The Social Trinity
by Benjamin ShenderIn any given society three main elements work together to reinforce and stabilize each other, and in turn stabilize that society. These three elements are language, myth, and religion. No human culture has ever been found without all three, and they feed into one another in a very stable system.
Language affects the way a person thinks, and how they can articulate ideas. Even if you have a thought that is unprecedented in a given society, without the words to articulate it the idea never leaves the individual. Also, words help to transmit and reinforce ideas. For instance, in English (and many other languages) gender defaults to male in mixed company. One male in a group of 100 females is referred to in the masculine. This inherently transmits the implication that one male is more important than any number females. Even the word “female” designates women (another example) in comparison to men or males. There has been some shift in this since the beginning of the century, but not much and it remains a good example. Another example would be jokes, specifically, discriminatory jokes. Blonde jokes, black jokes, Jew jokes, white jokes, Christian jokes, etc. These comments have the effect of defining groups as separate and distinct. They also have a tendency to marginalize those groups and spread stereotypes about those groups to the next generation. This can also be achieved through other methods, I use this one because it’s one that we are all familiar with and one that is acceptable in the modern United States. Try counting all of the homosexual jokes and comments that you here each day. Also count how often the person saying those comments is censured to any degree. Not all uses of language serve to divide people, of course. Words the delineate a relationship, in part, help to create that relationship. In some cultures a person’s father and paternal uncles are referred to by the same word. They are also considered to have the same relationship in all senses.
Mythology forms the next part of our trinity. Mythology consists of the stories that makeup the cultural heritage of a society. For instance, American children are told that the Pilgrims (often referred to as Puritans) came to America for religious freedom. This gives the children a sense of history behind the American laws and customs regarding religion. The fact that the Pilgrims and Puritans were different groups that did not like each other, and neither cared about religious freedom for anyone but themselves, is less relevant when considering the current American mindset than the myth is.
Religions give reason and explanation for how and why a society lives in a given way, or at least a rationalization. Among civilizations, where work is incessant, life is precarious, and slavery is the common role of man the explanation is usually a variation on “because HE said so.” Sometime HE is a philosopher, sometimes a God, sometimes a natural force. Among tribes these explanations vary greatly, although they often are in some variation of the form “because it’s been like this since the beginning of time.” A good example of religion bolstering a society would be the Jewish Kosher laws. The reason is “because God said so.” The function is to separate Jews from the non-Jew. After all food is very fundamental, and strict dietary rules set you apart. This is especially true if the food becomes disgusting as well, a physical reaction to watching someone eating pig is hard to hide. For a demonstration of this reaction to breaking food taboos watch Fear Factor.
We now see how each of these works on their own; however, the point is how well they work in conjunction. For this we’ll use the example of the position of woman in western civilization. This position has historically varied between brood-mare and delicate flower that can’t be trusted, but must be protected. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which being the short and long term effects of having between five and twenty children. Woman with the right to say no to another child after a while tend to use that right. But civilization must expand. We’ve seen how language defends this. Myth defends this by introducing stories and anecdotes of women being inferior. As well as the idea that such is the universal, and for the good of the women. For instance, the idea that women can’t do math, or that thinking too much will make her infertile. The former is still widely believed and the latter has not gone by the wayside yet. And these stories are believed by men and women alike, and anyone who does not believe that they can do math quickly finds out they are quite right. Which, of course, reinforces the myth. Religion gives us our explanation. God put women under the charge of men. Women are responsible for original sin. Women were made from less sturdy materials than men during creation. They vary, but they rationalize the reality and make it unquestionable. After all, questioning dogma is blasphemy.
When the reality of the situation changes these three begin to shift as well. For example, the women’s rights movement. Our mythology has changed greatly. The story we tell our children has changed. Religious leaders have started skipping over or tip toeing around the parts of the Bible dealing with the inferiority of women. (With few, but very loud, exceptions.) Even our use of language is shifting. The word “they” as been increasingly used as a first-personal singular pronoun of indeterminate sex, whereas before it only referred to people in the plural sense. Also, the word sexism has entered our vocabulary, which allows us to separate out another sub-group of people: those who do not accept the new concept of equal sexes.
