So was there a golden age before history when man lived as a
noble savage in relative equanimity with his neighbor?
Well maybe yes. In his book Tribe Sebastian Junger points
out that, 250 years ago for those who were immersed in it, the life of the
hunter/gatherer was surprisingly appealing. He notes an experiment went on when
western European style society lived in close proximity to the culture of
hunter/gatherers i.e. the American Indians. The peoples of both cultures,
usually captured in war, ended up living for extended periods of time in the
other culture. Almost invariably whites
who lived with the Indians would refuse to return or were forced to return
against their will, whereas in contrast, the Indians would, at the first
opportunity, go back to their tribe. He
quotes Franklin on both accounts.
Regarding Indians he says, “When an Indian child has been
brought up among us . . . and habituated to our customs . . .yet if he goes to
see his relations and makes one Indian ramble with them, there is no persuading
him ever to return.” [1]
Regarding whites living with Indians Franklin says, “Tho’
ransomed by their friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to
prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in short time they become
disgusted with our manor of life . . .and take the first good opportunity of
escaping again into the woods.”[2]
So if this life style is so appealing why aren’t we
forsaking our comforts, our cars, our computers and racing back to a simpler
golden age that is more compatible with our fundamental nature? Why isn’t the
Unabomber Manifesto a siren call to all of us to dismantle civilization and
return to our roots? Are we all missing a golden time before history when the
social structure matched our inner nature and all was right with the world? I would say the answer is almost undoubtedly
no and it all has to do with the brink.
We have spent the last ten millennia moving as far as we can
from the brink. We like drinkable water at our fingertips: we like our waste
flushed safely away; we like a secure roof over our heads and food on our
plates; we like the nearly virtual certainty that our children will reach
adulthood.
As I said, Wright notes that none of the anthropologists who
have chronicled the many advantages that seem to inherently suit the human
psyche would buy a one-way ticket back to the hunter/gatherer cultures they
studied. Nor, I dare say, would any of us.
The opportunity to join hunter/gatherers is out there or we can start
our own, but again there is no rush to civilization’s exit. Furthermore, and
perhaps more fundamentally . . .
“We were happiest then,” she said, “and we laughed more.”[3]
This is a quote from a survivor twenty years after the siege
of Sarajevo from the chapter in Tribe ironically titled “War makes you an
animal.”* To be clear this was a place and time where people would walk into no
man’s land to be shot by snipers as a means of committing suicide. This was a
place where people truly lived on the brink.
And this is the point that Junger makes in this chapter;
that when disaster strikes whether natural as an earthquake or more commonly
manmade as with war everyone is equal and all pull together to promote the
common good. He cites example after
example where not only the common good is promoted, but also individual mental
health improves under these most stressful of conditions. And these are the
conditions under which our pre-historic ancestors lived - in close proximity to
famine, pestilence, and probably most commonly war.
“If there are phrases that characterize the life of our
early ancestors, “community of sufferers” and “brotherhood of pain” surely must
come close.”[4] It
is precisely this living on the edge that makes the life of the society of
mankind before history so mentally and emotionally satisfying - for those that
survived. Everyone was of necessity part
of something bigger than themselves. That said, “Community of sufferers” and
“brotherhood of pain” which may indeed characterize that social structure is
hardly descriptive for something we would consider to be a “Golden Age”.
Of the age we live in Junger notes, “The beauty and the
tragedy of the modern world is that it eliminates many situations that require** people to demonstrate
commitment to the collective good . . . What would you risk dying for – and for
whom – is perhaps the most profound question a person can ask themselves. The
vast majority of people in modern society are able to pass their entire lives
without ever having to answer that question, which is both an enormous blessing
and a significant loss.”
Very few of us feel we are living in a golden age, but then
I would submit we never have. That said, perhaps we can learn from those
earlier ages as suggested by Wright and Junger, or suffer the consequences as
foretold by Ted Kaczynski.
