical conglomerate of reaction-patterns and fragile substances within the living protoplasm come and go, long before the life-span of the cell itself has come to an end. People, too, are born into a society and they die, while the life-cycle of the society itself is usually far slower, comprising, at least, a number of generations.

In spite of the apparent organicity of a socially integrated entity of human beings, and, in spite of the similarities between a living organism and a social unit of the species of mankind, you may question the validity of considering a human society to be a living entity. We have noted the absence of a genetic, organising code in society, and, you may also point-out, that the members of a society do not necessarily have to die, whenever the unity of a social entity falls-apart. Individual cells of a multi-cellular organism, or the biochemical substances and reaction-patterns of the protoplasm, do not survive, if the living entity in which they exist, disintegrates.

True, the discrepancies seem to be so pronounced, that it seems hardly worthwhile to pursue the analogy beween a living organism and a social unit any further. Yet, if we look at this analogy a little more in detail, we find, that the discrepancies are not so stark. Certainly, we do not want to compare a multi-individual unit of human beings with a complex multi-cellular organism, but, if we compare it with a much more primitive and tentative multi-cellular organism, e.g. a "slime-mold", we come to the conclusion, that the individual cells do not have to perish, if the slime-mold ceases to exist.

On the other hand, we see, that human existence is, often, more dependent upon each other than we think. We tend to see society, primarily, as "the nation", the larger State, and, it is true, that such a State can fall-apart, be divided, or molested beyond recognition, without affecting, seriously, the viability of its members. However, we should not forget, that the primary and existentially more important social relationships occur on a much smaller scale.

If we picture ourselves suddenly transposed, utterly alone, somewhere in the midst of a jungle, without help, without tools and without communications, we know, that it will be very difficult to survive for any length of time. Similarly, if we look at highly specialised small social units that are engaged in a specific task, such as piloting a plane or a space-ship, we know, that the break-down or death of this social unit will result in the death of all its members. Perhaps, then, the discrepancies are not as profound as they seem to be at first sight, provided, we keep a proper perspective in mind, and, we may, therefore, pursue this analogy in the hope of finding some useful insights.

We may consider the larger human society to resemble, at least, to some extent, a "slime-mold"; a very tentative and temporary, fluid and fragile organisation of human beings, who search, and find, in such a fluctuating and fluid mode of cooperation, a measure of enhanced security and increased viability.

We can be reasonably sure, that man cooperates and lives together, largely, as a matter of necessity, and not by choice, in spite of the fact, that we all have a strong inclination to seek each other's company, as well as a strong tendency to annihilate each other's existence, whenever we are in a situation of conflict.

We are again on fairly safe grounds, if we state, that both characteristics were sharpened as instincts into the make-up of our character, long before we became human. Man came forth from a species that had already found a measure of viability by living together in small, social groupings of related members. Care for the vulnerable infant and mother, coupled with a courageous ferocity towards the larger animals, provided a measure of security, as well as an enlarged food-supply, and, we do not find it difficult to see proto-man as an animal who could walk upright, and hunted and lived in small groups, wandering from place to place, yet, remaining primarily at the transition zone between the forests and the plains.

Man started to use stones and sticks as temporary tools and weapons, enlarging, to a remarkable extent, the effectiveness of his predatorial potential. He protected himself and his vulnerable kinfolk against death and extinction by this curious combination of ferocity against threats from the outside, while behaving with a well developed instinct of parental care and concern towards its vulnerable off-spring and the weaker members of the family-unit he belonged to.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

A review of early human developments.
The conscious belief structure has become an important behavioural regulator.
The ability to recognise.
The development of conscious, verbalisable awarenesses.
Man's motivations do not change as a result of the acquisition of conscious beliefs.
The concept of a "drive".
Consciousness, and the ability to "rationalise" our behaviour-patterns.
A three-layered structure of input on our behaviour.
The link between a sense-impression and a behavioural response.
A unique form of mastery.
A definition of "culture".
Relationships between genetic and cultural regulators.
Cerebral and mental systems of classification.
The concept of a "cultural code".
The potential for, and the outline of, a "cultural code" are genetically determined, but not its content.
The conscious and the sub-conscious.
The purpose of this discussion.
Leaving the proof of validity to others.
A return to the socialisation of the human species.
There are no genetically encoded guidelines for large-scale social behaviour.
The importance of cultural regulators.
Mores, attitudes and beliefs.
A fragile social coherence.

So far, man behaved entirely as an animal; intelligent, because man is heir to a long development of the faculty of behavioural flexibility, and, he could, therefore, modify his behaviour on the basis of past experiences, but, we see nothing, as yet, of this epochal behavioural regulator; the conscious belief structure. So far, man behaved according to his biological heritage, guiding him with a variety of pre-determined, instinctive patterns of behaviour.

These behaviour-patterns could certainly vary markedly in extent and intensity, and, they could be aborted or steered into a different direction as a result of changing or contradictory stimuli. These instinctive patterns of behaviour were, also, profoundly altered by previous experiences that had been categorised by the brain in a neurological structure of classified categories.

Upon these mechanisms of classification rests the ability to "recognise", and, we have elaborated, on previous occasions, how all animals, in particular, the behaviourally flexible mammals and anthropoids have the ability to recognise a wide variety of circumstances and events. These circumstances and happenings are, then, experienced as "familiar"; as something they have seen or experienced before.

Without such a neurological or cerebral classification mechanism, no function of recognition would be possible, but, it is, perhaps, wise to emphasise, here, once again, that we are dealing with a sub-conscious form of recognition, and not, with the specifically human ability of "conscious recognition", where we can put a name or word-symbol on our awarenesses.

This ability to recognise consciously, and name the item of recognition, is a specifically human development, based on the emergence of memory-recall by gestures and mimicry. This technique of symbolic memory-recall led, eventually, to a rapid process of image-recall with the help of stylised gestures, sounds, and, later, with the help of written signs or arbitrary sound-symbols. Man developed rapidly a large "vocabulary", or repertoir, of mental images, which could be evoked by such representative symbols, and, these images could be communicated, because they were understood by the members of the small, close-knit community in roughly the same manner.

We have discussed, how such image-recall through symbolic re-stimulation developed as a result of constant communications between the members of a small community, and, we have seen, that, the numerous, symbolically representable mental images require, quickly, their own system of classification; this time a "mental system of classification", in contrast with the cerebral or neurological system of classification we mentioned before.

Similar images of conscious awareness are then grouped-together as "awarenesses", and, the classifying principles of these groupings become, later, "abstractions, with their own symbolic representations. If the repertoir of abstractions becomes quite large, they may themselves again be classified into categories of similarities. In this way, man developed, eventually, a complex system of mental classifications in which a large number of "verbalisable" or conscious awarenesses were grouped-together. These symbolically represented awarenesses were, therefore, available for communication by gestures, speech or writing.

Eventually, the most important classifications of our mental imagery began to guide the stream of incoming sense impressions into a "conscious perception of reality". These guiding or classifying systems are mental structures that "steered" or categorised, on an on-going basis, the stream of conscious or verbalisable awarenesses, and, these structures of mental images were shared by most members sharing a similar cultural background. Because these guiding or classifying structures of conscious awareness were so important for the entire group, they became absolute, unquestioned, and completely relied-upon "structures of beliefs".

Nevertheless, later students of these structures of beliefs may have a difficult time appreciating the importance of these images, because they may appear vague, inconsistent or illogical, because they are very different from the reality perceptions of the students themselves.

We have defined, here, very briefly, the belief structures of a community, and, these structures of belief are, obviously, very important modifiers of human behaviour. The members of a small social grouping, who have slowly worked-out a common reality perception, will now behave, not only, according to their instincts, (this biologically inherited package of behavioural instructions), but, also, in accordance with a structure of verbalisable ideas and concepts, which forms a structure of beliefs and regulates the perception of their realities.

Man's motivations do not really change as a result of the development of conscious beliefs, because motivations are based, primarily, upon biologically determined, existential requirements, but the verbalisation of motivations, (what man, himself, perceives as the reason for his behaviour), is always different, because the reasons given depend upon the way an individual perceives the realities of his or her existence, be it in relation to other people or the natural environment.

Perhaps, we should define the concept of "instinct", or "drive", as the deepest origin and cause of a behavioural trend, while the motivations are a complex and ever varying web of causes and their effects, which we can perceive, at least, in part, in ourselves, and, which we see also reflected in the behaviour of other people.

We can verbalise, therefore, our motivations, at least, to some extent, depending upon the way we interpret our own existence, but, we are well aware of the fact, that we may be giving a rational explanation for a sequence of behavioural events, reflecting, in essence, a more basic, instinctive drive. Often, our rational explanations are nothing more than an effort to give ourselves a measure of self-respect, or, we try to put-up a "front", which is, in essence, an attempt to project a favourable, or, at least, acceptable image to the people around us.

Let us come back to the human belief structure and its influence upon our behaviour. It is safe to say, that this structure of beliefs, concepts and ideas, together with the less verbalisable experiences of the past, as well as this web of biological instincts and drives, determine the totality of our behaviour. This three-layered structure of conscious, subconscious and instinctive input guides, not only, our decisions and actions, but, it also guides the interpretation of our sense impressions.

A belief structure interposes itself, therefore, in the chain of cerebral events that take place between the registration of a sense impression and the execution of a behavioural response.

In the flexible animal, the behavioural reaction depends on the biological nature of the organism, modified by the neurologically recorded and categorised experiences of the past. The behaviour of such a sophisticated but pre-verbal, behaviourally flexible animal is not verbalisable, and, it does not involve the manipulation of mental images with the help of symbolic representations.

An animal can not name objects, and, it does not have a verbalisable structure of beliefs, but, it seems, that some of man's closest evolutionary relatives in the family of anthropoids can be trained to use some form of symbolic representation. However, this ability does not seem to play an important role in such animals living in the wild, and, it is an open question, whether or not these animals use these symbolic representations in an innovative and syntactically coherent manner.

However, the belief structure of the human being does more than just modify, in a thousand different ways, the chain of sense impressions and behavioural reactions. It also facilitates the grasp of events, as well as the anticipation of results, with the ability to "comprehend" the environment in concepts of causes and their effects. Man's ability to anticipate and predict an outcome is greatly enlarged by this ability to conceptualise, and, man can, therefore, "master" his environment to a degree that is unique in the world of living existence. No other species has developed this ability to any significant extent, so far as we know.

This structure of verbalisable and communicable concepts also opens-up the possibility to "analyse", or think about the possible consequences of a behavioural choice, before the action is actually carried-out, and, here, we see the origin of "thought". Conscious and concentrated thought is, in essence, an activity, where we project a series of hypothesised happenings or actions, and, we analyse their possible consequences and inter-relationships, before these actions are "actualised" or carried-out.

So far, we have quickly reviewed material that has been discussed extensively before, because we wanted to re-state, here, a definition we have also mentioned before, but, we have never given it the logical introduction that has been formulated on this occasion. We want to develop a definition of "culture" that is quite different from the many vague ideas that are currently associated with this word. We want to call "culture" this entire complex of acquired, behavioural modifiers or regulators, which has arisen as a result of behavioural flexibility and conscious awareness. This complex of behavioural regulators influences our behaviour in addition to the drives, instincts and primitive behaviour-patterns that have been given as a "biological heritage".

Our genetic code is responsible for the anatomical and physiological configuration of our existence, and, as a part of this genetic code or biological heritage, we have also been given a variety of preformed behaviour-patterns that have been recognised and conceptualised as "drives", or "instincts". Our neurological classification mechanisms are part of this genetically shaped structure of the body, and they are mediated, entirely, through the central nervous system. In addition, we have developed a very similar system of classification for our conscious or verbalisable awarenesses. While the ability to form such a super-imposed, mental classification system is given by our genetic inheritage, the content of these classified and categorised experiences depends upon the specific circumstances and events to which an individual organism has been exposed.

Because of the fact, that the neurological or cerebral classification systems are similar for the members of a specific species, the members of a single species will react, essentially, in the same manner to similar events. This is not the case for the human being; at least, there is a much greater variety of responses, because similar events may have led to different belief structures for different communities, and, the emergence of different structures of belief will lead to different interpretations of reality, which may have been based upon essentially similar sensory stimuli.

We can say, therefore, that the interposition of a belief structure leads to somewhat similar behaviour-patterns for members that share a particular structure of beliefs, but, the behavioural reactions may be very different, when comparing people from widely divergent groupings, with widely divergent structures of belief.

It seems logical, therefore, to group-together all influences that modify human behaviour but are not dependent upon inborn patterns of behaviour, and, it seems reasonable to name this conglomerate of influences the "culture", or "cultural code", of human behaviour. This definition includes, also, all behavioural modifications that are based on past experiences of an individual or a group, because these modifications are also outside the influence of the genetic code. Therefore, all species' that rely for their individual and collective survival on past experiences, should be considered to possess a "cultural code", in addition to their genetic code, in particular, if such behaviour is transmitted to the younger generations through a process of imitating valuable, viable or "exemplary" parental behaviour.

It is obvious, that this definition of a "culture" is far wider than we usually understand under the term "culture", but, it has the advantage, that we do not try to put artificial boundaries around a particular concept of "culture". Why, e.g. should the arts be included, while we may have our doubts, whether or not science and technology belong to our culture? Few people will agree, that religious beliefs and guidelines, or the laws and regulations of society, should be included in the definition of culture, but, we avoid all these arbitrary restrictions, when we simply say, that, all products of the human mind, the entire realm of awarenesses and beliefs, all artifacts and expressions that have found a concrete symbolic representation and influence, thereby, human behaviour, belong to the category of "culture", regardless, whether it is good or bad, beautiful or ugly.

This extended definition allows us to formulate, clearly, the idea, that human behaviour is modified, very strongly, by a complex set of awarenesses, attitudes, customs, mores, concepts, goal-patterns, judgements and perceptions, which are all transmitted between human beings, as well as from one generation to the next, without being specified by the genetic code. This is the reason, why it is useful to group all these influences together in the concept of a "cultural code", and, to define this cultural code as a system of "behavioural regulators", transmitted in the form of "education".

The possibility to develop a cultural code is genetically endowed or encoded into every human being, but its contents are not. We do not make a distinction, therefore, between the arts, the sciences, or the religions, and, we even avoid any distinction between those acquired and socially transmitted guidelines we are consciously aware of, and those, which are so self-evident, unquestioned or vaguely perceived, that we would have a difficult time verbalising them accurately. This is a distinction between the "conscious" and the "sub-conscious", but, it is all "culture".

