Fred Allebach 5/11/11
The beginning of civilization is characterized by a shift
from egalitarian hunter-gather social organization to a hierarchical class
society. A class society implies asymmetric power relations with the few ruling
the many. Domestication of plants and animals made this possible as resources
increased and the resulting wealth, power and influence were controlled and
consolidated by elites. The sheep/ shepherd relationship describes this
asymmetry in power relations and this relation has then served as an apt
metaphor for power relations in Western Civilization ever since. The sheep/ shepherd, governed/ governor
relationship and the tensions therein provide a blueprint for class society and
for understanding societal order.
Starting at the beginning of Western Civilization the
Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Hebrews all manifested unequal power structures
where Kings, Pharaohs and chieftains ruled from the top and adopted the role as
shepherd of the human flock below. The Pharaoh’s ubiquitous staff symbolizes
his role as herder of the people. Hammurabi describes himself as a shepherd of
people. (The Code of Hammurabi, pp.
4-5) The Hebrews, as pastoralists, would say, “the Lord is my shepherd” (Psalm 23). Shepherds managed sheep,
Kings managed people, a one to one relationship. There is a fundamental reason
why the sheep/ shepherd metaphor is so apt: as technology, domestication and
agriculture provided a basis for a more secure economy through advances in the
control of nature, this new basis manifested socially as well through
developments in the hierarchical control and management of people. (Burke, James and Ornstein, Robert, p.49, The Axemaker’s Gift: A Double Edged History
of Human Culture, G. P. Putnam’s Sons, NY 1995) In a basic way, the
asymmetry of power relations, which came to the fore with the advent of
civilization, derives from the structural necessity of adapting to a new type
of economy; it takes more people to extract and manage resources at primary
levels and the chain of specialization is pyramid shaped, with a Pharaoh at the
top.
In all three examples above, Kings are given justification
by religion, by the gods. In a time when religion was the only game in town to
explain nature, life and death, this justification stood as the social contract
basis, the raison d’état for the unequal wielding of power by the upper
classes/ elites of society. Kings and Pharaohs claimed exclusive access to
god’s powers for either protection from enemies (Mesopotamia) or the control of
nature (Mesopotamia and Egypt), to maintain productive conditions for
agriculture and for safety of the people. It was through rulers claiming
congruence with the “will of god” that the underclass was made to do the
bidding of rulers and aristocracy. (p.6 The
Epic of Gilgamesh) Socio-economic relations were unequal because one, the
gods wanted it that way and two, only the elite had the secrets to communicate
with the gods to ensure continued blessings for the people. For the whole
scheme to work two factors of power relations were necessary, mythical
justification and a practical contract (domestication), protection in exchange
for obedience.
Yet, individuals have always had minds of their own and
given that the capacity of a King or a commoner is essentially equal, it was
only a matter of time before some idea of individual rights would emerge.
Switching gears, the classical Greeks and in particular Aristotle came to the
realization that nature had rules all could see and perhaps gods were
unnecessary to justify asymmetry in power relations. This represented the birth
of science, secularism and “natural law”. Society had a hierarchical nature:
elites, rulers, slaves and under classes because this was how social animals
live in all of nature. There is no need for fancy religious justifications. (Man Is A Political Animal, Aristotle,
pp. 54-55)
This natural law carried through to modern times, to the
Enlightenment, to seeing an uncivilized “state of nature” (hunter-gatherer
society) from which humanity emerged, and to Darwin and the theory of
evolution. This is a simple proposition: all necessary understanding can be
deduced by human reason. Here then is a parallel, natural trajectory for
justifying power; in a very practical, up front sense. The practical could
justify asymmetrical power relations just as well as the mythical.
Back over in the Promised Land a number of hundred years
later Christianity followed the steps of its Jewish predecessor by continuing
to invoke the sheep/ shepherd relationship. The Lord was still the main
shepherd and the social contract for obedience and protection was the same:
“Happy are the meek, they will receive what God has promised!” (Sermon on the Mount, p.147) Jesus came
up with good shepherd strategies, tactics, promises and threats, all to keep
order and discipline within the flock.
At the same time, the sheep/ shepherd-based early Christianity
had competition from a Gnostic thought (perhaps influenced by the Classical Greeks)
which emphasized a parallel track of individual, mystical relation with the
divine unmediated by a priestly class or rigid doctrine. (Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, pp. 102-118,
Vintage Books, NY, 1979) This individual trajectory was snuffed out by early
Church leaders (First Principles of the
Early Church, Origen, pp. 166-67) as it challenged the emerging formal
power structure of a Christian Church hierarchy. What good are shepherds if the
sheep have their own minds? And so the spark of Gnostic, Greek, Renaissance,
Reformation, Enlightenment, modern secular humanist trajectory has been playing
out on simultaneous fronts and competing with shepherd-based governance pretty
much from the beginning of written history. Sheep would always like to assert
their independence and transcend shepherds yet the shepherds do all they can to
keep power and control. This tension is most likely a part of all
civilizations.
As Christianity grew it mimicked the operations of the Roman
state and gradually spread through Europe and gained power. The movement was on
the up and up. Three to four hundred years from its inception Christianity
became the state religion of the Roman Empire. The formerly downtrodden
representative of the under classes now had a major change in status; the power
equation had inverted.
