HUMANITY VS. NATURE: COVID-19

 It is Nature against Human kind.                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Nature encodes itself in DNA/RNA. It succeeds by mire geometric replication in millions  of ways. This "survival" of the fittest" strategy has generated millions, if not billions of varieties of combinations and forms of life. One of which is the human species. Another is the Corona Virus.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

We are one species that has rebelled against Nature and created our "Own" form of DNA  called Society and  RNA called CULTURE. As we have evolved we are following the same path as Nature (we have to because we are a part of Nature's experiment despite our  modern arrogance to think we are apart from Nature).                                                                                                                                                       

Where Nature encodes its formula for a species in the genes, Humans encode the formula for their society in Culture. A simple society has a simple Culture with a simple technology that can be passed from generation to generation through example and teaching. A complex society encodes its cultural "DNA", in its physical and intellectual technology and its cultural "RNA" in the extensive and diversified knowledge and skill base that is taught and stored in its institutions and the members serving them.                                                                                                                                                               

The current pandemic, CONVD-19, is an attack by Nature against the Human Species. It  is just another test of  the human model by Nature. These tests are coming more frequently and globally as our numbers and our impact on the planetary environment increases. In Human terms of time, such attacks are infrequent. But  Nature's time table they are more frequent and test our weaknesses as an opportunity for a new variation of life. We help Nature when our population size expands, our ease of travel increases, our social networks become more complex and we become more depend on technology to satisfy our individual and collective  needs.                                                                                                                                                            

The current pandemic is only 100 years away from the last in 1918. Between and now we have had such plagues as polio, SARS, Ebola, AIDS, to mention only a few. Each has tested our species' genetic weaknesses  and technological adaptability.                                                                                                                                                      

Biological Species adjust through Darwinian adaptation. Societies adjust through technology adaptation. Just as different gene sequences carry the variations of the trait that is being tested, so different social and  technological structures carry the variations of human adaptability being tested. Today, March 26, 2020 we are being tested. The question is “Will we pass the test as a Species?" or "Will we fail the test as a Society?"                                                                                                                                                       

The Dinosaurs evolved over some 200 million year and today some scientist believe survive in their genetic  adaptation as birds. Humans are mammals, We are primates. 

                                                                                                                                         

 Homo Sapiens are one species of this general class. Just as the today's birds are represent the survival of the dinosaur class. Homo Sapiens have been especially successful over the past 200,000 years (more or less) because of their unique adaptation, This is the ability to organize into complex social units, adapt our technologies to the great diversity of the physical environments we inhabit, adapt our cultural processes for defining meaningful  problems and methods for  solving them through technological adaptation. This is the physical and behavioral side of CULTURE.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Culture has a mental side as well, we call TRADITION. Traditions require learning the collective knowledge of the society and the transmission of that knowledge to the develop the skills to use that knowledge. In the Modern Global Society, it is the skills and skill level of a SOCIETY and Human SOCIETY as a whole that is being tested by NATURE.                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Today, this minute, we are focused on the latest pandemic and wonder how we can survive it, as individuals and as communities. But Nature does not care. The Virus is an equal  opportunity species that attacks the biological human host. Our natural response to it is  determined by chance and our unique DNA's ability to  ward off or to be susceptible the Virus.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Our Society and communities, however, are complex structures represented by the supply chain of goods and services that make the structure work. Any break or constraint in that  chain imposes boundaries on our environment. These limits determine our ability to survive as individuals and in many cases as communities. Nature can be and has been contained within these environments. But as we become more unified as a species, Nature exploits these new avenues to test its adaptations. The history of the planet demonstrates how Nature  expands and contracts and how species emerge, flourish and become extinct. We are NOT an  exception.                                                                                                                                                               

To assume that this current threat will pass without a longer term cost is irrational. We must find the opportunities that exist within the threat and exploit them if humanity is to survive.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Pandemics, among all species, exist because they follow the food chain. The food chain of the virus and the food chain of the host, And the food chain of the host is the food  chain of the Species. For the human species, the food chain of the SOCIETY, And finally,  FOOD is anything and everything that the biological individual  and societal CULTURE value that sustains and gives meaning to life.                                                                                                                                                   

To fight the current pandemic and prevent future pandemic we (as a species and as individuals) must think and act in tune with our one and only home -- Planet Earth. This struggle between Humanity and Nature is the Biblical Armageddon. It is the test of  Humanity's ability to recreate a mythical garden of Eden or sink into the fossil record as just another experiment by Nature.                                                                                                         

Culture: Is it of any scientific value or just a hollowed out concept?

