The practice of liberal ideals will only be possible where C:P is high it will be degraded, and eventually disappear, where C:P declines. ![]() May the Guardian long continue to do so.įrederik Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth in their novel Wolfbane explain that human cultural development is controlled by the ratio C:P, where C is the number of calories and P is population. I was struck by the quoted abstract from CP Scott’s famous 1921 essay that one of the most important aspects of a newspaper is it that should “play on the minds and consciences of men”. It’s perhaps apt that John Gray’s article should coincide with your editor-in-chief’s invitation to readers to engage more fully with the Guardian. Gray calls on evolutionary psychology to support his case, but I would ask: why would a species evolve that was fundamentally self-destructive? The instinctive desire for preservation of self and others seems to me to be a much more likely product of human evolution. But Rogers found that these “untamed and unsocial feelings are neither the deepest nor the strongest, and that the inner core of man’s personality is the organism itself, which is essentially both self-preserving and social”. One reason this view is so widespread is that therapy reveals (and we often feel) destructiveness, violence and anger, and it is easy to mistake these feelings as fundamental. The generally accepted view, however, as Rogers points out, is that man’s basic nature is destructive and has to be kept under control. While it would clearly be ridiculous to claim humans are never violent, the psychotherapist Carl Rogers argues that his experience shows that “the innermost core of man’s nature, the deepest layers of his personality, the base of his ‘animal nature’ is positive in nature – is basically socialised, forward-looking, rational and realistic”. However, I strongly reject his view that the tendency to violence and evil is a fundamental aspect of our nature. John Gray’s article is fascinating, and in many respects convincing. This assumption does not conflict with the broad sweep of Gray’s analysis and he has no need to assert that it does. “No advance in human knowledge can stop humans attacking and persecuting others.” Surely a claim too far, unless John Gray regards his own article as a futile contribution to a pointless debate? Meliorism is not idealism: in education, and social science in particular, meliorism assumes that while violence and destructiveness may be inherent and inescapable features of humanity, improvements in interpersonal and inter-group relations are possible. School of Social Sciences, University of East London It’s possible to believe that social institutions are all we’ve got without believing they provide the royal road to the perfection of anything. So institutions have to be dismantled and rebuilt, generation after generation, and all final solutions are bogus. ![]() There will be improvements, but also deteriorations. They understand that institutions are fallible, will break down, and may themselves become agencies of harm. But many members, supporters, or advocates of social institutions are not so deluded. Some grandiose creators of social institutions may believe that evil can be finally overcome through their efforts. Social institutions are established to mitigate a variety of evils (rather than a single monolithic “evil”). The conclusion to John Gray’s lament exposes the contradiction within it: he accepts that there is no peace without “functioning states” but functioning states are examples of the same “social institutions” he has dismissed a thousand words earlier. They will not like Gray’s wise conclusion that “non-intervention is a morally compromised option” and that “military action may be justified”. In fact, it is their vocal opponents on the liberal left who believe that people can just go on getting better without what the market calls “corrections” now and again. Western leaders as believers in “melioristic liberalism” is quite a stretch. Thus, Libya “is now an anarchic hell-hole”, but tenfold worse Syria is not mentioned. Gray’s other error is to invoke situations where intervention has not “worked” without mentioning situations where non-intervention has been equally unsuccessful.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |