1. The nature and function of art over the last tens of thousands of years
In my last article I wrote “ Life is a rare gift in the universe but our power societies, and more particularly the quasi-worldview of Modernity, lost touch with this evidence. Now that we start to grasp the fact that this gift could be taken away we come to appreciate that it is the most precious thing we ever had. ”
Since the principle of life is the most important thing we ever had would it not be logical to derive all our ideas and actions about how to live from this principle ?
The first question that arises is then ‘what is life? ‘.
In my last article I wrote “ Life is a rare gift in the universe but our power societies, and more particularly the quasi-worldview of Modernity, lost touch with this evidence. Now that we start to grasp the fact that this gift could be taken away we come to appreciate that it is the most precious thing we ever had. ”
Since the principle of life is the most important thing we ever had would it not be logical to derive all our ideas and actions about how to live from this principle ?
The first question that arises is then ‘what is life? ‘.
Homo-Sapiens
Life materializes in the form of species that evolve biologically in order to adapt to their environment. Humanity reached a threshold of biological evolution some 300,000 years ago that opened the path to its societal evolution. In other words the evolution of the human brain had given Homo-sapiens the capacity of abstract thinking which engaged the species on the path of more complex societies. In the process biological evolution was overtaken by societal evolution and the rhythm of evolutionary change started to accelerate.
In short the development of the neo-cortex, as the newest layer of the brain, gave humans the potential of abstract thinking and over time Homo-sapiens discovered that knowledge is a powerful instrument to reduce suffering and so they devised a strategy of knowledge formation that was adapted to their living in small bands (approximately 20–40 individuals). The same phenomenon happened over the whole earth and so small bands everywhere designated one of their members to specialize in knowledge formation.
The impact of that decision was world-changing. With hindsight we understand that this gave humans access to :
- a more efficient gathering of food resources
- a more successful treatment of at least some health conditions and inter-personal relations
- a better grip on forecasting the weather, seasonal rhythms, and the outcomes of certain actions.
The disorganization of small bands was followed by thousands, or perhaps tens of thousands of years, of experimentation by trial and error of new models of governance better adapted to larger groups. Sometimes between 300,000 to 50,000 years ago a new model of group organization emerged and it emerged similarly over the whole world. This new model of governance gave rise to the first real complex society named the tribe by modern man.
What is a tribe ?
The formation of knowledge in small bands eased the process of gathering the necessary food for the group’s subsistence and this resulted in more available food that fed more mouths and the population levels gradually increased. Knowledge formation is the greatest revolution that Homo-Sapiens ever achieved.
The first consequence of the application of abstract knowledge was population growth which destabilized the small band model of group organization. Our ancestors thus experimented, over long periods of time through trial and error, and discovered a new and more effective model of group organization. And everywhere they stumbled on the same golden rule of population size. All this was achieved in extremely difficult climate conditions which explains that they had a solid incentive to remain glued together in their groups. In other words they could not have survived the harshness of an ice age climate without a group cohesion boosted at a maximum. This golden rule is what procured the necessary levels of cohesion to their tribes and so they reproduced over the long haul of tens of thousands of years.
But what is this golden rule of population size ?
Studies initially undertaken at the initiative of Professor Robin Dunbar1 suggest that the time available to the human individual places constraints on his ability to manage relationships with others. In other words there is a “cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.“2. This cognitive limit is called the ‘Dunbar’s number’ which limits the size of groups to the number of individuals who can groom each other into trusting relationships. The ‘Dunbar number’ gives a measure of the highest number of people who can intermingle while trusting each other. That number is a mean of 150 individuals representing stable cohesive groups ranging between extremes of 100 and 200 individuals.
Groups, that are under intense environmental economic or defense pressure, have a strong incentive to stabilize around a mean size of 150 because it is the size that ensures them a maximum of cohesion which in finale ensures them the best outcome in fulfilling their task. This has been observed in numerous fields along history and in contemporary settings3.
The mean of 150 was the size of tribes till the end of the Younger Dryas some 11.700 years ago when the earth temperatures abruptly increased by an average of 6 degrees Celcius that melted the ice caps covering most of North America and Europe and increased sea levels by some 60 to 100 meters on average. Most of the richest inhabited areas that were located along the coasts were flooded and tribal population levels were suddenly decimated.
