Rising From the Ashes of Rousseau

Hierarchy in the Forest Review Pt.2

Evolutionary Altruism

Every field has its genre of cope. If someone is resorting to those arguments, they have run out of reasonable ones. Evolutionary psychology is that genre of psychology. 

Boehm’s problem is that his anthropological story is so anathema to modern ideology that he must find some way to moderate it. Cue the claim that forced egalitarianism led to altruistic behavior and successful warfare. It is simply under-evidenced in the book.  It is almost completely reliant on evolutionary psychology theory. 

The transition to “warrior societies” raises a cogent question with respect to egalitarianism. Hunter-gatherer egalitarianism involves extensive and efficient suppression of competition among males in general, particularly in their role as successful hunters … A typical warfare society has to stimulate male competition still more strongly, for warfare is far more dangerous than hunting.

The claim that war led the transition away from hunter-gatherer tribes is a reasonable claim. It’s undeniable that militarily defeated groups lose political control and become a smaller fraction of the population. However, Boehm’s causal story is not well supported.

By my definition, egalitarian society is the product of a large, well-united coalition of subordinates who assertively deny political power to the would-be alphas in their group. For this reason, we will be particularly interested in the capacity of the Common Ancestor to act cooperatively in large coalitions that unify the group—as opposed to small ones that basically divide the group. Here I broaden the definition of political alliancing to include what I have called macrocoalitions (Boehm 1992). These units are formed in the course of intergroup hostilities or collective defense against predators, but also when all or most of a group gangs up on a persona non grata within the group.

My quotes from Boehm in the section are both mere assertion. This is not cherrypicking. If anything, the argument that warlike behavior emerged as a reaction against egalitarian norms is more believable. Costin Alamariu’s Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy makes this argument. It suffers from some similar problems with lack of solid evidence, but comparing the two, his case is clearly stronger. 

One can make similar arguments about claims from Boehm’s anthropology. I think it’s a matter of degrees. Boehm’s anthropology is both better evidenced and more believable. In the future, I’ll review Games People Play and other texts on envy that support his anthropological claims with modern psychology. 

A Straussian Compromise

What exactly is the compromise that this just-so-story about altruism is meant to achieve? It’s an attempt to save the burning ashes of Rousseau. From his just-so-story about Altruism, Boehm comes to the following conclusion about the human nature debate between Hobbes and Rousseau.

I suggest that the views of Rousseau and Hobbes may reflect human nature quite accurately—but only if we combine their contradictory view- points, rather than allowing them to compete. Humans do seem to enjoy autonomy and serenity. At the same time, they seem to have a competitive penchant for domination that leads to conflict and creates a need for governance. Natural selection is the agency responsible for both facets, so we must look to the evolutionary basis of our political nature if we are to understand these opposing tendencies.

Is this true? Is forced egalitarianism autonomy and serenity? From one perspective, at least its not war. But consider the case of the Uktu. From the perspective of the intellectual, it is even more of an disgrace to truth than a totalitarian hierarchy of power. Even the Soviet Union produced Shostakovich. What did the Uktu produce? 

More generally, the diffusion of violence, which at least has a grain of merit and truth (of combat skill), to a layer of egalitarian norms premised on the continual denial of truth, is not straightforwardly an improvement. 

This is where readings of Boehm differ. Is he so steeped in the morality of the last man that he cannot take his own findings to their natural conclusion? Or his this intentionally hidden from the naive reader? I see few clues for the latter.

Boehm also falls to the evolutionary psychologist’s vice: telling just so stories with weak to no empirics. This is the case with the evolutionary story about forced egalitarianism leading to evolved altruism, which consists entirely of unempirical narratives begging the question. Is it altruistic to pay a ransom? It is if ransoms are altruistic.

In general, I think the anthropology in this book far exceeds the evolutionary theory. It’s easy to rebuke why things are. It’s hard to rebuke the way they are. That’s as true for rebuke via self-deception as it is for rebuke of others. That’s where Hierarchy in the Forest shines the brightest. 

We’re reminded that even the author of Hierarchy in the Forest is likely not free of egalitarian brainworms. And if he’s not, then neither are we.

Part 3: Christianity, Modernity, and Isothymia will arrive in 1-2 weeks.