What The Guardian explains; " Theories of what drove the Neanderthals to extinction range from an inability to adapt to a quickly changing environment, to genocide by early humans. "
The Independent elaborates;
"Professor Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, believes that the long period of separation – and genetic isolation – between the Neanderthals and early modern humans meant that profound physical and mental differences had evolved between them.What Interests me here is the assumptions that mediate the "genocide" hypothesis. Stringer implies that there is not enough empirical evidence to answer the extinction question. This allows the assumptions that frame the empiricism to stand on their own. While Stringer is tentative to make any general assertions, the unnamed advocates of the "genocide hypothesis" are not. For them human nature, from its origin in primordial history, must be seen as inherently murderous. Human history then, rather then culminating in the genocidal 20th century, is a continuous eruption of genocide."The question then is whether, when the populations met, they regarded each other as simply people, enemies, aliens or even prey," he said. "We simply don't know the answer, and the answer may have varied from one time and place to another, especially given the vagaries of human behaviour."
We may never know what happened when modern humans came to live in the same space inhabited by the Neanderthals. They may simply have avoided one another, with Neanderthals retreating to their last stronghold in Europe – a cave system in Gibraltar where the most recent Neanderthal bones have been found.
Or the two species might have engaged in the sort of brutal conflict that has been the hallmark of human history throughout time.
Critical theory would move against the genocidal hypothesis by attacking the mediating assumptions. Scanty evidence, or any empirical evidence for the matter, is framed by our immanent discourse. The genocidal hypothesis, then, is not historical. Instead it reveals the genocidal impulse that is immanent to our culture. An impulse enacted by our society, and the encounter with "the other" is reflected in "human nature" as self-preservation.
While the later is certainly true, should the "genocidal hypothesis" be proven, it will have enormous philosophical repercussions. It will also serve as yet another reminder that the time to leave what Marx calls the realm of necessity, is long overdue;
The realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with the realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite. (Marx Capital Vol III, 820)
8 comments:
dear CO,
thanks for posting to the bumpidee reader.
Although I studied evolutionary biology at evergreen 20 years ago, i don't read about it now, nor do I usually find any reason to re-vist it. But I think you are actually trying to discuss Marx here (since from your previous post I know you are reading Das Kapital) and using this article you read in the newspaper as a springboard? Is that right? Let me see if I follow you on this one:
What interests you is an assumption in the article about evolutionary biology--- in your claim, they are assuming humans to be genocidal by nature. is that what you are saying? I think are you asking whether or not this is true, proposing that maybe genocide is more of a product of the 20th century, therefore humans would be genocidal historically.
This is an interesting question. Doesn't Marx argue that human nature is a product of history and not necessarily natural in the biological sense? I forget the exact details, but I think so.
I tend to agree, human nature is often a product of culture, but doesn't history show that humans were violent and brutal from the beginning of time? See: the Crusades, The Mongol Invasions and the well-documented history of China, Rome, and Europe generally.
What seems to have changed in the 20th century is the industrialization of this brutality and globalization, creating World Wars on a larger scale and mechanization-- I am not sure how many people died in the Crusades and the Mongol Invasions but I seem to remember it was more than the number killed in World War 1 (40 Million casualties) and World War 2 (70 Million War casualties). But I don't want to present this as the final word, as I remember briefly researching this last month and being surprised to find statistics that show early conflicts in human civilization being just as brutal in scale relatively as they were in the 20th century. Surely this is something that must have been written about at length by historians?
We now have a military industrial complex with incentives to go to war as a part of our economic system. I don't know enough history to generalize about whether or not that has always been the case, but whether or not humans are genocidal by nature or not, it seems that we are now live in a world where we go to war as a result of the way our society is organized.
If the way society is organized forms our "human nature", we then need to focus on restructuring it I guess. Hmm.
PS in your Marx quote, he discusses "the savage" vs. "civilized man". I can't help but notice the possible racist undertones here mimic those of Charles Darwin (see his attitudes toward "natives" and racism against Latin Americans in Voyage of the Beagle), who was writing at the same time as Marx.
This reminds me to get back to Rana about her use of Edward Said's critique of Marx, as I don't know what the argument is. Do you know?
Also, what is meant in dichotomy of the Neanderthal and Modern Man in your evolutionary biology example?
Social Darwinism always comes to mind when discussion popular metaphorical uses of evolution, reminding me of Eugenics and how those theorists twisted science to further their own agendas. Of course there are traces of this in "common sense" discussions of human nature under capitalism.
All reasons why your post is interesting. Still not sure where you are going with it.
One could argue that Native American genocide (mostly occurring from 1490-1890) itself would prove that genocide is not just a product of the 20th century, but a part of colonization. Whether or not it is natural, the number of Native Americans who were exterminated before the 20th century warrants a reconsideration of your claim.
Dear Tobi,
Thanks for the comments. I don't read about evolutionary biology at all, but this article caught my eye, and i thought i could use it as a springboard to generate discussion.
Unfortunately, the detailed response i just wrote disapeared, so i will try to summarize it.
