Until this practice is outlawed in all Western societies, we will continue to have groups who wall themselves off from assimilation and cause every kind of civilizational problem for the WEIRD countries. Unfortunately, we have weak leadership and people who scream racism without understanding the actual problem. Thank you for your work on this.
Robert Nisbet has a pair of books relevant to this, The Quest for Community and Twilight of Authority. One downside to all of this is it set the stage for the growth of the nation-state - which in passing you note the competitive jurisdictions but not the near-constant state of warfare that existed amongst them. Far more Hobbesian (under Sovereign rulership) than his erroneous state of nature. Nisbet posits (in TQfC) that it was exactly that warfare that motivated the development of the nation-state as it is the most fertile soil for growing power.
I don't think the individualist social psychology can be traced to the Church per se, but more to the half of Europe that fell under the sway of the Reformation. The contrast between North and South America, where the two branches of Christianity hold sway in the formation of the social character was well explored in Peter Berger's The Capitalist Revolution.
I'd also be inclined to say that the unification effect of the Church was a byproduct of it's rampant proselytization of pagan Europe in the early medieval, and thus it held greater authority than any local civic system. That laid the foundation upon which subsequent civic institutions could grow - including governments (which would all bear a striking resemblance). Oddly enough, the one area where this was least true was Ireland, which due to its isolation developed a rather independent Catholic tradition until Henry had the Church's (i.e. Papal) blessing to bring it into conformity. Later the Jansenites would find refuge there.
Disagree about nation-states being a catalyst for warfare. Societies outside the nation-state also commonly existed in near-perpetual conflict with their neighbours; the nation-state just massively increases the size of in-group cooperation with is why you get “wars” rather than skirmishes or raids
One key difference in European wars is that they are primarily political in nature. The ruling structures are in contest with each other, while the citizens are often just participants or bystanders - the outcome of the war might just affect who appointed your judges & who raced you. In some cases this was the same with colonialism (e.g. India), while in other caress the conflicts were more “tribal” and about putting “your” people on the land (e.g. Nth America & Australia)
Also, nation level conflict does not begin with Europe. For example, the Old Testament details personal, village / city and national / imperial level conflicts. At almost any point in the history, some sort of conflict between peoples is going on in the background or foreground
I wasn't clear I guess - the warfare of petty tyrants was the catalyst for greater ones (i.e. the monarchal nation-state), not that the evolution of the state was the cause of the warfare. But the real contrast I was attempting to make was Hobbes imaginary state of nature versus the social reality of his day. Rousseau would make an even more ridiculous assumption about the state of nature, but that's another discourse.
Plus in his book Inventing the Individual, Larry Siedentop asserts that initial Christian (and perhaps Jewish?) ideas from Paul (or elsewhere?) that male and female were equal, all men were made in the image of God, etc., caused a rise in appreciation by people of their individuality as well as being part of a group or collective. Each Jew or Christian had a personal relationship to God. In contrast, the adherents of Islam were expected to be part of an ummah, such that even if/when they prayed [or preyed] in private they were really joining their co-religionists "in spirit". This is all in sync with your claims about declining kin influence, but perhaps the origins of these ideas/ feelings are somewhat diffused over a longer time, even it they gained wider social impacts via cannon law and the push by secular and church leaders for control and wealth.
I fully agree that the ideas behind "all men are created equal" came from Judeo-Christian cultural impacts, such that it is now readily accepted by WEIRD'oes [except recently?] without realizing that the other cultural groups don't recognize this feeling or attitude, certainly not to the same degree.
Tom Holland has been actively promoting this idea as well.
[And I just realized that I don't recall those 4 or 5 celebrity atheists ever mentioning this.]
Nisbet suggests that both individualism and equality are the core Enlightenment values that are both entangled and in tension. The particular problem with individualism is that it drives toward Sovereign power (the nation-state) as the key relation for the individual vice any/all intermediary social institutions (which tend to keep the individual deemphasized within the social web). By the time it comes to Jefferson, all men are created equal, and each is endowed with rights (that only the state can vouchsafe). Even here, the equality implied is limited but that isn't rhetorically clear. The liberation sequence that Lorenzo has expounded on is on the other hand clear - equalizing those who were not treated equally when that notion of equality was limited.
