Critical Race Theory, and anything Else that Threatens Social Darwininan Advantage

Perhaps the reason America is such an apparently divisive and openly racist society is that a core value is the social Darwinian belief in "survival of the fittest."  Social Darwinism is a perversion of the concept of natural selection, which applies to the evolution of species rather than individuals.  The element of individualism in Social Darwinism creates a Hobbsian world of a war of all against all -- how else can one determine who is "fittest."

Social Darwinism suggests an hierarchical society wherein the "fittest" not only survive, but also dominate the less "fit", even to the extent that the "less fit" are not worthy of a decent quality of life and should not continue to live or reproduce.  

While Social Darwinist values are not fully implemented, it therefore a feeling of resentment among those feel they are more "fit" and must still "defer" to their inferiors.

Superiority is not always obvious, even to the "fit".  Even the "fit" must compete against others to determine relative fitness which leads to an escalation of competition -- even to the exclusion of cooperation, and thus to the rejection of society and civilization.

Education is seem by many as a means of gaining competitive advantage and "fitness".  Formal education can begin shortly after birth with day care and preschools and kindergarten and these are institutions primarily available only to those with financial means.  The quest to claw one's way to the top of the heap starts very young.  This means that be best education is restricted only to the privileged -- the wealthy, the connected, the few extraodinarily driven, and the lucky.

While the need to be the alpha dog may be an evolved trait, how that superiority manifests itself may be a social choice.  If the evolutionary result of being alpha is access to the most desireable mates, then what further rewards are necessary?  And yet it seems that we are not satisfied with that single reward.

Why must everyone compete for those rare college spots?  Why not make a good college education available to anyone who wants it, as some countries do?  That will improve the level of education in the country as a whole.

.

Celebrating Enough

 We currently reward or celebrate or reward people who have done "big" things.

People who entertain or astonish millions of people, cure or otherwise save millions of people, feed millions of people, amass huge amounts of money or capital or power, convince billions of people to want more.

But it seems this drive for "more" is killing us:  driving climate change, pollution, conflict.

And we seem unwilling or unable to stop, all for the very best of reasons.

Thousands of young people do not flock to Hollywood so that they can become obscure; other thousands do not attend business schools so that they can learn to get by on less money; and everywhere there are not billions striving to get less.

There is no Nobel Prize for the Most Frugal Person, no Academy Award for the person with the least environmental impact, no World Championship for the most humble or selfless person.  

God, the Salmon, and the Flag

 On one view, for example, totemic practices reflected the ignorance of “primitive” man who worshipped a salmon totem because he thought himself a descendant of the salmon. On a functionalist view, by contrast, the clan worshipped the totem because salmon was an important commodity, and the survival of the clan required that the salmon be accorded sacred status. Against both of these views, Lévi-Strauss argued that the rituals and beliefs surrounding the totem were the means by which individuals expressed fundamental ideas about their relations to each other and the environment. 

Religion s the expression or recognition of "something greater than ourselves".  Religion, or its referent deity, is the recognition that we do not exist separate from the world or others, which is in turn symbolized by a deity or totem.  

If I state that "There is more to existence than just me," I am making an existential statement that has no clear referent.  This amorphous "something more" is abstracted into a symbol such a "God" or "the salmon" to which all can refer and identify, even though individually, our concept of the referent may be quite different.

The Meaning of Life

1.  There is no "Afterlife".  When we die, we die, and that's the end of it.

1.a.  Whatever good or bad we do is rewarded or punished in this world only.

1.b. Virtue must be its own reward, for it will not be rewarded in an afterlife.

2.  There is no god that cares about us as individuals.  The only ones who care are other people.

Values and Habits

 Googling "values", I get articles with titles such as "Core Values List: Over 50 Common Personal Values" or "39 Core Values -- and How to Live by Them" or "Examples of Core Values: 100 Powerful Principles".

The Mind Tools Content Team defines values:  "Your values are the things that you believe are important in the way you live and work."

The above definition suggests that values are a kind of internal compass that is used to guide behavior.  But this definition leaves an opening for the idea that a value is "how you characterize what you have already done" because it leave s out the method by which that "value" is arrived at.  This means that the value we choose to characterize a behavior is idiosyncratic.  But this also means that someone observing another's behavior can characterize that behavior as originating from another value.

In general, it seems that when someone says, "my values", they generally mean, "my habits".

This makes sense to me because when a habit is violated, one feels uncomfortable, which can provoke anger, anxiety, even fear.  These are emotions provoked when something personally important is threatened, and "importance" is bedrock to the idea of value.

When we talk about "community values" it becomes even more likely that we are talking about behaviors, shared behaviors, expectations for behaviors, or interactions that fit expected patterns.  A close-knit community is one whose members know each other and know what to expect from each other, can be said to have "shared values".  Even a caste or class society can be said to have shared values if the different classes or castes share the same behavioral expectations.

Superheros

 We want superheros, but when we get them, they turn out to be supervillains.

A superhero is someone who uses their power for "good".  But the operative word here is not "good" but "power".

Lex Luthor became Superman's arch nemesis because Superboy saved Luthor from a fire in Luthor's laboratory. By blowing the fire out, Superboy caused Luthor to go bald.  Instead of inventing Monoxidil, Superboy merely apologized.

As one of Superman's creators said, he was the wish fulfillment fantasy of two Jewish kids in 1930s America.

It has taken at least two generations of superhero fans and creators to begin to recognize how problematic the idea of a superhero is.

"Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings with a single bound.  

"Look, up in the sky:  It's a bird, it's a plane, no, it's Superman.  

"Superman, strange being from another planet who came to earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal man.  Superman:  who can change the course of mighty rivers, bend steel with his bare hands, and who, disguised as Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way."

"American" Art

American artists of the pre and post WW II period wanted to develop a "American Art", in this sense, the seemed to be rejecting European art or at least wanted to do something "different".  Their rejection and search for something new seems to have forced them in the unwitting mindset of 6-year olds told by a liberal teacher to "do something and don't worry about getting dirty" with the finger paints spread before them; justifying their results by describing them in the art-theoretic terms they learned in college to give them profundity.  Thus did this group of almost exclusively white males, try to justify the creations.  No wonder they had such a hard time trying to explain their art to others.

They ended up saying nothing about America.

To the extent that they succeeded, had to do with the fact they they were a group that called themselves "artists", were somewhat able to articulate what they thought they were doing, were white males and therefore were given the benefit of a doubt by critics and galleries and collectors who were willing to pay a great deal of money for their creations.

Their strubbles eventually arrive at embracing the American banal, which reached an apax with Warhol and other pop artists.

But whatever the "subject" of their work, it was not about people, the human experience.