Any debate regarding the nature and worth of human beings that is based entirely upon immediate social structures and/or states, presupposed ethnic and/or socio-cultural prejudices, and historical/cultural relative aspects of religious belief should be avoided by any who wish to ethically address the deep questions raised by an incurably social humanity. Political platformers, social activists, literary geniuses, religious visionaries, philosophers, artists and theologians have argued, agreed, pushed, pulled, and, on more than a few occasions, loosed flashes of brilliance in addresses, rallies, debates, books and films regarding the topic of human civility. It seems, however, that a resolution regarding a universally complementary society remains unattainable. The evil culprit behind this aloofness surely must find its genesis within the ethical trilemma hinted at in the opening sentence of this paragraph (i.e., immediate social structures and/or states, presupposed ethnic and/or socio-cultural prejudices, and historical/cultural relative aspects of religious belief).
Meanwhile, the resultant wars – large or small – rage on. Individuals wishing to participate in any debate concerning the inherent nature and worth of all human beings should at the very least mark as their highest prerequisite the ability to properly differentiate human beings and immediate social structures/states, presupposed ethnic and/or socio-cultural prejudices, and historical/cultural relative aspects of religious belief. Declaration, however, should not stop there! The universals that are in fact available to us all should be part of this prerequisite too! Surprisingly, the effect of such a prerequisite is quite conducive to the disciplines upon which the trilemma is partially and crookedly constructed. Disciplines such as religion, cross-cultural anthropology, sociology, and history are not diluted but instead elevated to their proper positions.
The effect of a blind prioritization upon immediate social structures and/or states, presupposed ethnic and/or socio-cultural prejudices, and historical/cultural relative aspects of religious belief is no more vivid than in the long held debates regarding noble savagery, or, more specifically, the existence or non-existence of the noble savage. The questions concerning noble savagery conceptually rise from the annals of both American and world history, theological and philosophical dialogue, and, most ardently, from the pages of classic works of literature, such as: Shakespeare’s The Tempest, Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans, Golding’s Lord of the Flies, and Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. The socio-literary messages in each of these works force a reader to seriously question the validity of the philosophical or theological prioritization of civil savagery over savage civility, or, of course, vice versa. I, however, believe the dilemma of the noble savage can indeed be solved by engaging the universal human condition ethically. This particular approach, however, places a very high priority upon religious, philosophical, anthropological, and historical understanding and continued dialogue.
UNIVERSAL HUMAN NATURE
Human beings are social beings, and universally so. Any noble savage debate/inquiry should be immediately tempered by this unavoidable fact. Human beings instinctively search for the social within immediate contexts/environments, regardless of the variety of these contexts/environments. Literary examples of this phenomenon appear regularly in popular works. For example, traditional or expected forms can be seen in familiar literary plots that include groups of children forming social cohesion amongst each other (Lord of the Flies), tribal togetherness (Last of the Mohicans), or the intrusion of the ‘civil’ upon the ‘uncivil’ (The Tempest/Things Fall Apart). Non-traditional forms exist too and serve as examples of not only the human need for social being, but also the incredible lengths at which environmental adaptation is sought in the name of social relationships. A non-traditional example can be observed in the script of Castaway.[1] Castaway’s story reveals a man so desperate for social interaction that he invents a companion out of a volleyball. Granted, the literature cited thus far is fiction, More often than not, however, literary license is really just a license to simply tell or express non-fiction aspects of truth. History itself supports the many ‘fictitiously-factual’ depictions of our social tendency/need to instinctively search for social cohesion as seen in the aforementioned examples of art, literature, and film. In fact, this history is so often preserved in the art and/or artifacts relative to particular eras that is unarguably unavoidable. Even Cromagnon humans – reaching as far back in time as 35,000 B.C.E. – have left evidence of their own instinctive social tendency and form.
Jacquetta Hawkes, a distinguished archaeologist, historian, and author, addresses this pre-historic social inclination aptly in the following excerpt:
[This] reference to a plurality of “groups” needs explanation. In the early days of archaeology, when the existence of this late Old Stone Age world was first being revealed in the cave dwellings of France and Spain, the excavators observed that various groups of distinctive flints and bone tools invariably appeared in the same relative order in the layers of occupation rubbish on cave floors. They were recognized as specialized cultural divisions within the blade and burin tradition and named after the French sites where they were best represented. When very similar remains were found throughout much of Europe and into Asia, the French names were extended to them. Although later generations of archaeologists have preferred to name many more localized cultures of the period and have questioned whether the extension of French nomenclature is valid, there still seems good reason to believe that widespread similarities of culture do in historical truth indicate movements of people or contacts among them. Radiocarbon dating supported this view when it proved that the succession of cultures corresponded to successive periods of time (though with some overlapping), and that in some instances the succession indicated a consistent spread from east to west. [2]
Social illustrations encompassing a broader scope of human history and time are readily available too, but for this particular study, Cromagnon evidence should suffice. Additional examples of this important historical fact would only be redundant. So, with the historicity of humanity’s instinctive social inclination securely established, a much bigger and perhaps even more important idea can be afforded our priority. This bigger idea concerns the specific type or character of human interaction within any given society or societal structure. History testifies to very, very diverse forms of social interaction. These forms are so diverse, in fact, that many of the groups responsible for creating the diversity would also consider them (the diverse forms) to be completely noninterchangeable. This noninterchangeability is as ironic as it is odd, given the fact that the instinctive drive to create civility exists in everyone equally. Herein exists a very subversive problem to the ongoing debate concerning the myth/reality of a being or community of beings who can or should be deemed civil savage(s) or savage civilian(s).
The very need for social being creates civility and diverse forms of civility. The civility, however, may and probably will appear differently as a result of geography, education, religion, culture, and scientific discovery/advancement. So, again, it could be better said that the need for social being creates “forms” of civility. A serious problem, however, is birthed not only from the misunderstanding of alien appearances/forms of civility, but also the forced attempt to superimpose one’s version over another’s in the name of human and/or cultural maturity, superiority, advancement, or even religion. When left unchecked such misunderstanding and superimposition distracts us from the more important and major human dilemma. What is the dilemma? It can be summarized with this age old, two-part question: “How should human beings interact with each other within their immediate social/civil structure, and how should we interact with others who have adapted to their own geography, education, religion, culture, and scientific discovery/advancement and formed social structures and expressions that look nothing like our own?” The solution to this universal issue can be found in a sharp focus upon specific aspects of relational being shared between the perpetuators of these tangible social structures at the local level, and it (the solution) can be realized in spite of any local, geographical, ritualistic, and linguistic peculiarities.
The first step, of course, is quite possible the most difficult. First we have to become aware of our own immediate social structures and/or states, presupposed ethnic and/or socio-cultural prejudices, and historical/cultural relative aspects of religious belief. Then we have to acknowledge and celebrate the same in others. Perhaps then we can discover unity while simultaneously expressing and celebrating our own uniqueness and identities. Should we ever manage to actually pull this off, I think our philosophical, religious, and literary ideas of “Noble Savagery” may just be reset.
Perhaps then, we will discover that civil nobility is realized by many, many cultures and not just our own.
[1] Imagemovers/Playtone (Producer). (2000). Castaway [Videotape]. Beverly Hills, CA: Twentieth Century Fox and Dreamworks Video.
[2] Jacquetta Hawkes, The Atlas of Early Man (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1976), 20.
Related posts:
