Reality Denial

by Andrew Brons.

 

It is sometimes tempting to wish away fundamental truths about the universe. Many, perhaps most, curse ageing and mortality. There are doubtless some who, when they accidently drop something,  curse the memory of Sir Isaac Newton for having ‘invented’ gravity!

The really challenging aspect of universal truths is that they are not visitors passing through or acquaintances of choice – to be embraced or snubbed at will. They really are immovable fixtures. How very inconvenient!

Inconvenient, that is for most of  us – ordinary folk subject to the laws of nature and the universe..

However, there are those who see themselves as having been chosen for exemption from reality,  and can make up their own truths. They are Nietzscheans  of fact as distinct from ethics.

Such people, if well organised, can be influential beyond their wildest dreams. Indeed, it is with their wildest dreams that they seek to influence us. They are not above boasting about their powers to effect change – not of course a change in reality but in our perception of it. Margaret Mead the primitive-tribe-embracing social anthropologist has been quoted as saying:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

This quotation is revealing at a number of levels. She reveals herself as an evangelist rather than an objective academic. She also indicates that change was brought about by a tightly-knit group and not by the efforts of separate individuals. I hesitate to use the word ‘conspiracy’ because conspiracies are not talked about in polite society.

Margaret Mead was an acolyte of Franz Uri Boas (1858-1942) who has been described as The Father of  American Anthropology, by which is meant the Father of Social Anthropology.  Social Anthropology. unlike its near namesake Anthropology,  is not so much an academic discipline as it is an ideology of wishful thinking or, less politely, fantasy. It is not so much an offspring of Anthropology as it is a cuckoo in the nest.

The central assertion of Boas’s ideology is that:

Differences in human behaviour are attributable not to innate biological disposition but to cultural differences acquired through social learning.

The enormous weight of evidence in support of the hereditarian explanation for differences in human behaviour – differences between individuals and between groups –   is well documented but either dismissed by specious arguments or ignored altogether. In contrast the absence of any credible evidence in support of Boas’s nurturist approach to explanation has not been the slightest impediment to its success. Universities throughout the world now teach Anthropology by which they mean Social Anthropology. Indeed the degree taken by the heir to the British throne, Prince Charles, was Social Anthropology.

Franz Boas was chosen in 1899 to become Professor of Anthopology, by which was meant Social Anthropology, at the prestigious Ivy League, Columbia University. This was rather odd as his doctorate was in physics and his post-doctoral research was in geography. His qualification for this exalted position seemed to have been his taking part in an expedition to study the languages and cultures of the Baffin Island, Inuit (or Eskimo) people. However, if you invent a subject you can hardly boast from the outset qualifications in it.

Does any of this matter? Many might find it difficult to spell either version of the subject, so what does it matter to them? Do the fine distinctions between, and  the  content of, competing academic disciplines really matter to ordinary people who get up and go to work each day?

Past civilisations have thrived despite paying lip service to beliefs that were quite literally incredible. The earth being flat was an occupational hazard to long distance mariners but of little moment to land bound folk. The sun having previously rotated the earth rather than the other way around did not prevent fine edifices being built or paintings of  breath-taking beauty being produced. The perceived opportunity for lonely and ugly spinsters to have carnal relations with the devil must have been seen more as a  possible distraction than an eternal threat, at least until your neighbours took it upon themselves to burn you at the stake.

 However, Social Anthropology is quite different. Its assertions are about the nature or natures of mankind and are therefore the foundation of political, economic and social policy. Furthermore, they have become the core beliefs of virtually everybody in public like. If those tenets are fallacies and nonsense and they are, then the policies that are based on them will be equally fallacious and nonsensical.

 When the problem of an ageing population is addressed, the answer is not seen to be to encourage  increases in the birth-rate. It is to invite the young of the Third World to become substitute Britons or other Europeans. They are invited to shed their Third World cultural overcoats at the port or airport of entry and to don a British or other European one instead.

There is only one small problem. All available evidence shows us that distinctive peoples are not the product of distinctive cultures. Distinctive cultures are ultimately the product of distinctive peoples.