As our culture radically shift over the next 50 years, our words, stories, and beliefs will differ greatly from what they are today. But our new societies will continue to be supported by the social trinity of language, mythology, and religion.
One key aspect of language is the use of metaphor–to describe the less known in terms of the more known. The language of native peoples frequently uses animals, plants, and natural forces as metaphors. The bible, written at a time of farmers and shepherds and in a social context of kingdoms uses these as metaphors for the spiritual world and other social relations.
The lord is my shepherd and we are the flock. The lord is the king and we are his subjects.
Having projected the king/subject metaphor onto heaven, the brilliant thinkers of that time then used that a justification to declare that kings had divine authority and that this type of relationship also applied to the family, where the man is the lord and the wife and children are subjects and servants.
Metaphors are not just descriptors, but also define relationships.
As technology evolved, so did metaphors for describing nature and humanity.
In the 18th century, for example, there was a fascination with clocks, and sure enough, great thinkers had the momentous insight that the universe acted like a great clockworks.
More recently, we have learned that the body is a wonderful machine and that our brains are computers.
Nature, likewise, is a mechanism that can be modeled.
Once we see bodies or even nature as mechanisms, we start to treat them that way.
Thus we have hospitals, schools and farms that treat people, ecolsytems, and animals as if products in a factory.
What we are familiar with in our society is technology and economics, and we see the world through metaphors from those distorting glasses.
The mythology of our society is a way of justifying the present by restructuring history to create a story that lends inevitability to whatever those in power wishes to justify.
Comment by woodle — 5 April 2006 @ 9:45 PM
This leads me to a question… Has Tribe Anthropik started working on their mythology? Very useful to shape the group dynamics expect.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 5 April 2006 @ 11:00 PM
i kinda think you could tell factual stories of today’s world without embelishment and in 2 generations after collapse they would seem to be myths due to the change. as for religion… i’m not a fan of any form of it. maybe its just because today’s mainstream religions place all responsibility outside of ourselves rather than where common sense says it should be. once again, we need to reevaluate our world and compost the crap.
Comment by handforged — 5 April 2006 @ 11:54 PM
I personally feel that it will be important to tell stories about how bad civilization and greed are for humans as well as for the environment. This can be done factually, but putting it into a good story form will make it more memorable and incorporating religious trappings will make it more likely that the lesson will be transmitted when we who will remember directly are long dead.
A specific example is the Aleut belief that if you killed more animals of a species than you absolutely needed, the spirit of that species would take itself and its manifestations away from the people. This has always sounded to me like a pretty direct transmission of the consequences of overhunting.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 6 April 2006 @ 12:23 AM
Over at Ishcon.org, in the “Commons” section, I’ve got a number of stories for the starting of a new mythology. Hm. Come to think of it, there are a few stories here in the forums section.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 6 April 2006 @ 1:22 AM
I’m of two minds on this. Since you obviously understand one, I’ll explain the other. We dismiss the stories our grandparents told us. “Oh, what do they know….” The stories would succeed in keeping the idea of civilization alive, but I think that the warning element is the type of thing that’s very easily lost in a story like that. Think of Atlantis. It, too, was originally written as a story of warning, but to us now, “Atlantis” is some kind of ideal.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 9:04 AM
Hey –
Jason, how much of that ‘dismissal of what is old’ is specific to our culture, do you think?
It may be romanticized, but I have always gotten the impression that in more traditional cultures, that traditions themselves are much more respected and therefore, powerful. After all, in most cases, H-G cultures tend to change only very slowly (unless given a hard push by thier environment, etc) and that seems to imply a strong relationships with traditional beliefs/knowledge.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 6 April 2006 @ 9:24 AM
My intuition is very little. Every kid thinks they know better. Elders are respected among foragers by comparison to our own, but I think it’s just over-romanticizing to think they’re immune to the same effects as we are.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 10:20 AM
Jason, how much of that ‘dismissal of what is old’ is specific to our culture, do you think?
