Chapter 16
Man and Society
To what extent is man the product of his evolutionary
past, and to what extent the product of history?
Every species of animal and plant alive today seems to
the observer to be a finished unit or "construction." This apparent totality
is, however, merely a momentary stage in an evolutionary flow. Just as
a succession of tributaries joins together to form a river, so animal and
vegetable bodies develop a succession of new structural features which,
in turn, develop and improve their various organs.
The origins of each individual organ thus go back varying
distances into the past. The eyes of a salamander, for example, are much
more ancient in evolutionary terms than its legs. Its ancestors, the fish,
already possessed eyes, but legs did not develop until some of those ancestors
became land dwellers. Again in terms of evolutionary history, the roots
of a rosebush are far older than its flowers: Multicellular plants developed
organic aids to stability and nourishment relatively soon after their conquest
of terra firma, whereas their flowers, developed only in adaptation to
the insects that arrived on the scene much later. In the same way, every
innate animal behavior pattern has its own date of origin. Every instinct-producing
structure, every hereditary disposition and every innate recognition mechanism
came into being at some point in the evolutionary flow, and these functional
units proceeded to adapt themselves to the work-sharing system operated
by the other organs.
(original book page 176)
The same pattern is visible with the human body and with
our own innate behavior patterns. At some point in our ancestors' evolutionary
chain our hereditary formula succeeded in building these diverse structures.
Each arrived at a particular point and has its own history. Consider our
teeth, for example. Comparative research has indicated quite precisely
the ancestors to which we "owe" them and how they came into being. They
originated more than 800,000,000 years ago, in ancestors from whom the
modern shark is also descended. In their case, as in that of the modern
shark, the body scales along the edge of the mouth grew longer, forming
rows of teeth. In other words, a functional change occurred. From these
common ancestors developed the Osteichthyes, or bony fish, and from these,
in turn, vertebrate land animals. The body scales eventually disappeared
in the course of evolution, but the scales used as teeth survived and underwent
gradual modification and improvement. The development of the human embryo
still betrays the teeth's origin, and we can still observe the process
of organic development through functional change in sharks: Even today,
their teeth are really overdeveloped body scales.
On the other hand, the history of those characteristics
which constitute our real human peculiarity is entirely different, for
they developed quite independently of our hereditary formula. All acquired
components of human behavior and all our modern artificial organs were
sometime, somewhere, evolved by human beings. Having evolved or been invented,
they were handed down by imitation, speech, or writing, via thousands of
human brains, to us. Each of these functional units dates from a specific
period and has its own history, therefore, but the route by which they
reached us varies greatly.
Few people are aware of to what extent each of us is
the product of human society. We are born into the world, our consciousness
unfolds, and we greet what we see around us as a given factor from which
our ego stands divorced, as it were. We are barely conscious of the extent
to which this ego is influenced and molded by human society. A human being
raised in total isolation – if such a thing were possible – would be capable
of only very limited thought processes. That which is peculiar to us takes
shape by way of speech and contact with
(original book page 177)
other people, with human experience. With animals and
plants, studying isolated individuals makes it possible to analyze the
special features of the species in question: the mode of existence for
which the structure is equipped, the way it grows and multiplies, how it
safeguards and defends itself against disruptive and hostile forces. An
observer from another planet could not form similar conclusions with man.
Observing a shoemaker would tell him nothing about a dentist's activities.
If he studied the social practices of one area, he could make only very
limited inferences about other places, however close by. The individual's
brain absorbs this or that behavioral formula through contact with society,
and it is this which accounts for his particular mode of existence: the
artificial functional units he uses for the extension of his body, the
form of livelihood he pursues, and to what "orders" he subordinates himself.
Behavior determined by the hereditary formula likewise influences this
mode. Almost all the material features of modern life actually originated
in other people, most of them long dead.
Can we want what we want? Both "we" and "want" are very
largely influenced by human society. The extent of the gift which each
new human being receives on his journey through life is very great indeed,
but the obligatory ties associated with it are equally large. Society alone
makes it possible for us to want so many kinds of things. On the other
hand, society largely dictates the direction of our prevailing desires.
Beyond that, society influences the individual in numerous
other ways. There is, first, the phenomenon of mood transmission – an innate
dependence which is equally operative in all social animals. Specific expressive
movements on the part of others elicit reactions from us which are hard
to control. Human beings react abnormally in the mass. The necessity for
individual decision making largely disappears, as does the responsibility
for what is done. We all know to what mass reactions can lead. Members
of a group can be far more courageous and ruthless – or timid and irresolute.