I have posted a link on several anthropology groups on LinkedIn which lead people to this blog and my posting,  "Anthropology needs a common professional vocabulary”.  I have received some interesting responses. One, in particular, states

"As life is dynamic, sop [sic] is the evolution of terminology [sic] to handle the changes involved. to abandon the meaning of established terminology is to abandom [sic] the research done using those terms, ..."

 

leads me to the following response.

This is a great observation but it doesn't go far enough. There are unintended consequences as well. As the terminology changes it also sucks out the underlying insight that promoted its use in the first place. The terms either become "hollow" or "rarefied" to the point that they are meaningless.

Take "culture" as used today by the profession. "Culture" has had a very important role in the evolution of anthropology and our interpretation of humanity as more than a species of animal in biology's taxonomy of life. When Tylor defined the term, it meant all of those traits that seemed to distinguish "humans" from other animal species. Today, culture is used as an excuse or justification for differences in behavior especially for minorities (that is ANY sub-group within a larger group).

Kroeber, borrowing from Spencer, defined "culture" in terms of its locus in human experience as something that is "Superorganic". That is, culture is something which exists outside the organic individual human animal. This insight builds on two terms -- Culture is the term that Tylor applied to non-literate and pre-literate peoples for "civilization" and the Superorganic placed the emphasis on Tylor's concept of "shared values".

Malinowski and his contemporary, Talcott Parsons, expanded the definition further by linking the organic (biological and psychology needs) to the Superorganic as the mechanism for "sharing" and "capturing and preserving" experience. For Malinowski it is the "institution" and "institutional complex" where this takes place. The "institution" builds on Tylor and Kroeber by laying the foundation for structuring the elements in Tylor's "culture" into a researchable and analytical object defined in terms of its output/function/purpose in supporting the individual and the group. Culture is to be found in the institutional Chart.

Parsons and his colleagues took a slightly different approach. They focused on the behavior that leads to the satisfaction of organic needs and how these are institutionalized in society to form an action system -- a flow of energy and function that serves to maintain a social system. And Culture is found in the those elements that make up the Pattern Maintenance function.

All of this is built on the Tylor definition of "Culture". If we were to take the present day term "culture" we might and do come to the same conclusion that differences in "culture" produce differences in behavior at the organic and societal (supra-organic) level. But today's definitions will not explain "why?".

Why is this? I would hypothesize that it is because structural/functionalism fell out of favor in the 1960s and on. It lost its favor because the stress or focus was on stability. The question was "Why do cultures persist despite strong environmental pressures from other cultures to force change?" This is the heart of the work of Edward H. Spicer's "persistent culture" concept.

In the mid 1960s, in light of the Viet Nam war, civil rights movement etc. structural/functionalism became associated with a philosophical position which favored the status quo. Culture is conservative. The world and its problems of inequality, in the view of many, called for a radical solution - a solution that would break the gravitational pull of tradition and culture. The question changed from a "Why?" question to a "How? question. The question thus became a solution. “How can we propel mankind into a more equitable and "just" orbit?” (The space age was just emerging at this time).

Marxism and other theories that focused on power relationships took over the social sciences. "Power" replaced "culture" as the ideological style of the social sciences and has found a strong home within academic anthropology and its institutions. Rather than scientific, these theories are divisive. They are loaded with ideological content. 

Anthropology has become fragmented into philosophical camps and concepts, such as "culture", "structure" and "function," have become just so many hollowed out or rarefied words.

REBRANDING ANTHROPOLOGY Part 1 -- What happened to culture?

According to the American Anthropological Association

Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present.

This definition is somewhat different from the usual and traditional discourse we encounter about anthropology. The traditional approach placed “culture” at the center of the anthropological paradigm.  Anthropology’s brand and identity within the social sciences has traditionally been the concept CULTURE. Today, that is no longer true as the above definition clearly shows.