My intuition is very little. Every kid thinks they know better. Elders are respected among foragers by comparison to our own, but I think it’s just over-romanticizing to think they’re immune to the same effects as we are.
not that anybody asked, but i kind of have the opposite intuition. just because, it seems to me that a culture with practices that have been evolving for thousands of years, and which don’t have the problems associated with civilization (especially in the current “advanced” stage) like widespread disillusionment, economic inequality, alienation from labour, overwork, mental illness, drugs problems, etc. would make for happier members of society who will be much more likely to take after their elder’s ways than those of us who live in a culture that is oppressive and offensive to individual liberty and dignity. i think because of the environment civilization fosters, it’s young are much more likely to break with tradition.
Comment by Dale — 6 April 2006 @ 10:52 AM
I fail to see where happiness relates to whether or not you think granddad is senile…
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 10:57 AM
all i’m saying is that if your way of life is suitable to your biology, you have a lot less to rebel against. seems to me that youth rebellion in Western culture, for instance, has a lot to do with the perceived mismanagement of affairs on the part of the older generation. if things are going shittily, if daily life is hellacious, young people are more likely to say “fuck you” to the norms of society. if daily life is pretty sweet, you’d have a lot less to rebel against.
if grandpa’s thousand-year-old traditions work well, and he is the one in the tribe most well versed in those traditions, i’d expect him to be pretty respected. in a culture of constant change, with arbitrary customs that haven’t stood the test of time, grandpa is just behind the times, and if you can’t respect his wisdom, it’s hard to respect him.
Comment by Dale — 6 April 2006 @ 11:25 AM
I agree, “teenage angst” is a very culturally-specific thing, caused by a teenager who’s body tells him he’s an adult, and who’s culture tells him he’s a child. Carrying on somatic traditions is one thing, but even in those circumstances, the moral dimensions tend to be dropped. They’ll keep the story, all right, but after a few generations, I’m not sure anyone will remember the part about, “this was a bad thing,” just all the incredible things they had. We see it among the Inuit today–all the elders say things used to be so much better. They’re dismissed as nostalgic.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 11:30 AM
according to Wikipedia, western ways have steadily crept into Inuit cultures since at least the 50’s, and then more strongly in the 60s and beyond. so maybe the old-timers in this particular example are remembering the times before that happened…which would make sense, because the young are all throughouly civilized, with the accompanying problems:
Inuit communities in Canada continue to suffer under crushing unemployment, overcrowded housing, substance abuse, crime, violence and suicide.
now i’m not sure if it was all that much better back in the first half of the 20th century, but it wouldnt surprise me if it were. this quote seems to apply in many cases where a traditional culture is confronted with being “civilized”.
Comment by Dale — 6 April 2006 @ 11:54 AM
Of course, we can play this game all day. Who’s “pure”? We won’t be.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 12:13 PM
unchallenged.
Comment by Dale — 6 April 2006 @ 12:15 PM
The civilization linear time paradigm might have something to do with why civilized kids think they know better. Its because the time went forward, and the elders stayed behind.
If the concept of time going forward disappears, there is no easy rationalization for why you have better knowledge than your grandfather. When the notion of obsolete becomes obsolete itself, youngsters who defy their traditions will know for sure that they are making an error.
Comment by _Gi — 6 April 2006 @ 12:42 PM
No? Not even if it’s simply because granddad’s just nostalgic and seeing everything through rose-colored glasses? I don’t think the end of civilization will end the stories that start with, “When I was your age….”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 12:47 PM
This is probably unrelated, and there is no need for you to think about it yet.
I’ll still ask, have you considered what kind of rites of passage into adulthood young people of your tribe must undergo?
