I’m a scientist at heart, and something I find interesting is that we believe we’re ‘pacifists’ compared to other organisms. One of our focus questions this semester was that all animals except humans have conflict for resources – why are we determined to prove ourselves to be different? I find this interesting, because from my perspective, we are no different than the rest of the animal kingdom, and we too have conflict for resources. With a focus on modern conflict rather than historic wars, it’s interesting to see how societal structure has masked the conflict that, while different, is still ever present.
We don’t naturally compete for resources, but our economic and social rankings affect our access to resources, which in turn creates conflict as we desperately try to escape the label that we’ve essentially been born with. Personally, I’ve been lucky enough to not worry about access to food, shelter, or education, however many aren’t as lucky. Much of our civilisation is rooted in a cycle of exploitation in which the disadvantaged are, ironically, taken advantage of by those with more power. This power imbalance is arguably essential for the structure of our modern society, but it does create conflict between different groups within and between communities.
Humans believe that we do not have conflict; that we are ‘pacifists’ compared to other animals. However, we are intrinsically self interested, and contributing to the complex structure of our society is ultimately best for each individual. Modern civilisations are structured in such a way that each individual needs only to think of their specialisation, with connection (but often a lack of communication) between parts. This is why our complex civilisations are successful, because we have the most to gain from the least amount of effort. As long as we contribute to our specialised area of society, other resources will be readily available, and we will have the means to afford such resources. However, these complex civilisations are extremely fragile, and the Covid-19 outbreak exemplifies this.
As Durkheim said, “We cannot live outside of an organised society, and the highest organised society that exists is the patrie [nation-state]”. The outbreak of Covid-19 reflects our innate animalistic behaviour, as it poses a threat to societal norms and values, causing a moral panic (which the media reinforces). This leads to disruption and panic within communities, and we see people becoming emotionally and socially distant from one another as we abandon reason. Ultimately, the complex structure of society benefits us, but when it is challenged, we fend for ourselves. We are not pacifists at all, but do what is best and most efficient for our survival, and when this is challenged, we jump to individualism.
This is a fascinating post! The initial focus question was definitely one that caught my attention, and it’s wonderful to see that taken and run with. I definitely agree with your view that there is no real difference between the human animal and the rest of the animal kingdom, albeit with one small adjustment. I think that a principal difference between humans and other animals is that we definitely have a sense of morality. It’s probably rather hard to disprove the idea that other animals have morality, but it’s also hard to prove it, whereas we can know for certain that we as humans have a concept of morality. As I believe my group touched on in week 2, I think this concept of morality is in part why we’re so determined to consider ourselves ‘pacifists’. If we have access to these ideas that completely change our view of the world, and yet still follow what could be considered ‘animalistic’ instincts rather than taking the more ‘human’ and pacifist approach, are we really worthy of having access to them?
It seems to me that there’s maybe an inherent insecurity in most of us that means we feel the need to prove ourselves as more than the animals we are. This is perhaps only amplified by the fact that the social environment we’ve created is one that often ignores the fact that we are actually animals, and is in general rather disconnected from the environment as a whole, as can be seen in the sheer amount of careless damage we’ve done to it and the resulting climate disaster.
Another point you’ve touched on that fascinates me is the idea that humans are ‘intrinsically self-interested’. I do agree with your idea that ‘modern civilisations are structured in such a way that each individual needs only to think of their specialisation, with connection (but often a lack of communication) between parts’. This is something that I think can clearly be backed up with evidence, particularly when one considers the dissonance between, for example, different social classes. American politics are unfortunately an especially poignant example, with much of American policy being geared towards helping the upper class while disadvantaging the working class.
However, I’m not sure I can agree with the statement ‘humans are intrinsically self-interested’. While it’s definitely a mind-set encouraged by modern civilisation, I consider humans to instead be inherently community-centric. While I don’t know all that much about the topic, it’s my understanding that humans have, historically, always been very community-based, with all supporting the community as a whole and providing for those who lack the ability for self-sufficiency, behaviour that, at least in some aspects, I think is in line with that animal nature we so like to ignore.
It’s definitely possible to make the argument that this community-centric behaviour has been lost in our individualist modern civilisations, however I think that’s perhaps a rather pessimistic view of humans. I believe that perhaps the systems we have created are certainly individualistic, but humans on an individual level are not. This COVID-19 crisis is, in my opinion, a wonderful example of this. We can certainly see places where these individualist systems are failing people, but we can also see the lengths humans are individually going to in order to support others. Even little things like the bear hunts that have been set up around New Zealand are a great example of the community-centric mindset that I consider to be inherent in humans. We may be encouraged not to, but I like to think that, at heart, we still believe strongly in our communities and the support we can provide one another.
To play devil’s advocate, we humans might not be inherently self-centred after all. People make sacrifices for the sake of others, such as donations to charity and braving dangerous experiments for the sake of science. On a small scale, a person laying down their life for their family might view their children as an extension of their self. But humans are capable of a great deal of abstraction. Is your honour an extension of your physical self? Is your country? What about ideals such as ‘human progress’? At some point one can’t redefine the ‘self’ in ‘self-interest’ to account for all of that.
Your take on pacifism with regards to economics is a novel yet logical approach. It appropriately addresses the alienation that most people see from conflict. However, I think your generalisation against pacifism departs from the common understanding with which most people attribute to themselves. The nature of conflict is, as you’ve identified, complex: it encompasses the violent means of warfare and those of a peaceful nature. The idealogy of pacifism, I would argue, is most closely bound to the former.
That citizens protest the actions of their state in foreign wartime is an argument for alternate means of diplomacy. The idealogy should not be for the protection of our right to survival (in the case of conscription) but in principle against the use of violent means to inflict our power against others whether this be for the consumption of resource or for the championing of political, religious or other social doctrines. Hence for these conflicts between nation-states, it should not be interpreted as an argument for or against individualism.
This was an intriguing article to read. I agree with your stance on humanity’s position within the animal kingdom, that we’re built to survive and competition is a huge part of survival. That consequently, conflict is intrinsic to the success of our convoluted social structure and how it is, in many ways, a pivotal part of structural functionalism and the relationships between different nations as well as those between different meritocratic niches within society. You make a good point with humans being intrinsically self centered, though I do believe this an intricate and multifaceted idea that could be argued if you take into account individuals or organisations that act as pacifists but then again, times of peace are often short lived and tend to be for the common good so wouldn’t that be an act of self interest or at the very least, for the greater good.
It is interesting that we humans see ourselves as so exceptional. The conflict between humans is sometimes more civilised than animals – e.g. it’s rare to see someone getting randomly attacked on the street – but it still certainly exists. Particularly in the last couple of decades, conflict from some major world powers seems to have become more of an abstraction. New technology such as drones means you can kill hundreds of people from thousands of kilometres away. Humans practice the large-scale form of conflict we call war, something that is almost unheard of in other species. Somehow systematic and larger forms of conflict can seem more justifiable than individual instances of conflict.
I find it interesting how humans will generally try and justify conflict, rather than admitting being no better than other animals. Justifications for conflict are sometimes valid: for example, I would argue that Allied powers were justified in going to war to try and stop Nazism (even if there was unnecessary conflict, such as the bombing of Dresden). Other conflicts have much weaker justifications: the ‘White Man’s Burden’, for example, justified the colonisation and oppression of huge numbers of people.
The fact that humans must try and justify conflict reveals that there is a hidden recognition of the fact that what we’re doing is immoral. We can’t bring ourselves to simply admit our actions as immoral, as that would make us no better than animals.
I’m not sure why we want to distinguish ourselves so much from animals. One reason could be that in order to justify barbaric practices such as the meat and dairy industry we need to see ourselves as superior to animals.
Somehow, we can simultaneously see other animals as less civilised and more violent, but also brutally subjugate them.
You have brought up so many points here that I absolutely agree with! As humans, we consider ourselves so superior as a species that is able to think, aspire and innovate; we see ourselves as advanced and progressive, and yet, although an animal’s way of life can be considered selfish – revolving entirely around itself and ensuring its succession – everything revolves around instinct, in a simplicity that humans can never truly grasp. The abilities that make humans unique allow the possibility of empathy, care, and compassion – but on the other end of the spectrum, it also is what makes us capable of evil. What animals lack is the complications that come with intention, and it is why, unlike humans, they cannot display true cruelty. We have been building civilisations throughout our histories and yet we can’t seem to be able to avoid making the same mistakes! Which begs the question, are we truly progressing or just doomed to recreate our own failures accompanied by the shiny new creations we call development?
As you said, it is times like these that show how fragile and delicate we are. One fast-spreading virus has so effectively taken apart lives on a global scale. Despite how I’ve just gone on about the inherit selfishness of humans, I do think this has revealed how necessary community is to us and very clearly shows that no matter who you are and what you do, we all rely on each other. It has been a lesson in just how incapable we are of existing as solitary beings and how destructive our individualistic tendencies can be.