Man in the State of Nature

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

One my my classes had us read The Discourse on Inequality by Rousseau. Basically, he argued that man was happiest in a state of nature and modern society corrupted primitive man. Although he admits that we cannot achieve a return to primitive society (he is not a primitivist), he does say it would be better if we could return to that society.

This is anti-progressive nonsense, as I see it. I argued with someone in my class over this who thought the fact that food foraging societies have more free time proved that they were happiest. Seriously, technology can improve and hinder the quality of lives people. However, simple reasoning seems to show this is true. Unless technological advancement naturally corrupts man (who somehow is naturally evil) I don't see how this argument holds any weight.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I this seems really moronic to me. Furthermore, someone in this class (different person), is also a primitivist. How do I refute these kinds of thinking?

[RedLenin]

I think it needs to be emphasized why primitive societies seem better. Not because they were 'closer to nature' and not because technology didn't exist. The seem better because classes didn't exist. Primitive communism was communism, even though it was only so egalitarian because tribes were constantly trying to survive. There was never a surplus of food, so all food gathered was shared among the tribe.

In order to argue against primitivism you need to emphasize the positives, the communism, and then emphasize the negatives; the constant struggle to survive, the low life-expectancy, attacks by predators, etc. Then take the positives and emphasize how these can be replectated and co-exist with advanced technology. This is communism. After emphasizing the positives and negatives, it is a good time to introduce them to the ideas of communism. Basically you need to show that communism keeps the positives of primitive society and not the negatives.

[SecurityManKillJoy]

As one person argues in one of his books on Marx.org (I think it was Meszaros, but I forget now), Rousseau put too much emphasis on nature. He argues that Rousseau ignored the relation between means of production, inventions, man, and nature, and just cut it all down to the relation of nature and man, so he was naturally limited to calling the means of production and society and so on as nothing but a hinderance. This book also says that just as Aristotle was limited in his historical time-period to supporting slavery and that even he could not overcome this, Rousseau was limited in his historical time to combatting the industrial antagonisms of society on a nature-basis.

You could say Rousseau had an imbalanced view because he tried to pass off all these conditions that surround any conscious being as nothing but hinderances; that is, of course, except nature. All of the influences are not seen in their totality and importance in Rousseau's case, so he ends up isolating nature and man into their own world.

I don't know if you could argue against a primitivist with this information, and I'm not an expert on any of this, but I liked these ideas.

[ern]

SecurityManKillJoy I think this quote from the Grundrisse clearly makes the point you are trying to get at


This process of separation between man and nature is viewed in a profoundly dialectical manner by Marx.

On the one hand, it is the awakening of man's "slumbering powers", the power to transform himself and the world around him. This is a general characteristic of the labour process: history as the gradual, if uneven, development of humanity's productive capacities. But this development was always held back in the social formations that preceded capital, where the limitations of a natural economy also kept man limited to the cycles of nature. Capitalism, by contrast, creates a wholly new potential for overcoming this subordination:

"Hence the great civilising influence of capital; its production of a stage of society in comparison to which all earlier ones appear as mere local developments of humanity and as nature-idolatry. For the first time, nature becomes purely an object for humankind, purely a matter of utility; ceases to be recognised as a power for itself; and the theoretical discovery of its autonomous laws appears merely as a ruse to subjugate it under human needs, whether as an object of consumption or as a means of production. In accord with this tendency, capital drives beyond national barriers and prejudices as much as beyond nature-worship, as well as all traditional, confined, complacent, encrusted satisfactions of present needs, and reproductions of old ways of life. It is destructive towards all of this, and constantly revolutionizes it, tearing down all the barriers which hem in the development of the forces of production, the expansion of needs, the all-sided development of production, and the exploitation and exchange of natural and mental forces " (Grundrisse, p 409-10).
In the same book Marx made this response to those like Rousseau who longed for the golden age:

"In earlier stages of development the single individual seems to be developed more fully, because he has not yet worked out his relationships in their fullness, or erected them as independent social powers and relations opposite himself. It is as ridiculous to yearn for a return to this original fullness as it is to believe that with this complete emptiness history has come to a standstill. The bourgeois viewpoint has never advanced beyond this antithesis between itself and this romantic viewpoint, and therefore the latter will accompany it as its legitimate antithesis up to its blessed end" (Grundrisse p 162).
You may find the article that these quotes are taken from give a more detailed analysis of the points you rise The study of Capital and the Grundrisse of communism (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/075_commy_07.html). This analysis is further developed in The mature marx: past and future of communism (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/081_commy_11.html). These articles are part of our series" Communism is not a 'nice idea', but a material necessity" which can be found on our website www.internationalism.org

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 02, 2006 05:00 am
This is anti-progressive nonsense, as I see it. I argued with someone in my class over this who thought the fact that food foraging societies have more free time proved that they were happiest.
Happiness is relative, unfortunately. Gatherer-hunter tribes were most certainly "happier" in that they acted kind and had fewer open conflicts, but this was due to the neccessity of maintaining group relations more than actual enjoyment- that can't really be determined. Of course, I'm not aware of many cases of suicide or depression amongst gatherer-hunters, but that's mere anecdotal evidence.