Mitteraur’s ‘Why Europe?’ is the only text I am aware of that covers that.
Areas that had no pastoralists but did have farming seem to have not had, or continued with, kin groups. Hence riverine SE Asia; and various islands and archipelagoes.
From my reading yesterday, I recalled you had a reference about that, but I did not see it again until now. Unfortunately, that Mitteraur book is pretty expensive, too.
So the argument is that as Greek's went from pastoral to settled farming, they lost their drive for or benefits of a kin based social structure? Possibly due in part to the rocky terrain forcing farmsteads to spread out to find suitable patches of ground, so separating brothers and fathers, etc.??
No, the argument is the polis, the city-state, needed to be the focus of loyalty. Hence, for example, making the demes (“tribes”) residence not lineage based.
I am curious as to why you believe that other regions of Islam are converging towards the level of democracy of the rest of the world though. Malaysia currently does best on the Economist Democracy Index, at 40th, and they have certainly gone backwards since the British left. Indonesia comes in 56th, and they are technically not an Islamic country (despite having a govt department dedicated to converting people to Islam). Senegal, which has been used a poster child for Islamic democracy, is 83th. None of these are full democracies.
Indonesia is a Muslim country in the straightforward sense that most of its population are Muslims. There is also Bangladesh, Kossovo, Albania. Malaysia has had elections change its government, so counts. But I am relying on the Chaney paper.
Good question: not very is my understanding. Indo-Europeans certainly did the kin-group thing, but cousin marriage does not seem to have been a significant part of their various cultures. Indeed, most non-monotheist societies have strict rules against marrying within one’s kin-group. One reason the Germanics do not seem to have pushed back much against the highly restrictive incest rules.
The problem with monotheism is precisely that its notion of a unified moral and ritual order breaks the ritual boundaries around kin-groups. (Balkan clans substituted patron saints as a binding ritual focus.)
The Orthodox Church was not keen on cousin marriage—being the religious arm of the Eastern Roman Empire—it just was not as relentless about the suppression of kin groups nor as extensive in its conception of incest. Then again, NO ONE was as extensive in their conception of incest as the Latin Church. Even so, kin-groups did not survive in Orthodox societies either, with the normal pastoralist exceptions.
BTW, the Muslims in India proper don’t practice cousin marriage all that much either, right? And neither do the Bangladeshi Muslims, right? Only the Pakistani Muslims do.
Our grooming gangs in England seem to be a very straighforward phenomenom. The males are second rate (have low or zero mate value - eg could never import a bride from Pakistan). The underage Sikh and white girls also have low mate value - too young and low status families. The males cannot have substantial relationships (eg marriages) with outsiders. Abracadabra - obvious - exploitation. Remedies - allow discussion of the facts, teach girls & cops ...
Good essay. I was aware of both WEIRD and the importance of kin-groups, but it was nice to see a history of Islam in this regard. Personally, I would have also pointed out that many of modern conflicts in the Middle East stem not from European colonialism (although some do), but Islamic colonialism under the Ottoman Empire- when wildly different religious, cultural and ethnic groups were forced to relocate and live cheek-by-jowl under the tyrannical authoritarianism of the Sultanate.
I also would have looked at China briefly in relation to extended families. Family versus the individual in China makes for substantially different civilizational sacred values.
Very interesting, but you leave out Islam in Africa, where from Somalia to Nigeria, all across the Sahel, and beyond, we are now witnessing a growth in jihadism
I'm surprised that you suggest that kinship is not a strong factor in South Asia.
I lived in Pakistan for five years (living in a Pakistani area not in an ex-pat enclave) and I would say that kinship was very important there. If you were cast out of your family (perhaps because you were the son of the least favourite wife - an example we saw) then things were very difficult for you. Likewise cousin marriage is very important as a means to keep it in the clan.
