I tend to believe that philosophical differences boil down to differences in terms of values, of which none is better than the other since they are essentially assumptions about the nature of our world. The conflict between primitivism and liberalism serves as a fine example:

When I speak as a liberal, one of the most wonderful things about this world is the number of choices we have. In this modern world, our economy is so advanced that millions of people can live within the same, relatively small, area. These technological advances are the natural product of a liberal economy and one of the advantages is that I, as an individual, have access to so many different people that I can easily find specific types of people and thus associate with a human subculture of my choice. This allows me more freedom to shape my life how I want it to be shaped. Yes, we are all limited by external factors, some of which are imposed by our society, some of which are imposed by reality, but, in the end, we have greater control over our lives than we have ever had. We are not limited to a few sources of food, to the people in our village and to “survival” as our main job.

However, this perspective conflicts with another: yes, it is true that we can now shape our social surroundings with more ease than before, but this may destroy the natural balance of personalities that we may find in villages. In the past, just like we do not choose our family today, we did not choose anything about our social surroundings. We were born in a random village and that’s where we grew up and died. Even nomads would usually remain with the same group of humans. What happens in a modern, liberal society is that — if I am to use such crude language to describe people — “intelligent” people will leave the “village” to form a subculture with like-minded people, leaving the village without “intelligent” people. The same goes for different personality types. Thus, while this may be of benefit to “intelligent” people who crave interactions of a certain level, the village gets deprived of its share of “intelligent” people. The same goes for its natural chiefs, natural shamans, natural strongmen etc and it is, in the end, wholly abandoned as we are all stratified by liberalism and its efficiency. People who work in factories tend to frequent people who work at jobs of a similar nature. The same goes for people who work in law, in the arts, in farming and so forth.

Consider also people with serious mental disorders. Most cities have certain areas where they end up concentrated, because these people have a hard time coping with our system or even with reality. They end up in very poor, concentrated areas, while normally each village would have its fair share of wild minds to deal with. Now, children get raised in these areas where a disproportionate share of people have mental disorders, triggering their own problematic genes (as we all have). Thus, liberalism might aggravate mental disorders and make their consequences on society significantly worst. There has been research suggesting that what people affected by schizophrenia need the most is a community to be part of and to help them, rather than psychiatric institutions to normalize them. Indeed, there are many cases of people that we would no doubt institutionalize here in the West that have instead been glorified in their countries for their spiritual services.

I should say that, just like I enjoy the “liberal” angle when looking at political problems, the “primitivist” angle is very important to me. It also shares some common ground with liberalism, particularly in how both approaches leave little room for large-scale, central governments. It’s important to consider whether humans were happier as hunter-gatherers and simple farmers. I doubt that we were simply “happier”, but our problems were probably different. I suspect that the emotional/psychological problems that most people have are due to a certain friction with the world that liberalism has created for us. I suspect that we each have a natural need to be recognized by our tribe for our skills, whether it be because we are helpful in crafting tools, in hunting, in designing huts, in creating rituals and so forth. The modern tribes — the nuclear family, the workplace and typical social circles — do not, I believe, fully satisfy this.

The family is becoming more and more limited and it will become even more so as our economy develops and we can all, for example, hire developmental psychologists to assist us in raising our children. A liberal would call this a great advancement, but a primitivist would say that, as we specialize further and further like this, we will deny the essence of humanity in favor of a never-ending drive for an efficient and perfectly rational world. The human mind is not, by any stretch of the imagination, purely rational and a society that treats humans as if they were is bound to create friction between the human mind and the societal system.

As for friends, it seems that a fair share of middle-aged people forsake friends in favor of the television. We can have work buddies, but there isn’t much a bond to be made with people who border your cubicle if you compare this to the kind of bond that is made when people go hunt together to feed themselves, or when they help each other after a natural catastrophe, or when they share ideas on how to build tools, huts etc. As for a social life outside of work: it ends up limited to week-ends, if that. I would be interested in statistics on this matter, but I suspect that a fair share of the population spends very little time with people they call friends, especially if we exclude the family and the workplace.