Comment by _Gi — 6 April 2006 @ 12:53 PM
“I don’t think the end of civilization will end the stories that start with, “When I was your age….”"
That was not what I was suggesting at all. I’m suggesting construction of a religio/mythic structure which will strongly discourage my descendants, and hopefully yours, from taking the kind of actions which will lead them toward the path of civilization. This is very different from telling my grandkids “When I was your age…”
Comment by ChandraShakti — 6 April 2006 @ 1:08 PM
The path of civilization will be limited by the resources of the earth. Limited civilization would probably be a challenge at that, perhaps a medevil type of village/town structure… But fossil fuels aren’t coming back, at least not in any meaningful time frame, the ability to industrialize etc. is already begin to become difficult, with the massive amount of nickel, oil etc. that has already been used by civilization.
But, “When I was your age” will remain, although the transition group’s “when I was your age story>>WILL BE VASTLY DIFFERENT”,so much so that many young people probably will have a tough time comprehending it to a degree (if born post collapse etc.)
A mythic structure around “what not to do” is more likely, but who knows some may wish for some things from the past, I will miss my computer & its games, info gathering etc. But oh well…
Comment by Bubba — 6 April 2006 @ 1:18 PM
Yup. Nothing solid yet, but it’s recieved a good bit of thought.
And yet, very much related. People don’t react to myths in simple ways. A myth like this can cut both ways. If people accept the whole myth as you intend it, everything’s fine. But authorial intent is only one possible interpretation. Future generations may decide they know where civilization went wrong; civilization may be hallowed as a golden age to be restored. That’s exactly what happened with Plato’s myth of “Atlantis,” after all.
So, in some ways, it might be better to extinguish all memory that civilization ever happened, as much as possible.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 2:06 PM
Hey –
I understand where you’re going with this, Jason, but I was kinda looking at it from a different angle.
We know that H-G cultures tend to be more resistant to change than civilization (in terms of overall culture and belief sets… we also know that civilization is LESS adaptable in technical ways) So if this is true, then the question has to be WHY are they more resistant to culture changes? I’m merely proposing that a different attitude about ‘traditional wisdom’, the opinions of elders etc may be part, or even a big part, of this.
Some specifics that I have been pondering:
In traditional cultures, ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’ are much more alike than in civ… so you don’t have this perception of the elderly as ‘they don’t now ANYTHING’
Especially compared to modern american culture, elders are held in MASSIVELY greater regard. Partly, I am sure, because of the constant interaction between the generations, as compared with our age-based stratification.
Going along with that, much (most) of the practical skills a child/young adult learns comes DIRECTLY from the elders. So this strengthens the idea that they ‘know what they are talking about’.
Conversely, in traditional societies, there is much less chance of the elders treating thier youth as ‘less than’ themselves.
All in all, I think it is quite appropriate to consider mythologies to be a questionable avenue to prevent future civilization builders. But at the same time, I think this might be a mechanism we would do well to understand more completely. Besides, if you are right and civilization will be impossible… then you don’t have too much to worry about, right?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 6 April 2006 @ 2:30 PM
Quite true.
As I said, I’m of two minds. Tell a myth, maybe you convince them to never try–or maybe you give them the idea of how to do it. Forget it ever happened, maybe it never happens again–or maybe they don’t know what they’re getting themselves into. I just don’t think it’s clear which way is preferable.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 2:45 PM
Does creating a myth necessitate telling people what was lost? To the best of my understanding, the Aleut myth I referred to above doesn’t say “We used to have mammoths but we overhunted them and now we don’t” Instead it creates a systemic discouragement to overhunting. It is only my perspective from outside that culture but within a culture that is actually causing extinctions that I see it as a metaphor for what happens when a people overhunt.
As for forgetting about civilization completely - “those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”
Perhaps construct a mythic complex which tells that sedentary lifestyles lead to sick people, and how the spirits of the land will withdraw their blessings from the people if they insist on repeatedly ripping the soil open. I certainly see it as necessary to introduce a belief that taking more than is needed for immediate use (this year in the case of medicinals or seasonal meat supplies) is harmful to the generosity of the Earth. Along the lines of greed will cause the bounty to be withdrawn.
