How ironic that I am focusing largely on Swedish intellectuals, some of whom are largely unknown, when I'm keeping the blog in English. Yet most Swedes know English and the potential extra audience that understands English is too large to be ignored.
It struck me when I revisited Hornborg that one of the problems I have with his thinking is the way he makes hierarchical relations seem inherently unjust and problematic. This may sound like a provocative standpoint for some, so let me explain.
Power is dangerous, power often corrupts, and hierarchies lead to accumulation of power. That much is true. Yet in no system of living beings that I am aware of - ecosystems, human civilizations - is there an absence of hierarchies and power relations. The core-periphery dichotomy that Hornborg and other critical theorists employ is found all over nature. The tree is a core absorbing water, nutrients and carbon dioxide from its periphery, and so exploiting its surroundings. The herbivore exploits plants for its sustenance; the carnivore in turn preys on the herbivore. Humans prey on most of the natural world. All these beings also compete and sometimes prey on each other, and all leave some kind of waste after them that does not in any way repay their environment for what they had previously absorbed. Thus plants, herbivores, carnivores and humans all engage in systems of "unequal exchange", as Hornborg would term it, and this is at heart entirely natural. Some things revolve around other things - that is simply the way of the world.
Now, being a humanist, I do not question Hornborg's indignation about humans exploiting other humans. In fact, I would also add the exploitation of large animals (at least) to that list. Injustice and unrighteousness should be fought wherever it is found. At the same time, though, we must be able to keep two thoughts going simultaneously. Hierarchies can be oppressive, but they can also be truly enabling. A people can choose its leader, and a periphery can be content - even proud - to serve a particular core. Surely it does not have to be destructive if many people are devoted to serving a particular core and doing so willingly? This can be in the form of a leader, an institution or some sort of great project such as the construction of the Pyramid of Giza (whose workers, by the way, were not slaves) or the International Space Station. Such projects require large-scale cooperation, but they also require a hierarchical division of labour. Without such hierarchies, humans would have been able to accomplish precious little over the course of history.
This topic may resurface later.
It struck me when I revisited Hornborg that one of the problems I have with his thinking is the way he makes hierarchical relations seem inherently unjust and problematic. This may sound like a provocative standpoint for some, so let me explain.
Power is dangerous, power often corrupts, and hierarchies lead to accumulation of power. That much is true. Yet in no system of living beings that I am aware of - ecosystems, human civilizations - is there an absence of hierarchies and power relations. The core-periphery dichotomy that Hornborg and other critical theorists employ is found all over nature. The tree is a core absorbing water, nutrients and carbon dioxide from its periphery, and so exploiting its surroundings. The herbivore exploits plants for its sustenance; the carnivore in turn preys on the herbivore. Humans prey on most of the natural world. All these beings also compete and sometimes prey on each other, and all leave some kind of waste after them that does not in any way repay their environment for what they had previously absorbed. Thus plants, herbivores, carnivores and humans all engage in systems of "unequal exchange", as Hornborg would term it, and this is at heart entirely natural. Some things revolve around other things - that is simply the way of the world.
Now, being a humanist, I do not question Hornborg's indignation about humans exploiting other humans. In fact, I would also add the exploitation of large animals (at least) to that list. Injustice and unrighteousness should be fought wherever it is found. At the same time, though, we must be able to keep two thoughts going simultaneously. Hierarchies can be oppressive, but they can also be truly enabling. A people can choose its leader, and a periphery can be content - even proud - to serve a particular core. Surely it does not have to be destructive if many people are devoted to serving a particular core and doing so willingly? This can be in the form of a leader, an institution or some sort of great project such as the construction of the Pyramid of Giza (whose workers, by the way, were not slaves) or the International Space Station. Such projects require large-scale cooperation, but they also require a hierarchical division of labour. Without such hierarchies, humans would have been able to accomplish precious little over the course of history.
This topic may resurface later.
No comments:
Post a Comment