A useful discussion of why meritocratic cultures generate historiographical cultures and hierarchical ones generate mythic cultures is Donald E. Brown, ‘Hierarchy, History & Human Nature: the Social Origins of Historical Consciousness‘. That the politics of the transformational future theologises history based on identity hierarchies is…
A useful discussion of why meritocratic cultures generate historiographical cultures and hierarchical ones generate mythic cultures is Donald E. Brown, ‘Hierarchy, History & Human Nature: the Social Origins of Historical Consciousness‘. That the politics of the transformational future theologises history based on identity hierarchies is why it is so prone to producing cartoon or caricature (i.e. mythic) history.
Rene Girard famously argued that human society was based on a foundational murder. It turns out, our emergence as a species, as Homo sapiens, was likely based on generation after generation of foundational murders. On this hypothesis, we are the most gracile species in the genus Homo because we had less need of facial robustness to ward off blows and instead there was more selection for emotionally expressive faces to intensify cooperation. Less reactive aggression and more effective proactive aggression meant that we are the only species of Homo left standing.
Girard also argued for the importance of mimetic desire. It also turns out that we are the most imitative primate, engaging in much more complete imitation of our conspecifics than chimpanzees do. This aids both learning and cooperation, but can obviously have runaway effects. Especially in circumstances of high levels of efficient self-deception and/or poor levels of consequences feedback. Such as social media generates.
That Russian culture, particularly literature, has a pessimistic quality is surely hard to deny. I wasn’t disagreeing, just light-heartedly suggesting that it is something a Russian might be particularly inclined to notice.
Lots of info packed into that comment, thanks! I'd never even considered the contrast between meritocratic and hierarchical. In my mind, a meritocratic society will enjoy a much higher standard of living in the long run, but will also end up hierarchical because of innate differences. This is the balance that I think we need for today, organic hierarchy that emerges from merit, but I don't necessarily like merit as a concept because it implies a moral quality that I don't think is structural. I also don't think it is necessarily wrong for people to choose those they have social obligations to over more 'competent' candidates when they're employing their own capital, which isn't meritocratic, but it is human. It only becomes disgusting when allocating state funds, which is why I think there is an imperative to limit the size and scope of the state as much as possible. It turns natural human tendencies into intractable moral hazards at every turn, then, within these massive bureaucratic ecosystems mimetic desire drives the normalization of dizzying levels of waste, fraud, and abuse.
A useful discussion of why meritocratic cultures generate historiographical cultures and hierarchical ones generate mythic cultures is Donald E. Brown, ‘Hierarchy, History & Human Nature: the Social Origins of Historical Consciousness‘. That the politics of the transformational future theologises history based on identity hierarchies is why it is so prone to producing cartoon or caricature (i.e. mythic) history.
Rene Girard famously argued that human society was based on a foundational murder. It turns out, our emergence as a species, as Homo sapiens, was likely based on generation after generation of foundational murders. On this hypothesis, we are the most gracile species in the genus Homo because we had less need of facial robustness to ward off blows and instead there was more selection for emotionally expressive faces to intensify cooperation. Less reactive aggression and more effective proactive aggression meant that we are the only species of Homo left standing.
Girard also argued for the importance of mimetic desire. It also turns out that we are the most imitative primate, engaging in much more complete imitation of our conspecifics than chimpanzees do. This aids both learning and cooperation, but can obviously have runaway effects. Especially in circumstances of high levels of efficient self-deception and/or poor levels of consequences feedback. Such as social media generates.
Such a Russian thought …
That Russian culture, particularly literature, has a pessimistic quality is surely hard to deny. I wasn’t disagreeing, just light-heartedly suggesting that it is something a Russian might be particularly inclined to notice.
As Perun says “this is Slavic history, and happy endings are banned”.
https://youtu.be/hx5mTslkUBs
Lots of info packed into that comment, thanks! I'd never even considered the contrast between meritocratic and hierarchical. In my mind, a meritocratic society will enjoy a much higher standard of living in the long run, but will also end up hierarchical because of innate differences. This is the balance that I think we need for today, organic hierarchy that emerges from merit, but I don't necessarily like merit as a concept because it implies a moral quality that I don't think is structural. I also don't think it is necessarily wrong for people to choose those they have social obligations to over more 'competent' candidates when they're employing their own capital, which isn't meritocratic, but it is human. It only becomes disgusting when allocating state funds, which is why I think there is an imperative to limit the size and scope of the state as much as possible. It turns natural human tendencies into intractable moral hazards at every turn, then, within these massive bureaucratic ecosystems mimetic desire drives the normalization of dizzying levels of waste, fraud, and abuse.