We also saw it here in Peterborough. A Muslim family from another country came here and received zero help from the large Pakistani Muslim community. It was, in the end, the local Church that stepped in to help them. They were outside the clan, so they weren't important.
There is significant evidence that the Pakistani Muslim Rape Gangs were, on the whole, clan based. Many of the perpetrators were related in one way or another within the groups that have been prosecuted.
I am not counting Pakistan as South Asia. It is part of the original surge of Arab Conquests, so gets included in the Greater Middle East. It has both kin-groups and (high) cousin marriage.
"Christianity actively suppressed kin-groups. The Christian suppression of kin-groups built on Classical origins. Kin-groups were suppressed within the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic." From my (not yet completed) reading of The Ancient City, I gained the impression that the early Greeks and early Romans were much more pateralistic and kin/clan/tribe based as the city states grew in size and reach. Family and group religion tied them together. Are you saying they finally reached a point of sufficient cosmopolitanism (via trade?) and/or potential for authoritarianism that they then pushed back against the kin based social structure? Possibly in part due to the need for man made law to retain civil order within larger polities?
They certainly started with kin-groups. But in both Rome and Athens the “tribes” were shifted from lineage to residence. This seems to have been a general pattern across the city-states. The polis itself needed to become the focus of loyalty.
Until this practice is outlawed in all Western societies, we will continue to have groups who wall themselves off from assimilation and cause every kind of civilizational problem for the WEIRD countries. Unfortunately, we have weak leadership and people who scream racism without understanding the actual problem. Thank you for your work on this.
Robert Nisbet has a pair of books relevant to this, The Quest for Community and Twilight of Authority. One downside to all of this is it set the stage for the growth of the nation-state - which in passing you note the competitive jurisdictions but not the near-constant state of warfare that existed amongst them. Far more Hobbesian (under Sovereign rulership) than his erroneous state of nature. Nisbet posits (in TQfC) that it was exactly that warfare that motivated the development of the nation-state as it is the most fertile soil for growing power.
I don't think the individualist social psychology can be traced to the Church per se, but more to the half of Europe that fell under the sway of the Reformation. The contrast between North and South America, where the two branches of Christianity hold sway in the formation of the social character was well explored in Peter Berger's The Capitalist Revolution.
I'd also be inclined to say that the unification effect of the Church was a byproduct of it's rampant proselytization of pagan Europe in the early medieval, and thus it held greater authority than any local civic system. That laid the foundation upon which subsequent civic institutions could grow - including governments (which would all bear a striking resemblance). Oddly enough, the one area where this was least true was Ireland, which due to its isolation developed a rather independent Catholic tradition until Henry had the Church's (i.e. Papal) blessing to bring it into conformity. Later the Jansenites would find refuge there.
Disagree about nation-states being a catalyst for warfare. Societies outside the nation-state also commonly existed in near-perpetual conflict with their neighbours; the nation-state just massively increases the size of in-group cooperation with is why you get “wars” rather than skirmishes or raids
One key difference in European wars is that they are primarily political in nature. The ruling structures are in contest with each other, while the citizens are often just participants or bystanders - the outcome of the war might just affect who appointed your judges & who raced you. In some cases this was the same with colonialism (e.g. India), while in other caress the conflicts were more “tribal” and about putting “your” people on the land (e.g. Nth America & Australia)
Also, nation level conflict does not begin with Europe. For example, the Old Testament details personal, village / city and national / imperial level conflicts. At almost any point in the history, some sort of conflict between peoples is going on in the background or foreground
I wasn't clear I guess - the warfare of petty tyrants was the catalyst for greater ones (i.e. the monarchal nation-state), not that the evolution of the state was the cause of the warfare. But the real contrast I was attempting to make was Hobbes imaginary state of nature versus the social reality of his day. Rousseau would make an even more ridiculous assumption about the state of nature, but that's another discourse.
Oops. Correction - not Berger's The Capitalist Revolution, but Michael Novak's The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.
I appreciate your writing on this topic. Keep it coming!
Ta, and I will.