In the wake of the Younger Dryas the climate stabilized at an increased average temperature of 6 degrees C and along the next 10000 years average temperatures remained stable within a band of +- 0.5 degrees Celcius until the Anthropocene engaged a new boost of warming. Leaving the ice age behind created the right conditions for the agricultural revolution and populations started to growth rapidly.
The abrupt change in climate that followed the Younger Dryas suddenly destabilized the traditional tribal societal model of organization. It was further destabilized during the following 7-8000 years of transition leading to the stabilization of power societies in Early-kingdoms and empires around 5000 years ago. In this new age of power societies the surviving tribal societies cohabited with agricultural villages until they were swallowed by the force of power societies.
What we call tribes in our present contemporary setting are no more than shadows, of their traditional late-paleolithic ancestors, who have lost any trace of their legendary resilience. And we are forced to observe that continuing to call such zombie societies tribes entertains a great confusion in the minds as to the nature of what traditional late-paleolithic tribes were all about.
Tribal societal cohesion and visual arts
The sharing by all members of the tribe of the worldview, synthesized by the (wo)men of knowledge (shaman) from their knowledge base, ensured a strong tribal cohesion. But how did the sharing occur ?
Written language emerged a lot later with the imperial need for records and spoken language was still not very developed. Language could thus not have been the right vehicle to share complex abstract principles in tribal societies. Hey it is not working even to this very day !
The tribal vehicle of knowledge sharing was the visual sign and the shaman and her/his assistants were the image creators. Some of their works, as old as 40,000 years, have been preserved to this day (cave art). But these were initiatic images that were not created at the intention of their fellow tribesmen. The support, of the images that were shared with all, formed an integral part of the tribesmen daily lives: totems, textiles, sand drawings, and so many other that we can not even start to conceive of in our modern minds.
Today such tribal visual signs are generally called ‘primitive art’. In need of a less derogatory term to front their recently opened new museum the French coined the word ‘art premiers’ which means ‘first arts’. But the word art, as mentioned earlier, emerged only during the European Renaissance so it could not have been in use in tribal societies. The fact that the contemporary artworld uses the word art, to designate these shamanic visual signs, indicates that it considers these works to be of the same nature than the artworks created during Early, High, and today in Late-Modernity. But our problem today is that, for multiple reasons that I’ll address in chapter 3, we do no longer know what art really is all about. In contrast what art meant in a tribal context is unequivocal. So by returning to the origins of the artistic practice we will rediscover the real meaning of what I earlier called the traditional nature and function of art.
The shamanic visual sign was an instrument of communication to share the worldview of the shaman with his fellow tribesmen. The content of the works was the shaman’s knowledge, or worldview, and the form of the work was his creative rendering. It is vital that we remember these 2 aspects to the tribal work of art :
- the content of the original tribal work of art was the worldview of the shaman, or the view of the world or of reality, that she/he derived from her/his
knowledge base. And the sharing of the worldview of the (wo)men of
knowledge with all the members of the tribe served an indispensable
function. It infused a common understanding of reality in the minds of all. This glued the minds around a common meaning which boosted
and strengthened the cohesion of their society. Anthropology and
Western political science only rediscovered recently that a strong
societal cohesion is what helps a society to reproduce over the long haul. And so we came to appreciate that art plays a fundamental role in societal reproduction. As a matter of fact the strategy was so successful that the tribal model of society lasted for tens of thousands of years !
Let’s note here that worldviews, as in a grand foundational narrative, disappeared in the Western world sometime after the 2nd World war. Postmodernism even made worldviews anathema ! But in such conditions how long are these societies going to last ? I’ll come back to that a little further. - the form of the work’s execution was the creative prerogative of the creator, or in modern parlance the artist, who in tribal societies was also the (wo)men of knowledge. The (wo)man of knowledge was the artist. The unity between knowledge and image making is a fundamental character of tribal art. We better remember this because this fact contains the explanation for why Modernism was destined to be a failure from the start. I’ll come back to that a little further.
The cohesion of tribal societies was at a maximum and this can be explained by the fact that the climate conditions were so extreme that survival absolutely depended on the primacy of the group. Individualism was excluded. The group was all there was. This means that individual happiness equaled the happiness of the others and of the group as a whole. And sharing was thus the greatest pleasure of tribesmen. What a contrast with Late-Modernity ! Such a focus of the individuals on the group was possible because visual signs glued their minds around the common meaning derived from the worldview of the (wo)men of knowledge and by fostering a profound trust among all individuals the group took center stage.