While I understand and generally accept Jason’s reasons why an advanced technological civilization is highly unlikely to be able to come along, I don’t even want my descendants to have to deal with something along the lines of the Inca Empire.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 6 April 2006 @ 3:14 PM
Something general like, “Don’t overhunt,” is a lot easier. But you’re talking about something like, “Hierarchy is bad.” When you get to a specific something, you need to say what the something is, don’t you? Notice, the Aleut story you reference includes hunting.
I don’t think they’ll have the opportunity, but in this case it might be just as true that “those who don’t know history won’t think to try repeating it.”
Nor I, which is what makes this worth such careful consideration.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 3:29 PM
My experience of Native elders, even in the relatively, er, deracinated, Odawa of upper lower Michigan, is that they are vastly respected and, further, that in many cases they have demonstrated a very profound capacity to “walk the talk.” The personal sacrifices this required of them go beyond my intention to go into here.
This lends them a tad more credence even among their skeptical youth (of whom there were plenty in evidence) so that they could clearly be seen “take in” or internalize a great deal more than was immediately evident in their behaviors. The rebellious youth I’m speaking of are nonetheless still part of two cultures, and the conflict between the cultures is incredibly difficult and damaging. However, I observed people of all ages there, and it appears that, for many, what stuck with them and grew as they grew was the old teachings, and the “modern” stuff began to fade to the background.
Of course, that insight is based on only a relatively few encounters in a similarly relatively brief period of time of a few years — but my experience bears out Chandra’s point rather more than I would like, since I’m not personally very fond of un-nuanced cautionary tales (if that’s what would result from her idea). On the other hand the great stories about “Coyote” go far beyond being merely cautionary. The experience of Indian humor to those who are alive to it clearly shows that a clear, keen and nuanced understanding of these tales and even of current events is far from dead.
As to the capacity of a pre-or-postmodern culture to retain an accurate transmission of a whole corpus of knowledge and even attitudes and beliefs, I recommend Reggie Ray’s “Buddhist Saints in India,” which explores the staying power of oral traditions in oral cultures in some depth, and makes the case that at least in one instance, a complex and comprehensive teaching that was too explosive for “the masses” (Mahayana and the Madhyamika) was retained and accurately transmitted from generation to generation for many hundreds of years after the death of Gautama Buddha.
Comment by Clarke Fountain — 6 April 2006 @ 3:34 PM
If the idea is to put aside civilisation and never speak of it again, won’t the monuments we leave behind us stick around for thousands of years, as a vision of some kind of “golden age”?
The problem with not telling people anything about mythic level structures that they’ll see all around them is that they’re liable to pin all their hopes and dreams and fantasies onto what has so very visibly gone before.
Comment by Vashti — 6 April 2006 @ 3:46 PM
If the idea is to put aside civilisation and never speak of it again, won’t the monuments we leave behind us stick around for thousands of years, as a vision of some kind of “golden age”?
I was thinking of just telling the kids that’s where they trapped the demons that almost ate the world.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 5:08 PM
You people are thinking to much. Kids are rebellious, today, because society protects them no matter what the lifestyle. In a post-civilization world, the rebellious kid will more than likely starve or be eaten by a wolf.
You can conjure up all the stories you want about how bad civilization is, as it won’t matter anyway. When this civilization collapses, there will be nothing tangible left to restart it.
Comment by Rick Larson — 6 April 2006 @ 9:27 PM
Rick, that explains why rebellious children survive–not why children are rebellious.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 April 2006 @ 10:22 PM
Comment by JCamasto — 7 April 2006 @ 1:04 AM
The first paragraph above is Janene,
What followed were my musings…
Comment by JCamasto — 7 April 2006 @ 1:07 AM
The kind of accelerated cultural change we see in the past two centuries is because for the first time, we think invention and innovation are good things. These are novel attitudes, brought about because of fossil fuels.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 April 2006 @ 9:13 AM
Hey –
ummm… I think this is another of those ‘change in quantity, not change in kind’ kinda issues.
