The need for control 18
posted Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Mamasan
Whether or not the cro magnon and neanderthal interbred at all is still debated. Recent genetic evidence however, says that it is very unlikely, or didn't happen. Besides, a need for control sounds more like a cro magnon feature than a neanderthal one. Neanderthals most likely had an external locus of control, while cro magon had a more internal one, which gave them the cognitive advantage to drive neanderthals to extinction or successfully absorb them to the point of leaving no genetic trace within the relatively short span of 30,000 years.
Whichever side of the debate one is on, the earliest evidence of religion is far older than contact with neanderthals. It seems that this was a part of the human experience since long, but the nature of religion changed with civilization. To control large groups of people, one needed to use it as an aid to organizing them into hierarchies and castes.
Marriage is one of those things that keeps people organized, and offers some assurance and enforcement of genetic order. Free people can choose who to breed with based on their own individual, family, or cultural ideas of fitness/suitability, but within an organized society, these natural methods of choice must be overridden in order to keep order.
If you look at how things are going today, part of this "thug love" trend seems to be designed to ensure that people with a lower social standing will stay there. If you glamorize poverty, the poor don't feel as bad about staying that way, or at least keeping the look of it, regardless of how much they actually have in the bank...which is sometimes more in real money than their middle class peers. Many if not most middle class are considerably deeper in debt than the poor. Someone who owes the bank $100,000 is actually poorer than someone who owes only the $20 they need to pay in a bad check mistake, but it's the earning potential that makes the difference.
...but sometimes there's not even that much difference. Sometimes the only real difference between a middle class and a poor person is their ability to juggle expenses and foster the trust of a bank. I've seen this played out between teachers, since both my parents are teachers. They're good jugglers who drive nice cars and have a very nice house, but they don't make more than their peers.
Between police officers, firemen, and other public servants. Some people can be making the same money, and the same earning power, and have completely different lives. So this is even more evident in the private sector.
Back to marriage though, it is a way of organizing and enforcing adherence to a social class. With it, males can have some assurance that society is going to enforce his property rights over a particular woman and her genetic future, and women gain a sense of belonging and validation of their social status.
Since now, men can tell if a child is genetically theirs without marrying, it's women who gain the most from marrying. Men don't really gain anything unless they marry someone wealthy.links: digg this del.icio.us technorati reddit