Plus in his book Inventing the Individual, Larry Siedentop asserts that initial Christian (and perhaps Jewish?) ideas from Paul (or elsewhere?) that male and female were equal, all men were made in the image of God, etc., caused a rise in appreciation by people of their individuality as well as being part of a group or collective. Each Jew or Christian had a personal relationship to God. In contrast, the adherents of Islam were expected to be part of an ummah, such that even if/when they prayed [or preyed] in private they were really joining their co-religionists "in spirit". This is all in sync with your claims about declining kin influence, but perhaps the origins of these ideas/ feelings are somewhat diffused over a longer time, even it they gained wider social impacts via cannon law and the push by secular and church leaders for control and wealth.
I fully agree that the ideas behind "all men are created equal" came from Judeo-Christian cultural impacts, such that it is now readily accepted by WEIRD'oes [except recently?] without realizing that the other cultural groups don't recognize this feeling or attitude, certainly not to the same degree.
Tom Holland has been actively promoting this idea as well.
[And I just realized that I don't recall those 4 or 5 celebrity atheists ever mentioning this.]
Nisbet suggests that both individualism and equality are the core Enlightenment values that are both entangled and in tension. The particular problem with individualism is that it drives toward Sovereign power (the nation-state) as the key relation for the individual vice any/all intermediary social institutions (which tend to keep the individual deemphasized within the social web). By the time it comes to Jefferson, all men are created equal, and each is endowed with rights (that only the state can vouchsafe). Even here, the equality implied is limited but that isn't rhetorically clear. The liberation sequence that Lorenzo has expounded on is on the other hand clear - equalizing those who were not treated equally when that notion of equality was limited.
I am sceptical of the power of free-floating ideas. If they get institutional expression, that is a whole different matter.
Very interesting article, and I largely agree.
Any theories on how “riverine SE Asia; and various islands and archipelagoes” diminished the influence of kin groups?
Any good books or articles on how and why the Ancient Greeks and Romans did so?
Mitteraur’s ‘Why Europe?’ is the only text I am aware of that covers that.
Areas that had no pastoralists but did have farming seem to have not had, or continued with, kin groups. Hence riverine SE Asia; and various islands and archipelagoes.
From my reading yesterday, I recalled you had a reference about that, but I did not see it again until now. Unfortunately, that Mitteraur book is pretty expensive, too.
So the argument is that as Greek's went from pastoral to settled farming, they lost their drive for or benefits of a kin based social structure? Possibly due in part to the rocky terrain forcing farmsteads to spread out to find suitable patches of ground, so separating brothers and fathers, etc.??
There are some free pdfs of Miterraur available. https://dokumen.pub/why-europe-the-medieval-origins-of-its-special-path-9780226532387.html
No, the argument is the polis, the city-state, needed to be the focus of loyalty. Hence, for example, making the demes (“tribes”) residence not lineage based.
The idea of WEIRD has stuck with me for a while. It's interesting how much impact it has.
Full credit to Joseph Henrich for doing the empirical work and noticing the problem with existing psych research and the psycho-social effect.
Excellent read, well done.
I am curious as to why you believe that other regions of Islam are converging towards the level of democracy of the rest of the world though. Malaysia currently does best on the Economist Democracy Index, at 40th, and they have certainly gone backwards since the British left. Indonesia comes in 56th, and they are technically not an Islamic country (despite having a govt department dedicated to converting people to Islam). Senegal, which has been used a poster child for Islamic democracy, is 83th. None of these are full democracies.
Indonesia is a Muslim country in the straightforward sense that most of its population are Muslims. There is also Bangladesh, Kossovo, Albania. Malaysia has had elections change its government, so counts. But I am relying on the Chaney paper.
You’ve put flesh on the bones of what I’ve been thinking for a long time. So happy to have found you. Grateful thanks.
Question: Just how widespread was cousin marriage in Russia and the other Eastern Orthodox lands?
Good question: not very is my understanding. Indo-Europeans certainly did the kin-group thing, but cousin marriage does not seem to have been a significant part of their various cultures. Indeed, most non-monotheist societies have strict rules against marrying within one’s kin-group. One reason the Germanics do not seem to have pushed back much against the highly restrictive incest rules.