Before the renaissance, things still changed relatively quickly ever since the AR. The rise and fall of empires, with all of the cultural accoutrements… Mesopotamia was uniquely consistant throught the various invasions and political shifts — and this is remarked on repeatedly, that Sumerian culture survived relatively intact for so long in the face of different peoples taking political control… but aside from Mesopotamia, we really do see many many changes in culturally accepted norms through the rest of ‘history.’ And at a much, much greater level/speed then you would generally find in H-G society.
Hey Jim — did you really just say that H-G culture is resistant to change because, well, they resist change effectively? (Sorry, couldn’t resist poking a little fund :-))
Janene
Comment by Janene — 7 April 2006 @ 10:32 AM
That’s true … but you really don’t see anyone who’s comfortable with innovation, much less thinking it’s a good thing, until the Industrial Revolution.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 April 2006 @ 11:07 AM
Hey –
Well sure — but we (or at least I) have been talking about mechnisms, not likes and dislikes
Janene
Comment by Janene — 7 April 2006 @ 11:59 AM
This is responding to a thread started under Jason’s Reductionism article and needing to be moved to a more appropriate page.
“the English language, homo sapiens is commonly referred to as ‘man’, or ‘mankind’? I mean, that is not a false statement, is it?” That used to be a true statement. It no longer is.
“Aren’t there better ways to achieve equal regard and equal rights for women and men?” So long as there is the inequality in the language, it will shape people’s perceptions. I am a linguist by education and am probably more aware than most of how the words available and the categories they define shape how people see the world.
For instance: in English we only have a few words for snow (snow, sleet and slush) In an Eskimo language - I believe it is Yupik - they have over 30 words for snow. Details that an English speaker would simply miss. Because we lack the language for it, we simply cannot conceive of thirty different kinds of snow.
In the same way persisting in referring to humanity as Man creates the subconscious impression that men are human and women are something not quite human. I deeply object to that. This is not political correctness.
Political correctness is using language to obfuscate an issue. Like calling fat people adiposally enhanced.
Frankly calling all humans men is more obfuscating than calling them human.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 7 April 2006 @ 12:13 PM
What humanity needs to do is come to full terms in the conrete, biological sense, of our duality.
Gender neutrality accepts that one position must be taken.
patriarchy, obviously places man above women, and matriacrhy, vice versa.
so by standing in one postition, still looking for the leadership, the truth of words, we disregard the fact that there are men and women.
But men aren’t jsut men, and women aren’t just women.
the language is using the power system handed down from religion to pare-down the physio-chemical on-off mechanism into one firing on one neutron, when the brain is more than comfortable pairing thousands and millions or on-off pairings at once.
But, we cannot ignore how the channels, or shortcuts,in our brains work. we cannot erase our temporary internet file cabinet, we are in many ways, stuck recognizing this and this and that as that, and the small changes we can make through new programming are our only hope.
TOnyZ
Comment by TonyZ — 7 April 2006 @ 1:59 PM
Comment by Rick Larson — 7 April 2006 @ 9:31 PM
actually you are quoting an urban legend chandra. Most inuits and eskimos don’t really have any more words for snow than English, but I guarantee you most of them can percieve and understand snow much better than either of us.
Comment by limukala — 8 April 2006 @ 5:46 PM
Technically the Inuit language is based on a complicated inter-mixing of prefixes and suffixes with relatively few root words. There is and can be no exact count of how many words the Inuit have, for snow or otherwise.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 8 April 2006 @ 9:14 PM
I went to college in Alaska. The native languages professor told me that. Not something I would expect to happen if it was merely urban legend.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 15 April 2006 @ 6:03 PM