There are a number of lessons that we better learn from this. Difficult times bring people together and the group takes center stage. Late-Modernity is the opposite of this. The climate is still mild, there is material abundance, and humans lost their focus. They became greedy and egotistic. But the interactions, of the numerous side-effects of Modernity with the confusion resulting from the shift of the center of gravity of the economy-world to North-Asia, will soon abruptly plunge humanity in a new age of extremes. And it is expected that the need to survive will impulse an urgent necessity of group cohesion that inevitably will awaken humanity to what the traditional nature of art was all about...
Societal evolution
Societal evolution is governed by the dance between the polarities of the species:
- the individuals’ energy powers the evolution of the species towards ever more complexity. This energy constitutes something akin to the male polarity of the human species. In modern parlance we conflate this notion of more complexity with the idea of ‘progress’.
- groupings of individuals release energy that powers the conservation of the status-quo which maximizes the chances that the group will survive by reproducing over the generations. The reproduction of societies ensures that the species will reproduce over the long haul. This principle of conservation constitutes something akin to the female polarity of the human species.
The
force of conservation is based on the idea that something that works is
the most secure way to engage the future. In contrast the search for
more complexity targets the evolution of the species into a more
advanced stage that our modern societies conflate with the idea of
development and progress.
Both functions are prime drivers of the principle of life but their targets are antagonistic. In this antagonism resides the necessity of a negotiated settlement about change that satisfies both forces. It is like the working of the plus and minus polarities in electricity. From their contact bursts a discharge of energy that powers change. In other words change does not result from one polarity but from a negotiated settlement between both.
These abstract principles help us to understand how the different models of society are differing so fundamentally all along the path of societal evolution. The history of societal evolution is a narrative that explains how humanity navigated from – relationships founded in complete equality as they were fostered by tribal societies – to relationships founded in complete inequality as they are imposed by power institutions:
In light of this sketch, of the narrative about societal evolution, the differences between the start of that evolution and Late-Modernity is stark indeed:
Both functions are prime drivers of the principle of life but their targets are antagonistic. In this antagonism resides the necessity of a negotiated settlement about change that satisfies both forces. It is like the working of the plus and minus polarities in electricity. From their contact bursts a discharge of energy that powers change. In other words change does not result from one polarity but from a negotiated settlement between both.
These abstract principles help us to understand how the different models of society are differing so fundamentally all along the path of societal evolution. The history of societal evolution is a narrative that explains how humanity navigated from – relationships founded in complete equality as they were fostered by tribal societies – to relationships founded in complete inequality as they are imposed by power institutions:
- in tribal societies the group was everything there is. Individualism was a feeling unknown to the individuals and it would have been rejected if had made an appearance. Individual happiness occurred when the others were happy and the group was in harmony. In such a setting solidarity and cooperation were the normal in relations between tribesmen and there was thus no need nor place for power. Trust between the citizens was total and decisions were taken at the unanimity. Nobody had any power over the others. Let’s note that the tribe was a matriarchal model of society for the good reason that women stayed put with the kids and the old while men roamed the land for meat and other resources like pigments, obsidian stones to make tools, and other. The (wo)men of knowledge were bound to the group by a service contract. They had to supply their knowledge to the individuals who were in need of it (health, inter-relations, relations with the outside, divination, and so on). But they had no power over the group nor over the individuals. This means that anyone was the absolute equal of all the others. Now, understandably, the actors of power societies have a strong incentive to reject these facts … no matter that the views of anthropologists have been converging over the last decades along the lines of the narrative I lay out. But their vociferous rejection are understandable for the good reason that this narrative about tribal societies is not encouraging anyone to appreciate and supporting the power model of society.
- In power societies a minority succeeds to dominate the majority by controlling the food reserves, by the exercise of sheer force, or by any other means. Domination confers to this minority all kinds of privileges and this naturally leads them to devise strategies to ensure the reproduction of their domination and their privileges over the long haul thus ensuring that their descendants inherit their privileges. In view of societal evolution it is important to remember that success in reproducing domination and privileges is what initially stabilized power institutions like kingdoms and empires which consecrated the principles of inequality and individualism. This is how civilizations started. In these early power institutions a small minority had any rights and any privileges while the great majority had no rights, no privileges, and had to sacrifice a great deal of their personal time to the benefit of the minority who was in power. Accepting the sacrifice and their inequality suggests a thorough brainwashing...
