9
The Arrow of History
AFTER THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION, human societies grew
ever larger and more complex, while the imagined constructs sustaining the
social order also became more elaborate. Myths and fictions accustomed people,
nearly from the moment of birth, to think in certain ways, to behave in
accordance with certain standards, to want certain things, and to observe certain
rules. They thereby created artificial instincts that enabled millions of strangers
to cooperate effectively. This network of artificial instincts is called culture’.
During the first half of the twentieth century, scholars taught that every
culture was complete and harmonious, possessing an unchanging essence that
defined it for all time. Each human group had its own world view and system of
social, legal and political arrangements that ran as smoothly as the planets going
around the sun. In this view, cultures left to their own devices did not change.
They just kept going at the same pace and in the same direction. Only a force
applied from outside could change them. Anthropologists, historians and
politicians thus referred to ‘Samoan Culture’ or ‘Tasmanian Culture’ as if the
same beliefs, norms and values had characterised Samoans and Tasmanians from
time immemorial.
Today, most scholars of culture have concluded that the opposite is true.
Every culture has its typical beliefs, norms and values, but these are in constant
flux. The culture may transform itself in response to changes in its environment
or through interaction with neighbouring cultures. But cultures also undergo
transitions due to their own internal dynamics. Even a completely isolated
culture existing in an ecologically stable environment cannot avoid change.
Unlike the laws of physics, which are free of inconsistencies, every man-made
order is packed with internal contradictions. Cultures are constantly trying to
reconcile these contradictions, and this process fuels change.
For instance, in medieval Europe the nobility believed in both Christianity
and chivalry. A typical nobleman went to church in the morning, and listened as
the priest held forth on the lives of the saints. ‘Vanity of vanities,’ said the priest,
‘all is vanity. Riches, lust and honour are dangerous temptations. You must rise
above them, and follow in Christ’s footsteps. Be meek like Him, avoid violence
and extravagance, and if attacked – just turn the other cheek.’ Returning home in
a meek and pensive mood, the nobleman would change into his best silks and go
to a banquet in his lord’s castle. There the wine flowed like water, the minstrel
sang of Lancelot and Guinevere, and the guests exchanged dirty jokes and
bloody war tales. ‘It is better to die,’ declared the barons, ‘than to live with
shame. If someone questions your honour, only blood can wipe out the insult.
And what is better in life than to see your enemies flee before you, and their
pretty daughters tremble at your feet?’
The contradiction was never fully resolved. But as the European nobility,
clergy and commoners grappled with it, their culture changed. One attempt to
figure it out produced the Crusades. On crusade, knights could demonstrate their
military prowess and their religious devotion at one stroke. The same
contradiction produced military orders such as the Templars and Hospitallers,
who tried to mesh Christian and chivalric ideals even more tightly. It was also
responsible for a large part of medieval art and literature, such as the tales of
King Arthur and the Holy Grail. What was Camelot but an attempt to prove that
a good knight can and should be a good Christian, and that good Christians make
the best knights?
Another example is the modern political order. Ever since the French
Revolution, people throughout the world have gradually come to see both
equality and individual freedom as fundamental values. Yet the two values
contradict each other. Equality can be ensured only by curtailing the freedoms of
those who are better off. Guaranteeing that every individual will be free to do as
he wishes inevitably short-changes equality. The entire political history of the
world since 1789 can be seen as a series of attempts to reconcile this
contradiction.
Anyone who has read a novel by Charles Dickens knows that the liberal
regimes of nineteenth-century Europe gave priority to individual freedom even if
it meant throwing insolvent poor families in prison and giving orphans little
choice but to join schools for pickpockets. Anyone who has read a novel by
Alexander Solzhenitsyn knows how Communisms egalitarian ideal produced
brutal tyrannies that tried to control every aspect of daily life.
Contemporary American politics also revolve around this contradiction.
Democrats want a more equitable society, even if it means raising taxes to fund
programmes to help the poor, elderly and infirm. But that infringes on the
freedom of individuals to spend their money as they wish.
Why should the
government force me to buy health insurance if I prefer using the money to put
my kids through college? Republicans, on the other hand, want to maximise
individual freedom, even if it means that the income gap between rich and poor
will grow wider and that many Americans will not be able to afford health care.
Just as medieval culture did not manage to square chivalry with Christianity,
so the modern world fails to square liberty with equality. But this is no defect.
Such contradictions are an inseparable part of every human culture. In fact, they
are culture’s engines, responsible for the creativity and dynamism of our species.
Just as when two clashing musical notes played together force a piece of music
forward, so discord in our thoughts, ideas and values compel us to think,
reevaluate and criticise. Consistency is the playground of dull minds.
If tensions, conflicts and irresolvable dilemmas are the spice of every
culture, a human being who belongs to any particular culture must hold
contradictory beliefs and be riven by incompatible values. It’s such an essential
feature of any culture that it even has a name: cognitive dissonance. Cognitive
dissonance is often considered a failure of the human psyche. In fact, it is a vital
asset. Had people been unable to hold contradictory beliefs and values, it would
probably have been impossible to establish and maintain any human culture.
If, say, a Christian really wants to understand the Muslims who attend that
mosque down the street, he shouldn’t look for a pristine set of values that every
Muslim holds dear. Rather, he should enquire into the catch-22s of Muslim
culture, those places where rules are at war and standards scuffle. It’s at the very
spot where the Muslims teeter between two imperatives that you’ll understand
them best.