If we give the concept of culture such a wide meaning, it becomes obvious, how ambitious it is to even try to dicuss the "evolution of culture" as a whole, and, it is, indeed, necessary to clarify, what we intend to do. On the basis of this new and rather personal definition of culture, the entire realm of human history, natural history, science, religion and philosophy would be included, and, it seems utterly presumptuous to want to discuss this entire field, together with its evolutionary developments.

We will only discuss, in general terms, how we can analyse human behaviour by noting the components of the genetic and cultural codes in action, and, we hope to illuminate a few mechanisms that play a role, here, not only, in individual behaviour, but, especially, in the inter-actions between groups of people.

Perhaps, it is possible to find a few common features or common denominators in our historical records, and, perhaps, we can make sense out of what happened, and, how people behaved. Perhaps, such an approach to the concept of culture will provide us with relevant features and interesting patterns of events, which may help us to understand ourselves, and see our contemporary societies as a logical extension of a developmental process; as a contemporary moment in a large-scale process of cultural evolution.

We do not intend to use many specific examples, because the interpretation or application of these generalised principles to specific historical events, is an excercise I do not feel competent to engage in; at least, not at this time. Therefore, I will leave the proof of validity to others, and, I am quite content to leave these ideas as speculative images and possibilities, which will need a prolonged period of testing, before they can be accepted or discarded.

Let us go back, for a moment, to the question, whether or not a society can be regarded as a living, multi-individual organism of human beings. We have compared this organism to the "slime-mold", and, we should, therefore, not expect any of the functions, or "organ-systems", that are so characteristic for the higher, multi-cellular animals. We see, that the individual cells in the slime-mold are more complex, and, in a sense, more important, than the existence of the mold itself, because the mold may disintegrate, and, the cells may return to an individualised existence.

The cells that form the slime-mold, must have developed, through a process of natural selection, a genetically encoded propensity to form, under certain conditions, the slime-mold, and, we know, that this mode of behaviour must have given them some sort of an existential advantage, otherwise, it would not have happened. If we look at the tendency of the human being to form a social grouping of related beings, we see, that, here too, the genetic code has emphasised such a behavioural trait, because it has often been rewarded, in the past, with increased security and an enhanced viability.

However, we live now in far more complex and far larger social units than the kinship-groupings of our pre-historic ancestors, and, we have good reasons to believe, that natural selection has not had a chance to engrave into our genetic code, behavioural traits that would favour the grouping-together of people into much larger social units.

The time-period of these larger societies, or "civilisations", is so short, and, the number of civilisations so few, that the mechanisms of natural selection can not have made any modifications of the genetic code in relation to the ability to get-along on a large social scale.

Let us agree, then, that the success and failure of the larger social groupings depend on non-genetic, or, cultural factors. If these factors are successful in regulating behaviour in such a way, that the social unit behaves smoothly, vigorously and as a unit, the society grows, expands and gives security and vigour to all, but, if these cultural regulators become inadequate to maintain this climate of vigour, enthousiasm, willingness to work hard and bring sacrifices, then, the society quickly fragments, stagnates and crumbles.

The large social units of mankind depend, therefore, on a set of cultural regulators that are not encoded genetically. These cultural regulators have to be transmitted from one generation to the next by the mechanisms of secondary transfer of knowledge and insight, or "education". We all know, how easy this cultural code is changed, neglected or damaged, and, this is the reason, why it is very difficult to maintain a healthy social atmosphere for more than a few generations in any one particular group or segment of a large, conglomerate social environment.

The life-span of the society as a whole is enhanced, whenever a natural process of hierarchical re-adjustments between individuals and small groupings can take place. If ambitious, talented and intelligent youngsters from the poorer classes are given a chance to advance and rise to the top, the vigour of the social unit can be prolonged, but, often, the decay and the "sinking of the elite", whose children have become degenerate and useless, is a painful process that invites resistance and resentment.

The large society has no genetic code to rely upon for its internal mechanisms or reproductive processes, but, it is governed and structured by a variety of cultural regulators. These are, not only, subject to rapid changes and the mechanisms of decay in a haphazard process of cultural or educational transfer, but, the cultural code may also become quickly irrelevant, because circumstances can change so rapidly.

Mores, attitudes and beliefs, which fused a group of people, living under harsh and oppressive circumstances, into a healthy and strong unit, become irrelevant after a measure of affluence has been reached. Then, the need for discipline and self-discipline, as well as communal actions of sacrifice and moral strength, become painfully irrelevant and meaningless, because the affluent youngsters of a successful society are born and brought-up under conditions of ease and affluence.

Quickly, the meaning and relevance of many guidelines disappear. Slowly, the precepts of socially healthy and acceptable conduct are neglected. The activities of the younger generations fan-out in a random exploration of pleasures and experiments with a variety of life-styles. Surplus energy is wasted on internal rivalries. The qualities of far-sighted leadership and concern for the members of society disappear. The leadership of the second or third generations of affluence, becomes defensive and weak, leading to strife, incidences of injustice, neglect of civil duties, as well as corruption of the government institutions and its bureaucracies. The processes of discontent, fragmentation and social decay have then resumed their inexorable course of destruction, once again.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The behaviour of "social units" can be explained by the absence of a genetic code.
The functions of a "cultural code".
Requirements of stability and adaptability.
An orderly leadership transition.
Leadership qualities, and the fate of a socially integrated unit.
The "clique" around a weak leadership.
The struggle for power between Church and State.
Random movements of molecules in a gaseous or liquid environment.
The vague boundaries of social entities.
The concept of a "supra-individual organism"; objections.
The trend towards predation.
Solving tensions through violent conflicts.
We can not let-go of the lure of victory.
How quickly can we become filled with hatred and murderous intentions.
The evolution of the hierarchical order; a fore-runner of the mechanisms of social integration.
The need for a territory to feed-upon.
What the ice-ages must have meant for early man.
The painful and arduous road towards large-scale socialisation.
Character-traits, that are explained by our historical and evolutionary background.
An interesting parallel.
Early man created a reality-image that mirrored, closely, the physiological classification mechanisms of his sense-impressions.
A brief review of the mechanisms of classification.
A "radiation of beliefs", as a parallel to the "radiation of species`".

The absence of a firm and stable code to structure and guide the functions of the large human society, is, probably, the most important reason, why the life-span of so many social groupings is short, and, why its fortunes fluctuate rapidly between vigorous health and near collapse. Occasionally, the cultural code becomes fairly stable, and, if an empire becomes large enough to exist without serious attacks from the outside, or chronic harassment from within, it may be able to create a smooth transition of leadership from one generation to the next.

The authority of the cultural code plays a crucial role, here, and, the larger the society is, the more prestigious the code has to be, and, the more likely it can bring-about a smooth transfer of leadership functions, whenever people grow old and have to be replaced.

If we want to see a healthy social environment, the cultural code, (this whole constellation of customs, beliefs, attitudes, bureaucratic and judicial guidelines), should remain free from abuse; it should remain relevant to the living generations in times of prosperity, and, it should be strong and impressive enough to be transmitted, with care, from one generation to the next.

The cultural code should be able to convince a large majority of people within the larger social environment, that they are being treated fairly, because, only then, can the cultural code maintain this all-important "sense of justice". This means, that a measure of fairness and honesty in government has to be visible; it means, that corruption and exploitation are vigorously eliminated, and, that the citizens receive an equal measure of protection against injustice and discrimination.

The cultural code should be strong enough to bind the leadership to an attitude of responsibility and concern for its peoples. Here, of course, we see a major difficulty, because, for the sake of authority and a smooth transition of leadership, society required, for a long time, an absolute ruler; a chieftain, king or emperor. However, if a leadership has so much power, who will ensure, that it remains responsible and far-sighted?

Throughout history, people have looked for a system of checks and balances in order to keep a society and its leadership in a good state of health, but, the construction and development of cultural regulators remained so haphazard, so beyond the conscious grasp of the population as a whole, that the destiny of a social environment remained in the hands of Fate. If a society was fortunate enough to come into the hands of a strong but concerned and intelligent leadership, it would, invariably, flourish and prosper, but, even, the most beneficial reign would come to an end, and, rarely, would a wise and strong ruler be followed by an equally strong and wise leader.

As soon as the leadership falls into the hands of incompetent people, we see disastrous consequences. The leadership is quickly put on the defensive. It surrounds itself with "supporters", while those, who criticise or disagree are banned or eliminated. The supporters usurp and abuse, whatever financial and other resources the State has. Justice declines, arbitrary treatment and oppression escalate, and, the social unit is plunged into one disastrous adventure after another.

Certainly, if we scrutinise each historical situation closely, we see, that, often, good intentions were not rewarded with good results, and, that a momentum of decay and degeneration could not be stemmed, regardless, how valiantly a concerned leadership did its best. Besides, leadership mechanisms were often complex. The sources of support and loyalty were vague and unpredictable. The competition for authority and jurisdiction was intense, and, from a very early stage in the development of the larger society, we see a ruthless and lawless struggle for the seat of ultimate power.

There was always a tendency for the priests and the warriors to vie for control. Often, the advantage was clearly in the hands of one group or the other, but, during recent history, we see, that there has been a constant pull between the Church and the secular leaderships for control over the mechanisms of the State, including the ultimate authority in matters of the "cultural code"; Faith, reality perceptions, allegiances and attitudes.

There is another problem with our attempts to see society as a living organism. Unlike other organisms, we can not see, clearly, the physical existence of a "body". Boundaries are vague. Many members can belong, at the same time, to several social institutions or organisations, and, each one of these social organisations can claim to be a living organism. The "cellular members" of such a multi-individual unit are not anatomically adherent to each other, but, they move freely amongst themselves, just like the random movements of molecules in a liquid or gaseous environment.

Even in our modern societies, we can interpret the meaning of a social unit in many ways. We can look, primarily, at our family and relatives, or, we may emphasise the small village or region into which we were born and grew-up. We may emphasise one of the many special-interest organisations to which we belong, such as a labour-union or professional organisation. We may see our existence in a society, primarily, as a member of a religious congregation, where we find our strongest allegiances in a specific Faith and a Community of Believers, who see themselves as the saved remnants of a doomed and utterly worthless mankind.

Perhaps, we may, indeed, identify, primarily, with our nation or country, or, the ethnic grouping to which we belong. If our concept of society is so vague, it is, indeed, not surprising, that we find it difficult to see something useful in the concept of society as a "supra-individual" organism.

Besides, we are, not only, unconvinced, that it is useful to see reality this way, but, we may have some stiff objections to the concept of a supra-individual organism or State. We live in an era, where we boast to have invented the principles of "human rights", with an emphasis on the worth and meaning of individual existence, as well as the pleasures of a freely expressed opinion or belief. We look with suspicion upon anyone, who dares to challenge these cherished concepts.

We see, clearly, how oppressive regimes jail or ban dissenters, or murder those, who disagree or criticise, and, it is logical, that we oppose any idea that gives the State and its leadership the right to place the interests of society above those of the individual. Many people believe, that this is a step backwards, and, that such a philosophy, regardless, how well intended, will be used by potentates and tyrants to subdue, once again, the trend towards individualisation and the dignity of individual existence.

"Let us cut-out this nonsense about a supra-individual unit. Let us put man, the individual, at the pinnacle of importance, and, let us design the rules and regulations of the State in such a way, that the social entity serves each and everyone of us well".

I agree with you, wholeheartedly, but, let us, indeed, examine, closely, the statement, that we should design the rules and regulations of the State in such a way, that it serves each and everyone of us well. This is a lofty ideal, but, it is not easy to translate into practice, because we see, almost invariably, that the efforts of one man, or one particular group, to secure the rights and favourable living conditions which this individual or group thinks it ought to have, lead to the infringement upon, or destruction of, the rights, security and property of someone else.

Do we not see, throughout history, how violent confrontations erupt, whenever one group or tribe is seeking, desperately, to maintain its viability, especially, when it comes under pressure from another tribe or from increased population pressures within its own borders? What is the solution to such pressures? An invasion of neighbouring territories? Ransacking what someone else has built-up, killing those inhabitants, who have become "enemies"?

All this is done after a process of "psychological conditioning" has taken place, which is subconsciously designed to justify the violent and predatory solution to the pressures that are being exerted upon or within a society. Yet, if we analyse, carefully, the many factors at work in a state of warfare between tribes or nations, we see, that there is a nearly unstoppable trend towards the violent solution of relentless tensions.

The ultimate, most primitive, but, perhaps, most natural way to settle a conflict of interests is the violent conflict, or war, in particular, because the possibilities of a negotiated compromise and settlement escape, so quickly, from our grasp. It is so difficult to avoid, or reverse, the pernicious trends of polarisation, where we interpret everything according to the categories of "good" and "evil". Once we are totally convinced that someone else, or, some other group, is evil and our "arch-enemy", a scourge to mankind and a displeasure to God, we can only find virtue with the attitudes of belligerent confrontation.

As long as we are so easily persuaded, individually and communally, to secure our rights and possibilities of existence by violent conflict, we will continue an endless series of wars and conquests, atrocities and massacres, treachery and opportunistic exploitations, which dominate the major events of every political history.

Indeed, if we want to live in peace and tranquility, we will have to design, consciously, a set of regulatory mechanisms for human behaviour. However, let us analyse, first, what we know about human behaviour, as well as our evolutionary background, before we assume, that, indeed, we all aspire to a life of peace and quiet. Perhaps, many of us secretly still glorify the feelings of victory in combat, the heady sensation of unlimited power, the satisfying emotions of revenge and control over those, who dared to oppose, challenge or belittle us.

Perhaps, the problem is, not so much, the failure to design a set of cultural behavioural regulators, which would, and could, secure a lasting relationship of peaceful inter-actions, but, the problem lies in the deepest corners of our instincts, where, designed by millions of years of biological evolution, we can not let-go of the lure of victory; the ecstasy of combat, and the satisfaction of this ultimate solution; the destruction of our enemies.

We may consider ourselves to be more civilised at the present time, but, let us not delude ourselves. People are still struggling desperately for power and control, in order to correct what they perceive to be an injustice, and, the solution is still found in an attitude of all-out warfare, with political killings, acts of intimidation, brutality and terror. I wonder, whether or not we have really advanced much over the centuries.

