Re: Interesting Rambling-- Social Darwinism and the Hsunchen

From: Richard Hayes <richard_hayes29_at_IL3icEjHZDsehMIx-w0jz5oXLT-vSKJpSSXWqfIak5-8u2VZC_T6AnTpt8d4>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:24:11 +0000 (GMT)


 

Agree that Darwin's own theories were entirely biological, not social.
 

As for the notion of applying natural selection to social organisations rather than species, it is fair to say that the RW history of this phenomenon is often very ugly indeed. 

If I remember correctly the issue arose in this dicsussion from the question of whether the extinction of certain Hsunchen tribes should be seen as a social phenomenon or a biological one-- because I had listed them amongst possible examples of extinction. (Note that I did not list purely cultural/social constructs such as the God Learners amongst the extinctions, even though the God Learners are no more (and 'Nature' selected them for some particularly tough treatment))
 

Whilst I don't imagine Linnaean classification is their strongest suit, my understanding of what Hsunchen believe is that there is a level at which indivdual Hsunchen tribes do not see themselves as tribes of humans so much as animals trapped in human bodies. In a way, therefore, they see themselves as species (why else the traditional taboo on bestiality applying to non-Hsunchen humans?). It was not therefore wholly illogical to add them to a list of species that may have become extinct since time began.
 

At the same time, of course, I drew attention to the limitations of this classification-- the idea that Hsunchen tribes saw themselves as a species is not a wholly biological one. Some Hsunchen (and some whole tribes-- I myself gave the example of the Galanini, and of post-Hsunchen animism in parts of Wenelia) discarded these social constructs and became part of wider human societies. As humans nad Hsunchen can mate with each other and (presumably?) produce fertile offspring when they do , maybe there is a level at which they are not distinct species?
 

However this doesn't mean that the separateness of Hsunchen tribes is a wholly social construct-- though as we are talking about otherworlds and myths I would hesitate to call it a biological concept either.
 

For if the distinctiveness of Hsunchen tribes was a purely social construct, how can we explain the following 'observable' phenomena:

It is almost impossible (possible only after something likie a Heroquest) for a non-Hsunchen to find and connect to their 'animal soul' and start to work towards integrating their human and animal souls into one; A Hsunchen who leaves the tribe and commits themselves too much to another faith (Does intiation push it too far, or does the person have to become a devotee) becomes as divorced from their animal soul as any other non-Hsunchen; and Even Hsunchen who do strive to integrate their animal soul can only do so in relation to their own totem animal-- a Rathori cannot use Hsunchen magic to turn parts of his body into the coresponding portions of a lion
 

Maybe more than aynthing, this shows how hard it is to step outside our own RW ways of seeing Gloranthan phenomena.
 

I share M. Carteau's revulsion at the RW perversion of Darwinian theories to (usually pretty twisted) social/political purposes. However the point of the discussion was as to whether any Gloranthans had ideas about evolution which were vaguely analogous to Darwinism. I did not originally intend to  talk about social Darwinism at all. If I strayed in that direction unwittingly, I am sorry.
 

On the other hand, why should there be a taboo over certain fictional Gloranthan societies having unsavoury beliefs that reflect some of the uglier manifestations of 'social Darwinism' rightly condemned in their RW form by certain earlier contributors. I wouldn't equate it with the idea of not having VD in an RPG-- VD is also a bit of a dead end, whereas this has altogether more scope for storytelling.
 

Whilst others may well disagree (and YGWV), I don't think one endorses pernicious ideals by putting them into fiction in the mouths of unsympathetic (or outright evil) characters
 

Whilst social Darwinism is a bad thing in the RW, and YGWV, is there any real reason why  some Gloranthans might not hold these unpleasant beliefs too. As in the RW, could not these ideals emerge as an ugly rationalisation for extreme hostility to certain other species or races? We all know of Gloranthan cultures and species in which individuals have a borderline genocidal hostility to certain other cultures and species.
 

Could these Gloranthan proto-social Darwinists not make fitting antagonists in a scenario or campaign?
 

I did for a while run a campaign in which the players were a disprate bunch, united largely by their fear of, and hostility towards, neighbouring Ramalia. (Not terribly canonical, the campaign drew heavily from the issues of Tradetalk about Ramalia, Handra and the New Fens, and I and my players made up the rest). Ramalia is a notoriously unsympathetic  Gloranthan culture-- I would  describe it as Rokari Malikionism gone horribly wrong, with added brutal feudalism, apartheid (towards the local Hsunchen) and demonology. Indeed the classic early 1990s Generetela: Crucible of the Hero Wars gave Ramalia and the Kingdom of War the distinction of being referred to as "Enemy Kingdoms".
 

If in this Ramalian campaign I had started to give quasi-social Darwinist  views to a villainous Ramalian sorceror or feudal overlord (and whom my players' characters opposed with all at their disposal), would that have involved taking YGWV into a wholly unacceptable direction? Would it have made me a bad person?
 

If you wanted something more subtle, could one not also tell tales of tragedy and repentance about people trying to get away from a past in which they had held such beliefs but now believe themselves to have been very wrong?  For example why couldn't someone play a Second Age character who was somehow trying to atone for years spent conducting ghastly experiments on other sentient beings in Remakerela?
 

Finally, what of the sage in Cults of Terror who argued that people did Chaotic creatures themselves (as well as the rest of creation) a favour by eradicating them? To many otherwise respectable Gloranthans his viewpoint is probably acceptable, if perhaps a bit high-falutin'
 

Richard Hayes
 

Subject: Re: Interesting Rambling-- Darwin To: WorldofGlorantha_at_yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 9 December, 2010, 18:09

Selon Greg Stafford <glorantha1_at_lJMajQLbjq1Mllbpuy8HSAWe2ujOBTr-_ejjjAcP1AohdPGaE68IecWnjrllix-q0H9TeDl9N08uK_w.yahoo.invalid>:

Darwinian natural selection is inappropriate to apply to cultures anyway. /// YES. Darwin's message is purely about biology. There are no "fittest" creatures, only some who withstand time by reproducing successfuly for long enough.
Applying this concept to socialized beings (people) or whole cultures is the kind of approximation that loved bastards like galton (no capital) or the f... nazis. Or any politicking ignorant moron out to prove the "inevitability" of his eugenics program.
That's wasn't rambling but ranting, sorry.


Yahoo! Groups Links       

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]            

Powered by hypermail