The January 2013 issue of Smithsonian has a catch cover title: “Born to be Bad? The New Science of Morality.” I grimaced. Here, I thought, was another “civilized” institution along with Enlightenment philosophers, laissez faire economists and corporate media (mis)informing us about how naturally bad we are. It’s in the best interest of said philosophers, economists and media to deliver such a message, for when things go wrong with civilized institutions, well, we only have our natural selves to blame.
I’m armed with a few reservoirs of information in contradiction to the “naturally bad” premise, including personal experience, the latest research in neuroscience and, most importantly to my mind, the ethnographic data on natural nomadic societies. So what if some clinical tests point to the contrary, as a trained scientist I’m well aware of the methodological flaws that crop up when someone has an a priori position to prove? I was ready to read the article with a skeptical mind and tear it apart.
Except … inside the cover the real title of the article was “Born to be Mild.” The thrust of the article was totally opposite that of what would expect from the cover. It seems that all the latest research with toddlers and infants confirms that they have a social conscious, are likely born with this conscious in fact.
Now before we all don our loin cloths and spears the article pointed out a caveat, that early on we demonstrate a preference for our own kind. This confirms as well what has been observed in nomadic society. While extremely hospitable to outsiders (unless outsiders are trying to change them), nomadic societies tend to consider themselves the “real people.” This is something I’ve pointed out in my writings as well.
Hey! Some of my best friends are civilized! Let me point out that the beauty of civilization has been making the world a smaller place where we might accept differences in others as yet being equal. I appreciate the progress that the civilized flow of information brings us. Yet civilization has not made us more social, more altruistic; quite the opposite is the case. When things go wrong in our civilized social systems it is not our naturally bad selves but precisely the social inadequacy of those systems to blame.
You would not know that from the cover title on the Smithsonian. Assuming far more people have glanced at the cover than have read the article, we are as a whole left with the same impression that Enlightenment philosophers, laissez faire economists and corporate media wish to portray. Thecover title serves the interest of civilized social systems in misinforming the masses, but neither the ultimate interest of humanity nor the truth. We fight an uphill battle with believing in ourselves and improving our lot through acting on that belief.
