Skip to main content

Moral life … is based on increased love between mothers and daughters


 In The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined(2011), Pinker identifies six periods in which violence decreased significantly, proving, he argues, that we are getting more moral.
I'm fairly certain he wasn't the first to argue this, since the "we are getting more moral" part sounds triumphant Victorian. 
The part about how we moved towards states and commerce out of whatever we had been part of before, requires explanation. Is it possible the people changed first, became less violent first, and these same more evolved, more empathic, less violent people were attracted to different, unheard of, new-fangled kinds of organizing themselves, new societies? That is, democracy out of totalitarianism, not because "technology had empowered," or "requirements of competition required," or land-locked or small groups empowered, but because people were over generations becoming more loving, thus more moral, thus obviously democratic rather than ants at the feet of a bullying emperor. 
Lloyd DeMause is the one who has explored how slowly over time, mothers have been able to provide more love to their infants than they themselves received. These better-loved children are able to tolerate more societal growth, more pleasure, happiness, and have less of a need to project "bad selves" onto other people for violent persecution. Thus America as it is becoming in some parts today -- more tolerant and flexible than it has ever been. Thus the fewer lives lost to battles, wars, per capita, that Steven Pinker -- unaware (?), agreeing with DeMause -- argues has definitely been the story of history.  




@Patrick McEvoy-Halston Mass literacy exposed us to stories of people over the horizon who may or may not look like us on the page (and may not even be human people or anything more than abstract characters). This makes it possible for our empathy to extend itself. It also makes prurient sensationalism more of a thing, too, and gives us the opportunity to direct our fear and hate beyond the horizon as well. But as media gets more immersive and more interactive, our knowledge of the events of the world slowly makes the world known and familiar and changes our behavior toward empathetic responses.
So it's not that we're more physically empathetic, we simply have more opportunity to apply our empathy.


@andyh @Emporium  The intention to let yourself know, is not a human given. The person willing to tolerate a media providing a more immersive and more interactive knowledge of the world, is already on a pretty good path -- however much what he or she intakes can take them even further along it. 
The problem with this eventually though, is that most of us can end up feeling uneasy once we've broadened ourselves too much. This isn't a matter just of too much adjusting and finding ourselves completely untethered from origins -- thriving New York cosmopolitan from being modest Kansas farmer-born -- but that growth always carries with it our first memories of what growth meant for us -- which is leaving our mothers and fathers to attend to our own concerns solely. 
Outside of some of the progressive, both-partners-highly-involved, parents we see these days, who are so interested in their children they spend time with them throughout their lives, and who's interaction involves excellent reads of the children's needs and lends towards complexity and depth, most parents still require their children to satisfy their own unmet needs, and show it; and cannot help but react with some, or some considerable anger when children are understood as refusing them this (just like their own love-starved parents once did).
At an early age, parental denial, fury, is apocalyptic, and our capacity to tolerate growth, not stifle it, in future, will depend almost entirely on the precise measure of how our parents understood us then. In the aggregate, in most modern societies, we tolerate quite a bit, then start feeling abandoned, and then start feeling guilty, punishment-worthy. We follow up by projecting our bad-selves into some other people, and, now parent-loyal, and ourselves good boys and girls devoted to our mother nation, we go to war with them. This is probably the situation in Russia today, which for too long has let itself loose from Communist restraints and allowed themselves some individuality-empowering freedom. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

"Life" as political analogy, coming to you via Breitbart News

Immediately after seeing the film, I worked over whether or not the movie works as something the alt-right would produce to alienate us from the left. Mostly the film does work this way  -- as a sort of, de facto, Breitbart production -- I decided, though it's not entirely slam-dunk. There is no disparagement evident for the crew of the space station being a multicultural mix, for instance. Race is not invisible in the film; it feels conspicuous at times, like when the Japanese crew member is shown looking at his black wife on video conference; but the film maker, wherever he was actually raised, seems like someone who was a longtime habitat of a multicultural milieu, some place like London, and likes things that way. But the film cannot convince only as macabre relating to our current fascination with the possibility of life on Mars -- what it no doubt pretends to be doing -- because the idea of “threat” does not permeate this interest at all, whereas it absolutely saturates our …