Importing 21st century sensibilities into a medieval society

[Mythopoet]

I suppose i've derailed another discussion once again. It's very difficult to stay on topic.

Actually, I would argue that this is on topic and that focusing on battling specific "isms" (the symptoms, if you will) is a very modern approach, as opposed to striving to maintain virtue and shun vice (the disease) in general, which is an approach found all throughout human civilization.

 

[NerdyCavegirl]

I assume you believe in the hobbesian nature state then, as opposed to Rousseau's view? Hobbes believed that humanity is inherently selfish and that we need a state to keep humanity nice and orderly. I believe that this way of thinking does apply in some societies but that it isn't the only possibilty.

I believe, like Rousseau, that humanity is inherently good and empathic towards eachother, but that increased populations and the devaluation of individuals by the state combined with our tribal brains (haven't had enough time to fully adapt to modern life) has led many to become detached and selfish.

Don't see this as offensive or anything, i just wanted to tell you and the OP that there is an alternative to Hobbesian thinking.

Closer to you. Natural humans should only live in tight-knit groups of social groups of less than 100 people per 100 sq miles, thus our brains lack the capacity to truly care about many more than that.

 

[Ban]

Closer to you. Natural humans should only live in tight-knit groups of social groups of less than 100 people per 100 sq miles, thus our brains lack the capacity to truly care about many more than that.

Ah so you agree. That actually kind of surprises me . But, yes you are right in my opinion. Our tribal mindsets can't comprehend a society as big as ours. It is impossible for us to visualize 7 billion people and also consider each and every one of them (minus the really rotten apples) to be complete humans, with emotions and desires.

 

[Ban]

Actually, I would argue that this is on topic and that focusing on battling specific "isms" (the symptoms, if you will) is a very modern approach, as opposed to striving to maintain virtue and shun vice (the disease) in general, which is an approach found all throughout human civilization.

I hadn't thought of it like that yet, good point. This makes me think, though. Wouldn't it be interesting to create a society of people who believe that our sins are actually virtues? That, like the LaVeyan church of Satan (they don't actually believe in Satan) they believe that individuality and creativity are the result of pride and greed and such. That these therefore have merit.

I wouldn't agree with them but maybe it's a cool idea for someone reading this.

 

[Mythopoet]

I hadn't thought of it like that yet, good point. This makes me think, though. Wouldn't it be interesting to create a society of people who believe that our sins are actually virtues? That, like the LaVeyan church of Satan (they don't actually believe in Satan) they believe that individuality and creativity are the result of pride and greed and such. That these therefore have merit.

I wouldn't agree with them but maybe it's a cool idea for someone reading this.

Honestly, I think we're already there, certainly in America. We already think the greed of companies constantly seeking more profit is perfectly normal and good. We also think lust is natural and should be indulged in all its forms. Pride is responsible for our war-like culture and obsession with guns, which is only now becoming controversial. The problem is that no one is willing to admit that all their comfortable habits are really vices. We prefer to point fingers at "isms" instead.

 

[Ban]

Honestly, I think we're already there, certainly in America. We already think the greed of companies constantly seeking more profit is perfectly normal and good. We also think lust is natural and should be indulged in all its forms. Pride is responsible for our war-like culture and obsession with guns, which is only now becoming controversial. The problem is that no one is willing to admit that all their comfortable habits are really vices. We prefer to point fingers at "isms" instead.

That is all true in reality. But many people, especially americans you guys are extremely religious compared to here, still uphold the mask of virtuousness. (Don't worry, despite how anti-america the previous sentence looks i won't turn this political.) Most people still believe that they are living virtuously and i think people have always upheld this "mask" in supposedly "civilized" society. What i am thinking about is a society where people don't care about this superficiality and fully embrace these vices. A society in which people don't even see our sins as sins and appreciate the value of them. Which exist i think, but they are normally overshadowed by the aweful that selfishness causes.

 

[Mythopoet]

That is all true in reality. But many people, especially americans you guys are extremely religious compared to here, still uphold the mask of virtuousness. (Don't worry, despite how anti-america the previous sentence looks i won't turn this political.) Most people still believe that they are living virtuously and i think people have always upheld this "mask" in supposedly "civilized" society. What i am thinking about is a society where people don't care about this superficiality and fully embrace these vices. A society in which people don't even see our sins as sins and appreciate the value of them. Which exist i think, but they are normally overshadowed by the aweful that selfishness causes.

Actually, I think that is basically what Gene Wolfe was trying to portray in his Book of the New Sun series, which is a far future setting.

 

[Ban]

Actually, I think that is basically what Gene Wolfe was trying to portray in his Book of the New Sun series, which is a far future setting.

From what i read on wikipedia, that seems like a very interesting book. I've never heard of a book about a journeyman torturer.

 

[FifthView]

What an excellent post with some great thought provoking material.

But let me suggest I think the reverse may be the case. I believe that for social animals the harsher the environment the more the value of co-operative behaviours and the less tolerance for group in fighting. I would suggest that the negative side effects of competition come along when there is a surplus that allows people to make war without risk of group extinction. For instance the climate of the arctic is very harsh indeed and the Inuit had very little inter or intra group conflict.

Lots of room for creative thought in that field.

That's an interesting consideration, and I don't have a certain answer.

I suspect that, with a small enough community and sufficiently harsh conditions, competition becomes counter-productive. If my gain is your loss but your loss will lead to my loss, I'd be better off not competing with you. But if competition as such doesn't exist, then obviously the "negative side effects" of it would not exist; so...is that really sufficient for correlating those negative side effects with abundance?

