|
To:
The New York
Times
<oped@nytimes.com> |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Reading
Tuesday's editorial,
"A
Fair Day's Pay",
made me think
what a farce,
in some
ways, the
concepts of
"America" and
the "American
people" are.
Very useful
concepts for
those
Americans in
wealth and
power, of
course, just
as the
concepts of
"King" and
"Country" used
to be (and in
many ways
still are) for
their
counterparts
in Europe, but
in fact no
more than
socio-psychological
devices
(rooted in our
animal
nature), which
developed to
help protect
and serve the
group as a
whole, but
have also
always been
used by some
group members
to facilitate
their
exploitation
of the group
itself for
their own
individual
and selfish
advantage.
For someone
working a
60-hour week
the minimum
wage amounts
to about
$16,000 a
year. Bill
Clinton gets
far more than
that (even
after tax) for
a single
after-dinner
speech, while
someone
else will get
as much (or a
great deal
more) because
the value of
their property
has gone up
(thanks to
market forces)
without them
so much as
lifting a
finger. But no
one - even at
such
relatively
enlightened
institutions
as the New
York Times -
seems to think
that there is
anything
principally
wrong in that.
The market is
considered to
be governed by
"natural
forces", over
which no one
has (or should
have) any
influence.
In fact, the
only natural
thing about
market forces
is the great
extent to
which they
derive from
man's
primitive,
animal nature,
in which our
entire
socio-economic
order is
deeply rooted
and on which
the economy is
completely
dependent (our
animal fears
and desires).
Unsurprisingly,
in view of
what Charles
Darwin is
supposed to
have taught us
about human
origins. But
Christian
fundamentalists
are not the
only ones
loath to admit
it (except in
the safely
compartmentalised
sphere of the
life
sciences). It
is very
interesting to
note (and
worthy of
closer
examination) that
among those
most insistent
of man's
divine nature
are those who
also insistent
most on the
primacy of
market forces
rooted in his
animal
nature.
The God
(higher
authority)
that I choose
to believe in
- unlike the
God of
Abraham, who
cursed man for
becoming human
(symbolically
described in
the biblical
story of Adam
and Eve; see Genesis
Revisited)
- praises him
for wanting to
rise above the
unconscious,
blameless
behaviour of
his animal
nature, making
it clear that
we have
nothing to
feel guilty
about, but a
great deal to
take
responsibility
for: first and
foremost for
the behaviour
which
determines
market forces
and their
effects on
relationships
between group
members and
groups, and
between man
and the
natural
environment
(virtually all
our
environmental
problems,
including global
warming, are
the result of
market
forces
created by
man's
insatiably
animal desire
for power,
social status
and material
wealth (all of
which hang
together, of
course).
The income and
wealth
differentials
in our society
are absurdly
and
ridiculously
unjust, but
when it works
to our
advantage we
use our big
brains (or pay
lawyers) to
justify the
unjustifiable
and
rationalise
the
irrational. You
tut tut about
the injustice
occasionally,
as if it were
a minor
- rather than
a major,
fundamental
- failing of
our
society (as
you did in a
recent
editorial:
"Another Marie
Antoinette
Moment"), but
you don't
question the
socio-economic
structures
(rooted in our
animal nature)
that
facilitate
them, because
they serve you
very nicely
too, in your
privileged
niches in the
socio-economic
environment.
So long as we
feel
comfortable
and secure in
our particular
niches, we are
not inclined
to question
them. On the
contrary, we
will go to
extraordinary
lengths to
justify and
rationalise
them, no
matter how
unjust or
irrational
they may
be. That's
human (or
rather, our
animal)
nature. That
we ourselves
are part of
most of the
problems and
injustices
that we lament
is something
that we find
very hard, if
not
impossible, to
face up to.
When it comes
down to it, we
are all very
narrow-sighted
and self-centred.
We care about
ourselves, our
immediate
families, and
few close
friends - and
that's about
it. Evolution
didn't equip
us to feel any
different. Or
did it?
I don't know
where it comes
from (whether
it's a product
of evolution
or not), but
there is more
to us - at
least,
potentially
- than our
animal nature,
and has been
ever since we
started to
develop
self-awareness
and the
ability -
potentially,
at least - to
recognise the
consequences
of and take
responsibility
for our own
behaviour
(human
nakedness and
sexuality are
so central and
important,
because it is
here that
awareness and
responsibility
come directly
and most
powerfully
into conflict
with our
animal nature
and
inclinations;
I hardly need
to elaborate;
although it
needs to be
pointed out
that in recent
times the
availability
of reliable
contraception
and safe
abortion,
along with
social
acceptance of
and
support for
single mothers
have created
much moral
uncertainty
and
confusion).
In their
original and
fundamentalist
forms,
Abrahamic
religions -
i.e. the
priests and
clerics they
serve(d) and
provide(d)
niches for
- cursed man
and made him
feel guilty for
becoming human
(self-aware,
self-dependent and
self-responsible),
so that they
could continue
to control him
through his
animal
susceptibility
to rewards and
punishments
(e.g. heaven
and hell). If
you have ever
taken a dog to
training
lessons you
will
immediately
recognise the
parallels:
good boy! bad
boy! do what
you're told,
boy!
It's not just
that it would
be a lot nicer
to live in a
more just and
humane world
(e.g. with
much smaller
income and
wealth
differentials):
it is the only
way that we
are going to
achieve
sustainability
on our finite
and vulnerable
planet,
Spaceship
Earth,
before a
ruthless
mother nature
does the job
for us.
Our economy
developed to
take advantage
of our
primitive,
animal nature,
which is why
in some ways
it seems to
work so well.
If we want our
species (i.e.
our children
and
grandchildren)
to survive and
prosper we
have to
develop an
economy that
instead is
rooted in our
more
enlightened,
human nature.
Please, no
more
tut-tutting.
What's needed
is radical
(really
radical)
questioning
and
reappraisal of
our situation.
|
|||