The individual becomes, in a sense, a part of a larger will which carries
him along and neutralizes his normal reactions. The larger and more homogenous
the group, the more the individual's movements conform to its flow. The
human will is greatly influenced. A man
(original book page 178)
can free himself from such manipulation of his instincts
only if the "government" which dominates his parliament of instincts retains
a firm hold on the reins of action.
Man also exploits this process deliberately so that others
may transmit moods of pleasure and contentment to him. A large gathering
of people can transmit pleasurable tension and an agreeable sense of relaxation.
Festivities and entertainments are popular with people because they bring
the individuals involved release from their normal selves and desires,
cause them to feel wanted, and allow them to be subjected to a number of
alien reactions. Music and dancing are aids to this process. Concerted
rhythm helps reduce the emotions of the many to a common denominator, break
down barriers, and persuade each individual to yield to the same stimulation.
Laughter breeds laughter. In a crowded theater, communal reactions reinforce
the normal reactions of the individual.
That which we generally call the herd instinct is only
partly rooted in this phenomenon, for it contains other ingredients as
well. One of them is the child's strongly developed imitative urge, which,
like that of curiosity, continues to influence human actions beyond maturity.
In this instance it is not the expressive movements of other people which
transmit mood, but other people's actions which stimulate us to do likewise.
Our intellect and imagination play a predominant part in this process.
The ability to imitate is found only in the most intelligent learners and
is far more evident in man than in any other. The imitative urge is therefore
a form of instinctive behavior which only developed fully in man and which
influences us very decisively. This instinct is the source of incentive
and ambition, as well as of envy and dislike. The knowledge that other
people possess abilities or artificial organs which we lack but find desirable
frustrates our imitative urge and causes feelings of discontent. The desire
to imitate presupposes an ability to visualize oneself with someone else's
qualities and is thus linked with mental activity. We cannot aspire to
possess that which we are incapable of imagining.
This instinct to imitate has proved a very important
spur to human development. One man's progress kindles a desire in I others
for similar, advancement. The same instinct has been
(original book page 179)
largely responsible for the continuance of custom and
usage: That which others do becomes desirable. Such influencing of values
works in both directions. Something which is considered satisfactory today
may lose its appeal tomorrow because another man owns or does something
better. In this way, our desires are stimulated and directed in a particular
direction even against our better judgment. And in the same way, the community
influences the individual and kindles desires and emotions in him which
would not otherwise exist.
Closely related to this instinct is the human desire
to impress, the intention being to surpass others rather than merely to
emulate them. Innate forms of impressive behavior are widely found in animals.
Suitable behavior impresses a prospective mate on the one hand and, on
the other, among creatures which live in groups, demonstrates the individual's
standing within the group. Whether the human urge to impress also depends
upon hereditary fixation is still an unexplored question, but it certainly
serves a basically similar purpose. Children demonstrate this behavior
clearly, and it is developed even more markedly in adults. Our striving
for success, esteem, and power, for social acceptance and standing, for
recognition, superiority, and admiration, is seldom the product of sober
deliberation but rooted in an urge which may also stem from one member
of the parliament of instincts. It impairs our judgment, affects our behavior
toward other people, influences the course of conversations and negotiations,
causes annoyance and frustration, imparts a sense of power, and hounds
a man into the recesses of his imagination. This urge endows each failure
with a particularly corrosive effect; contempt and repudiation on the part
of others renders it unusually bitter. To be vanquished or inferior, to
be condescended to, to be mocked, ignored, or looked at askance by others
– all these things provoke unpleasant tensions against which we are comparatively
powerless. If people work far harder than is necessary just to maintain
life and security, if they are ruled by a restless impulse to improve their
lot, the underlying motive is often that of the urge to impress. The stimulus
situation which releases these forces within us is invariably the behavior
of other people. Here, the will of the individual displays another and
particu-
(original book page 180)
larly marked form of dependence upon society. The wise
man ultimately overcomes this particular form of vanity and ceases to measure
his own activities by those of others. Obviously, few people succeed in
doing this.