I would guess that such a community would have "less tolerance for group in fighting" as you suggest, but this intolerance would mean that any behaviors threatening that cohesion would be considered dangerous and would be punished in some way. Bigotry, group persecution, and so forth might not happen in such a small community, yet individuals could still be persecuted or at least punished if anything they did appeared to threaten that cohesion.

 

[NerdyCavegirl]

That's an interesting consideration, and I don't have a certain answer.

I suspect that, with a small enough community and sufficiently harsh conditions, competition becomes counter-productive. If my gain is your loss but your loss will lead to my loss, I'd be better off not competing with you. But if competition as such doesn't exist, then obviously the "negative side effects" of it would not exist; so...is that really sufficient for correlating those negative side effects with abundance?

I would guess that such a community would have "less tolerance for group in fighting" as you suggest, but this intolerance would mean that any behaviors threatening that cohesion would be considered dangerous and would be punished in some way. Bigotry, group persecution, and so forth might not happen in such a small community, yet individuals could still be persecuted or at least punished if anything they did appeared to threaten that cohesion.

That and there would still always be fighting with other tribes, as they'd be seen as taking food from the mouths of your family. Thus the problems in modern society, millions of tribes being squished together and expected to behave. xD

 

[WooHooMan]

I suppose i've derailed another discussion once again. It's very difficult to stay on topic.

After page two, every thread goes in a different and crazy direction. That's just how this forum operates.

 

[Ban]

It at least makes you gain some unexpected knowledge every time you read a thread.

 

[ThinkerX]

That and there would still always be fighting with other tribes, as they'd be seen as taking food from the mouths of your family. Thus the problems in modern society, millions of tribes being squished together and expected to behave. xD

Ok...does the term 'Daybreak' mean anything to you?

 

[Russ]

That and there would still always be fighting with other tribes, as they'd be seen as taking food from the mouths of your family. Thus the problems in modern society, millions of tribes being squished together and expected to behave. xD

But in many places...this simply did not happen.

The idea that man is "meant" to live in small groups is just not rational.

If you look at any objective measure of quality of life, you can see that all of our specie's great achievements have been done after we have reached a large critical mass of people and resources. Lifespan, quality of life, literacy, elimination of disease etc have all been achieved by large numbers of people who can devote and utilize massive amounts of resources.

Lionizing former behaviours in primitive settings is simply a rational error. Even Dawkins freely admits that man should not live according to simple evolutionary premises because they are amoral and unethical.

No rational modern person would want to structure a society based on real evolutionary tenants.

 

[DMThaane]

But in many places...this simply did not happen.

The idea that man is "meant" to live in small groups is just not rational.

If you look at any objective measure of quality of life, you can see that all of our specie's great achievements have been done after we have reached a large critical mass of people and resources. Lifespan, quality of life, literacy, elimination of disease etc have all been achieved by large numbers of people who can devote and utilize massive amounts of resources.

There's actually a study out there ('Nonlinear scaling of space use in human hunter–gatherers' for anyone interested) that showed a few interesting things, primarily that as human populations increase the amount of space needed to sustain each individual gets smaller and that hunter-gatherer populations tended to be as dense as their food source allowed. Clearly, there's a trend towards density and the capacity for cooperation among larger human groups. This is born out by an examination of history. Rome was as big as Roman infrastructure allowed and it was really no more violent or dysfunctional than Iberian or Gallic tribal communities.

Dunbar's number is a fascinating idea but it's clearly not a hard limit on human social cooperation or coordination.

No rational modern person would want to structure a society based on real evolutionary tenants.

Indeed, evolution gave as parasitic wasps that brainwash cockroaches to act as living vessels for their young. Hardly a good role model for moral behaviour or societal structure.

 

[Seraphim]

Tangent: It has been grazed before, but the idea of Good vs. Evil is actually new in terms of humanity's existence. When deciding the religious ideology of a culture, it is important to remember their are other perspectives. Order vs. Chaos was one of the most common forms of religious conflict that was present even in Judaism in the ancient Israelite culture before Good vs. Evil. It wasn't until Zoroastrianism did the two sides shift to Good and Evil.

 

[arboriad]

These are all rely great points. I think that if you can show how attitudes stem from a cultural and religious/social place, as opposed to plucked out of thin air, then it is more believable. I always have a hard time with any tale in which the protagonist is excessively open minded or enlightened, and there is absolutely no basis in his experience or education to warrant it.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Before going over other replies... I would say it depends on the story. In general I loathe the attempt to bring 21st century think into anything that could be counted as historical fiction, even a fantasy historical fiction. I like gritty, dark, real worlds. Real is ugly. Utopia is just a facade.

But a society that is sexually fluid, with no concern nor stigma attached to any behavior, could still just as easily slaughter and enslave anyone of a different color, or who thinks differently, or even dares step outside their caste. Now, those sort of societies in a fantasy setting are good writing fodder.

 

[skip.knox]

I haven't really read many stories with a pseudo-medieval setting in which everyone is tolerant and accepting. I've read plenty in which the social structure seems naive to me, but most books have hated assassins or feared wizards or whatever. The OP is complaining about something I have not much encountered.

That said, neither have I read many fantasies that portray the Middle Ages accurately. I don't really care. If I want that, I can read any number of historical novels that do a fine job with the era. Fantasy aims at a different sort of target. Complaining about a lack of historical accuracy in fantasy is, to me, rather like complaining about lack of character development in a Hollywood action movie.

 

[ascanius]

I think this is something that happens more or less frequently than one would think, thing is a lot of times the author gets away with it for various reasons. I think the absolute worst offenders are those books where these sensibilities emerge much later in the story. Thankfully I have only encountered this once, in the third book of a series, it was an " omg you have to be kidding " moment. I still cannot figure out why the author cose to go that route.