- The principle of individualism and private ownership were initially the preserve of a minority (aristocracy = men of power + clergy = men of knowledge) that with Early-Modernity expanded to the long distance merchants (merchant capitalism). The accumulation of capital and the strengthening of rationalism further expanded this minority to capital owners and later to consumers under mass-market industrial capitalism.
In light of this sketch, of the narrative about societal evolution, the differences between the start of that evolution and Late-Modernity is stark indeed:
- tribal societal equality + knowledge + the arts strengthened societal cohesion to its maximum thus reproducing these societies over the span of tens of thousands of years. The abruptly changing climate at the end of the Younger Dryas destabilized the tribal model of society and a transition to a new model of governance was set in motion.
- power societies, in comparison, are a recent phenomenon that was initiated some 5000 years ago in some dispersed geographic areas. They expanded extremely rapidly, principally over the last 500 years, and today power societies cover the entire face of the world. But the multiple side-effects of their activities, over the last 300 years, are destroying the habitat of humanity as well as the habitat of many other species which has set in motion the 6th mass extinction... and more and more scientists start to think that the process is irreversible.
Conclusions
1. About societal evolutionary speed:
- slow societal evolutionary speed led to a very long societal span.
- rapid societal evolutionary speed led to a rather short societal span.
2. About societal evolutionary resilience:
The historical dance, between the female and the male polarities of the entity ‘human species’, always resulted in societies being organized by a dominant polarity. And history indicates that there was a huge differential in term of societal resilience between a dominating female polarity in tribal societies versus a dominating male polarity in power societies. The reign of the female polarity (slow evolution) was largely longer than the reign of the masculine polarity (fast evolution). It’s a like the difference between a marathon run and a sprint. The marathon covers a long distance at a slow pace while the sprint covers a short distance at tremendous high speed.
It is also important to note that the reign of the female polarity did not resist the abrupt changes of the climate at the end of the Younger Dryas. Its governance system was disorganized and collapsed opening the path to the reign of the male polarity. Today in Late-Modernity it is the patriarchy of power societies that is disorganized and collapsing...
The historical dance, between the female and the male polarities of the entity ‘human species’, always resulted in societies being organized by a dominant polarity. And history indicates that there was a huge differential in term of societal resilience between a dominating female polarity in tribal societies versus a dominating male polarity in power societies. The reign of the female polarity (slow evolution) was largely longer than the reign of the masculine polarity (fast evolution). It’s a like the difference between a marathon run and a sprint. The marathon covers a long distance at a slow pace while the sprint covers a short distance at tremendous high speed.
It is also important to note that the reign of the female polarity did not resist the abrupt changes of the climate at the end of the Younger Dryas. Its governance system was disorganized and collapsed opening the path to the reign of the male polarity. Today in Late-Modernity it is the patriarchy of power societies that is disorganized and collapsing...
3. About societal outcome:
4. outcome for the human species:
5. What about the arts ?
- cooperation and social equality versus competition and social inequality
- group happiness versus individual happiness:
- group happiness was prime in tribal societies = a culture rooted in giving and cooperation ==> societal harmony ==> the group takes care of the individuals (solidarity)
- individual happiness is prime in power societies = a culture rooted in competition and taking ==> social conflict ==> the group leaves the individuals to fend for themselves (individualism)
- societal resilience:
- high group cohesion leads to high societal resilience
- high individualism leads to low societal resilience
4. outcome for the human species:
- slow versus fast societal evolution:
- slow evolution goes far: slow evolution gives slow advances in complexity which builds a very resilient model of society.
- fast evolution goes a short way: fast evolution gives fast advances in complexity which puts humans at risk of losing control. Our Late-Modern technological societies are a perfect illustration. Conclusion: fast evolution builds a very fragile model of society.
- societal resilience versus fragility:
- societal resilience suggests a high probability that the species will reproduce over the long haul
- societal fragility suggests a high probability that the species will reproduce no more than over a short haul
5. What about the arts ?
Art
originated during the transition from small bands to tribal societies
and its nature and function matured along the developmental path of
tribal societies.
With power societies the nature of that strategy changed radically:
In chapter 2 we will see how the nature and function of art in Early-Modernity did not change. What changed was the addition of a new class of beneficiaries from the domination and the privileges: the long distance merchants who were prefiguring the coming age of the bourgeoisie.
In Chapter 3 we will see how during High-Modernity, with Modernism, the nature and function of art as practiced in earlier power societies was thrown over board by the avant-garde. Without knowing it the avant-garde was returning to the tribal model of art but its members were only artists… while the tribal artists were first and foremost men of knowledge. So the attempt of the avant-garde to devise a new way of seeing reality, at deeper levels than what had been the case with religious art and the 3 obliged subjects of Early-modern art, was bound from the start to end in failure.
That failure of Modernism then became the opportunity of propagandists and merchants who did not miss to exploit art for profit which initiated the new era of Late-Modernity and Postmodernism...
- its nature was to facilitate the execution of the service contract between the (wo)men of knowledge and all her/his fellow tribesmen which consisted in sharing the knowledge among all in order to reduce suffering while increasing happiness. As such the nature of art was to ensure the social well-being of all which resulted in social equality.
- its
function was to act as an instrument of communication to share the
worldview, or a synthesis of the knowledge of the (wo)men of knowledge
of the day, with all their fellow citizens in order to strengthen
societal cohesion so that tribal societies would reproduce over the long
haul.
With power societies the nature of that strategy changed radically:
- the men of knowledge and the artists were separated.
- The
men of knowledge were the members of the religious hierarchy. They had
complete authority over the creed and were the beneficiaries of the same
kinds of special privileges that were reserved to the men of power.
In exchange for their privileges the men of knowledge had to mold the creed (religious worldview) to ensure that the minds of all would be willing to accept the reproduction of the domination and the privileges of the men of power over the long haul. - The artists were craftsmen, or image makers, who were recognized only the lowest social rank.
- The
men of knowledge were the members of the religious hierarchy. They had
complete authority over the creed and were the beneficiaries of the same
kinds of special privileges that were reserved to the men of power.
- the nature of art in power societies was to ensure the perpetuation of social inequality. Its function was thus to act as an instrument to propagandize the views of the power elite in order to submit the mass of citizens into accepting the reproduction of the domination and privileges of the elites while accepting their own raw deal. This introduces the notion of art in power societies as propaganda…
In chapter 2 we will see how the nature and function of art in Early-Modernity did not change. What changed was the addition of a new class of beneficiaries from the domination and the privileges: the long distance merchants who were prefiguring the coming age of the bourgeoisie.
In Chapter 3 we will see how during High-Modernity, with Modernism, the nature and function of art as practiced in earlier power societies was thrown over board by the avant-garde. Without knowing it the avant-garde was returning to the tribal model of art but its members were only artists… while the tribal artists were first and foremost men of knowledge. So the attempt of the avant-garde to devise a new way of seeing reality, at deeper levels than what had been the case with religious art and the 3 obliged subjects of Early-modern art, was bound from the start to end in failure.
That failure of Modernism then became the opportunity of propagandists and merchants who did not miss to exploit art for profit which initiated the new era of Late-Modernity and Postmodernism...
Notes
1. See Robin Dunbar’personal website where he states: “ My research is concerned with trying to understand the behavioural, cognitive and neuroendocrinological mechanisms that underpin social bonding in primates (in general) and humans (in particular). Understanding these mechanisms, and the functions that relationships serve, will give us insights how humans have managed to create large scale societies using a form of psychological that is evolutionarily adapted to very small scale societies, and why these mechanisms are less than perfect in the modern world. “
2. Those interested by this subject can check Dunbar’s list of his publications.
3. Are Humans Hard Wired For A Limited Social Circle? " by Mark Sisson
1. See Robin Dunbar’personal website where he states: “ My research is concerned with trying to understand the behavioural, cognitive and neuroendocrinological mechanisms that underpin social bonding in primates (in general) and humans (in particular). Understanding these mechanisms, and the functions that relationships serve, will give us insights how humans have managed to create large scale societies using a form of psychological that is evolutionarily adapted to very small scale societies, and why these mechanisms are less than perfect in the modern world. “
2. Those interested by this subject can check Dunbar’s list of his publications.
3. Are Humans Hard Wired For A Limited Social Circle? " by Mark Sisson
No comments:
Post a Comment