Homo Duplex

Emile Durkheim

The toxic divisive politics that afflicts our poor country is usually attributed to dueling ideologies on the far left and far right. Adherents to these ideologies believe that one of these ideologies will eventually overwhelm the other, if not through convincing voters of the power of their arguments, then through a forceful and possibly violent seizure of the reins of power. Most of the people in our country are distraught at the prospect of either of these extreme ideologies gaining control.

I agree that this divisiveness is toxic and dangerous but my reason for coming to that conclusion might be a bit different than most. Most people believe that these ideologies are based on reason and rational thought and thus rational arguments could convince a person to change their mind. Further, division arises because many believe that resistance to such reasoned and rational arguments must be based on stupidity or evil intent. I would argue that these extreme ideologies are actually distorted perversions of our basic human nature and are thus immune to rational discussion that would seek to changes someone’s mind. Everyone accepts the fact that human beings are social animals. But humans are also individualistic creatures. French sociologist Emile Durkheim describes us, not as Homo sapiens, but as Homo duplex, an individual living within a larger society. And Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolski points out in his book, Behave, that many species of animals, and especially primates, can be classified as either tournament species, where alpha males are constantly fighting for sexual primacy, or pair-bonding species where males and females bond for life. Professor Sapolski notes that there is substantial sexual dimorphism in tournament species where males are much larger and stronger (and with fancier plumage or facial coloration) than females while dimorphism in pair-bonding species is much less. Human beings also exhibit sexual dimorphism, less than tournament species but more than pair-bonding species.

Human beings appear to be hybrids of social pair-bonding animals and individualistic tournament animals, unique in nature. Most of recorded history consists of human societies where individualism was suppressed by a small elite such as an aristocracy, military or priesthood. The elite defined what was good for society and the peasants, serfs and slaves obeyed. There was little change or progress in such societies as change threatens the control of the elites. There was little resistance to such societies as expulsion or exile was the equivalent of a death sentence. Communalist societies (or collectivist societies as Dr. Sapolski calls them) are ”about harmony, interdependence and conformity” where the needs of the group predominate compared to individualist societies that emphasize autonomy, achievement and uniqueness and where the rights of the individual predominate.

The role of the individual in society began to change in Europe hundreds of years ago. Although still dominated by autocratic powers, individuals began to make inroads on the powers that suppressed them. Popular assembles spread throughout the Nordic region and the Magna Carta in 1215 eventually led to parliamentary government. The printing press and increasing literacy further loosened the grip of elites. The rights of the individual were most clearly expressed in John Locke’s Second Treatise and made tangible in the Declaration of Independence that created the most individualistic society the world has ever seen, the United States.

Individualism broke the grip collectivist or communal societies had on individuals and those liberated individuals used free inquiry and the scientific method to launch the industrial revolution and produce the advances in science and medicine that have created the modern world. But while individualism has transformed our world, humans remain hybrids, Homo duplex. Most Americans are partly individualistic and partly communalistic. But each of these visions of society have their problems. Individualistic societies lead to inequality while communalistic societies are oppressive.

So, while communalists may put the good of society over the liberties of the individual that does not make them evil, only human. Just as it is not evil for the individualist to act in their own self-interest. Jonathan Haidt wrote in his book, The Righteous Mind that liberals and conservatives (as he calls them) haves different moral axes as discussed in my commentary Righteous Thinking and Foolish Nature, published June 17, 2017. Of course, putting more and more power into the hands of a single individual such as President Trump is attempting to do does not give people greater liberty or enhance their individualism any more than disfiguring minors with gender dysphoria serves the public good.

If the extreme political movements of the MAGA Republicans and the left progressives neither give us greater liberty nor serve the public good we must reject their divisive politics. But how do we create a good society that that serves the needs of all the people in that society, both individualists and communalists? A good society must clearly be in alignment with our dual human nature. Such a society would give individuals a great amount of personal freedom which has proven to be the driving force of progress. But that society must also provide for the public good whether it is government providing a social safety net for the disadvantaged or the private sector providing for our material needs. Given the different moral axes described by Dr. Haidt, different people will give different definitions of the public good. That is the type of society we have tried to create in the United States, although it is clear that many people believe we have not done a very good job of it.

Although we may not have done a very good job of creating a good society that matches our Homo duplex nature, that does not mean we should abandon the attempt as the extremists of the right and left want us to do. Many in the MAGA movement (including Vice President JD Vance) support the ideas of national conservatism as promoted by Yoram Hazony or the Dark Enlightenment of Curtis Yarvin that reject America’s Founding Principles. The progressive left supports the Marxist inspired Critical Race Theory and other woke ideas that also reject America’s Founding Principles.

The problem of America’s Founding Principles does not lie in their conceptualization but in their actualization. The goals in those principles are made more difficult given our dual human natures but they are achievable and we have been making progress. But, if this contention about the dual aspects of human nature is true, and there is substantial evidence to support this contention, then no amount of reasoning or discussion will convert a communalist into an individualist or vice versa. Not even violence or revolution can suppress these natural human instincts. The only viable alternative is to try and understand where the other side is coming from and reaching acceptable if not perfect solutions through compromise (what I called the “not too unfair” standard in my commentary, The Unfairness of Fairness, published July 12, 2018).

There are things that you can do to help bring about this good society that recognizes the duality of our human nature. One thing that you can do in your daily life is that when talking with friends, family or coworkers understand that differing political points of view are not driven by malevolent forces but by our human nature. One group that is promoting civil discourse through trying to understand the others’ point of view is Braver Angels which is a growing movement in our country along with other similar groups. Links to some of these groups can be found on my website.

We are not as far apart as some people would have us believe. We must prove them wrong.