Coon, a career diplomat, makes the compelling argument that contemporary human actions are heavily influenced by the sorts of human actions which were once successful in humanity’s primitive past. But what is a culture, and why should it be beholden to practices no longer as successful?
As he defines it, a culture is shared beliefs and behaviors that create and foster a sense of shared identity among the members of a particular group, tribe or society. Sometimes these beliefs and behaviors are static and sometimes they are dynamic. They cannot be too static, otherwise the group won’t be able to adapt to changing circumstances. They also cannot be too variable, otherwise they won’t be able to create that shared identity. It is, after all, the fact that people feel like they “belong” and that they are “safe” that is most important.
That is perhaps one of the most important reasons why cultures develop and why they are different. When groups compete, one of the things that helps ensure victory for one or the other is be the strength of internal bonds. Just how loyal are the members and how willing are they to make sacrifices for the group?
Such passionate devotion is a logical outcome of the evolutionary process.
Is it an essential part of our human nature to engage in an “us vs. them” mental attitude rather than cooperate with people who are different? This appears to be the case: it has developed both within cultural groups and between cultures. When we can create a multicultural group, such attitudes can be expended harmlessly in things like sports; but in a monocultural group, these attitudes can lead to hatred and hostility.
What are we to do about it now? Is our future condemned by our past? Not necessarily — the challenge for us today, according to Coon, is to recognize the nature of our cultural conflicts and where their origins really lie. Furthermore, we must use this insight to help in a transition to a better, global society. Our instincts may be to engage in fierce loyalty to one group and hate others, but that is something we need to work to overcome.
His method of describing this is to take us on a tour of five different levels of altruism. The first is only an expression of preserving one’s genetic code, either by preserving yourself or by sacrificing yourself for the sake of a close relative which has a high percentage of the same code as you.
The second level is simply reciprocal cooperation: you help me and I help you, even though we may not be close genetic relatives. These first two are, naturally enough, how small tribes and communities develop. The third level developed when these groups got so big that not everyone could possibly know each other. Such a culture needs to use distinguishing factors like language and dress to create unity on larger, more abstract levels. Thus, altruism is abstracted into laws and customs which we assume everyone will follow.
This abstraction is increased on the fourth level, usually called nationalism or patriotism. At this point common dress and even sometimes common language isn’t a priority for creating unity. Instead, even more abstract principles like history are the forces used.
The terror attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and on the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. may be illustrative of this point.
On the other hand, it is not quite clear that these actions qualify as “pan-humanism.” It may be true that people around the world are treating the victims simply as other human beings rather than as citizens of another nation. However, part of what is pulling divergent people together is the specter of a “them” — extremists who kill innocent civilians. Is it really pan-humanism when people are pulled together in reaction to a common, human enemy?
In a world where people judge others based upon the color of their skin, their religion, and worse, it is quite an achievement to have people try to treat others with dignity because they share the same citizenship. In a world where many believe that their god authorizes them to murder neighbors, it will be a while before many reach pan-humanism. Fortunately there are people like Coon who advocate it and speak in favor of it — without them, it would take even longer.