 If differences among different branches of humanity really were only skin deep, it would seem to follow that reluctance to accept the whole of humanity as though they were our next of kin would be an irrational aberration that must have been implanted from outside. The idea that preference for those like ourselves and suspicion of, (not to say animosity towards)  strangers might be inborn is not to be considered. This blindness ( dare I call it prejudice?) leads inexorably to the discrimination and grievance industry. Perhaps we should consider that, not too long ago, to be described as ‘a discriminating person’ was considered to be  flattery and not an accusation.

When the problem of crime is considered, we seek the causes of crime, by which we mean the causes external to the perpetrator – either the upbringing and personal experiences of the criminal or the economic and social environment in which the crime is committed. We ignore the innate characteristics of the individual who has committed the crime or the population group of which he is a part.

When a twelve year old boy in Liverpool was gunned down by a teenage gang member, the upbringing and experiences of the killer were examined in a bid to find the causes of the outrage. It was discovered, purely by chance, that the perpetrator’s great grandfather had been hanged for murder and it was just as easily disregarded.

I have heard criminologists assert in radio programmes, legends such as, “There must be causes because nobody is born a criminal,” and I have waited for the interviewer to challenge the theorist. However, no challenge comes because the assertion is seen by all of the chattering classes to be self-evidently right or at least the right thing to say and believe, if you want to progress.

Equality of opportunity  enjoys, quite deservedly, consensus support. However, it has in recent years been supplemented by a superficially similar but in reality quite distinct concept, social mobility. However, they are often spoken of, as though they were synonymous. Social mobility has fallen so therefore, it is often assumed, has equality of opportunity.

It is difficult to pinpoint a particular time at which equality of opportunity was achieved in the United Kingdom. Of course, it is not a discrete concept that either exists or does not; it is a range on a continuum. Nevertheless, the extension of secondary education for all by the Education Act 1944, which was implemented in 1947, is as good a starting point as any.

Since the experience of eleven year olds in 1947, there have been perhaps three or four generations of  secondary school students. The executive and professional classes have talent-spotted generations of  working class pupils and have left fewer able people than there were previously, within families in less prestigious occupations.

A recognition that differences in ability are attributable to heredity rather than environment, will inevitably lead us to the conclusion that equality of opportunity will start by increasing social mobility but will eventually reach a point at which social mobility starts to reduce.

People or whole countries that are less well off than the average are referred to as deprived. The choice of this word might seem to imply that they  previously had sufficient but that their wealth was taken from them, presumably by the better off people and countries. Perhaps it is a variation on the property is theft theme.

It certainly seems to imply that all have the same potential and that inequality of reward must imply that some people and countries  have been held back artificially. Of course, privilege still exists and some inequality is attributable to that. The fact that the Marquess of Succeedingem has a 100,000 acre estate and I do not, might have something to do with the fact that the Marquess’s father had one too and mine did not. On the other hand, I am not sure that my grass cutting skills would extend to 100,000 acres.

However, among the employee classes income does seem to bear a close relationship to ability. Whether or not ability means merit and that we therefore have a meritocracy, is a quite different question for another day.

Factual and value assumptions and beliefs lead inexorably to policy conclusions.

The former can be seen as the left hand side of the equation and the latter as the right hand side of the equation. If the wrong information and preferences are fed into the left hand side of the equation, only the wrong answers can emerge from the right hand side. Provably wrong assumptions about the nature of humanity can lead only to wrong-headed policies that are based on them.

That has been the legacy of Social Anthropology.

To what extent was Mr. Boas aware of the idiocy of his ideas? If he was, what was his agenda?

How has Social Anthropology been so influential? Perhaps Mr. Boas was unusually persuasive or perhaps he had friends who were. The answer to that one would be a research question in itself.

An easier question to answer would be: “How do the fatuous conclusions of Social Psychology maintain their pre-eminent position to this day?” Towards the end of Boas’s life, Soloman Asch who completed his Masters degree at Columbia, was experimenting in conformity experiments – showing how people can be persuaded to reject the evidence of their own eyes to win peer approval. These experiments were continued by Woody-Allen-lookalike, Stanley Milgram, at another Ivy League university – Yale.

I know nothing about the opinions of Asch and Milgram concerning the assertions of Boas, though I am sure that a hypothesis could be advanced on the basis of their published works. However, there can be no control over the use of their conformity measures by everybody and anybody. The methods used to enforce the liberal consensus, which coincides with Boas’s claims, are taken directly from Asch and Milgram.

If conformity methods fail, appeal to self-interest and career preservation will nearly always do the trick.