The origin of conservatism

[Speck Tater]

My theory of the day: When mankind lived in small hunter-gatherer communities survival depended on close bonds in the community and a shared view of everything from morality to how the hunt ws to be conducted. Innovation was deviation from what was proven effective, and as such presented a clear and present danger to the survival of the tribe. Conformity had to be enforced because anything that threatened the social cohesion of the tribe threatened the very survival of the tribe.

So our brains were wired to fear anyone who was different, and to be afraid of anyone who deviated from the tribal customs. The conservative mind is still trapped in this hunter-getherer mentality and feels genuine and deep-seated fear of anyone who does not conform to the tribal standards in every way.

Modern civilization has outgrown the need for absolute conformity. We have a better understanding of how to make crops grow without fearing that our "deviant" behavior might offend the earth fertility gods. We can try new things without the danger that one small mistake might wipe out the whole tribe.

But the conservative has never outgrown this primative fear of innovation. It's not their fault, they are just trapped by their fear-based mentality, wihtout even recognizing it for what it is. They honestly feel that having a gay couple living in their neighborhood is a dire threat to the survival of the tribe. How do we bring these people out of their neolithic mind-set and into the modern age?

[XemaSab]

1. Read Lakoff

"Don't think of an elephant!" and "Moral Politics."

It will all become magically clear.

[Az]

2. A factor but

Conservativism is a direct result of a dynamic progressive society.

Dynamin societies are able to examine their basis of morality and alter them to fit new understanding. But in a complex diverse society there will always be individuals and groups that are tied to different basis of morality. Social pressures and the plain sense of some of the changes can force these dogmatic or fixed groups to catch up with the rest of society. But many issues fall through the cracks.

Over time these issues accumulate. For a time they are nusances to those not on the cutting edge of society. But eventually enough may accumulate that the sub group decides the society has lost touch with their values so severly that it must be due to corruption. This nucance becomes resistance.

In a society as complex as our's there are multiple such conflicts going on in multiple groups. We really can't all be on the same page. But when enough of the groups share enough issues their resistance can become a movement and can actually counter the progress society has made.

This results in a reversal of social progress. When the conservative factors become overwhelming they take the lead of the society and try to force it back. Some things cannot be forced and become reaction points. Others get less attention. But the dynamic starts all over again. Only now it is the progressives that slowly build resistance to the retreat fostered by the conservatives.

[politicaholic]

3. Well, from DU to war protests it seems to me liberals gather pretty well..

I think that if you stick a conservative person in a gaggle of liberals they'll be fairly well embraced, but in the opposite situation I think the liberal would be shunned. They do it to themselves, i.e., Judge Greer.

If tribes were inherently conservative then art wouldn't be a major factor in determining culture.

But what the hell do I know, I'm not an anthropologist.

[whistle]

4. Only one problem with your theory, it assumes evolution and a ...

...very old earth and a long ascent of man. The neo-conservatives and fundamentalists believe in creationism which says that the world was formed only 6,000 years ago basically as it now is. So conservatives were created by God, exactly as they are now. How do you argue with that line of thought?

[shraby]

5. The Neanderthal died out

around 75,000 years ago. They were the ultimate conservative. Also the remains are dated that old. How can the fundamentalists reconcile that?

[whistle]

6. Beats the hell ot of me!

:shrug:

[misanthrope]

7. I disagree...

...Innovation is not shunned as a rule of thumb. In fact, anyone living as a hunter-gatherer in the last 150,000 years would have to be more innovative, resourceful, alert and fit than any of us on this board. The environmental pressures were greater.

There's a reason it's called "living by your wits."

But humans are naturally curious animals. When the atlatl was invented, tribal members no doubt clamored for their own. The same would apply to any new technique of hunting or gathering food. If it provides results, it becomes embraced.

Humans also show a fairly regular fascination toward the exotic when it comes to coupling, no doubt a trait that helped keep gene pools stirred up and healthy.

Culture is homo sapiens' chief tool of survival. It works very well namely because of its flexibility. It can adapt quicker than a physiological tool. As such, its variety and complexity is innately vast.