True, in times of peace and prosperity, such behaviour seems alien and revolting, in particular, if we have personal memories about the ravages of warfare, and, we find it difficult to believe, that we could, again, be driven to such behaviour. Yet, when we find ourselves stripped from our security and comforts, we experience, how quickly we become filled with hatred and murderous in our intentions. Let us acknowledge, then, the strong influence of our primitive drives and instincts upon our "civilised" behaviour, and, let us acknowledge, frankly, that it is easy to be driven into a corner from where there is no escape, except through a last, desperate, daring act of self-destructive violence.

Nature sharpened in us the instinct of protectiveness towards our family, and, nature rewarded us with an increased viability, as soon as we learned to tackle the larger and more dangerous animals, but, we also learned to live together in a small group and to subdue our ferocious and combative instincts vis as vis each other. We settled into a hierarchical order, where we accepted the dominance of those we could not bully, and, we would dominate, automatically, those, who acknowledged their submission to us.

This remarkable development took place, long before we became human beings, and, we can, therefore, regard the ability to position ourselves into a hierarchical stratification as part of our "biological heritage". This change in behaviour, from territoriality to a hierarchical order, was necessary for the evolution of "socialisation" or social integration, because we, as the members of a social grouping, had to learn to give-up, at least, to some extent, the instinct of unquestioned sovereignty over the territories we had claimed as our own.

Territorial instincts never disappeared completely, and, we see, clearly, how the small group still behaves strongly "territorially", certainly, as a unit, while the members of this unit have already begun to live closely together and are able to cooperate with each other, be it somewhat grudgingly.

Social groupings need, of course, a certain territory to feed-upon, and, the gradual advances in weapon and tool handling opened-up many different natural resources for an enlarging population of the species of mankind. Even so, most groupings had to keep moving from territory to territory, as they exhausted the supply of animals, fruits and other edibles, and, these nomadic behaviour-patterns facilitated contacts, but, they also provoked conflicts and confrontations between neighbouring groups laying claim to the same territories.

Quickly, ferocity towards the larger animals was over-shadowed by an attitude of ferocity towards the neighbouring and competing groups of human beings, and, as man's mastery over the environment grew, so did the population. Initially, this increase in viability and density of the population could be compensated for by penetrating into the less hospitable and colder regions of the earth, but, eventually, most of the inhabitable areas were occupied.

We reflect with admiration and awe, upon the experiences of pre-historic man, and, what the advent of the ice-ages must have meant for early man. His territories were drastically reduced. The population pressures must have become intense, and, we see, indeed, a rapid increase in man's behavioural adaptations. Man was forced to learn new techniques, such as manipulating a fire and making protective clothing as the winters increased in severity. If man went again to the warmer regions, he would come into contact, and conflict, with larger and more powerful settlements.

In this long but nebulous, natural experiment with the smaller, nomadic groupings of mankind, living in severe climatic conditions, a rapid spurt of "cultural developments" took place. These developments increased man's hold on the environment, and made a startling increase in the human population possible. As a result of this rise in the density of the population of mankind, another man became man's most formidable and serious enemy, and, we see, that man's greatest ferocity, throughout recorded history, has been directed at other human beings. Yet, in a dispassionate analysis, it is difficult to see, how this trend could have been avoided. A rise in the level of competitive strife is the price paid by every species for its succesful adaptations to the challenges of the natural environment.

Slowly, man learned to survive by cooperating on a much larger scale. We learned the art of creating much larger social units than nature prepared us for with this contradictory mixture of behavioural instincts, contained in our "biological heritage". Ever since man became so populous and dominant over the rest of nature, including the world of animal existence, human beings became each other's most important competitors. It is completely logical and unavoidable, that human history shows an endless series of conflicts, battles, massacres, atrocities, devastations, cruelties and sufferings.

But, man always started from scratch after defeat and devastation, because the instinct of survival is strong, indeed. The instinct to live and seek better conditions of existence was, eventually, translated, once again, into some sort of conquest, or, at least, an attempt to conquer, and, we show, here, unmistakenly, our predatory heritage. We are predators by nature, and, when another human being or grouping became the primary obstacle in the search for a possibility to exist, man's solution was conflict; primarily, a conflict between small groupings, rather than between individuals, because man had already been "socialised" on a small scale. However, the process of socialising a number of divergent groupings on a much larger scale, was, indeed, painfuly slow.

What are the consequences of this historical and evolutionary background, when we try to analyse the make-up and development of our character? A successful conquest or defense against attack spelled, often, the difference between life and death, and, we can not be surprised to see, that martial attitudes were glorified as a virtue. If the leadership was not ferocious, courageous or willing to risk its life defending the group, the group was endangered, and, logically, the leadership would fall to the strongest, most dominating and most ferocious individuals.

Later, when the coordination of a large number of individuals became very important for the survival of the entire group, we see, that the faculty of intelligence, the ability to inspire and persuade, as well as the ability to be persuaded and to be loyal and courageous, were attributes that enhanced viability to a remarkable extent.

Man lived in a hostile world, and, it was inevitable, that the relationships between small groups and tribes remained, largely, a matter of dominance, as well as an attitude of tentative or grudging cooperation. Within the small, socially integrated groupings, the attitudes of cooperation, courage, intelligence and obedience to authority, were strongly, if subconsciously, promoted. Reality could only be perceived as a "communal truth", and, everything was classified according to the criteria of benefit and harm, centered around the interests of the small community.

This communally oriented perception of reality is, by the way, an interesting and noteworthy parallel with the primary classification mechanisms of the central nervous system, where the significance of sense-impressions is also categorised into classes of "benefit and harm", positive or negative; stimuli, that are interesting and provoke a movement towards (ad-gression), or, a movement away; an evasion, or, a defense.

Many hostile forces come from nature itself. Draughts and floods, cold and heat, the scarcities of food and water, and, later, the failure of crops, the diseases affecting life-stock, or the mysterious vagaries of human sickness and accidents. All these phenomena led to the conscious awareness of a pantheon of contradictory, and, perhaps, predominantly hostile forces with their own arbitrary or "willed" character, resembling man's own nature.

I think, that it is fair to say, that, early man created a reality image of conscious and symbolically representable awarenesses, which mirrored, closely, his own basic physiological classification mechanisms, where sense impressions were, primarily, divided into classes of benefit and harm. Because of the limited capability of the brain to handle and store a large number of conscious awarenesses, or concepts, man created, quickly, a frame of reference, where a large variety of concepts and awarenesses were connected to each other with secondary or "classifying principles".

In this way, relationships between events were visualised and became a focus of awareness themselves. It became possible to classify a number of separate awarenesses into a single class, with a "classifying or organising" principle. Slowly, a system of relationships became verbalised, and, these relationships became a conscious reality and began their own independent existence as a conscious awareness, or "abstraction". These awarenesses could be events that were classified according to similarities in appearance, or, they could be classifications of objects with a similarity in appearance. Classifications of similarities in appearance were not limited to static objects, or, circumstances with a limited element of change. The systems of classification became a fore-runner for a more sophisticated classification of events, because the recognition of a similarity in the appearance of similar events, opened the way for an analysis of events in the form of a series of "causes and their effects".

The recognition of "similarities in events" gave man a feeling of "predictability" upon which so much of his mastery rests, and, later, this quality of predictability, or, the recognition of a "similarity in event" was elaborated by an analysis of the event into a chain of causes and their effects. We should not discuss this topic any further, here, because we have done so before. Let us just state, that man's reality perceptions, together with his slowly developing system of causal relationships, of connections in happenings and relationships in appearance, formed a more or less specific structure of beliefs for each grouping of human beings.

Each group of human beings was actively exploring the myriad of possibilities for conceptual interpretation that had opened up. Because these explorations occurred somewhat in isolation of each other, we see, also, a remarkable "radiation" or divergence of beliefs.

Man's early concepts included a large number of anthropomorphic forces, such as demons, magical powers, spirits, gods, etc. These concepts tried to "explain" all the events and happenings man was confronted with, and, such an anthropomorphic mode of explaining the forces of nature was a perfectly logical, and, even, unavoidable stage in the development of our reality perceptions.

The divergence or "radiation" of belief structures takes the form of a large spectrum of conceptual interpretations. The essence of an evolutionary break-through is the wide-spread radiation of a successful life-form, exploring a number possibilities of existence that have come to the fore as a result of this break-through. This leads, quickly, to a wide variety of diverging species', and, we see in the radiation of beliefs and cultural patterns an interesting parallel with the radiation of the species' of life.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Inter-actions between genetic and cultural factors.
The emergence of "secondary learning".
A pool of commonly shared concepts and ideas.
Leadership, and the factor of "credulity".
Ethics, and the existential needs of a social entity.
A slow conceptualisation of our existential needs and concerns.
The "sin of neglect".
A persistent trend towards cooperation and compromise between small-scale social units.
The aspect of contact and communication resulting from violent confrontations.
The inevitability of a rise in mutual understanding.
Trust and friendship are quickly destroyed by treachery and hostility.
Why ordinary members may be more "socialised" than their leaders.
Mechanisms of "cross-fertilisation".
Enlarging the sphere of familiarity.
A synchronisation of cultural characteristics.
Conservative attitudes.
The concept of an enlarged sphere of concern; its influence upon ethical behaviour-patterns.
Recognising the value of avoiding a violent conflict.
The first successful empires; a result of competent, far-sighted, honest and broadly concerned leadership.
Empires and small social units.
Voluntary and involuntary alignment with a vigorous social force.
If a status of social integration does not benefit everyone, there will be an inevitable slide towards a state of exploitation and oppression.

During the early stages of man's evolution, his behaviour was, of course, primarily under the influence of his biological heritage, including the "neurological or cerebral" classification systems that were classifying all sense impressions into existentially significant categories. As we have seen, this takes place as a classification into negative or positive evaluations; into circumstances to be avoided or combated, or, circumstances that are favourable and to be maintained as long as possible.

In addition to the behavioural guidelines given by man's biological inheritance, we see a long and continuously enlarging repertoir of experiences that influence man's behaviour mainly in a subconscious manner. Finally, man begins to construct, in conjunction with his fellow members, a structure of beliefs; of conscious awarenesses that influence and guide the interpretation of his sense impressions and experiences.

The development of communicable awarenesses and concepts facilitates the transfer of "secondary learning", where it becomes possible to understand and appreciate, at least, to some extent, the experiences and ideas of someone else. The transfer of concepts and ideas in a form of secondary learning has become a dominant factor in our behavioural repertoir, because, quickly, the content of personal experiences takes a back seat to ideas, concepts, attitudes and beliefs that have been absorbed or assimilated from our social environment. This process of assimilation is the essence of secondary learning, and, it is characterised by mastering symbolic awarenesses that are taught by teachers and parents. The phenomenon of "secondary learning" allows the evolution of a "cultural pool", made-up of commonly shared concepts and ideas, because we share these concepts and ideas more or less in the same manner with most other members of the small community we belong to.

The functions of the leadership in a community become now augmented by the powers of "authority" and persuasion, because a concept, idea, story, or "fact", transmitted by the leadership to the members of society, is automatically invested with a great deal of "credibility". If there would be a tendency to doubt or dispute a story or interpretation put forward by the leadership, its authority discourages any attempt to express such doubts. In other words, the acceptance of a story or communication from the leadership assumes the same role as the process of hierarchical submission. To doubt the story or information from a leader would have the same effect as a challenge to his hierarchical position.

Secondary learning encourages the emergence of common belief structures and shared interpretations, facilitating, in turn, common attitudes and behavioural responses. These mechanisms weld the intuitive and somewhat grudging hierarchical order into a far more cohesive and better organised unit of behaviour than was possible, before the emergence of the mechanisms of symbolic representation and the secondary transfer of knowledge and beliefs.

Now, we understand, better, why certain behaviour-patterns find such strong approval and admiration, while others will be condemned as treacherous and evil. We also note, that the shared pool of notions and ideas is geared towards a behaviour that will enhance the viability of the grouping in which these notions originated and find their significance. This means, that, internal fights and disputes are suppressed and considered "evil", because these behavioural practices weaken the group, but, the defense against intruders, or, the conquest of alien and hostile groupings is glorified as the ultimate virtue of heroic bravery and courageous patriotism, because such behaviour strengthens the position of the community, provided, of course, that the battle is won at not too great a cost.

The more a society is placed on the defensive, the more it is forced into the attitude of a desperate "last stance". The less it has to lose, the more ferocious and coherent such defensive behaviour is likely to be.

Every time we look around, we see this remarkable trend come to the fore; nl., to construct an interpretation of reality that is in accordance with our existential needs. If we are aware of this trend, we may consider this process, cautiously, a form of "rationalisation", but, most of the time, the synchronisation of interpretations and beliefs with our existential needs, is a subconscious process. Then, we take a belief or interpretation at its face value, but, the ability to reflect, later, upon what has happened, may give rise to a slowly growing awareness of our existential concerns and needs.

As soon as we become a socially integrated grouping with a certain level of prosperity and affluence, our existential needs slide into the background of our reality perceptions, and, we often shake our heads in bewilderment at the viciousness and ferocity of other people, in particular, if their ferocity is directed at us. We may not have done them any harm, except, by failing to take their existential needs into account, while we basked in prosperity and affluence.

These considerations still amount to a somewhat undifferentiated imagery of a small community; aggressive, when hungry or pushed by more powerful enemies, and, complacent, ignorant, or "asleep", when existing in a state of well-being and comfort; surprised, when attacked by those evil and vicious aliens. We have to elaborate this picture in more detail, if we want to analyse the events of human societies and their leaderships in a more comprehensive manner. Let us analyse, first, the various trends towards conflict and compromise, conquest and alliance, whenever more sophisticated groupings come to the realisation that each battle costs both sides dearly.

We should also analyse, how leaderships in competition with each other use the mechanisms of "rationalisation" and "legal precedent" of treaties and alliances, in order to justify their more primitive drives to dominate and conquer. Perhaps, many leaders believe their own rationalisations, and, very likely, these intellectual and moral considerations did play a role in the course of events, but, as always, intellectual and moral arguments seem to be most persuasive, when they happen to coincide with existential interests.

Finally, we should analyse the role of "social centering" in commonly shared reality perceptions and belief structures, because, sometimes, it is debatable, whether we are looking at a conflict between independent societies, or, a conflict between members of a much larger social entity, whose existence has not been clearly visible, as yet, or has been lost as a commonly accepted awareness.

