Download Homeostasis, Violence, and Society

HeathValentine
ARTHI6450-002
Prof.LeeBlalock
12/21/15
Homeostasis,Violence,andSociety
Today, it is difficult to dispute the fact that violence is visible everywhere.
And yet, statistically, violence is globally in decline. Debates about the function of
violence concern almost every field interested in studying human society, both
ancient and contemporary; from artists and anthropologists, to historians and
mythologists, to scientists and theologians. This paper examines the concept of
homeostasisanditsapplicabilitytothestudyofviolenceinhumansocietythrough
fourthinkersindifferentfieldswhoseworksbeardirectlyonthisissue.
First, we will look briefly at the work of W. Ross Ashby, a pioneering
cyberneticist and systems-theorist who definition of homeostasis was essential to
hisunderstandinganddevelopmentofadaptivesystems.Next,wewillexplorethe
anthropological theory of violence elaborated by René Girard, which Roberto
Calasso characterizes as rooted in a homeostatic conception of the function of
violence in society. Thirdly, we will turn to the research of cognitive psychologist
Steven Pinker, whose work demonstrates the statistical, worldwide decline in
1
violence.Finally,wewillconsiderCalasso’sunderstandingofsacrificeandviolence,
andtrytofigureoutwherethatleavesustoday.
Before diving in, it is worth considering that the theory of homeostatic
violenceisnotnecessarilyanewone:theideawasespousedbythethirdpresident
of the United States (though the concept of homeostasis as we now understand it
hadn’t been invented yet). Not long after the drafting and signing of the American
constitution (1787), Thomas Jefferson, then ambassador to France, wrote to his
friendWilliamSmithfromParis:“TheTreeofLibertymustberefreshedfromtime
totimewiththebloodofpatriotsandtyrants.Itisitsnaturalmanure.”Thisjusttwo
yearsbeforetheFrenchRevolution(1789).NotethedemocraticqualityoftheTree
of Liberty – that it requires blood from bothpatriots and tyrants. In any case, it is
clearthatthisidea,asacrificialone,isattherootsofAmericansocietyand,aswe
shallsee,therootsofsocietyitself.
i.
Togetasenseofwhatismeantbythetermhomeostasis,wecanlooktothe
work of W. Ross Ashby, an English psychiatrist working in the mid-twentieth
century to develop early cybernetics. Ashby wrote two seminal works on
cybernetics and systems theory, DesignforaBrain:Theoriginofadaptivebehavior
(1952),andAnIntroductiontoCybernetics(1956),bothofwhichtreattheconceptof
homeostasis. The subtitle of his first book, theoriginofadaptivebehavior, already
hintsatitsexplorationoftheconcept.Inchapterfive,AdaptationasStability,Ashby
2
offersadefinitionofhomeostasisasdescribedbyWalterBradfordCannon,whofirst
definedtheterminrelationtothe‘fight-or-flightresponse’:
First I shall outline the facts underlying Cannon’s concept of ‘homeostasis’.
Theyarenotdirectlyrelevanttotheproblemoflearning,forthemechanisms
are inborn; but the are so clear and well-known that they provide an ideal
basicillustration.Theyshowthat:
1) Eachmechanismis‘adapted’toitsend.
2) Its end is the maintenance of the values of some essential variables
withinphysiologicallimits.
3) Almostallthebehaviorofananimal’svegetativesystemisduetosuch
mechanisms.(58)
WhilehisIntroductiontoCyberneticsisafarmoretechnicalbookthatprovidesthe
mathematical basis for designing adaptive systems, Ashby does give another brief,
anduseful(forus)glossofhomeostasis:
Thesubjectofregulationinbiologyissovastthatnosinglechaptercandoit
justice.Cannon’sWisdomoftheBodytreateditadequatelysofarasinternal,
vegetativeactivitiesareconcerned,buttherehasyettobewrittenthebook,
much larger in size, that shall show how all the organism’s exteriorly-
directed activities—its “higher” activities—are all similarly regulatory, i.e.
homeostatic.(169)
3
Fromthisoverview,wecandiscernafewoftheimportantfeaturesoftheconceptof
homeostasis. That the very concept of homeostasis emerged from the study of the
‘fight-or-flight’ response – a response dealing with violence and the threat of
violence–isnotinsignificant,andwouldbegoodtokeepinmind.Mostimportantly,
we can understand that homeostasis refers to adaptability and stability, with “the
maintenance of essential variables.” Lastly, it is clear that the concept is rooted in
biology, but might be scaled up to include the study of other, larger systems (i.e.,
“higher”activities).Perhapsitisthisbiologicalanalogythatgroundstheconceptof
thehomeostaticeffectofviolence;thefactthatitseems“inborn”suggeststhatthere
isnoalternative,andthusnaturallyappearsinbiologicalsystemsatvariousscales,
fromsmallorganismstoecosystems.
