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”!
Two stories to illustrate.
A couple of unrelated events that happened in the last week or so help me to illustrate what I mean by “living The Good Life.”
Last week I was in Fargo, North Dakota to do a workshop for a group of practitioners and watched an event unfold that, had I been directly involved rather than an observer would probably have annoyed me immensely. There was some construction in one of the main streets in Fargo that required traffic be merged from two lanes in both directions down to one lane in each, right at an intersection. Because there was only one lane now, turning left at that intersection from either direction was prohibited, as it would hold up traffic. Since the construction was only a few dozen yards, the obvious and logical choice if one needed to turn left would be to go through the intersection, turn around and come back from the opposite direction, or turn at the next intersection and cut back to the street a block or two later.
Of course, some bozo on a pickup truck (who unfortunately was first in line when the light turned) wanted to turn left and either was too stupid or stubborn to do the logical thing, and backed up the entire lane behind him while he waited for his opportunity to turn. Very inconsiderate.
About 5 or 6 vehicles behind him, another driver in a pickup blasted his horn the entire time in an apparent attempt to get the first driver to reconsider. Or maybe he thought the air pressure from his horn would push the other truck out of the way. Who knows. Anyhow, yet a third person, this time on a bicycle, got so peeved at the horn blower that he got off his bike and started toward the second truck, I guess to offer to do battle in an attempt to convince him to stop honking
I had just walked out of a drugstore where I had stopped to buy some water and watched this whole thing; the entire event probably unfolded in less than a minute. The light turned red, the front pickup finally made his left turn, the other pickup driver stopped honking and the bicycle guy (who had been unsuccessfully trying to get the attention of the annoyed driver), got back on his bike and took off, presumably to go do battle somewhere else.
So as I said, I wasn’t directly involved. But it’s clear that all the honking, threatening and stupidity didn’t change anything; the proximal cause (the first driver) didn’t change his behavior, the two other people got upset (and likely stayed annoyed for a while), and none of them acted in a way that improved anything. The cyclist never got the attention of the guy leaning on his horn, and the guy in the first pickup may even have been totally unaware anyone was honking at him, and was simply upset that he couldn’t turn when he wanted to. He eventually got to make his left turn and everyone went on about their business with slightly higher blood pressure and cortisol levels, all three of them having contributed in a small way to a world a little less pleasant to be in.
The other story was told to me by my friend Mark Elliott. He was on his way to work and took a side street to avoid a jammed intersection, and found the narrow street blocked by three guys offloading some drywall from a truck. He got out, walked past the three or four cars in front of him (also blocked by the delivery guys), and started helping them unload the drywall. He told me he could have been annoyed at the delay, but decided that he could in fact do something that would help alleviate the situation. I thought that was not only a nice thing to do, but absolutely brilliant. I’m sure the delivery guys weren’t happy at blocking traffic; they were just doing their job; the other drivers probably went from being irritated to being impressed by Mark’s gesture, and Mark got to get on with his commute a little faster. It cost him a little exercise (not a bad thing), he felt good about helping the delivery guys, and I am guessing he brightened the day of everyone who saw what he did. Way to go, Mark!
Two similar situations; two very different responses and outcomes. And while each event was only a few minutes long from beginning to end, it’s clear that one made the world just a little bit better. Mark’s gesture is a great example of taking a second or two to think it through, come to a conscious decision to contribute in a positive way, and then to act.
That’s what I mean by “living The Good Life.”