Freedom's Progress?: A History of Political Thought,
by Gerard Casey
The opening chapter of Casey’s
book is entitled “The Dawn of History.” Through this chapter one can discern why much of what
is advanced in today’s society is destructive to society. But before
getting to this, Casey constructs what is unique about man:
Human beings are singularly
badly constructed for survival. …David Hume comments, “Of all the animals with
which this globe is peopled, there is none towards whom nature seems, at first
sight, to have exercis’d more cruelty that towards man in the numberless wants
and necessities, with which she has loaded him, and in the slender means which
she affords to the relieving these necessities…”
Ibn Khaldûn offers that many
dumb animals were given more perfect power than God gave to man. Man
must consciously contrive necessary behaviors whereas other animals have such
behaviors instinctually. These contrived behaviors begin at birth;
from Frank Tallis:
“The human infant must have a high
quality of care, and this is best delivered by two parents working together for
an extended period of time – in effect, two parents in a monogamous
relationship, sharing a strong pair-bond….”
A male and female, committed to
each other for at least long enough to raise the children that they
produce. Hard to see how human life on earth would ever have
survived absent such an institution.
It is also hard to see how
human life would have survived “if procreation had not been put under the
dominion of a great passion.” I think I need not explain how this
kept the man interested in what otherwise results in a lifelong burden.
So now we have a male, female and child. Next comes the
division of labor – and guess what? It was sex-based: women
specialized in child-bearing and child-rearing, and foraging near the home; men
specialized in long-range hunting and protecting the family. The
father was more expendable than the mother; as long as the female survived,
more children were possible. Overall men had the worst of the
bargain: whereas women faced danger primarily in procreation, men faced danger
in both provision and protection.
Casey examines the impact on these relationships brought on by two very
recent revolutions: the Reproductive Revolution and the Technological
Revolution. In just a few short decades, abortion has gone from rare
to common, divorce has no social stigma, even the concept of illegitimacy is
forbidden, and homosexual behavior has gone from being vilified to being
praised. Sex can now be totally separated from reproduction –
friends with benefits, if you will.
In what amounts to a few moments of the history of man, his entire social
structure has been overturned; the social, economic, and political
consequences are yet to be seen. The implications are still being worked
out, “with fear and trembling.”
Casey next addresses the
patriarchy. We are told that patriarchy is the universal political
structure that favors men over women. No mention of the burdens that
come to the man or the benefits that come to the woman; no mention that the
structure is rooted in the protective function played by men – and can only
have been played by men if the species was to survive. No mention
that most men are as politically, socially, and economically impotent as most
women.
Men have to be prepared to
sacrifice their lives in order to protect the women and therefore the species,
as it is only women that can give birth. Casey offers an example of
the “low and devious cunning, nineteenth century British parliamentarians – all
of whom were men – who…
…attempted to conceal their male
dominance by legally prohibiting women from working in coal mines and reserving
those delightfully dirty and dangerous jobs for their brother patriarchs.
Even today, the bulk of
physically demanding – and dangerous – jobs are dominated by men. Is
it a scheme? Casey offers that men must be the only oppressors in
history that are…
1) Less
well-served by the education system that they created
2) Are
greater victims of physical violence
3) Are
treated with greater severity by the criminal justice system in respect to
divorce and child custody as well as criminal sentencing
4) Do a
staggeringly greater proportion of the dirty work – the real dirty, and
dangerous, work
5) Are
less well-treated by their health systems
6) Live
statistically shorter lives
…than the oppressed
“other.” It is difficult to identify any other alleged oppressor /
oppressed relationship where such things would be the case. Perhaps
this does demonstrate one thing: as far as “oppressors” go, men might very well
be the dumbest of the lot, and, therefore, the dumber sex.
Perhaps the most compelling
argument: Casey suggests one considers the imbalance in the demand for
sex. Who really holds the power in this relationship?
Through the institutions revolving around family, and the necessity for
such a stable and long-term relationship in order to ensure continuation of the
species, Casey offers that man is a social being because man always
had to be a social being if he was to survive. It is
difficult to imagine children surviving to adulthood had man not been
a social being…before he had children (such a chicken and egg
thing, I know; but you get the point).
It is also difficult to imagine
how man could have survived among the wild animals had he not been
a social animal. Remember, men have been placed on earth with none
of the physical means to compete against other land animals. Alone –
with no division of labor and no large numbers – man was easy prey for beasts
of every type.
As social animals, our survival
depends much on having appropriate emotional responses to others – being happy
in the good fortune of others, showing empathy when called
for. Survival also depends on favoring insiders to outsiders – the
safety of the known vs. the unknown; the safety of common tradition as compared
to foreign.
Morality is much more easily extended to members of the in-group vs.
the out group. We band together against the unknown. No
need to be upset about this; if not for this you likely would not be here
today.
Language – by far the most
complex and differentiating skill man has developed relative to other animals –
came about spontaneously. It is a social product that offers a model
of what is (and, at times, has been) possible in legal, economic and political
orders, according to Thomas Sowell.
Don’t compare man’s language to
the grunts of some animals. Yes, animals do communicate with each
other, but try to find singular or plural; past, present or future tense;
suffixes and prefixes. Try to find things that have never been said
before in the animals – as we often do in man.
Conclusion
Casey demonstrates the foundational differences in men and
women. Legislation and technology are not likely to modify these
relationships into a new model that can thereafter survive the
transformation. Our history is too long to be toyed with in such a
manner.
Further, one cannot read this chapter of Casey’s work without finding
something extraordinary in man – something present in man and not in other
animals. Is it just random atoms smashing together? And
these atoms smashed together in no other species, yet all other species hold in
common that these randomly smashed atoms produced nothing of the complexity of
the human central nervous system and the unimaginable concept of consciousness?
Randomness produced uniqueness in humans and commonality in every single
other animal species on earth? How is that random?
Which takes more faith, to believe in the luck of random atoms or…I
don’t know…God?