Ashby corroborates this reading with a couple of examples. In Designfora
Brain, he cites an example to introduce adaptability that sounds like something
Stephen Pinker might cite. Ashby writes of adaptation and survival, and asks: “Is
‘survival’ to be the sole criterion of adaptation? Is it to be maintained that the
Roman Soldier who killed Archimedes in Syracuse was better ‘adapted’ in his
behaviorthanArchimedes?Thequestionisnoteasilyanswered.”(65)Hegoesonto
explain that, “there seems to be little doubt that the ‘adaptiveness’ of behavior is
properlymeasuredbyitstendencytopromotetheorganism’ssurvival.”(66)Again,
theconceptofhomeostasisisclearlylinkedwithviolence.Inotherwords,yes;the
Roman soldier is better adapted, a disconcerting conclusion. As evidence of the
applicability of this concept at larger scales, we can look to An Introduction to
4
Cybernetics, where Ashby formulates his theory of requisite variety, and mentions
politics;specifically,aviolentdictator:
Wherethelaw,initsquantitativeform,developsitspoweriswhenwecome
to consider the system in which these matters are not so obvious, and
particularlywhenitisverylarge.Thus,byhowmuchcanadictatorcontrola
country?ItiscommonlysaidthatHitler’scontroloverGermanywastotal.So
thathiscontrolamountedtojust1man-power,andnomore.(Whetherthis
statementistruemustbetestedbythefuture;itschiefvirtuenowisthatitis
exact and uncompromising.) Thus the law, though trite in the simple cases,
can give real guidance in those cases that are much too complex to be
handledbyunaidedintuition.(213)
So, we have a biological concept of the functioning and adaptability of complex
systems–homeostasis–atawiderangeofscales,thathasbeendevelopedwiththe
phenomenonofviolenceandviolentbehaviorinmind.Let’sseehowthisplaysout
inanthropology.
ii.
René Girard’s work, spanning over fifty years (Girard recently died, Nov.
2015), is compelling in its simple elegance, and troubling for perhaps the same
reason.Hisarticulationofwhathetermsmimeticdesireinhumancultureishardto
5
deny,whenempiricalevidenceiseverywhereavailable.Hisseconddefiningconcept
is that of the scapegoat, and the two are related insofar as mimetic desire is
destabilizing, and the scapegoat mechanism homeostatic. Roberto Calasso points
outthepopularityofthisapproach:
Thedominantviewintwentiethcenturyanthropology,heightenedandtaken
toanextremeinthethoughtofRenéGirard,wasthateverysociety,inorder
to survive, needs sacrifice, either as an institution that produces a
homeostaticeffect,orasamechanismthatmakesitpossibletoconcentrate
the violence produced within it on a victim, ostracized from society itself.
Ardor(348)
Girard argues that mimetic desire is at the heart of human societies, and finds an
abundance of evidence of this in history, myth, scripture, allegory. The idea is as
follows:twopeopleinacommunityarefriendsuntiloneofthemexpressesdesire
for a third object, a mediator (a territory, a resource, a person, etc.). The second
person then begins to desire that object, only because they have seen their friend
desiring. This leads to conflict between the friends, who begin competing for the
object.Friendsbecomerivals.Theserivalriesdestabilizecommunities,andviolence
escalates until the community selects a scapegoat (generally arbitrarily) to punish
forthecommunalinstability.Thescapegoatisthensacrificed,andthingsgobackto
normal – this is Girard’s homeostatic principle, the principle that links adaptation
andviolence,andiselaboratedinhisnowclassicViolenceandtheSacred(1977).He
6
explainsthatscapegoatsareoftenlaterviewedasmartyrs,ordeified,afterthefact.
ThisstructurecanbediscernedintheVedanta,inclassicalGreektragedy,theBible,
Shakespeare,the19thcenturynovel,theAvengers.Clearly,thecyclerepeatsitself.
So far, so good. However, Girard’s teleology becomes hard to swallow. He
claims, almost evangelically, that Christian texts, specifically the Gospels, are the
most advanced narratives regarding mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism
because,unlikepre-Christianmyths,thesetextsexposethefollyofthesacrifice(the
crowdcriesforJesustobeexecuted,thenrealizestheirerror)andactuallylaythe
groundworkforamoresecular,lessviolentcivilization.Girardviewshumanhistory
as a process of demythification, with Christianity doing much of the heavy lifting.
Canoneacceptthetheoryofmimeticdesireandthescapegoatmechanismwithout
converting to Christianity (despite Girard’s protests … c.f. Evolution and
Conversion)?
RobertoCalassoprovidessomelucidityhere.Hewritesthat,inhisboldness,
whichleadshimtoreadthescapegoatmechanismeverywhere,
[…] Girard was doing nothing more than tracing back the movement in
secularizedsocietythatcannolongerseenatureoranyotherpowerbeyond
itselfandbelievesitisitselftheanswerforeverything.Amovementthatis
stillactivetodayandhasmadetheworldintoaseculartotalitydottedwith
islandsoffundamentalistreligion.Andherethereisgoodreasontothinkthat
eventhesecularizedworldispronetofundamentalism,inthattheonlyone
onwhichitadoreslavishingofferingsissocietyitself.Ardor(349)
7
Despite reservations one may have with Girard’s work, its narrative force is
compelling. But it is Calasso who, as usual, offers the most cutting insight, and
directs our attention to the sacred position of society in the contemporary secular
world.However,itremainstobeseenwhetherornotviolenceinsecularsocietycan
indeedbesaidtobehomeostatic,giventheglobaldeclineinviolencemappedoutby
StevenPinker.
iii.
Asacognitivepsychologist,StevenPinker’sworkhasmoreincommonwith
that of W. Ross Ashby, the English psychiatrist, than with René Girard, the French
(arguablystructuralist)anthropologist.Thatsaid;inTheBetterAngelsofourNature:
Why Violence has Declined, Pinker also crafts a compelling narrative that clearly
shows the gradual decline in violence worldwide. He begins with human prehistory,andcontinuesintotheearlytwenty-firstcentury–thescopeisstaggering.
HisglossoftheHebrewBible,theOldTestament,“onelongcelebrationofviolence,”
isparticularlyamusing.(6)PinkerrecountshowAdamandEveboreCainandAbel,
andhowCainslewAbel.“Withaworldpopulationofexactlyfour,thatworksoutto
a homicide rate of 25 percent, which is about a thousand times higher than the
equivalentratesofWesterncountriestoday.”(6)Pinker’sempiricalevidenceforthe
decline of violence is so abundant that it isn’t necessary to go over it all in detail.
Suffice it to mention his discussion of Charles Darwin and Thomas Hobbes, which
8
corresponds directly with Ashby’s understanding of homeostasis as related to
survivalandadaptation:
Thelogicofviolenceasitappliestomembersofanintelligentspeciesfacing
othermembersofthatspeciesbringsustoHobbes.Inaremarkablepassage
in Leviathan (1651), he used fewer than a hundred words to lay out an
analysisoftheincentivesforviolencethatisasgoodasanytoday:
‘Sothatinthenatureofman,wefindthreeprincipalcausesofquarrel.First,
competition; second, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade
for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use
violence, to make themselves masters of other men’s persons, wives,
children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a
word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either
direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their
nation,theirprofession,ortheirname.’(33)
In a table from Design for a Brain, provided by Ashby in his discussion of
homeostasis, we can discern the same behavioral motivators outlined by Hobbes,
under sustentative and protective self-maintaining adaptive behavior (while racemaintainingbehaviorclearlyappliestostudiesofviolenceaswell):
9
(66)
Thiscomparisonprovidesyetmoreevidenceofjusthowpervasivethelinkbetween
homeostasisandviolenceisacrossdisciplines,andovertime.Thecrucialpointwith
Pinker,whichhegoesontoargue,isthatviolencehasdramaticallydecreased,due
to both biological and social evolutionary mechanisms. What remains to be
explored,however,isthecorrelationbetweenviolenceandsocietytoday,andwhat
areductioninviolencemeansforcontemporarysociety.Inotherwords,eitherthe
theoryofhomeostaticviolenceiswrong(whichisdifficulttoexplainaway,givenits
pervasivenessandtheabundanceofexamples)oritiscorrect(inwhichcasewelive
in less violent, and therefore, paradoxically, less stable societies). Here, we can
returntoRobertoCalasso.
10
iv.
Inordertotrytofigureourwherewestandtodaywithregardtoviolencein
society,itisworthconsideringhowwegothere.Ashby’sapproachtohomeostasis,
while not exactly narrative, relies on a Darwinian conception of biology. Girard’s
theoryisperhapstoosingle-mindedlynarrative:RobertoCalassohascalledGirard’s
work a “narrative to end all narratives.” Pinker’s work is very compelling, but is
hard to reconcile with the proliferation of representations of violence everywhere
(TV,movies,thenews-media,sports).Calassohaspatientlysketchedoutavisionof
contemporarysecularsocietythat,whileperhapsnotasviolentasancientsocieties
foundedinritualviolence,insacrifice,isnonethelessindebtedtothem.
InNovember2014,justaftertheU.S.publicationofArdor,hisbookonVedic
sacrifice, Roberto Calasso delivered the René Girard lecture at Stanford, which he
titledTheLastSuperstition.Thesuperstitiontowhichherefersis“thesuperstition
of society,” as though society were the last horizon of thought. He explains the
origins of this conception in Émile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of Religious
Life, where Durkheim writes, “If religion has given birth to all that is essential in
society, it is because the idea of society is the soul of religion.”(466) Calasso
elaborates:“Secularsociety,withnoforewarning,hasbecometheultimateframeof
reference for all meaning, as if its shape corresponded to the physiology of any
communitywhatsoever,andmeaninghadtobesoughtonlyinsocietyitself.”Healso
quotesSimoneWeil(whomT.S.Eliottermedasaint):“Thesocialistheonlyidol.”
11
Anotherwayofputtingthismightbetosaythatsocietyreplacesgodinthe
secular order of things. Calasso elaborates on the consequences of this transition
fromacultureofsacrificetocontemporarysecularsociety:
[…] it is enough that the very notion of society manages to become the
entitythatislargelyunknownandcertainlypowerful,towhichcertainrights
are directed. If this is a god – and a god who demands human victims –
society has no difficulty in taking its place, as we have seen on so many
occasions. Countless human beings have become victims for the benefit of
society.(356)
Curiously,thecontemporarysecularpositionthatvaluessociety(itsown,ofcourse)
aboveallelseisreligiousatheart:mythologybeginswithsacrifice:specifically,with
the sacrifice of a god (despite the massive differences between the two, the Vedas
theNewTestamentagreeonthispoint).Secularismhassacrificedgod,andmadean
altar of society, upon which “countless victims” are daily sacrificed. Despite the
relative disappearance of blood sacrifice, we have witnessed a proliferation of the
common usage of the term ‘sacrifice’ today (Calasso points this out in his Girard
Lecture, with reference to time, money, work, sports). Here, we are not far from
Jefferson’sconceptionoftheTreeofLiberty.
The one constant in these divergent narratives that can still be discerned
todayissacrificeforsociety.Thesecularworldfindsmostabhorrentthatviolence
which is religiously inspired and has, by a strange inversion, sacralized statesanctionedviolence,madeholyviolenceintheserviceofsocietyatlarge.AsCalasso
12
suggestsinhisGirardlecture,politicshasbecomeaclandestinetheology.Soweget
a zealous secular society that is statistically less violent (excluding massincarceration),butthathasbecomeadeptatfocusingviolenceonitsreligiousfoes
(forthesamereasonscitedbyHobbesandAshby),andatrepresentingthatviolence
to its public (TV, movies, news-media, sports). It is as though, in order to
compensateforthedeclineinactualviolence,secularsocietyhasrefineditscapacity
to represent violence: the homeostatic function violence in secular society has
become the purview of representation … But that is just this author’s working
hypothesis,andamatterforaforthcomingpaper.
13
Bibliography
W.RossAshby,AnIntroductiontoCybernetics,London,ChapmanandHall,1957.
W.RossAshby,DesignforaBrain:Theoriginofadaptivebehavior,London,Chapman
andHall,1960.
RobertoCalasso,Ardor,NewYork,Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2014.
RobertoCalasso,RenéGirardLecture,Stanford,November2014.Web.Availableat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJZmLGYpByU
Émile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, New York, Free Press,
1965.
René Girard, EvolutionandConversion:DialoguesontheOriginsofCulture, London,
Continuum,2007.
RenéGirard,ViolenceandtheSacred,Baltimore,JohnsHopkins,1977.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Smith, Oct/Nov, 1787. Cited in Lapham’s
Quarterly,Vol.VII,No.2,Revolutions,Spring2014.
Steven Pinker, TheBetterAngelsofourNature:WhyViolencehasDeclined, London,
Viking,2011.
14