Francis Miville: I have quite another way to state it: humanity is not a biological reality, let alone a cultural or spiritual one, it is a social construct, and that social construct has now proven wholly inadequate.
Race – imperfect, faulty, and often mendacious though it be, does have more often than not reliable statistical predictive value when you plan a journey through Haiti or Colombia for instance. Being informed that people in a certain spot are humans or not rather than Sasquatches is of no information.
Of course within that inadequate construct, for instance, paganism (that is to say any religion that doesn’t relate to Abraham as a key figure) individuals are absolutely unequal though trying to hierarchize them into superior and lesser are already overestimating by far the kinship.
Hierarchization presupposes an ordered set in Boolean mathematics, which ordered set humanity doesn’t form. It is a pure construct, not an universal, though universals do exist otherwise.
Interesting concept. I do agree that strict hierarchy is probably not a universal among humans even if it is among lower mammals. It doesn’t exist much below the mammal level among even lower creatures or it only makes sense in that the best males get to breed and the losers don’t as females among the lower species are as picky as mammals and humans if not more so.
Of course an understanding of race (and culture) preps you for a journey to Colombia or Haiti, though I have often wondered why the White + Indian mix in Latin America produced such a loutish and violent product. It doesn’t figure from either of the ingredients, and pure Indians down there are often quiet, passive, and quite nonviolent. But somehow when you mix them with Whites who are loud, active, and also nonviolent, it’s combustible?
That never made sense to me. Whatever is going on down there, it doesn’t make a lot of sense from a strict racial vantage.
But the strict hierarchy demanded of so many cultures like caste societies in Hinduism and serfdom among Whites and Asians is unnatural, as we are able to easily move away from it without any major problems or throwbacks. Look at China. China was feudal or semi-feudal before Mao. Mao tossed all that out with the flick of his fingers, and most were happy to be rid of it, as in these societies, most folks are not members of the top group and are in a sense then lorded over by the top dogs.
I agree that humans have a natural tendency towards hierarchy that is hard to get rid of.
In fact, it is impossible to get rid of it sensibly as some form of hierarchy is necessary and the lack of any hierarchy is just stupidity doomed to failure, and at any rate is simply replaced by other forms of hierarchy, typically redistributive ones as we saw in the CHAZ zone in Seattle set up by “non-hierachical” anarchists. Traditional hierarchy was replaced by Blacks lording it over Whites and becoming Black Brahmins while Whites were reduced to Dalithood.
Male hierarchy over women was not fair, so when women overthrew it and took over as they have here in the Anglosphere, they replaced this unfair system with the much fairer system of female hierarchy over men! As they say in heterosexual relationships, someone’s got to wear the pants. If the man doesn’t the women will take them from his dresser and put them on herself!
You can never really get rid of even base forms of human hierarchy or it would be very hard to. Instead, you simply turn the hourglass upside down and put the bottom on top and the top on the bottom. In other words, you cannot get rid of it entirely. At best you can simply reverse it!
Nevertheless, the grotesque forms of hierarchy beloved by conservatives and reactionaries of all stripes the world over are not necessary. We are not elephant seals last time I checked, though we may act like them too much to be comfortable.
We are still able to think things out and decide to be strictly hierarchical, and if so, to what extent. We humans are not slaves to our biology. At least theoretically we can still rise above it, and this is the main difference between us and the beasts, to which I include chimps. Unlike them, we are not slaves to our drives even if too many times we fall back on that because it’s easier than going against our natures.