Let us look at the relationships between warfare and communication. The combat between primitive tribes that regarded each other only as alien and hostile, initiated a form of contact with profound consequences. The combatants could not help, but wonder, why they looked so much alike, and the dying enemy, slain by our spear or sword, must have resembled, so much, the death of our own comrades, who had fallen in the past, and, whose death was, perhaps, responsible for the death of our enemies, now. The pain and agony are so similar, and the reactions of their friends and relatives are so much like our own! We can not help but learn about each other as a result of the vagaries of warfare and the miseries of violent conflict.

Eventually, tribes learned to understand each other's sign-language or speech, and, with these contacts came a broader level of understanding. They began to realise, that aliens and enemies were people, just like themselves, and, they too, required food and shelter, just like themselves. They, too, had families and children they loved, and, they considered us a threat to them, just as we considered them a threat to us.

We may find other similarities. Perhaps, they use tools and weapons that are similar to ours; their way of life is similar, and, perhaps, they even use some of the same signs and gestures. Once we learn to communicate with them, we notice, that, in many ways, their language and beliefs are the same as ours, in spite of the fact, that they may use different sounds or signs to indicate the same ideas.

We come to the conclusion, that our forefathers were only dimly aware of these similarities, and, frequently, the wonderment about these similarities must have disappeared, again, as a result of the blind emotions of suspicion and fear, which have a tendency to engulf us all, whenever we come into contact with the dangers that threaten our way of life and existence. Occasionally, a hesitant exchange of gifts, such as a tool or weapon, or, something to eat, may have kindled an atmosphere of mutual trust, but, we can picture how, all too often, such a tentative gesture of trust and friendship was shattered, again, by an act of suspicion, hostility or treachery.

Perhaps, children and ordinary members were more inclined to cultivate a chance-contact with gestures of good-will and mutual trust than the warriors and leaders of society. We still see, that, ordinary members of society are more inclined to give trust and friendship, at least, towards each other, because they have learned, better than their belligerent leaders, to get-along together; to compromise, and, to recognise the essential similarities between ordinary human beings. After all, we can argue, quite convincingly, that ordinary members have become far more "socialised" than their leaders, who still have a chance to exert their powers of dominance, and, who have still strongly developed territorial instincts.

A rising population density, as well as a limited amount of territory in which to expand, increased the chances of contact and combat. Inevitably, the sphere of knowledge and familiarity enlarges. This led to a cross-fertilisation of ideas, tools, weapons, ways of doing things, as well as ways of interpreting reality. The cross-influences of cultural codes that had developed in isolation of each other, had a profound influence upon the life-style of early man. Accepted ways of doing things, accepted ideas and concepts, traditional relationships and channels of authority were questioned, and, perhaps, even, challenged.

On the one hand, frequent contacts enlarged the sphere of familiarity and tended to synchronise cultural characteristics and behavioural regulators, but, on the other hand, these contacts provided a challenge to conservative and entrenched leaderships. While possibilities were opened-up for treaties of friendship and mutual cooperation between groupings who used to live separately, this cultural synchronisation led, also, to a tendency for the groups to fuse into larger societies, even, if these groupings would still have somewhat divergent features as a result of their divergent past.

Conservative, short-sighted and less flexible leaderships became increasingly challenged, while leaderships that learned to encompass a larger number of people, and, which developed the ability to formulate a leadership structure that was able to delegate responsibilities to other members, flourished and increased their hold.

In a way, we can say, that, leaderships were forced, by the increasing contacts between divergent groupings, to enlarge their "sphere of concern", but, in doing so, they also loaded a much heavier burden of responsibility upon themselves. This enlargment of the sphere of concern required the differentiation of single-handed leadership into the leadership of a small group of capable and dominant personalities, where certain members would start to bear responsibilities for certain leadership functions, while the overall leader became a "supervisor" of such a differentiated and delegated system of leadership tasks and responsibilities.

The concept of an "enlarged sphere of concern" is important, here, because this sphere of concern determines the extent to which the leadership recognises its obligations to protect and guide the membership. Ordinary members are also involved in the enlargement of the sphere of concern, because the behavioural regulators dictate, what is good and what is bad; who are friends and who are enemies; to whom one is bound by a code of ethics, and, who falls outside the sphere of ethical concerns.

This complex of notions and attitudes determines the size of the group a member identifies with and belongs to. Ethical considerations tell us, whom we should consider as belonging to our social environment, and, these mechanisms indicate, therefore, quite precisely, our "sphere of concern". Those who fall outside this sphere of concern, fall also outside our sphere of ethical considerations.

Often, we see in history a somewhat vague tradition of hospitality, friendship and mutual assistance between peoples, whose leaders never seem to tire of fighting each other. The concerns of the peoples and their willingness to extent each other a hand of friendship and tolerance, seems to outstrip, at times, the egocentric and fearful defensiveness of their leaderships.

Does this mean, then, that a leadership is backwards compared to ordinary people? We see, indeed, remarkable instances, where the sentiments of the people seem to be more tolerant than that of their leaders, but, we see, just as often, the opposite. Ambitious and far-sighted leaderships are often trying to identify with a large number of antagonistic ethnic groupings that have been brought-together under a central power by conquest, but, the various groupings keep feuding and remain hostile and ignorant towards each other.

Let us summarise it this way; increasing contacts and mutual understanding make it possible, eventually, to come to agreements, or "treaties", where a conflict of interests is solved by a compromise and a more or less voluntary agreement to divide a territory, or, to divide the resources and revenues of a certain area in a mutually acceptable manner. Often, the treaty is not really "voluntary", but, a conquering, superior power and its intelligent leadership recognises the benefits of leaving a conquered people and their territories virtually intact.

Local populations and authorities are, then, left in place, and their culture and way of life are not disturbed to any significant extent. Their assets are not plundered. In return for such an unsuspected benevolence of the conqueror, the population and its leadership may be gratefully willing to accept a measure of dominance, and pay a cetain levy in "taxes". This leads to an attitude of cooperation with, and integration into, a much larger society.

In stead of the primitive all-out conquest between competitors, we see, therefore, at the level of competing societies, a parallel to the developments of the early animal and human societies, where territories fuse and the members arrange themselves into a hierarchical structure under an acknowledged, overall leader or leadership. In this way, the first successful empires were built, and, the results of such a forced amalgamation under a competent, far-sighted, honest and truly broadly concerned leadership were, indeed, astonishing.

The concept, that we can see a parallel between the hierarchical ordening of individual members at the beginning of mammalian or anthropoid socialisation, and, the similar hierarchical positioning of societies under the leadership of an "umbrella empire", raises an interesting question. We assume, that, the hierarchical fusion of territories in the early stages of socialisation occurred "naturally", as a result of continuous existential pressures, as well as a search for an enduring viability. We do not really know, whether or not such a process was initiated by a more or less "voluntary" association of weaker members under the protection of a powerful "bully", whenever their existence was threatened. It may well be that a strong-willed, vigorous and powerful social entity would "gather under its wings" a number of weaker neighbours, who felt that it was futile and self-defeating to resist such an "annexation".

As is so often the case, the question is, probably, unanswerable, and, it may well be, that these mechanisms are, in essence, very similar. Flexible animals arranged themselves, through a confluence of insight and realism, into a tentative hierarchical order under a benevolent leadership, and, the societies of man have been doing the same. We see, here, a confluence of the interests of the dominant and the dominated, and, the mechanisms of amalgamation become an inextricable mixture of consent and coercion.

It may well be, that the dinstinction between "consent" and "co-ercion" becomes essentially meaningless, as we see, e.g., whenever the pressures of nature and the search for possibilitis of existence come smoothly together in a tentative and transient form of cooperation between a number of unequally placed members. These members assume, automatically, a hierarchical differentiation in their relative positions of strength and weakness, while they continue to form a unity, as long as the members experience it to be an advantage. This, in a nutshell, is the essence of the process of social integration or "socialisation".

While we visualise the members of early experiments with socialisation to have a choice in their intuitive decision to belong or to break-away, we know, that the amalgamation of the larger societies of man under the force of imperial aspirations, is less voluntary, but, here, too, we see, that the element of a willingness to cooperate remains an essential feature.

Perhaps, the early socialisations of the members of a flexible species also revealed this curious and inextricable mix between voluntary cooperation and coercion. Certainly, it may not have been as voluntary an association as we think, while the amalgamation of societies under an imperial overlordship had, probably, many more voluntary aspects than we assume, because, at a time when we abhor and unquestionably condemn any form of annexation or predatory take-over of a society by a much stronger social organisation, we may emphasise, unwittingly, the historical evidence for a resistance to such practices, while ignoring, or minimising, those "treacherous" elements that seemed to have cooperated with the forces of an imperial dominance over their societies.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The requirements for large-scale social leadership.
A comparison between large-scale and small-scale social leaderships.
There is a vacuum of power, whenever the leader is not well-informed.
Disadvantages of having to work with "advisors".
Test-fights, and the sense of justice.
Violations of the natural hierarchical order.
Members, who are essentially strangers to each other.
The contract of "essential equality".
Facilitating the mechanisms for settling disputes.
The specialisation of a "judiciary".
Possibilities for a complex, multi-individual leadership structure.
Collecting taxes.
The path of least resistance.
Differences between large and small societies when collecting obligatory contributions.
The example of a leadership in battle.
The conscious design and construction of complex leadership institutions.
A surprising success, in spite of primitive administrative instruments.

To lead an empire requires remarkable qualities, at least, for those, who initiated this process of social and military expansion, as well as for those, who were able to restore a tottering empire after a weak and incompetent leadership had nearly destroyed it. How remarkable is a leadership, that is excercising successfully its authority over a realm the size of an empire! Its qualities can best be appreciated by reviewing the mechanisms of successful and beneficial leadership in a small, nomadic grouping.

We have seen, why the leader has to be the strongest, most dominant personality of the socially integrated grouping, but, we also know, that he has to be able to persuade the members of a small community to support him. This, they will do only, if there is a benefit to be derived, and, this benefit consists, primarily, in the form of "protection". The leader has to be able to defend "his people" and his territory, but, in addition, a good leader will be fair and decisive, when settling disputes between the members of his group.

Settling a dispute means, in essence, the imposition of a solution to a situation of conflict, as well as a halt to the fight. However, the imposition of a solution requires, at least, an intuitive feeling for, or "knowledge" of, the dispute, and, the ability to make a quick decision, which the disputants can acknowledge as fair, even, if such an acknowledgement comes grudgingly.

We see, then, that the successful and competent leader must have an intimate knowledge of, or familiarity with, the members of his social environment, the events that are going-on, the disputes and problems that exist or may arise. He must know the situation of his group in relation to its surroundings, including the probable and actual dangers that face the members of this socially integrated group. He must be able to organise the gathering of food, the hunt, the defense against hostile forces. He must be able to guide during crises and after the occurrence disastrous events, such as the death of a member, a serious illness or accident. In short; a good leader is like a concerned and competent father, who has to use a combination of force and persuasion, knowledge and example, to lead his group through a large variety of internal difficulties and external threats.

If he is successful, he will be admired, and, his followers will become extremely loyal, because they recognise, intuitively, the great benefits such a successful leader has brought the community, and, they are inspired by his exemplary behaviour and forceful personality.

So far, we have been talking about the natural leadership qualities of a gifted leader in a small group, and, it is not difficult to see, why the difficulties and qualities necessary for successful leadership over a large grouping, multiply prodigiously. The requirements of intimate knowledge about each and every member, as well as everything that is happening in society, remain as important as in the small grouping, but, as the population increases, we reach, quickly, a physiological limit to the amount of information a leader can know.

Regardless, how hard the leader tries to remain informed and on top of everything that is going-on, he finds it quickly impossible to do so. He will become tired and frustrated, and, his failure to be informed about everything gives others a chance to do things their way. The possibility emerges to excercise a measure of power or influence, wherever the leader falls-short, and, the leader has to rely upon advise and information given to him by the people in his environment.

However, it is not difficult to acknowledge, that such a change in the mechanisms of leadership has enormous consequences, and, that it is a real Pandora box of troubles. As soon as a leader relies upon information given by an "advisor", he loses first-hand knowledge, and, his decisions and directives become clouded by the errors in judgement or perceptional bias of his advisors. Yet, in a larger society, which does not have to be much larger than the natural grouping of a couple of dozen members, there is no other choice, because a leader has to make use of advisors assisting him in the gathering of information, and, in overseeing and implementing the decisions of the leader or leadership. In this way, the single "leader" evolves into a "leadership", where a number of trusted advisors and executives are added to the leadership position, in order to facilitate the task of making decisions and "ruling" a community.

The distance between the ordinary members and the leadership increases, and, with the inter-position of advisors and executors between the leader and his people, the chances of error and disenchantment, or the occurrence of frank injustices, become much greater.

Perhaps, you would like me to review, how the sense and the concept of justice evolve in such a small and natural social environment, where all the members are grouped into a hierarchical order, and, where the position of each member is determined by a "test-fight" (a process of trial and error, where each individual can test for him- or herself where he or she belongs in this hierarchical order, because it is possible to test, frequently, whom one can dominate and whom one is dominated by.)

We have advanced the idea, that this mechanism of the test-fight is the basis for our "sense of justice", and, that any decision by the leader altering such a tested hierarchical arrangement, constitutes, not only, a serious error on the part of the leader, but, it introduces a sense of frustration and resentment in the party who has been "artificially demoted" and is thereby placed below his or her tested hierarchical position.

Leadership decisions in the settling of disputes are already apt to affront one party or the other, but, the elevation of advisors and executors to share in the functions and powers of leadership, as well as the leader's reliance on their advise and executive actions, introduces a nearly unavoidable series of violations of the natural hierarchical order, unless the leader learns to carry-out the tasks of leadership with those who are also highly placed in the hierarchical order.

Then, there is another problem. When the social unit becomes larger, the hierarchical order becomes increasingly cumbersome and counter-productive. While reflecting, accurately, the biological background of our behaviour, the hierarchical test-fight becomes increasingly difficult to carry-out in practice, whenever the membership becomes larger. Hierarchical ordening implies a "knowledge", or, at least, a familiarity of each member with the relative strengths and weaknesses of all the other personalities within the social unit, but, in the larger society, this familiarity or knowledge falls-short. There will be many members, who do not know each other well, and because of this failure to know each other well, their hierarchical relationships are unclear. Naturally, there will be an atmosphere of caution or suspicion, whenever such members meet, for one reason or another.

There is a very ingenious solution to this problem. It suggests itself, partly, as a near-inevitability, and, partly, as a stroke of genius. This solution suggests itself, whenever the leader becomes aware of the natural trend towards an abolition of this hierarchical differentiation in the larger society, because there it is replaced by a, de-facto, status-quo of "essential equality".

Certainly, not everyone shares in this process of essential equality in social position. The leader, together with others who are obviously endowed with major capabilities and have earned the respect and admiration of the people, will automatically continue to enjoy a position of authority and influence, while those, who violate the tacit codes and agreements of acceptable social conduct, will be treated with contempt and suspicion.

Yet, the importance of the development of a core of equally placed members lies in the fact, that, such a position of essential equality requires a set of articulated and sophisticated principles for social inter-actions, in order to preserve this all-important sense of justice that has arisen between the members as a result of a "justified" hierarchical position. A special code of conduct, or "social contract", evolves, in order to keep the principles of essential equality intact, whenever ordinary members who are essentially strangers to each other, come into contact.

The code of conduct establishes a position of essential equality between the members of a social environment, even, if it happens, largely, in a pragmatic manner. This code of conduct makes the members less suspicious and hostile towards each other. A total familiarity with an individual's personality is then replaced by a "quick scan", in order to see, whether or not someone's conduct is in accordance with the accepted norms resulting from adherence to a contract of essential equality.

The formulation of a conscious code of behaviour is very helpful for the leader or the leadership, especially, when judging a dispute. In stead of having to be familiar with all the events and characteristics of the personalities involved, the leader has now a focus by which to judge. He can zero-in, during his inquiries and preliminary familiarisation with the case, on the behaviour of the disputants in relation to a specific event. It becomes, then, easier to decide, who is right and who is wrong, or, how a dispute can be solved to the satisfaction of most participants in a dispute.

Once the importance of a code of conduct for the maintenance of essential equality has been recognised, the governing of a large group of people becomes much easier. Nevertheless, an articulated code of conduct bcomes, quickly, the special domain of a "judiciary", where a group of competent, dedicated and specialised people function as legal experts and judges. These people are acutely aware of the importance of competent and fair judgement for the sake of civil tranquility, as well as the preservation of this all-important "sense of justice" amongst the people.

The development of a consciously articulated code of behaviour, the differentiation of leadership functions over a number of competent sub-leaders, specialised in their knowledge but bound-together by a rigid code of ethical guidelines and loyalty to the overall leadership, are some of the more important developments which led to the successful establishment of the larger societies.

Eventually, the leadership differentiated into an elaborate "administration", where a large number of people became organised into a complex bureaucracy, governing an empire or large nation with a measure of success, at least, for a while.

If a leadership was competent and successful, it would do everything just as well as the gifted, caring, careful and concerned natural leader, who functioned as a father for his small community. The leadership took care of the threats from the outside, supervised all the processes that were necessary to feed, clothe, house and protect each member of society according to an accepted code of justified behaviour. The leadership intervened in disputes and conducted a competent inquiry, followed by a considerate and fair judgement, which would be acceptable to nearly everyone involved.

This complex, bureaucratic leadership is, under ideal circumstances, also capable of "knowing" each and every individual, each and every event in society, and, it reports, fairly and honestly, all relevant information to the "head" of the leadership, who has the responsibility to make the ultimate leadership decisions.

An efficient multi-individual leadership excercises also a competent and fair system of taxation, where the obligatory contributions of the members of society are collected. This, is not an easy task. Of course, what is considered fair, depends, first of all, on the code of conduct and the conditions of justice governing a community, but, often, the system of taxation does not reflect a sophisticated attempt to be fair. It is usually a pragmatic approach, because the mechanisms involved in collecting taxes according to the ability to pay, rely on a sophisticated concept, and, this type of tax-collection is one of the most difficult enterprises in a large society.

The leadership of a large empire did not even try to implement a system of taxation according to the ability to pay, but, it levied taxes upon an entire group or social unit that had been brought under "imperial control". It was, then, left to the regional leaderships to collect the taxes any way they saw fit. Not surprisingly, the collection of taxes did not reflect a standard of fairness or justice, but, usually, it reflected a system that was easiest to carry-out. The weak, the vulnerable, the disadvantaged, those, lowest in the social hierarchy, were, invariably, taxed the heaviest, because they would offer the least resistance.

If we enlarge the concept of tax-collection beyond the accumulation of "gold or monies", and, if we include, also, the forced contribution of "labour", where people were forced to contribute their time and physical strength, it is abundantly clear, that the heaviest burdens of contribution always fell on the lower classes.

Yet, this is quite different from the contributions exacted from the members of a small, natural, nomadic community. Of course, there is no such practice as the "collection of taxes", but, certainly, there is a subconscious contract between leader and members. The natural leader is primarily responsible for carrying the burdens of defense and organisation, while the members let themselves be "organised" to perform chores or become fighters in the defense of the group.

Nevertheless, the function of providing leadership in battle rested on the leaders. This was, after all, the primary reason, why they were accepted, or, even, admired as leaders, and, there was no possibility to "sit-back" and send their "subjects" onto the battlefields during their "war-games" with neighbouring leaders.

Regardless, how well the multi-individual leadership of a large society tried to take care of its empire, fostering a sense of justice and belonging, and, taking care of external threats or internal needs, at no time could the large leadership rival, in competence and natural fairness, the leadership of the small, nomadic community. The reasons are not difficult to find, because the multi-individual leadership is extremely difficult to organise well. It is nearly impossible to prevent such a multi-individual leadership from falling into abuse and corruption, and, the differentiated bureaucratic leadership of a large society requires a level of philosophical awareness and technological competence that has never been fully appreciated by the participants, nor, was it provided by the circumstances.

Again, the reasons are not surprising. The natural leader requires only the attitudes of care, concern and intelligence, in order to lead his small group effectively and justly, but, the many functions of competent large-scale leadership have to be shared by, and organised over, a great number of human bureaucrats. This requires efficient "channels of organisation and communication", which have to be created and maintained by the innovative human mind. These organisational channels do not exist, naturally, while they do exist for the natural leader in the form of physiological and psychological capabilities, such as sense-organs, conscious awarenesses, as well as the faculty of intelligent and courageous behaviour.

The channels of multi-individual leadership have to be created consciously, and, they have to be safeguarded, carefully, before, even, a small measure of success for large-scale social leadership can be expected. In a way, it is surprising, how much these primitive, multi-individual bureaucratic leaderships have accomplished in the empires of the past, in spite of their short duration, their inevitable fall into corruption and inter-necine strife, and their great short-comings in the ideals of universal justice and individualised care and attention.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

The decay of an empire; incompetent officials and defensive leaders.
The ambitions of a vigorous leadership in a healthy social environment.
Advantages of a quick conquest.
Modern ideals of essential equality were largely absent from previous empires; reasons.
The preservation of cultural diversity under political unity.
Opening-up many channels of contact.
A return of restless attitudes after the feelings of gratitude and the memories of an impoverished past have worn-off.
We still have not made use of all the possibilities to create a stable, viable, large-scale society.
A lack of insight about what we need.
The birth of an empire was not always based on the drive to conquer.
A review of the problems of, and possibilities for, large-scale social leadership; succession problems.
Faulty leadership is, most often, due to incompetence of the personality.
The difficulties of filling the seat of a gifted and popular leader.
Why weak leadership is disastrous.
Advisors and their self-interests.
Receiving help from a situation of social "transparence".
The need to cultivate a broad sphere of concern for people we do not even know.

Let us look, now, in more detail, at the reasons, why these multi-individual bureaucratic leaderships fall-short in their efforts to provide competent and just leadership for the entire realm, and, how the processes of corruption and decay always get a chance to come to the fore, whenever the leadership comes into the hands of less competent, fearful, defensive and ignorant people.

If we look at the way a large empire comes into being, we see some of the reasons, why the mechanisms and objectives of a small-scale social leadership do not lead to the same results in a large social unit. A large empire arises, invariably, as the result of a series of conquests, and, the subjugation of a number of previously more or less independent social entities by a "master society" creates, automatically, a hierarchical differentiation between the various social units and ethnic groupings that make-up the extent of an empire.

Certainly, this may well be an improvement over the way these independent societies used to inter-act with each other, before they were brought together under imperial leadership, because they would often see each other as enemies or competitors, and, they would, frequently, behave with suspicion and hostility towards each other. Now, they have been swallowed-up by an even more ambitious, expanding and vigorous society, together with a number of other social groupings, and, they form together the complex mosaic of "the empire".

The ambitions of a vigorous leadership are invariably translated into the conquest of other social entities. We assume, that we see, here, a fundamental vitality or elan vital at work, which seeks an outlet for its surplus energies. The energies of the people and their leaders are expressed in a series of expansionary moves, where the sphere of influence and dominance is gradually enlarged.

Some neighbouring societies have recognised their own relative weakness compared to a more vigorous new-comer, and, they seek a treaty of friendship, where they agree to refrain from challenging the imperial designs of a vigorous society, and, they agree to make a certain contribution in exchange for "protection" and the preservation of most of their social structures and leadership institutions. Other social entities or ethnic groupings put-up a resistance, but, if the contest is unequal, the resistance is quickly overcome. No significant atrocities have been committed, and an attitude of cooperation and good-will is often secured fairly quickly by a generous and benevolent conqueror, after his victory.

Throughout history, we see these mechanisms at work, but, the extent to which an expansionary society succeeds in building-up a large and lasting domain, varies a great deal, and, we reserve, customarily, the term "empire" for those expansionary efforts, which led to outstanding and remarkable examples of prosperity, benevolent leadership, as well as profound social, economic and cultural changes. These changes came-about as a result of the fusion or forced amalgamation of a large number of societies and ethnic groupings under the administrative and authoritative entity of a political empire.

Yet, the modern ideals of essential equality for each and every citizen within a large social unit, were never realised to any significant extent. The success of imperial leaderships depended upon the cooperation with pre-existing local leaderships, and, therefore, the imperial conglomerate of a large number of societies resulted in a measure of loyalty and submission to such an overall leadership.

Nevertheless, the societies lived and regulated themselves to a large extent, because the reason for the empire's expansion was dominance; not to bring social justice, or a new way of life. Cultural diversity remained intact, and, the peoples in these various regions retained their different perceptions of reality, beliefs, customs, mores, ways of life and codes of conduct, as well as their own principles of justice.

However, the fact, that they were, now, united under a single overlord increased their peaceful contacts, because sensible and just imperial leaders would squash serious internal squabbling or fighting amongst the various communities. This opened-up channels of contact, which had never existed before, and, these channels of contact came under the direct protection and guidance of the overall leadership.

These channels were partly administrative, as the imperial leadership organised ways and means to check on the loyalty and contributions of local governments. Partly, these channels were commercial in nature, as travel between the various regions of the empire was protected and encouraged. Merchants, soldiers, bureaucrats and leaders, be they political or religious, started to travel and intermingle in the many different societies, and, we have recognised, for a long time, the beneficial effects of such a cross-fertilisation of ideas and contacts, made possible by an empire under a strong, effective leadership.

Yet, the problems for even the most capable leaderships were enormous. After the initial gratitude towards a generous and benevolent conqueror had worn-off, the subjugated population and its leaders would become restless and resentful of the taxes that were being levied. Rebellion remained always just around the corner, unless the increased trade and cultural contacts produced benefits in the form of economic or cultural advantages, enriching the lives of the people to a point that had not been experienced before.

Under such fortunate circumstances, the people would experience tangible benefits from belonging to the empire, and their instincts of rebellion and independence would be subdued. However, after a period of prosperity and rising expectations, there would, inevitably, come a period of economic and cultural stagnation or decline. People would get restless again, and, the lure of rebellion and the aspiration of independence would return.

Therefore, the demands made upon the overall leadership would always exceed the capabilities of its leaders and bureaucracies. Regardless, how honest, hard working or fair the leaders and bureaucrats would be, somewhere in the empire, a group would be unhappy and resentful. Somewhere, mistakes would be made, or a bureaucrat would have abused his authority, or, he would have fallen-prey to the temptations of bribery, favouritism and the accumulation of a personal fortune. Somewhere, the frailty of the bureaucratic chain of information gathering and executive commands would become apparent, because some people would slacken in their duties and loyalties, and, they would become somewhat dishonest. Somewhere, there would always be someone, or some group, who would put his or its own interests ahead of the empire and its leadership.

Communications were cumbersome and time consuming because of the great distances involved. The problems of communication and administration were the most serious obstacles to the unity of a very large empire, and, these problems have only very recently been overcome. The problems of selective and biased information gathering or reporting still beset all modern leaderships, and, we have only just begun to realise, in a general, philosophical sense, why these administrations failed in the past, and, why they still fail in the present.

The technical means for effective, large-scale administration have only recently been developed with the evolution of tele-communications and the gathering, sorting and retrieval of information with the help of computers. We still have a long way to go, before we have made effective use of all the technological aids which are now at our disposal. The reason for this delay is the fact, that we still have to recognise the needs of large-scale leaderships and administrative functions, and, we still have to become clearly aware of the reasons, why the leaderships of large societies are so vulnerable to the processes of decay.

In spite of the many instances, where we see a remarkable flourish of civilisation co-incide with a prosperous period in a large empire, the success-rate and durability of many aspiring and expansionist societies is so low, that we tend to be suspicious about the intentions of every vigorous society. Emotionally, we are still poorly prepared to live within a large empire or federation, in spite of the fact, that we all would be hard-pressed to prove, that we would be better of under conditions of local autonomy.

Certainly, there are many examples in history, where the establishment of an empire has been based, simply, on the lure of economic exploitation, but, we see, throughout history, the power and prevalence of the drive to dominate, and, there are many instances, where the conquering leadership was willing to assume a measure of genuine leadership and concern for those people, who had come under its "jurisdiction".

The birth of an empire was not always the result of the drive to conquer or dominate. Sometimes, the level of strife between a number of rival societies was so intense and weakening, that they seemed to invite their take-over by a larger, third party, which would, finally, put an end to their wars.