Essentially, I was using the article to play competing explanations of human nature, epistemology and history off each other and using Marx to show what they miss.
rather then getting bogged down in questions of human nature or which instance of genocide was the worst- like people do with the holocaust, it seems to me that marx offers a general explanation that pierces to the heart of the matter in ways other explanations don't. instead of looking at human nature, and quantifying its inhumanity, look at the socio-cultural organizations the produced it, i.e. the realm of necessity and its qualitative inhumanity. therefore, rather then human nature being genocidal, the realm of necessity is. This conclusion is something the competing explanations miss; social change and the realm freedom are the way forward (as you guessed).
re; marx's racist undertones. they do permeate his work. but in this case they are ambivalent. (perhaps this is what you allude to with undertones) for, altho "civilized man" has progressed from "the savage", the fact that they are both still in the realm of necessity also qualifies the notion of progress.
Re; Said's critique of Marx. All i remember are the passages of Orientalism, which critique his orientalism view of the asian mode of production. I don't think Said ever wrote a specific, focused critique of marx, but perhaps Rana would know. i am also interested to hear how she uses it. as well as discussions about how said is indebted to western marxism.
hi chris, forgive me if I'm wrong but in your quote, Marx does not seem to be arguing against the realm of necessity (we all must eat to live) but is rather arguing that freedom (symbolized here by a shorter workday) must be rooted in it.
in his own words:
"the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with the realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite."
this is my understanding of the quote after discussing it over with Pete Best.
if freedom did not address the realm of necessity at its root, it wouldn't be based in the material conditions of everyday life. sounds like Marx to me. did I get it wrong?
test
Dear Tobi,
im afraid the hasty wording I used when rewriting what had been erased led to confusion. I goofed and used realm of necessity as a shorthand for all heretofore historical social formations of the realm of necessity. I should have made a distinction and used historical realm of necessity, or followed Lefebvre and used the realm of bare necessity.
The passage is dense, but reading it in the context of Marx’s other work, my understanding of it is that he is not either going against the realm of necessity or arguing that freedom must be rooted in it, but is actually doing both. Furthermore, I believe he is discussing the issue of necessity in a both a theoretical and historical manner.
Using his dialectical approach, I believe Marx is (1) arguing that necessity and freedom are dialectically related on a theoretical level. Here for freedom to be possible it must be rooted in some type of necessity. But, (2) on a historical level, I believe Marx is arguing against the forms of necessity that all previous historical formations have engendered because they force people to dehumanize and alienate themselves in return for necessity, what I should have called bare necessity/or existing necessity. Historically speaking, the dialectical development of the advent of socialism, surpasses these historical realms of necessity creating a qualitative change that revolutionizes humanities relationship to the realm of necessity. For, it is socialism- by virtue of the common ownership of the means of production resulting in lack of need to create surplus value that will create a shorter working day- which serves as a prerequisite for the miliienial advent of communism allowing the true blossoming of human freedom.
Therefore, paradoxically, Marx is not arguing against necessity conceptually-he realizes it will be always be a necessity- but he is arguing against current historical ways of achieving it, the actuality of the realm of necessity, because the historical realms of necessity- i.e. historical non-socialist modes of production where people are ruled by necessity- prevent freedom.
This is what I meant to allude to when I used the word.
In my reading the first few sentences establish the dialectical relationship between the freedom and necessity. Here, his theoretical definition mirrors your reading that necessities, such as eating are prerequisites;
“The realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production.”
But then, in very Marxian move, Marx moves to demonstrate how this theoretical relationship plays out historically. Here the “savage and the “civilized man” are prey to necessity. For, even tho “civilized man” has “developed” he is still prey to the bind of necessity because nature has not been put under the rational control of all (note in this passage nature, in marxs conception of it extends to the realm of production which is a part of nature, so that humans are still under the rule of nature because production has not been organized rationally along socialist lines causing them to be prey to necessity)
“ Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. “
only the creation of socialism and social man can surpass this antagonistic bind because socialized man overcomes being ruled by nature, surpassing previous historical forms of the realm of necessity- the life of the savage and civilized man- while opening up the realm of freedom. Here freedom is possible because the form of the realm of necessity has changed qualitatively.
“Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favourable to, and worthy of, their human nature.”
But, because of the conceptual dialectical relationship between freedom and necessity, some amount of time in the realm of necessity is still required, only now it is qualitatively different, because it is minimal, allowing freedom to blossom.
“ But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with the realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working day is its basic prerequisite. (Marx Capital Vol III, 820) “
So, my take is that that we are both right. freedom must be rooted in the realm of necessity, but it must be rooted in a new relationship to the realm of necessity, one radically different from all heretofore historical social formations of the realm of necessity
Then again depending on how you read Marx’s development- whether his early and later writings are consistent- you might even say that under communism peoples relationship to the realm of necessity may no longer be alienating, as Sean Sayers and others argue, radically changing.
Anyway, thanks for opportunity to use my mind. I love the new blog and hope to see you and pete best soon. Xc
Btw speaking of everyday life, I am preparing an overview of Lefebvre’s Critique of Everyday Life, including his discussion of the bare realm of necessity and freedom.
ok. well i kind of have to keep it simple when it comes to theory, or i get lost...but it does seem like a weird dichotomy to use civilized man/ vs. the savage ...i understand the metaphor...but question how it interrogates the narrative of progress...the use of it at all seems to uphold the idea that we should be moving forward as history unfolds, otherwise there would be no irony .. 'civilized' ....development...technology would have to be considered 'higher' than the 'savage' for the point to be made, innit?
Post a Comment