[sixties-l] Re: war and bonding and human nature

From: PNFPNF@aol.com
Date: Sun Jun 25 2000 - 21:41:47 CUT

  • Next message: StewA@aol.com: "Re: [sixties-l] Re: sixties-l-Gore v. Bush"

    Let me add to Carroll Cox's point (on how little of human prehistory we
    know/how minimal or negative is any evidence for any human genetic
    predisposition toward war)--and to this general thread--a few thoughts.
    1. As a zoologist friend pointed out during the '60s, no scientist would take
    seriously the sort of examples and lack of controls/large-samples/etc.in most
    "human nature" arguments
    2. Though on the other hand, we, as humans, I WOULD argue back, do, and
    probably should, find in our own reactions/feelings, (insofar as we can
    separate these from discourse/social-expectations/etc.), "human nature"
    3. There seems to be a "bonding" experience among groups of humans in most
    any "extreme" situation--including, as Don brought up, childbirth; I should
    think THIS, rather than war (or, in prehistory, perhaps the hunt, the staving
    off of predators--or disease/cold/famine, the harvest, the bringing into the
    world of a child?), (and also, incidentally, perhaps the creative-extreme
    bonding of, eg, this sort of arguing, when everyone's working/playing toward
    finding whatever of truth ("truth"?) rather than "owning" points or
    ego/position-competition), is where whatever "natural" element of combat
    veterans' bonding may be found;
    4. --including, NOT incidentally, the bonding of those upon the protest or
    the picket lines;
    5. someone mentioned Foucault's arguments--as if we should HAVE to argue
    through his/postmodern convolutions first before finding a way through the
    thicket of war-speak to begin to reach the possibility of war as NOT human
    nature. May I suggest--having just edited a book on "postcolonialism"--that
    this is one more way the establishment/discourse of academia works ITS
    colonization on our discourse; let's avoid this snare, too;
    6. the REAL culprit, I fear, would be if there's some "human predisposition"
    to hierarchy--on the other hand, or paw, we're NOT identical with either
    certain canids or certain primates.
    In any case, it's childbearing- not menstrual- envy; amniotic fluid's thicker
    than blood.
    Great being back on the list and hearing you people.
    Peace and caring anarchy,

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 25 2000 - 22:37:24 CUT