Seriously, technology can improve and hinder the quality of lives people. However, simple reasoning seems to show this is true. Unless technological advancement naturally corrupts man (who somehow is naturally evil) I don't see how this argument holds any weight.

Depends on what you mean by "technological advancement." The introduction of agriculture and, later, industry were certainly absolutely terrible for the under-classes and, arguably, continue to be as such in many parts of the world. Did some people benefit? Sure- the upper classes. Obviously this has nothing to do with "corrupting man," but simply taking stock of costs and benefits to each suggests that picking up the hoe and the plow was a bad idea.


Perhaps I am wrong, but I this seems really moronic to me. Furthermore, someone in this class (different person), is also a primitivist. How do I refute these kinds of thinking?

By explaining that, given current world population, it would be impossible to return to a gatherer-hunter mode of existence. You could also bring up the extremely high murder rates if you were feeling particularly nasty.

----


the constant struggle to survive, the low life-expectancy,

These were more common features in later agricultural societies.


attacks by predators

And this was pretty damn rare. Man was the predator.

[YSR]

I'm literally just now finishing a paper relating modern anarchist primitivists to Rousseau by saying they want to do what he won't do. I'll post it once I edit it.

[Wozzeck]

As far as primitivism is concerned, when Capitalism plunges us into the next Middle Ages, will have a go at that. But as far as technology for better or worse, it can always be the later if applied currectly. Man can contain urges of 'self', most notably with humbling himself at every step. Though this would seem like torture, it would prevent many follies.

[blueeyedboy]

Wozzeck, you seem very mysterious with the way you word things. I'm not sure if I like it or your just creeping me out lol.

[anarchista feminista]

I'm not a primitivist. I do enjoy nature but technology I find is a useful tool for communicating, organising and learning.

[ShakeZula06]

As far as primitivism is concerned, when Capitalism plunges us into the next Middle Ages, will have a go at that.
How is capitalism going to plunge us into the next middle ages?

[Sentinel]

As a transhumanist I believe in the opposite of 'technology corrupts man': with it's help we will transcend into a new species; the future human being will be one with technology. Once we go communist, we can perfect ourselves and our society with it, fulfill our lives.

It is capitalism which corrupts man, but unfortunately many who either do or don't recognise this see everything that's been discovered during capitalism as a reason for our current unhappiness and misery, while it's basically inequality and a too low technology level that are to blame.

A good way to refute the primmie rapture is to simply point out how many people would die if their ideas were implemented -- it might not convert the 'believer', but will effectively discredit his position within the group.

[YSR]

My promised essay. It's not great, let me warn you.

The Inevitable Future Primitive: Rousseau as the Foundation of the Modern Anti-Civilization Movement