One thing about shepherds and rulers: they consistently
become complacent and corrupt after they have reached a top position of power
and control. Hubris sets in like rot. People will consent to be ruled if
conditions are good enough. Should conditions be poor or worse, rulers lose
their legitimacy. It’s a fine line of how much abuse sheep can take from “bad
shepherds and governors” (The Wolf is
Carrying Away Your Sheep, p. 276) before the game is over. The corruption
of the Popes in the Middle Ages is a great example of shepherds gone bad. (pp.
277- 282, The Avignon papacy, The Great
Schism, The Vises of the Church) With poor management of the flock,
disorder creeps in, sheep get loose, wolves of change roam, revolution blossoms
and new rulers rise up.
The upshot: elites will rule out of structural necessity and
survival depends on efficient mobilization of resources (class movie about
Themistocles mobilization and the battle of Salamis); shepherds are necessary
are flocks to prosper. Yet whatever practical benefit there may be from having
shepherds, their ultimate legitimacy depends on decent treatment of sheep. Christianity
survived the collapse of the Roman Empire and lived on into the Middle Ages where
it too began to decline into corruption.
The poor leadership of Middle Age Christian religious
rulers/ shepherds opened the door to a many faceted sheep revolt which resulted
in the Renaissance, the Reformation, precursors to the Enlightenment and the
modern world. The Christian church’s
ruling rationales had become bankrupt as evidenced by the Avignon papacy and
the Great Schism. The inexplicable Black Death starkly showed Church inability
to control or explain Fate and nature. From this flux doors opened and sheep
became free to incrementally develop new orders and power relations.
Renaissance humanism and the Reformation, in a new power inversion, transferred
the exterior rule of religious shepherds to an internal, individual level, away
from God and towards man. (pp. 292-93 The
Soul of Man, Marsilio Ficino) So as a result of poor treatment of sheep at
the base of society’s pyramidal hierarchy, the Classical Greeks and Gnostics
were reawakened and the train of Western Civilization switched to the parallel
track, that of reason, natural law and the individual.
Renaissance humanism was a turning point in history that
empowered individuals, empowered sheep. The reasoning went like this: God made men in his own image with free will,
God is an omnipotent shepherd, and man, in his temporal realm is the same. Man,
“…is constrained by no limits, an in accordance with (his) own free will…shall
determine for (himself) the limits of
(his) nature” (p. 292, Oration on the
Dignity of Man, Pico Della Mirandola).
This harkens right back to the Classical Greeks and Protagoras, “man is the
measure of all things”. This also opens
a potent fusion of mythical and rational justification for power which savvy rulers
were not averse to using.
When people started to get the idea they could really think
for themselves, Church doctrine was challenged and presto, the Reformation.
Luther challenges absolute Church authority on the basis of reason and
individual Scriptural interpretation and Christianity shatters into a 1000
pieces. People read the Bible for themselves and the world of religious
shepherd hegemony is cracked open once and for all. The parallel track of
individual volition emerges to eventually stand on equal footing with
religious, shepherd-based forms of power and authority.
To sum up: Civilization begins with a structural necessity
for hierarchy and asymmetrical power relations. The very definition of
civilization is to move society from equal to unequal. The sheep/shepherd
metaphor fits this bill perfectly. As humanity domesticated animals and began
to control nature, this same power and control was extended over other people
as well. The mass of people at the
bottom of the pyramid-shaped pile themselves became domesticated by the elites
who gravitated to positions of power through the control of technology, nature
and society. Effective social mobilization at the level of civilizations, for
the primary purpose of survival, requires that there be leaders and followers
and the most organized usually prevail, a lesson learned by early leaders.
Control of the masses is key to any civilization’s success, past or present.
(see also Eric Hoffer, The True Believer,
Harper and Row, NY 1951 for excellent comments on human nature comparable to
Machiavelli)
Paradoxically, the human species is comprised of individuals
of mostly equal capability yet some arbitrarily rise to the top and impose
their will on others. The quality of this rule becomes known as justice, “the
public good” etcetera or it can be a simple practical matter of knowing how to
steer the behavioral impulses of men (pp. 300-302 The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli). Yet as long as rulers hew to a
minimum of good treatment for the masses, they will be tolerated.
It was perhaps inevitable that in tandem with justifications
for rulers, philosophies would emerge that empowered the individual and thus
the concept of individual rights and freedoms emerged to challenge arbitrary
elite rule. A world of individuals, as we have today in the US, is ineffective
in solving collective problems yet the persistent problem of abuse by shepherds
has been addressed. It seems rule by shepherds or the liberation of sheep both
have shortcomings that leave humanity wanting for a proper solution to good
governance and effective living.
In the end what we have in the history of Western
Civilization and in the history of humanity in general, is a tension between
the need for mass efficiency and survival against other cultural collectives
and the constant cry for individual liberty to be free of the confines and
restrictions of the collective. These tides pulse on the shores of history
leaving us students to wonder if there is any best way or whether we simply act
out the behavioral imperatives of our conflicted nature, that we are sheep and
shepherds at the same time.
References:
Rogers, Perry M. Aspects
of Western Civilization, Problems and
Sources in History, 7th Edition, Prentice Hall, Boston 2011
-all page references with no other bibliographic information
are Rogers
No comments:
Post a Comment