Yet, emotionally, we seem to prefer to perish in a disastrous war of rivalry, each side proudly dying for the "justice of their cause". We do not want to be subjugated, together with our enemies, under the yoke of a far-reaching and often far-sighted imperial leadership, in spite of the fact, that our viability would improve a great deal as a result of such a subjugation.

We have mentioned the great difficulties associated with a large, cumbersome bureaucracy, in particular, when communications are slow and difficult, and, when there are insufficient checks and safeguards to ensure the loyalty, competence and integrity of bureaucrats. We know about the inevitable deterioration of bureaucratic functions when controls slacken, and, we know, how bureaucrats are invariably tempted to use their authoritative positions to further their own existential interests. We know, how, even, the best motivated leadership is hampered by such a slow and cumbersome bureaucracy, and, how their grasp over the realities within the empire must suffer as a result of the inefficiencies and deficiencies of their administrative apparatus.

Even, if the bureaucracy and the leadership are as good as is humanly possible, the tensions within and between the regions of the empire never cease to exist. Rising expectations are not met, mistakes aggravate the feelings of frustration, loyalties waver, customs clash, and the frequent contacts between differing cultures and ethnic groupings erode the cultural code of each one of them. Ideas and beliefs, as well as the social fabric of many groupings are put under a severe strain, primarily, by the rapid changes in living standards, ideas, beliefs, insights, technological developments, customs and modes of travel and inter-action.

It is remarkable, how well some empires endured all these problems. Some of them developed such a rich treasure-house of cultural innovations, in particular in the stucture of their leadership and administration, that many of their challengers would rapidly become absorbed into the empire and would be transformed into loyal citizens. Great progress was made in the techniques of settling disputes and the conscious or explicit formulation of the principles of justice.

Yet, many more problems remained for each and every leadership structure. The problem of leadership succession has always been a formidable one. The succession of a natural leader occurs nearly automatically, as we have described in the mechanisms of the hierarchical order. As soon as the leader becomes incapable of maintaining his position against a challenger, he is displaced. In a large society, however, the leadership has become a differentiated structure, and a method of succession through a test of strength becomes intolerably chaotic and destructive. Yet, force remains one of the most widely used methods of succession, as we see in the struggle for power between leadership candidates.

Far-sighted leaders have often tried to avoid the chaos, brutality and devastation associated with such "law-less" ways of succeeding a leader, and, many societies learned, how vulnerable they were during such a power-struggle at the top. One solution has been, to make the mechanisms of leadership succession dependent on an inherited right of access to the power of leadership. While this may give a measure of legality and stability to the process of leadership succession, we see, that, such a hereditary line of succession is an affront to the innate hierarchical order because of the disregard for the qualities and capabilities of ambitious pesonalities, who lacked the hereditary advantage of a royal birth.

The accession to the seat of power by hereditarily qualified, but weak and insecure leaders, gave rise to extensive intrigues and power-struggles behind the scenes. The effects of weak, defensive and introvert leadership by people, who, often, became leaders, not by choice, but, by the vagaries of happenstance, have been so disastrous, so ruinous, and so murderous, that we should have no hesitation to reject the hereditary mode of leadership succession out of hand.

What then? Are we going back to a primitive struggle for power, or, is it possible to devise a more beneficial and orderly mechanism of succession that is acceptable to a great majority of the people? Surely, we can, but before we consider the possibilities and problems associated with a popularly elected leadership, let us go back to the changing attitudes and behaviour-patterns of those, who are born and educated in a relatively large, sophisticated and conglomerate society.

Let us look, also, at the modern, large, affluent societies, rather than the empires of the past. The problems of an affluent society with weak "public attitudes" are closely related to the problems of the weak, hereditary leaderships of the past, and, let us review, therefore, some of the disastrous leadership attitudes and practices that hasten the demise of a large society. These attitudes and practices encourage the phenomena of fraud, corruption, oppression and exploitation.

The most common cause of faulty leadership is the inadequacy of the personality for the job at hand. Obviously, leadership qualities have to mature, and, they have to be cultivated, but, after the death of a forceful and influential leader, the expectations will be high, and, it is very difficult for anyone to fill the vacant seat of power, regardless, how qualified and capable the person may be in his or her own right.

A successful and forceful leader aggravates the problems of succession also in another way; by discouraging truly competent people in his or her environment. The dominant leader tends to surround himself with a number of puppets; people, who admire and flatter to the point, that they are unable to criticise constructively. A dominant personality does not encourage or tolerate other strong-willed individuals, and, this is one of the main reasons, why a strong leadership is, so often, followed by a weak one.

Weak leadership is disastrous, because the anxieties and introvert attitudes of a weak leader create a clique of influential "protectors", whose self-interests co-incide with maintaining a weak leader in a position of power, but, as a result, effective guidance, as well as a true grasp over the many conflicting trends and needs in society, are lacking.

Sometimes, a weak and cynical leadership tries to maintain its position by playing rival forces against each other, and, while such a policy has been hailed as "clever", it is self-defeating, if applied to rival groupings within an established political unit, because the practice of playing one faction out against another destroys the remnants of mutual trust, and, it whips-up the tensions of hatred and hostility.

Weak leadership is disastrous, but, unfortunately, very few societies have been able to safeguard themselves against the perils and vicissitudes of having poor and incompetent leaders. Small groupings are much more capable of ensuring a succession of good and beneficial leaders, and, we should, once again, examine the reasons, why leadership succession in the larger societies is so much more difficult, and, why the fortunes of a society fluctuate so haphazardly with the quality of their leaderships, or their lack of qualities to lead.

The reason is to be found, once again, in the quality of "transparence". In a small society, it is so much easier for people to oversee their society, to judge the quality of the leadership, to know, what kind of leadership is required, and, to come to a reasonable consensus about the type of leadership and social objectives that are needed.

In the large society, people do not know each other, anymore. Society is fragmented into a number of divergent cultures and beliefs. Customs and ways of life are often at odds or hostile towards each other. It is much more difficult to find a consensus, and, there is always a certain degree of pressure and coercion at work in order to keep the larger societies together. Besides, there are all the problems associated with a large administration or bureaucracy, as we discussed.

No, it is not surprising, that leaderships of large societies show, often, gross inadequacies, and, we should go back and review the possibilities that are given by a process of cultural evolution for the peoples of the larger societies. In spite of numerous difficulties and frequent set-backs, where people revert, time and again, to a much narrower sphere of concern, with a smaller perimeter of defense, we see, also, that the frequent contacts, exchanges, changing life-styles and a broadened sphere of interests and concerns, opens the way to evolve broad insights and adopt attitudes of genuine concern for a large number of people, even, if a large majority of the members are not personally known to each other.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The small isolated society is subjected to a reduced rate of change.
When the processes of individualisation are being suppressed.
Cross-fertilisation in a multi-cultural society.
Rewards for those, who are willing to step beyond the boundaries of their culture.
Broader conceptual horizons, a more sophisticated perception of reality, and a potential for more refined attitudes.
A chance to broaden the sphere of concern.
Cynical opportunism always leads to isolation.
A loosening of moral guidelines may lead to exploitation and oppression, but, it may also make us susceptible to a more generalised code of ethics.
The art of recognising each other's existential needs.
Thoughts and attitudes advance through a process of challenge.
Man's tools.
The contradictory aspects of benefit and harm are associated with every innovation or change.
Learning to evaluate all the advantages and disadvantages of a situation.
A precise adaptation, and the challenge of change.
Scientific and religious perceptions of reality.
We all rely, far too readily, upon an authoritative source of information.

If a society is small, somewhat isolated and surrounded by a harsh but stable environment, the society tends to be a close-knit unit with stable customs, codes of conduct and leadership patterns. In such a society, there will be little variation in beliefs or behaviour from one individual to the next, aside from the differences sanctioned by the hierarchical order of the community. No new ideas filter through from the outside. There are few experiences or observations that drive an individual to challenge the accepted order. Changes occur slowly. The security of each individual remains completely dependent upon his or her acceptance by the community.

There is nowhere to go, and, it is logical to see a somewhat dull, monotonous and routine existence without rebellious trends. The belief structures are absolute and never questioned. Authority of tradition and the elders is supreme. Individualisation is nearly absent, because it would not be tolerated.

It is logical, that authority depends on the level of protection that is being provided. In a small and isolated community, children and adolescents soon realise, who has real authority, and, who provides the essential mechanisms of protection; whose word is law, and, what penalties are meted-out for infractions of customs and mores. There are no clear-cut, well-articulated general principles of behaviour, but, customs and codes of conduct are inter-woven with elaborate religious rituals, forming a strong social straight-jacket.

If a society comes into frequent contact with other societies, the members begin to realise, that there are different ways of interpreting nature, as well as different ways of looking at what is happening. There are different religious images and codes of conduct, different rituals and judgements of right and wrong, good and bad. Inevitably, some members on either side of the lines of contact will take over from the other side, some of the beliefs, attitudes, methods of tool-making, or, ways of living.

This is the essence of the process of "cross-fertilisation". It creates tensions between those, who have some feeling for new ideas, and those, who want to adhere, somewhat slovenly and anxiously, to familiar traditions. This is the classical anti-thesis between the established and the more adventurous segments of a society.

If a number of cultures are brought under the leadership of a dominant society with a competent bureaucracy, the level of cultural exchange and individual contacts increases sharply. Those, who engage in such venturesome exchanges, would then enjoy a measure of protection from the overall leadership, because this leadership recognises that such exchange processes are a fore-runner of increased trade and prosperity. Individual security, as well as the possibility of "finding a living" are greatly enhanced for those who want to step beyond the traditional boundaries of their culture, but, as result, the value and authority of their cultural guidelines begin to decline.

The overall cultural and political authority shifts to the "master society", because it provides security and order, and, its cultural guidelines begin to carry more weight. However, the local cultural origins of someone's up-bringing remain powerful behavioural regulators, because it is in this cultural locale of our up-bringing, that we receive our first and strongest impressions, and, it is here, that we lay the strongest bonds of affection with other people.

Increased contacts and the exchange of a large variety of ideas and concepts may lead to more advanced techniques to provide for one's livelyhood and to organise a community. These developments are the foundation for broader conceptual horizons, more sophisticated reality perceptions, and a refinement of attitudes when dealing with people who are essentially strangers.

The reader may have little difficulty accepting the first two conclusions, but, it may not be clear, why enlarged contacts, a more sophisticated interpretation of reality, together with shifting lines of authority, should lead to a refinement in attitudes and contacts. You may argue, that the opposite is more likely. People are now freed from ethical constraints, as well as moral or religious sanctions, having abandoned their local cultural guidelines. You may argue, that the increased sophistication in contacts is likely to lead to more sophisticated ways of deceiving each other!

"Why would the loosening of local customs and codes of behaviour lead to a greater refinement in attitudes?", you may ask. "This may not be the case at all, because we assume, that, such a refinement is the result of a larger sphere of concern, based upon a recognition of the similarities in needs and suffering of human beings, regardless of the specifics of their cultural code, is it not?"

I agree with you, and, perhaps, we should not imply, that increased contacts and a more cosmopolitan outlook lead, necessarily, to a greater refinement in attitudes, but, it facilitates the adoption of more refined attitudes. The enlarged sphere of contacts with each other will also make people more aware of the similarities in ambitions, needs, drives and mistakes.

Certainly, these contacts tend to undermine the security and unquestionability of local beliefs and behavioural codes, and, the abandonment of such codes may be replaced, for a while, by an attitude of cynical opportunism. However, anyone who adopts the attitudes of cynical opportunism and ruthless exploitation consistently, will learn, very soon, that he or she is surrounded by a wall of suspicion and hatred. One's enemies are waiting, patiently, for a mistake, and, such an individual finds himself, eventually, caged in a much more confined sphere of existence than the society he has left.

People have recognised, from the dawn of conscious awareness, that an attitude of ruthless egocentricity is self-defeating, even, if it brings short-term gains. Trade and commerce are based on the insight, that mutual trust is essential for the successful conclusion of a voluntary exchange. Certainly, we are tempted, from time to time, to ask a little more than we really need to compensate us for our troubles or labours. The temptation to gouge and reap wind-fall profits is always there, and the intelligent enterpriser will always turn his attention to economic activities that will bring him a lucrative financial reward, without losing the good-will and trust of those he deals with.

We do not deny, therefore, that a loosening of moral precepts, based on locally valid cultural guidelines, can lead to exploitation and oppression, but, we see, also, that these increased contacts show us the limitations of such attitudes and local beliefs, and, increased contacts make us aware of the similarities that exist between people, in spite of a large spectrum of cultural diversities. Increased cultural contacts show us the common experiences of joy and suffering, of pleasure and pain, of our search for peace with the gods, or the neighbours, as well as the ever-recurring temptation to take advantage of a gullible individual.

The absoluteness of our cultural certainties disappears into a morass of confusing contradictions, but, inevitably, this morass becomes the seed-bed for a reality perception that is, still, religious in nature, but, refined by logical thought. This reality perception encompasses, eventually, a much more differentiated picture of reality than was possible before. This refined and more generalised reality interpretation can, then, be shared by people from different cultural backgrounds, and, as a result, people are less likely to see their neighbours as total strangers or arch-enemies.

People begin to recognise the common features between them, and, they can, therefore, easier identify with each other. This is a very slow process, and the road is first traveled by a few enterprising individuals, but, occasionally, the successful spread of a more sophisticated perception of reality lays the foundation for a slow increase in the attitudes of tolerance, understanding and compassion.

Certainly, this trend is often punctuated by set-backs, and, frequently, the more sophisticated belief structure appears to be only a thin veneer, that is stripped-away quite easily. Man reverts, so easily, to primitive and primordial instincts! Yet, let us not despair, and, if we look at history on a truly broad scale, we see, that human behaviour is generally more refined, now, than it was centuries ago, because we have begun to recognise each other's legitimate interests and existential requirements, far more so, than was the case in the past.

We still kill each other for reasons of greed or political dissent, but, we also recognise, increasingly, that we have to give each other a place to live and work, if we want to avoid the ever-recurring cycle of conquest, oppression, revolt, destruction and decay.

The evolution of man's reality perceptions can be traced, clearly, in his religious beliefs. We see, how the great mono-theistic belief structures arose, after intensive contact and turmoil set the people thinking and questioning the validity of their beliefs. If a society potters unmolested from one generation to the next, without significant challenges, thoughts do not advance and concepts do not change. The religious imagery remains a stifled pantheon of spiritual powers or demonic forces, of vague threats and unreasonable expectations, but, if a society is buffeted by frequent challenges and hostilities, and, if it starts to recognise, intuitively, that there is a correlation between its fortunes and its behaviour, then, it will develop more sophisticated, but, also, more reliable belief structures, which, on occasion, become a great legacy of hope and strength for many future generations in many different cultures and ethnic groupings.

Sometimes, a reality perception is so successful, that it survives for more than a thousand years, and, for many centuries, it may function as a nearly unquestioned, absolute reality. Yet, sooner or later, a challenge develops, in particular, if the lofty idealism of a Great Creed is tarnished by the greed and ignorance of its believers.

However, even, in the absence of a corrupting influence, reality perceptions are always subject to change and challenge, especially, if a large number of actively exploring and curious human beings learn to develop a large number of tools to help them improve the ease of their existence, as well as the range of their sense-impressions.

Man's first tools were a stick and a rock, which could be picked-up because his hands had "come free", after his descent from the trees, together with the development of a bi-pedal gait. When man learned to communicate sense-impressions with the help of gesticulations, mimicry and other forms of imitation, he developed another tool; his conscious awareness. This became a powerful instrument in the task of mastering the environment conceptually, and increasing the predictability of on-going events.

For a long time, man's tools were geared, primarily, to facilitate his actions, e.g. a knife, a stick, a sword, a loom, or a plow, and, to some extent, even, a musical instrument. They were all devices that made it easier to carry-out a certain task. This, in turn, made it easier to do one's chores, and to satisfy existential requirements.

All tools, especially those, which can be used as weapons, must have been welcomed with mixed feelings, and, perhaps, with an element of fear, because, as it became easier to kill large game and provide food, it also became easier to kill each other during a fight. Nearly all of man's inventions and innovations have the potential to ease the struggle for existence, or, to threaten this existence even more.

This dual aspect of each and every invention makes us so ambivalent in our attitudes towards evolutionary developments. Most of the time, we can see some advantages in a new technology, or, with a new way of looking at things, but, we also see disadvantages or dangerous consequences. Often, we feel, intuitively, that the increased threats to our security and comfortable life-style outweigh the potential benefits of a particular development, and, we belong, then, squarely to the older, "conservative" generations.

In the overall balance of nature, the advantages of a particular evolutionary development have to outweigh the disadvantages, otherwise, the development will come to a "dead-end". Undoubtedly, many of our modern technologial advances threaten the security of us all, yet, so far, we seem powerless to take the course of events into our own hands. Too many people still fail to recognise the dangers, and, too many people still think, that we need all these military and industrial tools to safeguard our well-being and privileged existence. By the time we have learned, how dangerous and polluting these tools and weapons can be, we will have a serious, or, even, a disastrous problem of contamination and pollution on our hands.

Let us come back to the idea, that the development of man's ability to design and invent tools, was motivated by the facilitation of a task or an objective, and, that these innovations can, therefore, make a contribution to man's intuitive search for an easier or better way to live. However, better living conditions are only partially determined by tools and the ease of performing the necessary chores. To a large extent, living conditions are determined by the attitudes of people towards each other. Beliefs, customs and mores guide inter-personal relationships, and they have, therefore, a direct impact on the ease of existence or the "quality of life". Once again, we see the importance of the "tool" of a "conscious belief structure".

We have seen, that a small and isolated community gets a chance to adapt its code of conduct, quite precisely, to the prevailing circumstances. If these circumstances change erratically or rapidly, the code of conduct, as well as beliefs and reality perceptions, get into trouble. It becomes, then, more difficult to provide a satisfactory perception of reality, as well as a satisfactory code for collective or individual behaviour, until such time, that a far more sophisticated and complex perception of reality takes all these rapid changes and turmoil in its stride.

Our concepts and beliefs are, indeed, subject to rapid changes, whenever we come into contact with a large variety of cultures and different beliefs. Yet, this wide exposure to a variety of cultures makes it possible to see, that there are very important common denominators between all these cultural codes and different perceptions of reality. They all assume the existence of a variety of "anthropomorphic", or man-like forces, which are held responsible for the diverging and contradictory forces man is exposed to. While there is an endless variety in the way these forces relate to each other and the existence of man, we see, also, many similarities, because the physiological mechanisms of conscious awareness and the reception of sense-impressions are similar from one individual to the next.

This is the reason, why the worlds of gods and demons resemble each other so much, whenever we compare one religious belief structure with an other. True, we can always find and emphasise differences between religious beliefs, and, we can certainly see different levels of sophistication, because some cultural codes have integrated the network of anthropomorphic forces into a far more coherent system compared to others. The more primitive belief structures remain, at least, in our perception, quite vague, illogical and contradictory, yet, they all share the authority of tradition, the force of ritual, and the emotional investment made by personal sacrifice.

There is one other element that is common to all religious reality interpretations; primitive and sophisticated beliefs alike. This is the fact, that they all depend on reality perceptions that are made without the help of "special tools". This does not mean, that the beliefs or observations man has been able to make with the help of such special tools are necessarily outside the realm of religious beliefs. Nevertheless, one of the differences between science and religion is, indeed, characterised, at least in part, by the fact, that the scientific imagery has come to rely, increasingly, upon sense-impressions that were made possible by the interposition of sophisticated technological instruments between man and his objects of investigation.

The other major distinction, and, indeed, a more essential one, is the fact, that science relies, at least, in principle, on the authority of "verifiability"; the possibility, that any individual, who does not believe a scientific observation, can go through the trouble of gaining first-hand experience and knowledge about the phenomemon that has been reported.

In practice, however, we all rely, far too readily, upon our willingness to trust and believe a respected source of information, and, the role of authority in propagating scientific beliefs and view-points has become just as important as in the teaching of religious beliefs. Besides, we have come, ruefully, to the conclusion, that, verifiability still does not solve all the problems arising from diverging interpretations of a particular scientific reality.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

A confusing fragmentation of knowledge, and the specialisation of expertise.
People look at the imagery of the sciences with the attitudes of a religious Faith.
Lay-people have to believe in authority, because they lack the skills to verify the scientific imagery for themselves.
By and large, the sciences have been silent about the experiences of beauty and love, compassion and concern.
A love-hate affair.
The polarising influence of a conflict between scientific and religious reality perceptions; an avenue for reconciliation.
There are many forms of erroneous behaviour.
Dissent or disbelief can not be rooted-out by force.
Patient humility, and a willingness to learn.
A universally valid perception of reality.
Advancing the relationships beween people and their leaders.
The responsibilities of the franchise to vote, or, to express an opinion in a referendum.
Irresponsible promises.
Learning to accept responsibilities and obligations.
What I would like to teach; a short summary of the essence of good citizenship.
The task of global integration can be accomplished, and, it has to be accomplished in the not too distant future.

Difficulties in agreement about the interpretation of a phenomenon, or, the correlation of a large number of phenomena in a vast and fundamental perspective, together with the proliferation of scientific tools and an ever-expanding number of sense-impressions, have led to a fragmentation of knowledge, as well as a degree of specialisation of the sciences that is causing confusion and anxiety amongst many people. Just like a technological break-through in the past, many people are not sure of the value, or the threats, associated with the many new fields of science and technology.

At times, the beauty of a thorough piece of scientific work, the vast improvement in our understanding of a specific phenomenon, as well as the remarkable coherence in perception that emerges from such work, may create a feeling of well-being, as well as a sense of trust in the fruits of science. Yet, scientists forget, so easily, that people look at the imagery of the sciences with an attitude of "Faith". People have to accept the imagery of the sciences on the authority of scientists, because, most of these images are too sophisticated and too complex to be understood in detail, and, the development of such imagery is too intricate, and the technology of the investigative instrumentation, too difficult, to be understood by the average person.

As a result, one has the choice to believe or not to believe, whatever image one is being presented with. If the scientific experts bring a confusing and fragmented imagery, or, if they start to disagree with each other in many important details, we should not be surprised to see, that the confidence of the people in the usefulness and truthfulness of the scientific imagery, begins to decline.

In addition, the sciences have given man, so far, a rather stark and depressing portrait of his own existence and biological origins. Until the present time, the sciences have emphasised the animal instincts of man, and, man's behaviour is seen, primarily, as a result of the ruthless mechanisms of natural selection, but, the sciences have been silent about the ability to feel a sense of beauty, love, compassion and concern.

Throughout man's recent history, the relationships between the people and the sciences have been a love-hate affair. Sometimes, the sciences have been revered, beyond reason, especially, during periods of prosperity and technological marvels, but, at other times, the mood has turned to suspicion and hatred, when prosperity declined, chaos became rampant and the problems of pollution and contamination escalated. Then, we feared, that these same technological marvels were going to destroy us, as well as our environment.

We should not forget, that the attitudes of scientists, as well as those who act in the name of science, are just as important in determining the attitudes of the people, as those of the clergy. If ignorance, abuse and greed could bring the mighty Church of the Middle Ages close to collapse, then, we should not be surprised to see, that technological and scientific knowledge, used as tools in a ruthless struggle to advance one's position in society, or to gain dominance in the realm of international rivalry, are met with a similar feeling of distrust and disgust.

If we still think in our scientific enthousiasm, that we can throw-out the fruits of religious thought and behaviour as outmoded nonsense, we are ignorant and brazen in the extreme, but, if we think in our religious fervor, that we can burn the heritics and the infidels, once again, at the stakes of martyrdom, we will only succeed in bringing-about a disastrous polarisation of our social environments.

As people, who are inclined to favour rational explanations and careful observations, let us reflect on what we are doing, and, let us make a serious effort to understand, once again, the overall outlines of human behaviour. Let us try to acknowledge, where scientific work and rational attitudes fit into the framework of our personality, and, let us resist the temptation to close our eyes and ears for the consequences of scientific insights and technological developments. Let us not work blindly, thoughtlessly, and without any sense of responsibility, in our particular speciality. Let us avoid working, exclusively, for the sake of our own security and social standing. If we do not care to stop and think, what the effects will be of our efforts, we behave like mules, working towards our own destruction without knowing it.

Let us acknowledge, that we are, often, shamelessly using, and abusing, the fields of science and technology to secure an existential niche for ourselves in our complex societies and academic institutions. We err, if we think, that we can escape guilt or condemnation by refusing to judge or think about matters that fall ouside our narrow field of work or interest.

Some of us are getting impatient with the wickedness of the world, and, we would like to get-on with the task of bringing the Kingdom of Heaven nearer with a zealous campaign of religious reforms, and, perhaps, unwittingly, with the use of nuclear weapons. Let us study history, and, let us understand, that we can not, and never could, impose a belief structure with the sword. We can not impose a narrow, dogmatic point of view on others, because we will, invariably, create resentment and resistance.

Let us take stock and examine closely, whether or not the religious images of a thousand or more years ago, can still be considered valid; whether or not they will, indeed, bring us closer to a better world. Those, who want a better world to live in by killing all those who disagree, are a scourge to the rest of mankind, and, they will, eventually, perish by their own methods.

There can be little doubt, that the solution of a complex and globally integrated mankind can only be found in the attitudes of mutual cooperation and patient understanding. If we could combine the patient humility and willingness to learn and care, (which all the major religions teach us as fundamental pre-requisites for a just existence), with the careful and painstaking observations and conclusions of the sciences, we should have no insurmountable problems to formulate a way of looking at ourselves, which could be acceptable to all the major schools of thought on earth.

With a universally acceptable reality perception, it would be fairly simple to orchestrate our technological abilities into the service of global justice and peaceful relationships. Let us review, then, what an evolution towards enlightenment and global understanding would mean in this crucial field of relationships between people and their leaders.

It will not be difficul to come to an agreement amongst ourselves, that a leadership succession based upon a line of heritage or favouritism, is a monstrosity, which came only into use as a desperate measure to bring some stability to the intractable problems of leadership succession in the societies of the past. Yet, how are we going to ensure, that the succession to a vacant leadership position is going to be based on true merit? What merits are we talking about? Do we want to revert to the primitive struggle for power, when determining fitness of leadership? Are we sure, that such a process, apart from its disruptive effects and cruel infighting, does, indeed, bring the best leader or leadership to the fore? Or, would it be more advantageous to replace the struggle for power with a system of voting?

Who will be eligible to vote? Should it be a select college or assembly, or, should the right to vote be extended to all citizens, and, should citizenship be extended to all people within society? If we accept the cardinal principles of justice that are based on scrupulous equality of rights and opportunities for all people within a social environment, we find it easier to agree, that, indeed, the right to vote for a leadership should be extended to all citizens, and, we should be able to agree, that society should extend the right of citizenship to all people who live permanently in a particular social environment.

However, if we apply the right to cast a free, and, therefore, secret ballot to all citizens, without concerning ourselves about the influences that may determine the way people vote, we run quickly into serious difficulties. Then, we see, that it is not the most ruthless and conniving leaders who gain the upper hand by intrigue and the struggle for power, but, those leaders come to the fore, who promise each and every group in society a "golden goose" of leisure, prosperity and freedom from obligations.

This fosters, quickly, an irresponsible attitude, because people come to the conclusion, that they can vote with impunity for those, who promise them the most, and, it attracts the charlatan who knows how to influence people in order to advance his own cause.

Even, if leaders are chosen by a free, popular vote, and, even, if they try to run a country honestly and efficiently, they find themselves hamstrung by the many promises they have made, especially those, which turn-out to be irrealistic and irresponsible. Now, the leadership is in difficulties. If a recently elected leadership does not follow-through on its promises or its reforms, (which seemed so easy and obvious when viewed from the outside), the people will quickly become disappointed, and, they will turn the next time to someone else who promises them everything they want to hear.

There can be little doubt, that a leadership election by universal suffrage is the only just and fair way to elect a leadership, but, this universal right to cast a ballot in freedom of conscience, and, with a true choice of candidates from a spectrum of real but manageable political diversity, has to be balanced with a thorough appreciation and preparation of the electorate for the responsibilities that have been bestowed upon it by the principles of democratic elections and popularly elected leadership.

The electorate has to be educated, and, people have to be shown, clearly, what kind of responsibilities have been placed upon them by the right to vote, just as the granting of all the other basic human rights, given as a birth-right to anyone lucky enough to have been born into a humane and far-sighted society, have to be balanced by a set of appropriate obligations and responsibilities.

Well", you will say to me, "what do you want to teach the people, and, what kind of responsibilities and obligations are you talking about?" I would like to teach every child and adolescent during their twelve years of obligatory education, followed by several years of civil duties, that society is an organisation of people, who try, by task-specialisation, cooperation and communal efforts, to make life a little easier, safer, and more enjoyable for everyone. This means, that it is not necessary, that some own everything, or, nearly everything. Nor is it necessary that some people are born rich, while others come from a disadvantaged social environment.

I will teach them, that society exists for the benefit of everyone, but, we know, now, that the rules and regulations of society, in particular those of "legal" ownership, may lead, quickly, to a division between those who are working hard, who are clever, frugal, saving and enterprising, and those, who also work but are easy-going, somewhat lackadaisical, and, who spend everything they earn for the pleasures of the moment.

It is right that those, who save and enjoy their fruits later, will have an advantage at a later date, while those, who spend or consume everything now, will have to do with less, but, we should also make it clear, that there is no reason, why society should allow some people to live irresponsibly. There is no reason, nor any justification, why some people, some enterprises and some businesses have to become immensely wealthy and influential, while others are goaded, by constant advertising, to spend everything they earn, and borrow more to boot.

We will educate the people, and, we will show, that, everyone in society has the right to start on an equal footing. Every individual in society has the right to equal opportunities of education and employment, but, some people will be more suited for a particular form of academic training or artistic achievement, while others feel more at ease in a practical work-situation within the environment of their up-bringing.

Some of us will become administrators, bureaucrats, clerks or workers in the fields, the industries, or some other form of useful employment. There is no reason, why the basic reward for a job well-done should be any different, regardless, whether the work is that of a responsible leadership position, a highly skilled artist, or the hard working miner or labourer in the field. There is no reason, why society should not, or could not guarantee each and every citizen a decent, but basic level of existence, including the right to education, and the opportunity to enjoy good health. There should be freedom of information and freedom of opinion, as well as the right to be provided with the same basic standards of living, regardless of sickness, age or political orientation.

If we accept the right to be supported by society, when we need it, we also have the obligation to accept the duty to work and contribute to society, whenever we are asked to do so; according to our abilities and the opportunities of the moment. We have to accept the principle, that we are only inclined to contribute, voluntarily and freely, to our social environment, if we know that the rights and burdens of citizenship are equally distributed amongst us all.

If we can truly accept the fact, that, each and everyone of us is guaranteed a basic security, as well as a basic set of rights and living conditions, we will lose most of this chronic suspicion and anxiety that spurs so many of us to an anxious defensiveness. However, we need to be able to trust each other, and, we have to be able to verify that our trust is justified.

We have to know, and be able to verify, that we are not being exploited, and, we need complete transparence in society, as well as an efficient, competent and honest leadership and bureaucracy, in order to obtain these objectives. Only then, will it be realistic to expect people to work for the pleasure of working; to make a genuine contribution to society without feeling the need to accumulate personal wealth, or, to cultivate an exclusive life-style as a reward for the efforts that have been made.

If we become disillusioned or disappointed, if our good intentions are indeed abused, if our leaders allow the easy way-out and tax, primarily, those, who are willing to work and contribute, then, the atmosphere sours, and, we revert to an attitude of fearful and suspicious egocentricity.

I would like to teach people, children, adolescents and adults, who we are, where we come from, and, how we function. How we grow-up in an atmosphere of complete trust and abandonment during infancy and early childhood. We would never have made it into adulthood without the constant and vigilant care of concerned parents. Later, after we have become adult members ourselves, we will have to accept the responsibilities of parenthood, too, and, we have to contribute selflessly to the well-being of the next generation.

The relationships and events that take place within our families are also relevant, or, they should be relevant within our large-scale social environments. We are sheltered, protected, stimulated and given an opportunity to develop ourselves by the society we have been born into, but, later, after we have developed our talents, learned our skills, and have been given a position of responsibility, (which we yearned for during our amibitious adolescence), then, the time has come to pay society back; to contribute magnanimously, in the knowledge, that our cares, concerns, hard work and responsible attitudes will provide security, beauty and happiness somewhere in society.

The ability to make a meaningful contribution becomes the essential reward of a life of dedication and hard work, and, let us look, not only, at the glamorous contributions. The mother who looks after her children, washes diapers and clothes, cooks meals and comforts or disciplines her off-spring, whenever necessary, is making just as essential a contribution as the highest leadership.

Even the ablest leaders were children, not so long ago, and, they too, needed food, shelter and clean clothes. The same applies to the many anonymous labourers, who grow the food we eat, look after the livestock, or mine the minerals, and harvest the many resources we consume. Let us not forget all the skilled workers who check all the machinery and equipment ensuring the necessary supplies of power and energy, who service the lines of communication, and, who contribute to our well-being and security in a thousand different ways.

All these people make just as important a contribution as the most admired artists or athletes, because they all contribute, directly or indirectly, to our ability to live and exist in a state of relative comfort and well-being, with a concerned, informed and broad outlook on the realities that surround us.

Indeed, if we realise, how dependent we are for our well-being upon each other, and, how short-sighted it is to try to exploit someone or some institution for an immediate gain or an elitist benefit, we can not help but become responsible citizens. We would, then, laugh at the politician, who promises us the heavens, or the "golden goose", because, we know, that all the qualities of life have to be earned by ourselves, and, we know, that our leaders can only organise and guide the events in society, but they can not create the wealth or the privileges they distribute amongst the electorate.

We would laugh at those leaders, who promise special privileges to this or that group. We would laugh at them, and, then, we should throw them out of office, chastise them, and we would say; "Shame on you, who try to deceive us with your facile promises! If you are promising us more than others, you destroy the basic equality and justice upon which our societies are founded, and, if you borrow more money than you can pay back, or, if you allow the value of our currency to deteriorate in a mistaken effort to create "work opportunities", or soothe frustrated expectations by big spending programs, you are robbing us all by allowing a devaluation of our earnings and savings. You are, then, the cause, as well as the origin of inflation and price rises.

If you think, that there are still injustices to be corrected, tell us what has to be done, but do not rob someone to soothe the frustrations of someone else. If you want to be given the utmost responsibility for the well-being of a nation, or a global leadership position, show us, that you are responsible; that you have an excellent grasp over the problems and issues of our time; that you have sound and realistic ideas about the way to solve or approach these problems.

If you can satisfy our questioning minds by subjecting yourself and your plans to intense scrutiny, we will be sure, that the best and most qualified individual will win the election, and will get the opportunity to lead us. The social environment can be stable and remain stable, even, if it is as large as the entire world, and governments and leaderships can be competent and efficient, even, if they have to organise and guide a bureaucracy that spans the globe.

We need a global network of administration and computerised channels of information to help us do the job. The job of global integration can be accomplished, and, it will have to be accomplished in the not too distant future, if we want to preserve the possibility to live a sane, healthy, just and peaceful way of life".

.......

Summary

1. A constant search for better living conditions.
   The results of a status of fierce competitive strife.
   Growth and decline.
   A mosaic of motivational forces.
   An essential inability to learn.
   Ever-recurrent follies.
   Leaders and the mob.
   There are always a few exceptions to every social or historical trend.
   Looking at history from a great distance.
   The drama and fascination disappear, whenever we try to generalise on too large a scale.
   The functions of the genetic code.
   The social units of mankind make also use of a reproductive and regulatory code.
   Objections to considering the societies of mankind as "living entities".
   A look at the "slime-mold".
   A look at highly specialised, small-scale, socially integrated units.
   Living together in large societies is a matter of necessity.
   The background of socially integrated human existence.
   
   
   
2. A review of early human developments.
   The conscious belief structure has become an important behavioural regulator.
   The ability to recognise.
   The development of conscious, verbalisable awarenesses.
   Man's motivations do not change as a result of the acquisition of conscious beliefs.
   The concept of a "drive".
   Consciousness, and the ability to "rationalise" our behaviour-patterns.
   A three-layered structure of input on our behaviour.
   The link between a sense-impression and a behavioural response.
   A unique form of mastery.
   A definition of "culture".
   Relationships between genetic and cultural regulators.
   Cerebral and mental systems of classification.
   The concept of a "cultural code".
   The potential for, and the outline of, a "cultural code" are genetically determined, but not its content.
   The conscious and the sub-conscious.
   The purpose of this discussion.
   Leaving the proof of validity to others.
   A return to the socialisation of the human species.
   There are no genetically encoded guidelines for large-scale social behaviour.
   The importance of cultural regulators.
   Mores, attitudes and beliefs.
   A fragile social coherence.
   
   
   
3. The behaviour of "social units" can be explained by the absence of a genetic code.
   The functions of a "cultural code".
   Requirements of stability and adaptability.
   An orderly leadership transition.
   Leadership qualities, and the fate of a socially integrated unit.
   The "clique" around a weak leadership.
   The struggle for power between Church and State.
   Random movements of molecules in a gaseous or liquid environment.
   The vague boundaries of social entities.
   The concept of a "supra-individual organism"; objections.
   The trend towards predation.
   Solving tensions through violent conflicts.
   We can not let-go of the lure of victory.
   How quickly can we become filled with hatred and murderous intentions.
   The evolution of the hierarchical order; a fore-runner of the mechanisms of social integration.
   The need for a territory to feed-upon.
   What the ice-ages must have meant for early man.
   The painful and arduous road towards large-scale socialisation.
   Character-traits, that are explained by our historical and evolutionary background.
   An interesting parallel.
   Early man created a reality-image that mirrored, closely, the physiological classification mechanisms of his sense-impressions.
   A brief review of the mechanisms of classification.
   A "radiation of beliefs", as a parallel to the "radiation of species`".
   
   
   
4. Inter-actions between genetic and cultural factors.
   The emergence of "secondary learning".
   A pool of commonly shared concepts and ideas.
   Leadership, and the factor of "credulity".
   Ethics, and the existential needs of a social entity.
   A slow conceptualisation of our existential needs and concerns.
   The "sin of neglect".
   A persistent trend towards cooperation and compromise between small-scale social units.
   The aspect of contact and communication resulting from violent confrontations.
   The inevitability of a rise in mutual understanding.
   Trust and friendship are quickly destroyed by treachery and hostility.
   Why ordinary members may be more "socialised" than their leaders.
   Mechanisms of "cross-fertilisation".
   Enlarging the sphere of familiarity.
   A synchronisation of cultural characteristics.
   Conservative attitudes.
   The concept of an enlarged sphere of concern; its influence upon ethical behaviour-patterns.
   Recognising the value of avoiding a violent conflict.
   The first successful empires; a result of competent, far-sighted, honest and broadly concerned leadership.
   Empires and small social units.
   Voluntary and involuntary alignment with a vigorous social force.
   If a status of social integration does not benefit everyone, there will be an inevitable slide towards a state of exploitation and oppression.
   
   
   
5. The requirements for large-scale social leadership.
   A comparison between large-scale and small-scale social leaderships.
   There is a vacuum of power, whenever the leader is not well-informed.
   Disadvantages of having to work with "advisors".
   Test-fights, and the sense of justice.
   Violations of the natural hierarchical order.
   Members, who are essentially strangers to each other.
   The contract of "essential equality".
   Facilitating the mechanisms for settling disputes.
   The specialisation of a "judiciary".
   Possibilities for a complex, multi-individual leadership structure.
   Collecting taxes.
   The path of least resistance.
   Differences between large and small societies when collecting obligatory contributions.
   The example of a leadership in battle.
   The conscious design and construction of complex leadership institutions.
   A surprising success, in spite of primitive administrative instruments.
   
   
   
6. The decay of an empire; incompetent officials and defensive leaders.
   The ambitions of a vigorous leadership in a healthy social environment.
   Advantages of a quick conquest.
   Modern ideals of essential equality were largely absent from previous empires; reasons.
   The preservation of cultural diversity under political unity.
   Opening-up many channels of contact.
   A return of restless attitudes after the feelings of gratitude and the memories of an impoverished past have worn-off.
   We still have not made use of all the possibilities to create a stable, viable, large-scale society.
   A lack of insight about what we need.
   The birth of an empire was not always based on the drive to conquer.
   A review of the problems of, and possibilities for, large-scale social leadership; succession problems.
   Faulty leadership is, most often, due to incompetence of the personality.
   The difficulties of filling the seat of a gifted and popular leader.
   Why weak leadership is disastrous.
   Advisors and their self-interests.
   Receiving help from a situation of social "transparence".
   The need to cultivate a broad sphere of concern for people we do not even know.
   
   
   
7. The small isolated society is subjected to a reduced rate of change.
   When the processes of individualisation are being suppressed.
   Cross-fertilisation in a multi-cultural society.
   Rewards for those, who are willing to step beyond the boundaries of their culture.
   Broader conceptual horizons, a more sophisticated perception of reality, and a potential for more refined attitudes.
   A chance to broaden the sphere of concern.
   Cynical opportunism always leads to isolation.
   A loosening of moral guidelines may lead to exploitation and oppression, but, it may also make us susceptible to a more generalised code of ethics.
   The art of recognising each other's existential needs.
   Thoughts and attitudes advance through a process of challenge.
   Man's tools.
   The contradictory aspects of benefit and harm are associated with every innovation or change.
   Learning to evaluate all the advantages and disadvantages of a situation.
   A precise adaptation, and the challenge of change.
   Scientific and religious perceptions of reality.
   We all rely, far too readily, upon an authoritative source of information.
   
   
   
8. A confusing fragmentation of knowledge, and the specialisation of expertise.
   People look at the imagery of the sciences with the attitudes of a religious Faith.
   Lay-people have to believe in authority, because they lack the skills to verify the scientific imagery for themselves.
   By and large, the sciences have been silent about the experiences of beauty and love, compassion and concern.
   A love-hate affair.
   The polarising influence of a conflict between scientific and religious reality perceptions; an avenue for reconciliation.
   There are many forms of erroneous behaviour.
   Dissent or disbelief can not be rooted-out by force.
   Patient humility, and a willingness to learn.
   A universally valid perception of reality.
   Advancing the relationships beween people and their leaders.
   The responsibilities of the franchise to vote, or, to express an opinion in a referendum.
   Irresponsible promises.
   Learning to accept responsibilities and obligations.
   What I would like to teach; a short summary of the essence of good citizenship.
   The task of global integration can be accomplished, and, it has to be accomplished in the not too distant future.

.......