Friday, July 8, 2016

Evolutionary anthropology and racism

From an anthropological perspective, humans are all racist and have always been racist.

Evolutionary anthropologists call racism "parochialism" and "in-group favoritism" and show it to be a fundamental characteristic in species, including primates and humans, that form hierarchical social orders. This anthropological understanding informs us that the "solution" is NOT language control, which suppresses individual influence and strengthens high-gradient hierarchical oppression, but rather more occasions to interact without state-imposed rules intended to enhance state dominance.

The interactions lead to both stable ethnic communities and mixing communities, depending on the circumstances, whereas increasing state control and pervasive suppression of individuals and targeted-class groups leads to increasing violence and empire collapse.


In the context of US imperialism in the Middle East: Racist sentiments against Muslims or against Jews are both real phenomena. Humans have human reactions. The best way to address differences is by communication, debate, argument, and free expression. The problems arise when the state uses force against a person's expression and interpreted thoughts or emotions. The politics (social correctness pressures) of using accusations of "Islamophobia" or "antisemitism" are often dirty (manipulative, dishonest, etc.). The state should not be allowed to suppress that social politics between individuals; except to prevent the abuses of corporations controlled by elites with disproportionate means, funded lobbyists, etc. The state should protect individual freedom of expression, not attack it with speech and thought-crime laws or laws that allow the powerful to silence individuals.

2 comments:

Levantine said...

From an anthropological perspective, humans are all racist and have always been racist.

That's O.K. I wonder if, in some imaginary mild-mannered future, another word - chauvinism - wouldn't fit the bill better.


Evolutionary anthropologists call racism "parochialism" and "in-group favoritism" and show it to be a fundamental characteristic in species, including primates and humans, that form hierarchical social orders.

O.k.


This anthropological understanding informs us that the "solution" is NOT language control, which suppresses individual influence and strengthens high-gradient hierarchical oppression, but rather more occasions to interact without state-imposed rules intended to enhance state dominance.

One. I think the last words “intended to enhance state dominance” make the sentence so banal that almost everyone who understands it would agree with it. It also makes the sentence so long that few would understand it.

Two. Underlying this sentence and the whole article is the unspoken perplexedness over what people think, what makes them tick, and what are the social dynamics today that make these ideas gaining little traction.

I understand such puzzlement, and I can say at once: I’m outside of the loop, too.

Three. I think it’s not just language control or imposed rules on language that are a relevant obstacle here. Imposed living conditions in combination with imposed narratives can, alone, create unproductive interactions.

Much of what is said on the internet and in people’s homes isn’t state-controlled. So, what are the quality and productivity of the discourses in those spaces? Are they thriving places of resistance, constructive dialogue and absence of censorship & taboos?

I’m suggesting that
a) the problem is both wider than stigmatisation against anti-”semitism” “islamophobia” etc.,
and
b) the issue is less clear-cut bad state intervention vs. good non-intervention: one should suggest what the state should do, since state influence on discourse is inavoidable.

I wrote this with the assumption that a state has a cultural policy. Since state is about power, and language is important because it has power, there is an intersection of those domains, a self-preserving state should have some engagement with how language is widely used.




In the context of US imperialism in the Middle East: Racist sentiments against Muslims or against Jews are both real phenomena. Humans have human reactions. The best way to address differences is by communication, debate, argument, and free expression.

I sense that there is an omission here; omission of things important. At present, I can just hint at the problems: there must be preconditions for people to choose the way of communication, debate, free expression; to trust it is the right one. Otherwise, differences can easily lead to mutual avoidance, stonewalling, and conflict. Communication can demand inordinate resources.

You may perceive that other people don't see important matters. Those people may perceive you fail to recognise their game.



The interactions lead to both stable ethnic communities and mixing communities, depending on the circumstances, whereas increasing state control and pervasive suppression of individuals and targeted-class groups leads to increasing violence and empire collapse.

Increasing violence and empire collapse = the Left’s goal of successful revolution.

Stable communities : increase of oppression against the individuals within them.

Just my passing thoughts.
.

Paul said...

very good piece