 | Tangentium |
March '04: Menu
All material on this site remains © the original authors: please see our submission guidelines for more information. If no author is shown material is © Drew Whitworth. For any reproduction beyond fair dealing, permission must be sought: e-mail drew@comp.leeds.ac.uk. ISSN number: 1746-4757 |
The Biosphere and the NoösphereDrew WhitworthPage 1 ¦ Page 2 ¦ Page 3 ¦ Page 4 ¦ Printer-friendly version 4. Collaboration, not fragmentationHow do these ideas influence the study of political philosophy and practice? Indeed, should they do so at all? It is inappropriate to take these insights and suggest that there is some kind of "natural", biological basis for particular political practices. Such a transference of what are, essentially, metaphors onto politics has had dangerous results in the past, up to and including fascism [15]. But what can be sought, and indeed is necessary, is a model of reality which can apply to diverse political theories, and explain them in terms of the interaction of systems. The environment within which any given system exists is made up of a multitude of other systems, from the global scale down to the local and existing in all spheres simultaneously. Systems therefore interact. When the interactions between systems are biological, this constitutes the evolutionary process of life on Earth, and the creation and evolution of the biosphere. When the interactions involve memes as well as genes, they take place using information and communication, and likewise contribute to the creation, evolution and continuous reproduction of the noösphere. They may also acquire political connotations. The results of these interactions and conflicts are imprinted upon the biosphere and noösphere. One misapplication of biological metaphors in politics is the concept of "survival of the fittest" (often by those ignorant of the fact that it was not even Darwin's term; it was coined by Herbert Spencer). Here, all interaction is perceived as struggle, with the outcome determined by some kind of "strength" (whether this strength be a function of wealth, race, gender, culture, etcetera). But others have observed that the biosphere is characterised more by collaboration and symbiotic relationships than conflict: indeed it is those species in which collaboration and mutual aid are best developed which are the "fittest" or best suited to long-term survival and development [16]. It is true that "nature" is not some harmony, beneficial for every single organism whether predator or prey; nor is the fact the biosphere long outlived them any comfort to the dinosaurs. At the same time we are forced to note that destructive conflict between individuals or systems is the exception rather than the rule. Even where there is diversity -- indeed because of diversity -- there can be an exchange or collaboration from which both parties derive mutual benefit and from which new possibilities can develop. One should also note that diversity can be a means by which conflict is minimised. If diverse species or systems require different resources to perpetuate themselves, then they are less likely to engage in a struggle over the same resources. The biosphere and noösphere are vast in scale. They are too large and complex for any one individual or even culture to grasp in their entirety. Even at smaller scales it is not possible to understand every nuance of every minute's activities in an organisation, a family, a micro-climate, or similar. Our failure to do so is not a sign of inadequate methods, but simply of the nature of the reality we inhabit, where micro-scale adjustments are constantly taking place, some of which may turn into noticeable fluctuations but many of which do not. Because of this problem of scale, we habitually select from the vast range of sensory inputs and other forms of information available to us. Nor can we always communicate our insights perfectly; in fact it is very rare that we manage this. It is therefore inevitable that different interpretations will arise. This is the central insight of postmodern views of society. Any "grand narratives" (such as communism, or the Enlightenment) which claim the status of "truth" are to be mistrusted. Slavish adherence to these "truths" is in fact damaging, as this makes it more likely one will repress or even kill those who disagree. Postmodernism suggest that we should therefore embrace diversity and even ephemerality in our relationships and (as a consequence) our politics. As the feature essay will argue, there is some validity in this view, but it has unfortunate consequences. By ignoring the reality of power -- interpretable now as the ability to impose one's interpretation of the world on others -- postmodernism can end up being acquiescent towards it. Jürgen Habermas has called postmodernism "neo-Conservative" [17] for this reason. Unsophisticated attempts to use postmodernist theory in analyses of humanity's relationship to Nature, or in analysing cyberspace, sometimes go so far as to deny the existence of any kind of underlying "reality" at all. This view (which we will call "vulgar postmodernism") suggests that reality is entirely "socially constructed" by human minds and that there are therefore no grounds for any belief whatsoever, that the interaction of cultures and beliefs is a purely relativistic issue. "Vulgar postmodernism" also habitually detaches "cyberspace" -- or other locations for human interaction -- from the rest of the world, perceiving it as a space where political or even physical "rules" have no dominion. Invariably the conclusion is that what occurs there is entirely what the participants want to happen. Yet any site for human interaction is influenced by the processes of all five spheres of Earthly existence, all of which are records of past activities that cannot but influence the current time. At the same time one should not fall back too far the other way, into beliefs that nothing new can emerge, or (more subtly but just as problematically) that power relations are so strong that any attempt to challenge the status quo is doomed to failure. This can encourage a fatalistic predeterminism (where every possibility is determined in advance by prior conditions, and "free will" is a mythical impossibility). The biosphere/noösphere model can help dismantle those ideas as well, through little more than an understanding of evolution and change. Whenever there is interaction or collaboration, new possibilities open up, whether this be the possibility of new steps forward in genetic evolution, or -- at a speed that is orders of magnitude faster -- in the evolution of ideas, values and human culture [18]. Interactions within the noösphere, for instance, are not characterised only by conflict, but nor are they characterised by "mystical" levels of understanding or consensus which could be reachable if only everyone involved would just keep talking for long enough. Rather, it is in the spaces which lie between different interpretations of a situation (or a text, or an environment, or anything else) that change takes place and new ideas emerge. This is the reason why Dobzhansky saw that adaptability flowed directly from diversity; the new possibilities required by any widespread change were more likely to emerge the more inputs there were into the (conscious or unconscious) attempt to adapt. [19] In conclusion, the five-sphere model of reality described here is a firmly holistic view of reality. Holism, simply because of the great scale of the concepts being considered, is never an easy epistemology (way of thinking) to sustain. Humans habitually localise their concerns; but what should not be done is consider this process of localisation as meaning either that there is no underlying reality beneath the different interpretations, or that these different interpretations inevitably lead to destructive conflict. New possibilities emerge, yet these new systems are always in turn based on what has gone before. These are the insights which can be applied to the study of cyberspace -- or any other aspect of Earthly existence. Footnotes15. Biehl, Janet and Peter Staudenmaier (1995): Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, Edinburgh, AK Press. return 16. For instance, Kropotkin, Peter (1972), Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, London, Penguin. return 17. Habermas, Jürgen (1991): New Conservatism: Cultural Criticism and the Historians' Debate, Cambridge Mass., Polity Press. For an excellent summary of postmodernism's impact on academic life, and via this, the acquiescence of universities in their own corporatisation, see Miyoshi, Masao (2002), "The University in the 'Global' Economy" in K. Robins and F. Webster, eds., The virtual university?, Oxford, Oxford University Press. return 18. For this process applied to the analysis of text, see the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, e.g. (1994), The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshinov, ed. Pam Morris, London, Edward Arnold. return 19. See also Bailes, op. cit., p. x. return | |