Morality as curse, not blessing

Ever since visiting a Mayan ruin in Belize, I've been wondering why it was that the Mayans were perfectly fine with living a nomadic hunter-gatherer existence for 10,000 years, then, seemingly all of a sudden, decided to settle down and become a "civilization."  Why?

Scott Gustafson, a Lutheran pastor with a Ph.D. in theology and religious studies, may have some clues.  He's the author of two books, Biblical Amnesia and Behind Good and Evil. 

In a hunter-gatherer society, food was free, available to anyone who went out and got it.  With the rise of agriculture, this changed.  More food was available, but it was no longer free.  The problem was not the discovery of planting and harvesting.  In fact, hunter-gatherers had already been doing some of that for some time.  The problem was that the agricultural revolution marked a shift in how we thought about food.  It had become a commodity.

Prior to the agricultural revolution, food was no more to be bought and sold than the air we breathe.  After the agricultural revolution, food was put "under lock and key."  (BGE, p. 31)

When food became a commodity, society began to develop criteria to determine who was or was not worthy of it.  Gustafson argues that morality is a social construct by which the "powers" of society determine who is "good" or "bad," who is worthy of being taken seriously, and who isn't.  It also generated "ranking," which determines which is "better" or "worse" than another.

Agriculture increased food production, which, in turn, increased population.  Most of this increased population is not involved in food production itself which frees their labor for other purposes and makes possible the rise of cities and "civilization."  Moreover, rising populations need more and more food, which meant that more and more land was needed in order to increase production.  This generated invasions, wars, and social dislocations.

Gustafson believes that the argument between a hunter-gatherer society and "civilization" finds expression in the book of Genesis.  For example, most people don't realize this, but there were actually two trees in the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2:9). 

It was the latter--the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or, to put it another way, the Tree of Morality--that Adam and Eve were told to leave alone.  Eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil brought death (Gen. 2:17).  "The fascinating claim of the Garden of Eden story is that our moral sense is the consequence of sin.  It is not the remedy for sin that we believe it is" (BA, p. 13).

Morality draws the line between the good and bad.  In drawing the line between the good and the bad, morality identifies the one(s) who can be left for dead.  It also justifies "the good people" when they do not help those who morality deems bad.  (BA. p. 14)

Gustafson doesn't mention this, but this view does help explain why, in Genesis 4, God accepted the meat offering of Abel and not the grain offering of Cain.  Readers are often confounded by this choice probably because they suppose that God is primarily "moral" and that eating grain is "better" than hunting because it is less violent. 

That, however, is not what happened.  God accepted the meat offering, but not the grain.  In essence, God sided with the hunter-gatherer and not with the agriculturalist.  

Life was good in the Garden of Eden.  When Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Morality, death ensued.  They were forced out of the hunter-gatherer Garden to join the agriculturalists and their "civilization"--"in toil you shall eat of (the ground) all the days of your life" (Gen. 3:17).

While we were at the Maya site, a brief conversation popped up regarding the life-style of the native Americans and the white settlers in our own country.  Moralists all, we began to discuss which was "better." 

Someone noted that many settlers went to live with the native Americans, but there is no recorded instance of any native Americans choosing a western way of life.  Someone said, "Why would they?  In native American society, the men got to hunt and fish all the time, while the women did all the work?  What's not the like?" 

Morality, alas, is up there with motherhood and apple pie.  Everybody seems to think that our whole problem is that we aren't moral enough.  These days, we are constantly told that we are in a state of "moral decline," and that everything would be just fine if all the "bad" people shaped up.  (Despite centuries of this pestering, our level of morality doesn't seem to have improved much, if at all.)   

We constantly evaluate what is "good" and "bad" and "right" and "wrong."  We rank almost everything and assign it a number, everything from lists of favorite athletes, to college rankings, to chili cook-offs, to IQ scores--the "higher" the "better."  We don't even know how not to do this.  We assume it's normal.  The fact is:  We are not void of morality.  Quite the contrary, we are awash in it.

That still doesn't answer the question of why, after being hunter-gatherers for 10,000 years, the Mayans settled down.  If Gustafson is right, we might consider that somebody or some group got serious about increased food production through agriculture.

This "food faction" became important "powers" in the community.  Yet, power corrupts.  Pretty soon, these "powers" were demanding certain sacrifices from the community--deference at first, then bowing, then worship, then monuments and shrines to their awesomeness.

In return, the "powers" identify the tribe's enemies, both within and without.  The "moral" are those who support the tribe's leadership and support its aims.  The "bad" are those who don't.  A religious faction develops which blesses the choices of the powers.  Voila!  Civilization! 

 

Comments

[Scott W. Gustafson]

I suppose I should comment since I wrote the books on which you comment. I think your summary of what I tried to convey in these books is very accurate. The question,"Why people settled down into civilization?" is a good one and can only be answered speculatively. I think it is a product of the "fact" or contention that a technology is never neutral. It always has cultural, social and intellectual implications. The implications of the agricultural revolution's technology (the new technology was not planting food, it was making food into a commodity) is this: the moment food is bought and sold (in a moneyless society) the society in question must determine who is worthy of food and who is not. The answer to this question is a reflection of the values of a particular society. One society might value strength the other artistry. IT all depends on the culture in question. In any case, this is the origin of morality - our knowledge of good and evil. Religious leaders get into the act when they make it appear that these arbitrary standards are god-given. This adds to the social cohesion. Prior to the religious ingredient, some people benefited from this new technology in the sense that they had access to food. AFter the religious ones establish morality, even the marginalized ones tend to stay in the culture because they can't fight a god.

[John Petty]

Hi Scott,

Thanks for dropping by and posting a comment. I plan on saying more about this in the future. (Just finished reading two of Daniel Quinn's books.)

pax, jp