The problem with monotheism is precisely that its notion of a unified moral and ritual order breaks the ritual boundaries around kin-groups. (Balkan clans substituted patron saints as a binding ritual focus.)
The Orthodox Church was not keen on cousin marriage—being the religious arm of the Eastern Roman Empire—it just was not as relentless about the suppression of kin groups nor as extensive in its conception of incest. Then again, NO ONE was as extensive in their conception of incest as the Latin Church. Even so, kin-groups did not survive in Orthodox societies either, with the normal pastoralist exceptions.
Thanks!
BTW, the Muslims in India proper don’t practice cousin marriage all that much either, right? And neither do the Bangladeshi Muslims, right? Only the Pakistani Muslims do.
Our grooming gangs in England seem to be a very straighforward phenomenom. The males are second rate (have low or zero mate value - eg could never import a bride from Pakistan). The underage Sikh and white girls also have low mate value - too young and low status families. The males cannot have substantial relationships (eg marriages) with outsiders. Abracadabra - obvious - exploitation. Remedies - allow discussion of the facts, teach girls & cops ...
Good essay. I was aware of both WEIRD and the importance of kin-groups, but it was nice to see a history of Islam in this regard. Personally, I would have also pointed out that many of modern conflicts in the Middle East stem not from European colonialism (although some do), but Islamic colonialism under the Ottoman Empire- when wildly different religious, cultural and ethnic groups were forced to relocate and live cheek-by-jowl under the tyrannical authoritarianism of the Sultanate.
I also would have looked at China briefly in relation to extended families. Family versus the individual in China makes for substantially different civilizational sacred values.
Thanks, all fair comment. But I was trying to keep the post within a reasonable length.
Sure. I’ve noticed shorter read-times often tend to get better traction.
Very interesting, but you leave out Islam in Africa, where from Somalia to Nigeria, all across the Sahel, and beyond, we are now witnessing a growth in jihadism
It is the other ares where polygyny is still practised.
Fascinating, thank you.
I'm surprised that you suggest that kinship is not a strong factor in South Asia.
I lived in Pakistan for five years (living in a Pakistani area not in an ex-pat enclave) and I would say that kinship was very important there. If you were cast out of your family (perhaps because you were the son of the least favourite wife - an example we saw) then things were very difficult for you. Likewise cousin marriage is very important as a means to keep it in the clan.
We also saw it here in Peterborough. A Muslim family from another country came here and received zero help from the large Pakistani Muslim community. It was, in the end, the local Church that stepped in to help them. They were outside the clan, so they weren't important.
There is significant evidence that the Pakistani Muslim Rape Gangs were, on the whole, clan based. Many of the perpetrators were related in one way or another within the groups that have been prosecuted.
I am not counting Pakistan as South Asia. It is part of the original surge of Arab Conquests, so gets included in the Greater Middle East. It has both kin-groups and (high) cousin marriage.
OK, that's not a normal definition of South Asia, perhaps you need to change your nomenclature or define what you mean within the article.
I did in the second para, possibly not clearly enough.
I must have missed it, so perhaps it does need stating a bit more clearly for us comprehension challenged 🤣
"Christianity actively suppressed kin-groups. The Christian suppression of kin-groups built on Classical origins. Kin-groups were suppressed within the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic." From my (not yet completed) reading of The Ancient City, I gained the impression that the early Greeks and early Romans were much more pateralistic and kin/clan/tribe based as the city states grew in size and reach. Family and group religion tied them together. Are you saying they finally reached a point of sufficient cosmopolitanism (via trade?) and/or potential for authoritarianism that they then pushed back against the kin based social structure? Possibly in part due to the need for man made law to retain civil order within larger polities?
They certainly started with kin-groups. But in both Rome and Athens the “tribes” were shifted from lineage to residence. This seems to have been a general pattern across the city-states. The polis itself needed to become the focus of loyalty.
Perhaps another consequence of suppressing kin groups (according to JD Unwin) is that it turned Western civilization into a bunch of horny bastards.