A New Paper by Stephen Lekson and Paris the week of January 7, 2015

As I’ve alluded earlier I’m working on a large project which involves, in part, the ancient south western US.  As part of that endeavor I’ve just read a new paper by the noted southwestern archaeologist, Stephen Lekson.  The paper’s perspective is large and archaeological but implicitly poses several questions which are pertinent to this week’s tragic events in Paris.

The archaeological record tells us that humans have been around in their current form for 200,000 years.  During almost all of that time we were hunter-gathers; the agricultural revolution is extremely recent.  It began 10,000 years ago but has only been in consistent, wide practice for 3-5 thousand years.  Yet we know that with rare exceptions,  our physiology, including our brains, evolve very slowly.  Hence, we have the same brains as our hunter-gatherer ancestors, and because of the vast amount of time we pursued that way of life it’s probable that our brains are optimized for it.

For the most part, hunter-gatherers appear to live and work in 2 social structures concurrently, “bands” of around 25 and  “tribes” of 500-1,000.  With the agricultural revolution came cities, technology and now the high population densities and rapid change that characterizes contemporary life.  What’s a poor guy with a brain equipped to deal with a band of 25 and a tribe of 1,000 to do?

Innovate.  We’ve applied precedence and hierarchy to social organization, for example.  But there are many others.  Indeed, it’s interesting to look at everything, from modern political systems, to religious organizations, to digital technology and ask how they facilitate (and enable) adaptation to that larger and more complex world.

Consider, how many “bands” and “tribes” you belong to, how they interact, why you’re a member of them.  Which ones are successful?  Which ones are in conflict?  How do we as individuals manage them, practically, philosophically, morally?  How do they work?  Can they work better?

Perhaps our institutions (there’s a difficult, at least abstract, concept for a hunter-gatherer brain) could benefit from looking at the problems they face daily, in that context.

John Gardner, the novelist who wrote “Grendel,” retells a myth about the God Odin.  Odin finds himself exhausted and overwhelmed by the work of keeping the dragons and giants in check, arbitrating humanity’s nitty, sometimes tragic problems, in general keeping chaos and entropy at bay and the universe in balance.  He  visits Loki, the god of fire and other things, and tell him his problem.

“I know the answer,” Loki says, tentatively.

“What is it?”

“The answer is of such great value, is so important and so difficult it merits a great price.”

“What is it?”

“I will give you the answer in exchange for one of your eyes.”

It is a terrible price but Odin so loves creation, that he suffers the terrible pain and partial loss of vision.  He removes one of his own eyes and gives it to the trickster god.  “Now, tell me, what is the answer,” he demands.

“Keep both eyes open.”

Steven Lekson’s paper is entitled “Cross Cultural Perspectives on the Community” and is published and available on academia.edu.