Ever heard of Baron de Montesquieu? It is to him that the United States ultimately owes our balance-of-powers form of government, so it would make sense to include him in a book on the creation of American society. It wasn't this excerpt that was included, however. Tonight I read his philosophy of the differences in people in different climates.
Taking "political correctness" to its extreme, we are not actually supposed to acknowledge or talk about actual racial differences, but they do exist. For instance, I am of northern European descent (think glow-in-the-dark-pale). Andy is of Irish/German/etc. etc. etc. descent (we're rather more like mutts in America), so he looks different than I do. Certain diseases are more predominant in different ethnicities, and these ethnicities are based on where our ancestors came from and are probably formed by adaptations to our natural climate. I think we're all fine up to this point.
Taking this as a really BIG springboard, he asserts that the behaviors of the people are affected by their native climates and the effect of the climate on the bodily humours, stating "If we travel towards the North, we meet with people who have few vices, many virtues, and a great share of frankness and sincerity. If we draw near the South, we fancy ourselves entirely removed from the verge of morality." Maybe he foresaw nude beaches?
He goes on to state that it's good for the blood for people in cold climates to drink but not in hot climates, and that people of the north are less capable of pain--which I will remember next time I step on a knitting needle--yet cold and phlegmatic. Then he really gets nasty, calling the Indians "pusillanimous" (which I had to look up--it means "cowardly"), the Japanese "stubborn and perverse," and the English "apt to commit suicide most unaccountably."
Besides not being able to fathom how someone writing in 1748 could come up with this idea--and ignore all the other possibilities that would contribute to patterns of behavior, like religions and history, I do not understand what it has to do with American sociology. America doesn't figure in to his essay at all, and even when he was writing Americans would have some shared behavioral characteristics even without much shared ancestry. And did this essay influence anyone anywhere?
Up until now, much of my reading has been influenced by the assimilation of so many of the ideas into my philosophical concepts. Social Contract Theory not only makes sense to me--it is the only thing I have ever known, so I can't fully imagine anything else. Plato's theories are so well known that I think most people would know what "Philosopher Kings" and the "allegory of the cave" mean. Most college students encounter Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Machiavelli, Confucius, Rousseau and Hobbes in an Introduction to Ethics class, so these are sort of old ideas. Baron Montesquieu and his whole "latitude determines attitude" idea is completely new to me.
It is also hard to truly understand the concept of a hereditary monarchy and/or divine right of kings--partly because it's rather drummed in to every American child's head at an early age that King George III of England is the bad guy in the story of our revolution, partly because Americans are so distrustful of leaders that presidential term limits were added to our constitution, partly because we are a classless society, and partly because so many sons of famous industrialists were inept businessmen that it's a pretty big cliche in our history.
It has also been difficult to read the philosophers who believe that governments/people/businesses will naturally behave in an "honorable" manner. Thomas Paine writes, "In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars;" Ha! I believe in striving for honor/integrity/honesty and trying to instill them as values, but I think Hobbes was more correct--we agree to laws to protect us from others. The last politician on a national level whom I believed was even capable of acting in an honorable manner was Jimmy Carter. I think he made a pretty lousy president in all honesty, but I greatly admire him as a person. Do I believe government ever acts in the best interest of its people or with any actual sense or "right" and "wrong?" Nope. Do I think companies will behave in an honorable manner? Small ones, yes. Large ones, not likely. The mortgage industry wasn't regulated. Did those companies act honorably? No. Our past is riddled with company towns, corporate trusts that drove out the competition & controlled prices, slave labor, child labor, unsafe working conditions, sexual harassment, unsafe products, share cropping, scams and cons, embezzlement --you name it, we've done it. And yet I believe capitalism is truly a great system--as is our government in many ways--but it's no use asking any of it to be perfect. At the base of everything are people, and people are inherently not perfect so we are by nature not capable of perfection.
Next up: Adam Smith on the division of labor from The Wealth of Nations. AND another try at The Shining. We started watching it last night, but it got too late & we shut it off before it got to the keep-you-awake-all-night parts. Andy has never seen it before. I've seen it a couple times and it still scares me, so if I'm back on here at 2:00 AM, you'll know why!
2 more days left in the month, then I'm going to read something light and mindless and with a plot!!!!! Any suggestions?
No comments:
Post a Comment