Very thoughtful. I am reading some literature along the same lines.
Here is an excerpt talking about the Ik people - selfishness and individualism taken to the end result.
The small tribe of Iks, formerly nomadic hunters and gatherers in the mountain valleys of northern Uganda, have become
celebrities, literary symbols for the ultimate fate of disheartened, heartless mankind at large. Two disastrously conclusive
things happened to them: the government decided to have a national park, so they were compelled by law to give up hunting
in the valleys and become farmers on poor hillside soil, and then they were visited for two years by an anthropologist who
detested them and wrote a book about them.
The message of the book is that the Iks have transformed themselves into an irreversibly disagreeable collection of
unattached, brutish creatures, totally selfish and loveless, in response to the dismantling of their traditional culture. Moreover,
this is what the rest of us are like in our inner selves, and we will all turn into Iks when the structure of our society comes all
unhinged.
The argument rests, of course, on certain assumptions about the core of human beings, and is necessarily speculative. You
have to agree in advance that man is fundamentally a bad lot, out for himself alone, displaying such graces as affection and
compassion only as learned habits. If you take this view, the story of the Iks can be used to con- firm it. These people seem to
be living together, clustered in small, dense villages, but they are really solitary, unrelated individuals with no evident use for
each other. They talk, but only to make illtempered demands and cold refusals. They share nothing. They never sing. They
turn the children out to forage as soon as they can walk, and desert the elders to starve whenever they can, and the foraging
children snatch food from the mouths of the helpless elders. It is a mean society.
They breed without love or even casual regard. They defecate on each other's doorsteps. They watch their neighbors for signs
of misfortune, and only then do they laugh. In the book they do a lot of laughing, having so much bad luck. Several times
they even laughed at the anthropologist, who found this especially repellent (one senses, between the lines, that the scholar is
not himself the world's luckiest man). Worse, they took him into the family, snatched his food, defecated on his doorstep, and
hooted dislike at him. They gave him two bad years.
It is a depressing book. If, as he suggests, there is only Ikness at the center of each of us, our sole hope for hanging on to the
name of humanity will be in endlessly mending the structure of our society, and it is changing so quickly and completely that
we may never find the threads in time. Mean- while, left to ourselves alone, solitary, we will become the same joyless,
zestless, untouching lone animals.
But this may be too narrow a view. For one thing, the Iks are extraordinary. They are absolutely astonishing, in fact. The
anthropologist has never seen people like them anywhere, nor have I. You'd think, if they were simply examples of the
common essence of mankind, they'd seem more recognizable. Instead, they are bizarre, anomalous. I have known my share of
peculiar, difficult, nervous, grabby people, but I've never encountered any genuinely, consistently detestable human beings in
all my life. The Iks sound more like abnormalities, maladies.
I cannot accept it. I do not believe that the Iks are representative of isolated, revealed man, un-obscured by social habits. I
believe their behavior is something extra, something laid on. This unremitting, compulsive repellence is a kind of
complicated ritual. They must have learned to act this way; they copied it, somehow.
I have a theory, then. The Iks have gone crazy.
The solitary Ik, isolated in the ruins of an exploded culture, has built a new defense for himself. If you live in an unworkable
society you can make up one of your own, and this is what the Iks have done. Each Ik has become a group, a one-man tribe
on its own, a constituency.
Now everything falls into place. This is why they do seem, after all, vaguely familiar to all of us. We've seen them before.
This is precisely the way groups of one size or another, ranging from committees to nations, behave. It is, of course, this
aspect of humanity that has lagged behind the rest of evolution, and this is why the Ik seems so primitive. In his absolute
selfishness, his incapacity to give anything away, no matter what, he is a successful committee. When he stands at the door of
his hut, shouting insults at his neighbors in a loud harangue, he is city addressing another city.
Cities have all the Ik characteristics. They defecate on doorsteps, in rivers and lakes, their own or anyone else's. They leave
rubbish. They detest all neighboring cities, give nothing away. They even build institutions for deserting elders out of sight.
Nations are the most Ik-like of all. No wonder the Iks seem familiar. For total greed, capacity, heartlessness, and
irresponsibility there is nothing to match a nation. Nations, by law, are solitary, self-centered, withdrawn into themselves.
There is no such thing as affection between nations, and certainly no nation ever loved another. They bawl insults from their
doorsteps, defecate into whole oceans, snatch all the food, survive by detestation, take joy in the bad luck of others, celebrate
the death of others, live for the death of others.
That's it, and I shall stop worrying about the book. It does not signify that man is a sparse, in- human thing at his center. He's
all right. It only says what we've always known and never had enough time to worry about, that we haven't yet learned how to
stay human when assembled in masses. The Ik, in his despair, is acting out this failure, and perhaps we should pay closer
attention. Nations have themselves become too frightening to think about, but we might learn some things by watching these
people.
will continue to be seen as broadly the source of guidance, but not in any sense binding or prescriptive.