In a recent posting (October 2011) I made to the AAA site on LinkedIn I asked the following question, 

"What definition or metaphor do you find most helpful when you are defining "Culture?"


In 1963, A.L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn published a book entitled "CULTURE: A critical review of concepts and definitions" In their study of the term and it's history and use, one finds a wide range of ideas about what is the core concept of anthropology. These definitions are, in a way, a road map of the intellectual development within anthropology up to the mid-20th century. Now fifty years later, the concept of culture has changed with the times, the metaphors and the theories of  the profession and prejudices of its students.

What is your definition? What are your metaphors? How do you describe "culture" to your students, colleagues, and clients?

Since then, I have received a total of 8 responses. None of them truly addresses the question except in the most general of terms. It seems that culture is no longer the central organizing principle around which the four fields of anthropology, ethnology, physical/biological, archaeological, and linguistics orbit.

Yet when you ask anthropologists and practitioners, “What is anthropology?”, the most frequent response is “the study of culture.” As a practicing applied anthropologist for the past 30+years, I find that this response has not changed. Most anthropologists coming out of academia appear to think that the concept of “culture” is anthropology’s biggest selling point. Ethnographic research is the new and improved TIDE when it comes to applied social science.

These anthropologists seem to think, or feel, that they are the possessors of the great secret. It is a secret that every potential employer needs to know in order to succeed. As the bearers of this secret, these anthropologists seem to feel that they will be immediately embraced and employed to share this secret. The secret, of course, is – “culture.”

The problem, seen by these anthropologists, is that the potential employer lacks an understanding of the role culture plays in his/her business. What the employer needs is a staff anthropologist, or at least an anthropologically trained consultant, to research and provide answers to “cultural” problems in the business. What they don’t seem to understand is, that outside of academia, the “culture” concept no longer is the exclusive cache of anthropologists.

They are often surprised to discover that the term “culture” has long been accepted and integrated in the popular vocabulary of the employer and most other applied social and behavioral sciences serving the business community. As generally used, “culture” defines the fact that there are “differences” between Us (the business) and Them (Stakeholders).

Meanwhile within the profession, which has defined itself mainly as an academic discipline, the concept itself has lost its unique centrality and meaning.

Dating from the 1940’s, the profession has been struggling with question, “What is anthropology?”

Is anthropology the study of humanity or culture?
Why is anthropology a four field discipline and should it be?
Is the natural focus of anthropology the study of preliterate society?
What is anthropology’s role in the sciences and/or humanities?

Lacking any consistent answer other than “Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present,” it seems that American Anthropology has lost its brand identity.

It may be time to reposition the brand.

Terror and the Nuclear Threat Tradition

Culture is formed by the accumulation and the passing on of traditions from one generation to the next in social groups . These traditions are the collective experiences, beliefs, values and practices of individual members and institutions of society. Those which prove to be adaptive and become critical to the group's survival  are recorded and passed on from generation to generation. Those which are not critical may be lost over time. The speed of culture changes influences what is retained, what is passed on and what is lost.

The end of the Cold War in 1992 changed the way we, in the public, look at the nuclear threat. For those born after the end of the Cold War, the nuclear war threat may only be "history." But, for those of us who lived through the Cold War, the traditions of that period remain part of the our culture and worldview.The terrorist attack on the twin towers on 9/11/02 has shifted our national focus from the threat of a global nuclear war between nations to the threat of the individual terrorist suicide bomber of the 21st century.


Today, with the discussions about the possibilities of  nuclear terrorism once again surfacing, it may be worthwhile to re-examination of the culture of nuclear defense and disaster control. Today in 2012, with the concern over Iran's nuclear program and Israel and US potential response to it, it is worth thinking about how our traditional nuclear culture may be used to guide our response. We should examine the super-organic of t,he Nuclear war and Terrorism as anthropologists by asking:  How do the Cold War traditions influence, or not influence, life in America and the world the 21st century? Do our traditions prepare us for what might happen?

A good place to start is this 2008, TED presentation, by Irwin Redlener entitled

How to survive a nuclear attack

The presentation is described as: "The face of nuclear terror has changed since the Cold War, but disaster-medicine expert Irwin Redlener reminds us the threat is still real. He looks at some of history's farcical countermeasures and offers practical advice on how to survive an attack "