To them, the television has become easier to deal with than people. I consider televisions to be one of the evils of liberalism: people want them and this can not be denied, but true happiness lays in living, not in watching other people living. There is little that can be called “art” on television: everything is compromised by financial interests and in the end it’s just a way to turn our brains off.

As for work: the janitor does the job so that he has money for an apartment, food and entertainment. He does not do it because that is his role and because he is respected for it. No one cares about your job as a janitor except your boss, who wants you to work efficiently. And the same goes for a large share of modern jobs, including complex yet anonymous office work. Perhaps some people find satisfaction in this — and I believe we all can, that it’s just a matter of perspective –, but it is clear that many people have difficulty dealing with this. I somewhat doubt that so many people had a hard time going hunting to feed themselves.

With all of this said, the idealist in me died at the age of sixteen or seventeen.  It is not clear if primitivism (or any other radical, yet interesting ideology) is even better than liberalism. With liberalism as our deeply canalized path for societal development, I don’t think that anything is about to change. What is most interesting about liberalism is that, in the end, it is the ideology that tries to be the most neutral in terms of values. The primitivist can say that society should function this way, while the socialist will say that that way is better and the anarchist will talk about that other way; liberalism is the greatest compromise we have, since it is focused on individual liberty and thus on giving everyone an equal chance at shaping their lives. There is only coercion that can maintain a primitive society, since, as history as told us, there are naturally people that will try to create advancements that will distance us from a primitive life. Should they be silenced? There is only coercion that can maintain a socialist system, since, with tax-funded systems — be it education, health care, roads etc –, we are forced to contribute some labor to fund these projects. What if I don’t think that the resources necessary to live past a hundred are worth working for; what if I just want to accept that I have cancer and die, rather than be forced to pay for the treatment (through taxes) of so many others, in the hope that when it’s my turn, I will get the treatment as well?

Yet, some people want the justice system, the cars and the iPods and a compromise must be made somewhere. Liberal democracy is the system by which we form our compromises and, whether or not we like it, it does work. Apple would not make any money if people didn’t decide to buy iPods (a compromise achieved by liberalism). Our justice system wouldn’t exist if the population wasn’t so overwhelmingly in favour of integrating a system of justice within government (a compromise achieved by democracy).

We might not have chosen to be born into suburban households, but no one ever made the choice to be born into a primitive hut. We have never had nor will we ever have any choice in this sense. However, the fact that we now live in suburban households is, in my opinion, the product of our interests, of choices humans have made throughout the centuries, rather than something that is unjustly imposed upon on. As for those who are not content: they must realize the power they have in shaping their own lives. Yes, it is more difficult to shape our life than simply live with the one that is handed to us, but I’m not sure that the suburban ideal is truly worst psychologically than the primitive life. So, I would rather be born in this modern society, where I can at least, if unhappy with the typical route, carve my own route through life. This, to me, is better than a primitive society where I am simply stuck with what I have. And this is why I still tend towards a liberal world-view.

But, as a final point, I should mention the greatest argument in favor of primitivism: it seems quite possible that, as hunter-gatherers, we worked far fewer hours than we do today. The reason we work more today is simply because of our materialistic tendency and our desire for a larger overall population. If we are satisfied with tribal justice rather than our complex, modern system; with shamans instead of hospitals; with our feet instead of cars and highways; with the food in our habitat rather than imports from across the world; we don’t really need much. The primitive life may leave little room for science, philosophy and art beyond tradition, but it may provide the communal life that would allow the greatest happiness per capita. And in the end, is it not happiness that we seek, rather than “progress” and “choice”?

(Note: the pictures are taken from this very interesting photo gallery on an indigenous tribe in the Amazon).

-Dussault

1 Comment »

1. Liberté!
   C’est vrai qu’elle est difficile à voir. Je me promène souvent dans la ville à sa recherche, dommage qu’elle ne soit pas matérielle. Mais observer les gens, les voitures et les oiseaux, me permet de voir la colombe blanche qui se pose sur mon épaule parfois.

   Comprendre que nous avons le choix
   Bâtir son propre toit.
   Être fier de soi.

   The Bleeding Cowboy.

   Comment by L'homme au chapeau Brûlant — January 26, 2010 @ 3:00 PM

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website