Professor Bruce Trigger PHOTO: CLAUDIO CALLIGARIS

Planning for a planet in peril

DANIEL McCABE | Bruce Trigger knows his new book is going to upset a lot of people, but he doesn't particularly care. He's focused on more important matters -- like saving the world, for instance. Trigger's book, Sociocultural Evolution, hopes to rehabilitate the image of the concept it's named after. In the bargain, Trigger wants to persuade people that we can't just take the future well-being of our species for granted. In other words, if we don't start planning carefully for a better tomorrow, we might end up accidentally obliterating ourselves. Sociocultural evolution is an old concept, Trigger explains, one that has meant somewhat different things at different times. The idea first emerged in the 18th century, pushed by the middle class in France; the argument being, essentially, that society doesn't stand still -- it is in a constant state of progression. The idea's original champions used the notion as an argument against the continuation of the feudal-based monarchy that ruled at the time. Society was evolving, they proclaimed, and it was evolving in their favour. In the 19th century, the idea became "very much associated with a very successful entrepreneurial middle class," Trigger says. "They used the concept to argue that history was playing itself out for them. It justified the status they had in their society. It also allowed them, in an era that was becoming much more secular, to hold on to a certain faith in the natural order of the universe." God might be silent, but the fates still knew who to smile on -- it was evolution, after all. "Even if things became difficult at times, it would all work out in the end." In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, "like everything else in the social sciences, sociocultural evolution became polluted by racism," Trigger says. "It was used as a justification for colonial exploitation. It wasn't really our fault that we were taking land away from the Indian and African people, it was just hundreds of years of evolution at play. 'We were culturally and biologically superior,' people argued." So why would Trigger want to mess around with a concept with such a checkered past? Because sociocultural evolution means something very different today, he stresses. "In the last 50 years, new views have developed. Scholars understand sociocultural evolution as a set of processes that have to be understood. It's an important framework for looking at how we're developing. If there is one fundamental feature to society, it's that we're in a constant state of change. We need to give more thought to that process. We need to pay attention to how change is happening." But the postmodernist school of thought that holds sway in much of today's academy won't give sociocultural evolution the time of day, Trigger notes. Their take on things, sums up Trigger, is that "basically it's our duty as scholars to appreciate the tremendous diversity and creativity in different cultures that exist and that have existed. They don't like the notion of a developmental perspective that leads to the categorization of some cultures as more advanced, and some as less advanced. The fear is that this would license some cultures to exploit or ignore people in other cultures." Which isn't Trigger's aim at all. His credentials certainly aren't those of a cultural imperialist. His research proved to the world that the Huron Indian society that existed when Europeans first arrived in North America was a great deal more sophisticated than many scholars had previously imagined. Still, not all cultures are the same, reasons Trigger. Some are more technologically and politically advanced than others -- which doesn't necessarily make them morally superior. But those differences do have repercussions. "As certain cultures become more technologically advanced and develop more complex political systems, they are in a position to dominate their neighbours and appropriate their land. I haven't seen a single example of a society that could do this that hasn't done this. It's not a nice thing, but it is apparently deeply rooted in human behaviour. This doesn't make the societies that have been dominated inferior -- they just didn't have the technological or political means to defend themselves." Postmodernists, Trigger worries, would rather not talk about such things at all. In their haste to bury any discussion about sociocultural differences between societies, they forego doing the hard thinking about why societies develop the way they do. He has sterner words for neo-conservatives. He attacks "the faith these economists have in the invisible hand -- as long as we leave the free market alone, everything will work out for everyone in the end. Well, that never really happens. This line of thought not only represents a retreat from trying to build a better world, it's a retreat from just trying to build a more viable one." And that is Trigger's goal. Our societies have evolved in a manner where we can quite conceivably blow ourselves up without really meaning to. Trigger's solution? Planning. Planning on a grand scale -- both at the global level and on a grassroots basis. "We don't have a guaranteed future. There is no force out there that will allow us to do anything we want and ensure that everything will turn out all right in the end. We have to be collectively responsible for our own future." What worries Trigger is that technological advances are zooming past our ability to cope with the changes they inevitably bring. "Technology is morally neutral," observes Trigger. "It's what you do with it that counts. Technology can help cure diseases and it can lead to weapons of mass destruction. Thousands of years ago, if somebody built a better spear, the implications weren't that large. We can't afford to make mistakes anymore -- the technologies today are just too powerful. Look at Chernobyl -- that affected thousands of lives. "There really is a danger that rapid technological change can wreck the planet. We might also come up with a cheap, environmentally friendly power source through technology. The point is, we can't see into the future." If we just sit back and let technological advances do the driving, we might end up somewhere we didn't want to go, warns Trigger. "What makes us different from the other animals is our ability to think about the consequences of what we're doing," says Trigger. "Unfortunately, all this is occurring at a time when wide-scale planning has been completely discredited." Absolute leaders such as Stalin and Mao "promised to use planning to solve all problems and instead they produced unparalleled human misery," says Trigger. "This has undermined faith in planning at just the point where we need planning to survive." For Trigger's scheme to work, "there has to be a great deal of devolution in the decision-making to the lowest levels. There are all kinds of examples of international banks coming in and telling local populations to fish their lakes to an extent that the locals knew would destroy the fish population," says Trigger. For his plan to succeed, "people also have to be a good deal more educated across the planet. They have to have a certain sense of economic comfort." When you're starving, it's hard to take a reasoned, long-term view of things. This would, of course, necessitate that the better off denizens of the world agree to give up some of their wealth. "The whole trick is in how we define our self-interest. If nothing survives, that's not in anyone's self-interest. "This discussion does make for strange bedfellows," observes Trigger. "The last person in the world who I thought I would ever agree with is [billionaire financier] George Soros. But he's saying similar things -- that we can't just go on in a laissez-faire manner. This isn't a subject that neatly falls on either the left or right side of the political spectrum." In fact, if Trigger's vision of a more thoughtful and organized approach to dealing with the future is to be realized, "the whole dichotomy between right-wing and left-wing [will be] part and parcel of what we have to transcend." Neo-conservatives and postmodernists might avoid one another at cocktail parties, but they share a deep mistrust of decision-making on a global scale. "Once the postmodernists realize that I pretty much accuse them of being in bed with neo-conservatives, I suspect I'll get some angry responses," says Trigger. And what would he say to critics who charge that his scheme could never hope to succeed, that it's too complex, that he sounds like a crazy dreamer for even presenting his ideas? "Well, to paraphrase Maurice Chevalier when he was asked about what it was like to grow old, 'It's better than the alternative.' "I'm a great deal more optimistic than some evolutionists who think we're a pathological species that is out of control and destined to destroy itself." Humanity can make the right decision sometimes, Trigger says, pointing to theorist Norbert Elias's notion that as societies become more complicated, they learn to control themselves better. "If an ancient Assyrian king arrived on our doorstep with an atomic bomb, I'm afraid he might well use it. Looking at our current leaders, even the most irresponsible ruler would exhibit a great deal more self control than that." What if we fail? What if Trigger's worst fears are realized and we recklessly self-destruct? "It still would have been a great ride," answers Trigger. "It's all been much more interesting than remaining as chimpanzees."