My friend Scott and I used to love to argue philosophy; frequently facilitated with a nice merlot. At times I accused him of taking “The Argument Clinic” position (a great Monty Python sketch well worth the 5 minutes if you’ve never seen it), but he’s a really smart guy and we’d have some lively discussions about all sorts of things.
I recall one in particular where I said that I thought the foundation of civilization was a monogamous pair. Scott said, as I recall, “You’re on crack! If that were true we’d still be in the stone age!” And he’s right, as many of the marriages today are not monogamous (probably true all through history as well), so I had to amend my position. I said I believed that it’s the expectation of monogamy that civilization is founded upon.
Here’s my reasoning.
Civilization is dependent upon cooperation and the pursuit of mutually beneficial goals. While competition fuels progress, it is cooperation that drives the development of civilization. Granted, cooperation depends up the “mutuality” (if such a word exists) of the pursued goal, but it is still cooperation that allows for the achievement of goals greater than could be achieved solo. In order for cooperation to exist, each party makes a commitment which then must be fulfilled. It is the expectation that each person will fulfill their part of the agreement that drives the process; if any person gets the reputation that they will renege on their commitment, no one will work with them, and they are back to whatever they can accomplish on their own. Not a good prospect.
So it’s this expectation of someone’s word being dependable that allows for cooperation, and that cooperation ultimately drives civilization. And what is the most foundational or basic unit of any society? The family. There are all sorts of implied or explicit expectations in a family relationship, but the most basic of that, I believe is the expectation that both parties will remain faithful to one another. In a primitive society, the definition of “fidelity” may be broadened to encompass a group of females and one dominant male, but I don’t think that changes things much, in terms of my overall “foundation of civilization” reasoning.
When does “pre-civilization” become “civilization?” I am not an anthropologist, but I don’t think a hunter-gatherer based society would qualify as a civilization, as a number of our ape cousins have such; they are usually extended families. I don’t think we would call that civilization. I think the most basic society to qualify would have to be agrarian at the least. I suppose one could argue that a strictly nomadic culture of animal herders could exist as part of a civilization, as we still have that today in many parts of the world, but I would say the foundation of a civilization is not compatible with a nomadic society; civilizations include commerce over distance, trading partnerships and trading centers (i.e., cities), which are by definition the opposite of nomadic.
An agrarian society includes herding and farming; domestication of animals such as sheep, goats, cows, etc. and a systematic planting, nurturing and then harvesting and storage of sustainable crops. No one person (or family unit) is likely to be able to do all those things, so a small community would of necessity have to form. Being tied to a particular area through farming also facilitated moving from tents to permanent structures, which also allowed for specialized buildings both for commerce and storage to be constructed. So now we have a village.
What holds a village together? The common interests of those who lived there. Again, initially they were probably related to one another, but pretty soon that would naturally become unsustainable and several families would make up the community. Still, the shared interests of the community would be what would cause them to stay together as a community, along with the synergy that would come from a larger group. But common interests are not enough; I think it’s the expectation that a person’s word carries weight and can be depended upon. And as I said earlier, the most basic of any of these groups is a mated pair, with the associated expectation that both partners will honor their commitment to fidelity and to one another.
But simply being in a monogamous or committed relationship (however that should be defined) obviously does not quality as a civilization nor even a civilized society, as a number of animals have been found to have lifelong mates. So while expectations of monogamy (or at least fidelity) define a family unit, more is required to define a civilized society, or even a pre-civilized society. Thus expectations of monogamy may be necessary, but not sufficient. I think where that leaves us is that it’s one of the pillars upon which civilization is dependent; and maybe even the main one.
So there, Scott. Maybe a bit muddled and should be tightened up, but I don’t think my premise merits a dismissive “You’re on crack”!
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer.
Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.
Fidelity and civilization
My friend Scott and I used to love to argue philosophy; frequently facilitated with a nice merlot. At times I accused him of taking “The Argument Clinic” position (a great Monty Python sketch well worth the 5 minutes if you’ve never seen it), but he’s a really smart guy and we’d have some lively discussions about all sorts of things.
I recall one in particular where I said that I thought the foundation of civilization was a monogamous pair. Scott said, as I recall, “You’re on crack! If that were true we’d still be in the stone age!” And he’s right, as many of the marriages today are not monogamous (probably true all through history as well), so I had to amend my position. I said I believed that it’s the expectation of monogamy that civilization is founded upon.
Here’s my reasoning.
Civilization is dependent upon cooperation and the pursuit of mutually beneficial goals. While competition fuels progress, it is cooperation that drives the development of civilization. Granted, cooperation depends up the “mutuality” (if such a word exists) of the pursued goal, but it is still cooperation that allows for the achievement of goals greater than could be achieved solo. In order for cooperation to exist, each party makes a commitment which then must be fulfilled. It is the expectation that each person will fulfill their part of the agreement that drives the process; if any person gets the reputation that they will renege on their commitment, no one will work with them, and they are back to whatever they can accomplish on their own. Not a good prospect.
So it’s this expectation of someone’s word being dependable that allows for cooperation, and that cooperation ultimately drives civilization. And what is the most foundational or basic unit of any society? The family. There are all sorts of implied or explicit expectations in a family relationship, but the most basic of that, I believe is the expectation that both parties will remain faithful to one another. In a primitive society, the definition of “fidelity” may be broadened to encompass a group of females and one dominant male, but I don’t think that changes things much, in terms of my overall “foundation of civilization” reasoning.
When does “pre-civilization” become “civilization?” I am not an anthropologist, but I don’t think a hunter-gatherer based society would qualify as a civilization, as a number of our ape cousins have such; they are usually extended families. I don’t think we would call that civilization. I think the most basic society to qualify would have to be agrarian at the least. I suppose one could argue that a strictly nomadic culture of animal herders could exist as part of a civilization, as we still have that today in many parts of the world, but I would say the foundation of a civilization is not compatible with a nomadic society; civilizations include commerce over distance, trading partnerships and trading centers (i.e., cities), which are by definition the opposite of nomadic.
An agrarian society includes herding and farming; domestication of animals such as sheep, goats, cows, etc. and a systematic planting, nurturing and then harvesting and storage of sustainable crops. No one person (or family unit) is likely to be able to do all those things, so a small community would of necessity have to form. Being tied to a particular area through farming also facilitated moving from tents to permanent structures, which also allowed for specialized buildings both for commerce and storage to be constructed. So now we have a village.
What holds a village together? The common interests of those who lived there. Again, initially they were probably related to one another, but pretty soon that would naturally become unsustainable and several families would make up the community. Still, the shared interests of the community would be what would cause them to stay together as a community, along with the synergy that would come from a larger group. But common interests are not enough; I think it’s the expectation that a person’s word carries weight and can be depended upon. And as I said earlier, the most basic of any of these groups is a mated pair, with the associated expectation that both partners will honor their commitment to fidelity and to one another.
But simply being in a monogamous or committed relationship (however that should be defined) obviously does not quality as a civilization nor even a civilized society, as a number of animals have been found to have lifelong mates. So while expectations of monogamy (or at least fidelity) define a family unit, more is required to define a civilized society, or even a pre-civilized society. Thus expectations of monogamy may be necessary, but not sufficient. I think where that leaves us is that it’s one of the pillars upon which civilization is dependent; and maybe even the main one.
So there, Scott. Maybe a bit muddled and should be tightened up, but I don’t think my premise merits a dismissive “You’re on crack”!
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.