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s influence on his contemporaries cannot be understated. However Rousseau’s ideas did not die out with the death of the Enlightenment and the end of the Romantic Movement he inspired. Their lasting effect can be found most strongly in the modern anti-civilization current espoused by the Primitivists. Rousseau is in many ways the father of the Primitivist tradition. Many of his ideas have been used as starting point for explorations into anti-civilization politics. Particularly important is the conception of savage man in Rousseau’s Second Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. His belief that civilization destroys the tranquility and innocence of the primitive man and his correlation of society, language, and oppression are key perspectives informing Primitivist critiques. In the Second Discourse, Rousseau sets out a model of humanity that has been embraced by the modern Primitivists. Whereas Rousseau laments the end of the savage man but acknowledges that the natural state cannot be achieved again after society forms, the Primitivists see the possibility and necessity to return to it.
Rousseau sees the primitive state of man as the ideal role and deviation from it as unnatural. His discussion of what he calls “moral or political inequality” lay out his thoughts on the primitive human. The savage lacks this measurement and is better for it. Furthermore, the human in nature lives a better life. Rousseau compares savage humans to animals, noting their stronger ability to utilize their natural abilities as well as the propensity of settled humans to lose their strength (Rousseau 337). Without the arrival of civilization, Rousseau portrays the savage as a satisfied innocent. “His imagination paints no pictures; his heart makes no demands on him,” Rousseau says of the man in his natural condition. The primitive man’s state of being is the best possible condition of mankind (339).
The anti-civilization critique becomes evident through the course of Rousseau’s work. He places language as a basic element of society. Language is “indispensable” to society. In the primitive, pre-societal state, people have no “great need of words to communicate their designs to each other” (340). When society arose, with it came a more institutionalized inequality. Rousseau points to the growth in human population as the direct reason for inequality to exist. As more people came into contact with each other they would “naturally give rise in the human mind to the perceptions of certain relations between them” (349). For Rousseau, the “real founder of civil society” is the first person who conceptualizes private property (348). This attack on private property is the another of his elements of anti-civilization thinking. Reliance on others, a basic byproduct of specialization of labor, is said to make man weak. The savage controls his own destiny and holds his own life in his hands (343). These elements together form a basic attack on the development of civilization as a positive force.
This critique of civilization and its accompanying oppressive forces forms the basis for the Primitivist writings. The problems of private property raised by Rousseau are expanded by the Primitivists. Chris Wilson points out how agriculture lead to necessary violence between savage man and civilization. With its need to place value on property, agricultural civilization “began to forcibly subject all life within reach of their cities to that purpose.” Production takes the place of human life as people became “forced into servitude for the benefit of their culture’s institutions of production,” (Wilson Against Mass Society). This perspective descends from Rousseau’s belief that the first cohabitation of humanity dramatically increased the troubles of those involved. (Rousseau 350) The only place that the two differ is that Rousseau puts organization before agriculture and the Primitivists do the opposite.
Rousseau’s viewpoints influence the Primitivists to reject more than just civilization. His portrayal of the savage man as the ideal is used by the Primitivists to do away with more than just civilization. An influential thinker in the Green Anarchy movement, John Zerzan, speaks of language itself as an alienating and oppressive tool. He qualifies it as the “fundamental ideology” of civilization, and like Rousseau rejects it as an artificial phenomenon. Zerzan takes Rousseau’s concept that “grammar exercises the understanding”of the civilized man and argues that the “carving up of nature” through the use of language plays the main role in “reproducing a society of subjugation.” This leads to Zerzan’s infamous rejection of symbolic logic (Rousseau 340, Zerzan Language: Origin and Meaning). Rousseau’s philosophy diagnoses the same problems with society that the Primitivists then propose to eliminate.
Civilization is the major factor in human oppression, both traditions maintain. Rousseau sees the development of humanity from the primitive savage man into the alienated modern as a seemingly unavoidable occurrence. While he recognizes this development as one which he qualifies as artificial, his analysis stops there. Rousseau moves on to consider solutions to civilization’s ills while maintaining a functioning society. He proposes the concept of the general will to combat alienation as well as possible. The Primitivists take his premises and reach a different conclusion. They see industrial and agricultural civilization as not only alienating but moreover doomed. Humanity must return to its savage roots to achieve a total freedom from alienation. Rousseau’s critique of civilization takes an unexpected interpretation with those who honor its premise but not its conclusion.

[bcbm]

I think you incorrectly equate "anti-civilization" with primitivism and romanticism. An interesting essay though.

[YSR]

Yeah, I very much do. I just knew my prof didn't know anything about it and just was looking for synonyms for using "primitivism" all the time.

[jaycee]

i think that the capitalism obviously produces a certain type of technology (or rather gives rise to certain types)and much of it has negative effects. I don't only mean obvious things like cars polluting (both the air, noise pollution and pollution to the eyes, i.e motorways and dirty streets etc) and nukes but also more subtle things. For example t.v is damaging because of the way we live our lives, watching too much(which is also connected to its alienating anti-social aspect), not exercising. Both of these are connected to things like the hours we work, lack of community etc.

Also another subtle way in which capitism turns technology into a negative thing is reflected in a thing that happened to me recently. I was had just had a spliff with a mate and then we went outside, when i left the house i suddenly felt a great deal of stress leave me. I think this was due to getting out of the cramped confined space which houses are. This is not a criticism of houses but rather a criticism of the lack of community and extreme alienation in modern capitalism. Therefore the fact that people in older societies (especially primitive communist societies) had small houses (generally) was not very important this was because they tended to only eat and sleep in their house and the majority of their time was spent outdoors with the community.

Basically communist humanity will develope technology in a non alienating way and therefore will produce it in what Marx called the 'natural laws of beuty'. I think it is false to say either humanity will go 'back to nature' or it will advance technology, it will do both as producing technology is clearly a major part of human nature and alienation stems from acting in ways which is contary to human nature or turning central parts of human nature into oppressive forces as labour is now. It will return to primitive communism on a higher level , 'a return made conscious' as Marx put it.

Therefore primitivism does have a valid point in terms of seeing primitive communism as quantifiably better than capitalism in that it alienation and mental repression was far less developed. However that is no reason to throw away the progrssive aspects of human development.