Chapter 3

Mutual Service – Chapter 3

MUTUAL SERVICE AMONG PRIMITIVE PEOPLES

For the last half century, much has been written and spoken about the “struggle for existence,”

and the necessary contest between man and man. It has been said that all

forms of life indulge in a “harsh, pitiless struggle, against all other life, every animal

against all other animals,” and “every man against every other man.”

The fact is that many kinds of animals and man aided each other, and avoided or overcame

the struggle with each other as much as possible; that they combined and shared

their food and shelter with one another; that they stood together in repelling attacks of

enemies, and instead of the primitive condition of mankind being “a state of war of all

against all,” as Hobbes had said, the very reverse was true.

We know today through the scientific investigations of men like Lubbock, Tylor, Morgan,

Spencer, Reclus, Post, Westermarck, Hobhouse, and others that primitive man was not

so savage and barbarous that he neglected those in need of help.

A part of the primitive struggle was a man-to-man contest. The survivors were the biggest,

hardiest fighters when brawn was the winning quality. But cunning and swiftness

were winners in some contests, while in others, it was the degenerates, the parasitic,

that survived. Otherwise, we would have no such today. All would be large, strong and

wise. Parasites have lived on the strongest and fiercest animals.

But the strongest and fiercest individualistic characters could not succeed in’ a contest

with a group of the same species, and groups have conquered individuals of much

greater strength than any member of the group.

Combination lends strength, and physical weakness may be a sign of mental strength.

Social man has survived while individualistic monsters have perished. The physically

strong lost his standing in warfare when gun-powder was discovered. The man-strong

gave way to the group-strong; the man-wise to the group-wise.

Some scientists have held that “nothing can exempt man from natural selection which is

the combat of life.” But social selection does replace natural selection and saves man

from “the combat of life,” in about everything in which natural selection has operated.

From the very beginning of life, social selection has replaced the extreme individualism

assumed by some philosophers and superficial scientists.

The first man was born of a female, with whom he associated, and she usually had a

mate who associated with both, making a family; and the family belonged to a horde of

associates. Man is by nature a social animal, and that is what preserved him. Nature did

not preserve those monstrous fighting unsocial animals of the past, but the weaker and

more social ones. In the contest for the earth, the fierce has lost. It is mostly in possession

of the peacefully industrial. Those who have survived best were those who could

mutually work together and avoid extermination by conflict.

Anthropologists and ethnologists have abundantly shown that most of the primitive

tribes were peaceful, otherwise they would have exterminated each other. There were,

in all periods, war-like tribes who plundered other tribes, but along with those militaristic

bands were the industrial tribes who produced things for themselves instead of stealing

from others. Their lives were more secure, for fewer of them fell in battle and a more

permanent food supply was obtained.

The barbarian cultural stage of many tribes is continued even into our century. We have

examples like the Bushmen of Australia and certain African tribes, who continue their

looting of other tribes, just as the militaristic nations among the “civilized peoples” continue

their conquests of small and weak nations today.

But the greater number of peoples in primitive times were peaceful and industrial in

character, just as the great number of people today favor peaceful production instead of

conquest of other peoples. The protective spirit has been necessary during all periods

to prevent being wiped out by the militaristic tribes. The roving bands of looters were not

the builders of civilization. It was the agricultural tribes who established village communities

that have developed into great cities of today, especially where the rivers meet the

seas.

Even the barbarians who swept down from the north and conquered Europe, because

of necessity, were changed into peaceful agriculturalists. Only a small part of them continued

in their uncertain warlike pursuits. The world still suffers from these militaristic

bands in most countries. In many countries, they are the rulers. They have always aspired

to be the rulers of the industrial and peaceful peoples of the world.

But the social, the mutual spirit, has prevailed .among the majority of the peoples that

have survived. The unmutualistic have killed off each other until today a vote to determine

whether a question is to be settled by ballot or bullet would have ninety per cent in

favor of a peaceful method.

The lowly tribes found they could hunt more effectively in bands than alone. They could

drive large herds of game into pockets in the mountains where they could capture in

greater number than could be accomplished singly. These simple forms of cooperation

were highly beneficial in preserving the race that practiced them.

When great danger threatens the tribe, the leader can count on every member of his

horde to defend it. This protective and defensive impulse, which is the basis of true patriotism,

is general with all tribes that have survived. Without it, they would be conquered,

enslaved or killed.

When the social worth of helpfulness and protection has been established by practice,

natural selection preserves it because of its benefits to the species, and when its advantages

are understood by intelligent beings it is perpetuated by them. Tribes that were

unsocial by nature were not so likely to combine even to loot other bands. So those

possessing the protective tendency were always more numerous than the unsocial kind

and therefore could protect themselves against them.

Mutual service made life much more secure, not only by a greater protection from enemies,

but by cooperation was secured a more ample supply of food. The group conquered

or held the best territories or hunting grounds. An injured member of the group

was provided for. The individual outside of the group, when badly injured, was most

likely to perish from hunger and lack of care.

Mutual association brings about the maximum of toleration. Companionship develops

sympathy which leads to unbreakable bonds of union. Knowledge is the result of association.

Much of it is obtained by imitation and suggestion. The experience of each became

the knowledge of all. In imitating the skillful, the group acquired efficiency.

Struggle seems to be a law of life, but man has enough of a struggle with natural forces

to develop and satisfy him without struggling against his fellowman. Mutual service will

replace militaristic destruction when its advantages are understood. It is finer to help

than to hinder. Beings that help others are much higher than those who kill. Cooperation

means civilization.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *