Week 11a - Dichotomies to Dialectics, Then a Shift from Survival to Nature

Perhaps this also relates to this week's reading on Apple and Google, I'm not sure I haven't read it yet.  What I have read is Bruno Latour in 'Piaget, formalism and the fifth dimension'.  He's talking I think about Constructivism and Metaphysics, in fact, as he would say, he is talking about Constructivism and Metaphysics.  I think he's discussing Constructivism in terms of humanity's pursuit for survival.  Generally speaking, we see survival in terms of a dichotomy.  At one end we are like animals that fight amongst each other for food etc. to survive, and at the other end we are civilised, far removed from this animal we are polite, courteous, giving, sharing, there is no boorishness here, only etiquette.  But from a dialectical perspective, civility is only another means or function of survival.  We have worked out that we are better off cooperating and working together (Latour 1997, pp4-14).  Democracy abides by this law, that is, when we work together we create something more than we could ever achieve working separately (Baylis et al. 2008, pp92-105).  Socrates, Plato, Western Philosophy and Political Science, Sociology is premised on the notion that we are animals that need to be locked-in to be protected from ourselves.  Socrates was of the belief that we have achieved civility but we have a self-defeating urge to relinquish this civility and to return to our supposed animal states because it is our nature, it is only our 'system' and structure that keeps us from undermining ourselves (de Bono 1995, pp1-23).  In this scenario, objectivity and civility therefore must be placed as priority or else structuralists see this as the 'system' reversed, or in regression if you like, we must keep moving forward and become more civilised, there is no other way than backward or forward (Debord 1967, pp91-109).

On the other hand, we could view humanity's imperative not as survival, but as enjoying life and feeling freedom from being locked-in and by being as we were prior to paternalising ourselves from ourselves.  A return to nature as we actually are/were without construct, without self-imposed superfluous structures (Latour 1997, pp1-14).  Even Durkheim admitted that there were two sides to humans; our animal, and our ability to moralise.  Morality is what separates us from animals (Van Krieken 2006, pp634-638).  And if we really were animals, we would just be animals, but we are not animals.  If we were animals then we wouldn't be human beings.  I don't believe that we have evolved from apes.  Why are there still apes then?  I think that we have always been something different and I don't think that we need to be protected from ourselves as a species, I don't think that we undermine ourselves, clearly and obviously we don't because we are presently here/civilised/human being and not there/animal/ape.  This entire concept is 'relative' anyway because who is to define progression?  What may seem backward to one person may seem as progression to another.  I think that we would be more human if we were less 'measured' as Latour would say (Latour 1997, pp1-4).  It would be so unnatural anyway to dress a monkey in a suit.  I think Tarzan was more human than Jane (YouTube 2011).  As Latour says, there is no yardstick 'out there' stating where progression is and where we/it must go (Latour 1997, pp1-4).  If we are happy and content where we are going, if we are even 'going' anywhere really at all, then what does it matter?  Many people see consumerism and capitalism as sophistication and progression while many others see it as the slow destruction of our planet, while others think that both are just inventions.  Forward and backward, up and down are also inventions, and symbols and objects 'indicate' direction, sequence and orientation, meaning (Latour 1997, pp1-14).

Which way of being allows us to be most human?

References

Baylis J, Smith, S, Owens P, 2008, The Globalisation of World Politics – An introduction to international relations 4e, Oxford University Press Inc., New York 

de Bono, E 1995, parallel thinking, Penguin Books, London

Debord, G 1967, The Society of the Spectacle, Zone Books, New York, New York

Latour, B 1997,'Trains of thought - Piaget, formalism and the fifth dimension', Common Knowledge, Summer 1997, No. 71, pp1-29

Van Krieken, R Habibis, D Smith, P Hutchins, B Haralambos, M Hoborn, M 2006, Sociology Themes and Perspectives, 3^rd Edition, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest

YouTube, 2011, U Jane Me Tarzan, accessed 14/10/2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxSzcWLIhiQ