Is it time to put aside the myth that humanity is progressing toward some ideal state of being? Is it time to cancel all mention of utopias in which individualism flourishes because the only demonstrable progression of humanity is a march toward conformity?
In Utopia, Thomas More wrote that in public, “a man must barefacedly approve of the worst counsels and consent to the blackest designs.” More’s famous satire has ironically led many in subsequent ages to argue that utopian life is possible and that humans progress toward it. After Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, some, like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin assumed that physical evolution has a parallel in psychological evolution and that humanity progresses toward some ideal state.
Is there really any general psychological progress in our species? Progress? We’re enamored by the term because we believe it defines us. We look back on our cave-dwelling ancestors and their short lifespans, and we say, “We’re not like them. We’re different. Better.” But I’m not speaking about the obvious changes in science and technology, rather of the human psyche and its societal interactions.
Western civilization is now enveloped in “cancel culture.” And no doubt, the naïve out there believe this is some new movement, a momentary interruption in human psychological progress. It isn’t. Cancel culture is about as old as Cain’s cancelling Abel. Now, I know you are going to say that fratricide is different from cancelling on social media or through social media, but read on.
Under the threat of being cancelled, people are refusing to speak their minds. They know if they say something, even the most innocuous of somethings, the “cancelers” will start cancelling. And no one is safe, not even friends or once-friendly acquaintances. Anyway, as I said, cancel culture is old. But you will want proof.
Look no further than the Bible, specifically, the Book of Jeremiah/Jeremias. More specifically, see Chapter 20, verses 7-10. This is what the ancient prophet says (italics mine):
“…(7) I am become a laughingstock all the day, all scoff at me. (8) For I am speaking now this long time, crying out against iniquity, and I often proclaim devastation. And the word of the Lord is made a reproach to me, and a derision all the day. (9) Then I said: I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. And there came in my heart as a burning fire, shut up in my bones, and I was wearied, not being able to bear it. (10) For I heard the reproaches of many, and terror on every side: Persecute him, and: Let us persecute him from all the men that were my familiars, and continued at my side, if by any means he may be deceived and we may prevail against him, and be revenged on him.”*
Sound familiar? The warning is out: Watch what you say and to whom you say it. Approve the consensus. If you offer an opinion that differs from the consensus of those with microphones, you will be cancelled.
Tough times for an optimist and free thinker. Tough times for those who see dignity in the individual. Those who believe that humanity is headed toward some ideal state are apparently mistaken. The choice is clear: Unity of thought or cancellation by those with the loudest voice, that is, the widest audience. In Thomas More’s words, “a man must barefacedly approve of the worst counsels.” (Can anyone say “Nicholas Sandman,” the name of teen who recently won a settlement with CNN over the network’s cancelling him for just standing?)
Still, in these Orwellian times, there have been idealists who say, “Oh! Wait! What about human progress? What about evolution? What about the rise of consciousness that raises the soul? Aren’t we better today than humans in the past? Some would argue that humans today are better than humans of the past. Take Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s words from The Future of Mankind: ‘…owing to the progress of science and of thought, our actions today, whether for good or ill, proceed from an incomparably higher point of departure than those of the men who paved the way for us towards enlightenment.’”*
Really? A “higher point of departure”? A comparison of Jeremiah’s complaint about being cancelled not just by some general population but even by his “familiars” and the complaints of today’s victims of cancellation suggests that the points of departure have always been the same. P. T. de Chardin’s belief in psychic and social progress toward enlightenment stands in contrast to obvious realities. Like other optimists, he also believed that humanity is progressing toward what he termed the Omega Point of unity, as though “evolution” had a purpose, a goal. For de Chardin, that goal was a voluntary conjunction of compassionate individuals. But apparently, as our own times appear to show, the only unity toward which humanity periodically progresses is Orwellian groupthink. It is that supposed “unity” that imposes cancellation on dissenters and free thinkers.
The dream that began the Industrial Age and that found enhancement in Darwin’s evolutionary principles was that science and technology would somehow improve humanity (I would say “mankind,” but in doing so would be subject to cancellation). In looking back, most of us could understand the wonder that must have accompanied the proliferation of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century inventions like cars and airplanes. We might also imagine that increases in human populations and longevity that accompanied the Industrial Revolution prove that science and technology improved the human condition. Obviously, science and technology have played a role in physical well-being. Mostly, however, both “improvements of life”—numbers and longevity—have resulted from cleaner drinking water and more productive agriculture. But with regard to “man’s inhumanity to man” or even to “cancel culture,” the human condition is the same. One might even argue that cruelty has progressed more than human dignity or that depravity has been enhanced by technology used by genocidal leaders.
So, don’t look for an end to cancel culture. Don’t look for an end to a push toward conformity of thought. From prehistory to our own history, such cancelling has prevailed.
*The Future of Mankind. Harper & Row. New York, 1959. Chapter 1: A Note on Progress.
In Utopia, Thomas More wrote that in public, “a man must barefacedly approve of the worst counsels and consent to the blackest designs.” More’s famous satire has ironically led many in subsequent ages to argue that utopian life is possible and that humans progress toward it. After Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, some, like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin assumed that physical evolution has a parallel in psychological evolution and that humanity progresses toward some ideal state.
Is there really any general psychological progress in our species? Progress? We’re enamored by the term because we believe it defines us. We look back on our cave-dwelling ancestors and their short lifespans, and we say, “We’re not like them. We’re different. Better.” But I’m not speaking about the obvious changes in science and technology, rather of the human psyche and its societal interactions.
Western civilization is now enveloped in “cancel culture.” And no doubt, the naïve out there believe this is some new movement, a momentary interruption in human psychological progress. It isn’t. Cancel culture is about as old as Cain’s cancelling Abel. Now, I know you are going to say that fratricide is different from cancelling on social media or through social media, but read on.
Under the threat of being cancelled, people are refusing to speak their minds. They know if they say something, even the most innocuous of somethings, the “cancelers” will start cancelling. And no one is safe, not even friends or once-friendly acquaintances. Anyway, as I said, cancel culture is old. But you will want proof.
Look no further than the Bible, specifically, the Book of Jeremiah/Jeremias. More specifically, see Chapter 20, verses 7-10. This is what the ancient prophet says (italics mine):
“…(7) I am become a laughingstock all the day, all scoff at me. (8) For I am speaking now this long time, crying out against iniquity, and I often proclaim devastation. And the word of the Lord is made a reproach to me, and a derision all the day. (9) Then I said: I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. And there came in my heart as a burning fire, shut up in my bones, and I was wearied, not being able to bear it. (10) For I heard the reproaches of many, and terror on every side: Persecute him, and: Let us persecute him from all the men that were my familiars, and continued at my side, if by any means he may be deceived and we may prevail against him, and be revenged on him.”*
Sound familiar? The warning is out: Watch what you say and to whom you say it. Approve the consensus. If you offer an opinion that differs from the consensus of those with microphones, you will be cancelled.
Tough times for an optimist and free thinker. Tough times for those who see dignity in the individual. Those who believe that humanity is headed toward some ideal state are apparently mistaken. The choice is clear: Unity of thought or cancellation by those with the loudest voice, that is, the widest audience. In Thomas More’s words, “a man must barefacedly approve of the worst counsels.” (Can anyone say “Nicholas Sandman,” the name of teen who recently won a settlement with CNN over the network’s cancelling him for just standing?)
Still, in these Orwellian times, there have been idealists who say, “Oh! Wait! What about human progress? What about evolution? What about the rise of consciousness that raises the soul? Aren’t we better today than humans in the past? Some would argue that humans today are better than humans of the past. Take Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s words from The Future of Mankind: ‘…owing to the progress of science and of thought, our actions today, whether for good or ill, proceed from an incomparably higher point of departure than those of the men who paved the way for us towards enlightenment.’”*
Really? A “higher point of departure”? A comparison of Jeremiah’s complaint about being cancelled not just by some general population but even by his “familiars” and the complaints of today’s victims of cancellation suggests that the points of departure have always been the same. P. T. de Chardin’s belief in psychic and social progress toward enlightenment stands in contrast to obvious realities. Like other optimists, he also believed that humanity is progressing toward what he termed the Omega Point of unity, as though “evolution” had a purpose, a goal. For de Chardin, that goal was a voluntary conjunction of compassionate individuals. But apparently, as our own times appear to show, the only unity toward which humanity periodically progresses is Orwellian groupthink. It is that supposed “unity” that imposes cancellation on dissenters and free thinkers.
The dream that began the Industrial Age and that found enhancement in Darwin’s evolutionary principles was that science and technology would somehow improve humanity (I would say “mankind,” but in doing so would be subject to cancellation). In looking back, most of us could understand the wonder that must have accompanied the proliferation of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century inventions like cars and airplanes. We might also imagine that increases in human populations and longevity that accompanied the Industrial Revolution prove that science and technology improved the human condition. Obviously, science and technology have played a role in physical well-being. Mostly, however, both “improvements of life”—numbers and longevity—have resulted from cleaner drinking water and more productive agriculture. But with regard to “man’s inhumanity to man” or even to “cancel culture,” the human condition is the same. One might even argue that cruelty has progressed more than human dignity or that depravity has been enhanced by technology used by genocidal leaders.
So, don’t look for an end to cancel culture. Don’t look for an end to a push toward conformity of thought. From prehistory to our own history, such cancelling has prevailed.
*The Future of Mankind. Harper & Row. New York, 1959. Chapter 1: A Note on Progress.
RSS Feed