One especially crude method of influencing the individual's
will is to subject him to the authority of another. As we have already
mentioned, no artificial organ is more susceptible of universal employment
than man himself. Once in another's power, he can be made to do almost
anything that his master does not wish to do himself. Human beings exploited
this possibility from the first. The result was every conceivable kind
of slavery, the subjugation of one group by another, the subordination
of nations to the will of other nations. The power the head of a family
exercised over his children and other members of the clan formed a natural
basis for this development. The foremost individual in a tribe enjoyed
a similar position of power. Monarchies and dictatorships developed huge
apparatuses of power which amounted to artificial organs wielded by a single
individual. There was a growth of privileged classes which set a hereditary
seal on their authority by means of appropriate legislation. Similar positions
of power were created by ideologies, specialized knowledge, and the possession
of money. These, in turn, met every conceivable form of resistance – hence
war and revolution. Today we live in a world split into two large camps:
on the one hand, power systems modeled after the Communist formula for
living; on the other, the countries with a democratic, free-enterprise
system. What does this development signify from the biological viewpoint,
and how does it affect the question of whether we can want what we want?
The power systems spawned by the Communist formula for
living are very similar to organisms. The community is concerned with industry
and the satisfaction of consumers' needs, and these are not the concern
of the individual. The individual can be rewarded for special achievements,
but the product of his labor belongs, in principle, to the community rather
than to him. His legitimate claims on the community are equally circumscribed.
The same conditions clearly apply to multicellular bodies. The organism
as a whole pursues a livelihood and distributes the product among its functional
units. It cares for
(original book page 181)
them, tends them, supplies their needs, shields them from
danger. In both cases, "value" attaches only to those units which perform
some useful function within the framework of the work-sharing system –
in other words, those which perform productive work. Units which fail to
do so forfeit their right to exist and are rejected or become subject to
involution. Viewed in this way, the thought-control characteristic of Communist
countries is a natural and logical consequence of the system. Anything
which affects the performance of a functional unit is "bad" in terms of
the total system and must therefore be isolated from it where possible.
Anything which serves the interests of the community is "good," however
sharply it may conflict with the interests of the individual. Under this
political system, personal enrichment at others' expense and exploitation
of the community for personal profit are a cancerous growth which likewise
begins to proliferate independently and is not in the general interests
of the body. Since man has a strong inherent – and probably innate – urge
to form groups and submit to a common will, the readiness to adopt this
course of action not only exists but can be considerably reinforced by
suitable persuasion. When fulfilled, this impulse confers intense feelings
of happiness. The limitation of individual interests can arouse resentment,
but education and habit – and, above all, protection from disruptive influences
– can enable the human being to attain a strong and secure sense of contentment
even under this political system.
What occurs here, from the biological point of view,
can now be defined more precisely on the basis of our earlier considerations.
The organisms which we have classified in the third subkingdom (human specialists)
are embodied in a system belonging to the fourth subkingdom (productive
organizations). The peculiarity of man's individual differentiation disappears
again, and man dives back into the life process. The personal element disintegrates
and coalesces with the superindividual totality. The manifold opportunities
for human development are curtailed. The activities of the individual are
limited to functions required by the community. The productive systems
of the third subkingdom, in which true human development occurs, become
components of superordinate power complexes.
(original book page 182)
The "collective" – the organism – determines what is worthwhile
and what is worthless and dictates the prevailing direction of the general
will. The multiplicity of variously oriented egos turns into functional
units, or organs, in a more stable and highly integrated structure.
By contrast, the democratic free-enterprise system stimulates
the development of the third subkingdom. Coercive subjugation of individuals
by other individuals is still prohibited, but in other areas the individual's
search for power is encouraged. The state is supposed to protect communal
interests, especially from outside intervention, and is to that extent
another organism. In other respects, however, and particularly internally,
its function is intended to be that of a communal organ shared by all citizens.
Consequently, this system favors all processes in which human individuality
develops most fully. Today, however, this path also leads to the collective,
to the fusion of individuals, to their coalescence in an alien will. The
true circumstances are far harder to comprehend here than in the Communist
state. Here, the life process has begun a new and remarkable evolutionary
trend.
The start of this new and different route toward loss
of freedom is the commercial form of human product exchange. One man supplies
services or manufactures products for which another has some use. Thus,
the seller's livelihood always rests on people who need his product, in
other words, the market. He has to know and nurse his market-even create
it, if need be. Special institutions designed to accomplish this include
market research on the one hand and advertising on the other.
Once again, human instincts play their part. The ability
to impress depends, in essence, upon some form of self-assertion or, more
precisely, upon the influencing of receptive mechanisms in fellow members
of the species. In man, this leads to a development of artificial organs
which is reminiscent of other creatures. just as bright plumage or majestic
manes and horns developed in form and color as aids to an imposing appearance,
so man reinforced his ability to impress with the aid of handsome clothing,
jewelry, and the like. The further possibility also arose of demonstrating
power through the possession of more exclusive artificial organs. The designer
dress, the foreign
(original book page 183)
car, the architect-designed house – all these artificial
organs acquire a function supplementary to their normal functions: They
become, additionally, organs designed to impress. From this it follows
that innumerable things can be rendered desirable to man – or, rather,
forced upon him-which he does not need from the functional point of view.
They accentuate the impression he makes on others and intensify his pleasurable
sense of power. Further support is lent by the imitative urge, which likewise
prompts man to acquire things for which he initially has little or no desire.
Man thus surrounds himself with more artificial organs than he needs, and
the desire to acquire them increases his willingness to work. His individuality
wanes, and he becomes part of the market – in other words, one who serves
another's interests.
Sales technique proved to be an essential weapon in the
competitive struggle between individual members of the same calling. It
was soon found that buyers could not only be located but stimulated. Vance
Packard's The Hidden Persuaders gives a graphic account of ways in which
sales are stimulated in the United States. The same development – an essential
feature of our time – has swept the rest of the democratic free-enterprise
world. The primary objective is to penetrate the human subconscious so
as to impel innate or acquired behavior mechanisms in the desired direction.
The secondary objective is to depreciate a man's property as quickly as
possible, use every available means to destroy his pleasure in what he
has already acquired, and enhance the desirability of what he does not
already possess. The first line of attack stimulates man's instincts –
his animal heritage – and harnesses them for the benefit of commercial
interests. The second method deprives an owner of the ability to check
and evaluate his artificial organs and reduces him to a permanent condition
of wanting more. Our love of novelty is proving to be a menace in this
respect, and our aesthetic sense – the basis of all culture – is likewise
being exploited in order to force our desires along channels which serve
a commercial interest of some kind.
The democratic free-enterprise system, as it is currently
developing, threatens to lead ultimately to a situation where each strives
to kindle desires in others and is, conversely, infected
(original book page 184)
with similar desires by others. It is only logical that
children, being particularly impressionable, should be influenced from
an early age so as to become part of the market later on, and this absorption
of influence continues throughout life. Newspapers, films, and television
are direct or indirect aids to this process. Everything which attains value
– works of art, ideas, or achievements – is linked in some way with the
interests of a would-be seller. Little escapes this commercializing tendency
today-indeed, most people have become totally unaware of the process. The
absorption of influence has gone so far that "merit" and "sales value"
coincide almost completely. Every conceivable form of demand is explored
and stimulated, and the products or services suggested by this research
are offered for sale. Progress receives a powerful fillip in this way-not
in its true guise, however, but in its capacity as a sales product. The
result is endless activity and an incessant stimulation of new demand.
Because the individual is constantly offered aids to happiness, he has
little if any time to reflect whether such aids bring him genuine and lasting
contentment. Ultimately this trend will create, in biological terms, a
spongelike social structure whose components are inextricably entangled,
each at one and the same time operating on the others and being influenced
by them – a system which feeds upon, erodes, and paralyzes itself, a system
in which the individual is just as surely lost as in the Communist one.
The Western world is thus following a quite different
road from the Communist world. It evolves different structures yet ultimately
achieves a similar result. Here, too, man's peculiarity is extinguished.
Manipulated by an immensely powerful society, he has no time to reflect
on himself. He is absorbed, not by the interests of the state, but by a
far more complex process which also guides, molds, and extinguishes his
individuality. Is another course open?
If so, it might consist in man's regaining control over
his artificial organs – in his realizing that these structures should serve
him, not their manufacturer.
Man, as Aristotle said long ago, is a social being who
attains self-development only through society. We must develop la greater
awareness of the immense gift with which each of us
(original book page 185)
is sent on his way through life. This might not inspire
true charity, but it would encourage a stronger sense of global solidarity.
On the other hand, it is just as important to achieve a greater awareness
of the sinister power of the anonymous plurality which has engendered us.
Its tendency to absorb us in one way or another is second only to the possibility
of self-annihilation as a threat to our essential humanity.