A new paper (LINK) has caused quite a stir! Schulz et al 2019 relies on the observation that Europeans are more trusting of outsiders and less nepotistic. I recall a study on the reactions of diverse babies left in the care of people that were markedly different genetically from the baby, with the result that most babies got very upset. The baby that was least upset by this was one from Saxony. Despite the evidence, any study that asserts that Europeans are distinguishable from any other population is likely to raise eyebrows and hair among those in the Humanities (especially a study like this that implies the differences are actually culturally advantageous or superior).
The study attributes this European tendency to the Western Church:
"they focus on how the Church broke down extended kin-based institutions and encouraged a nuclear family structure. To do this, the authors developed measures of historical Church exposure and kin-based institutions across populations."
It argues that the rise of agriculture in the Neolithic favoured kinship based societies in which forms of cousin marriage (not just 1st cousins which would be genetically problematic, but also 3rd and 4th cousins which pose no genetic threat), but that "The Church’s family policies meant that by 1500 CE, and likely centuries earlier in some regions, Europe lacked strong kin-based institutions and was instead dominated by relatively independent and isolated nuclear or stem families."
This church-led social change is thus, they argue, the reason for higher rates of openness to strangers, individualism and independence among Europeans. I have no doubt there is some truth to this but I can see a major flaw, which I will get to later. First let's see how other people reacted. The left wing historians threw their toys out of the pram, of course. Here'e one guy who has blocked me even though I don't know who he is:
He says the scientists should have consulted historians (they obviously did though).this is very, very bad scholarship. @sciencemagazine should be absolutely ashamed for publishing this. #medievaltwitter #twitterstorians https://t.co/ayQ61ju1I2— Mashed Potato Gabriele (@prof_gabriele) November 8, 2019
Geneticists seem somewhat bewildered by the reaction of historians...holy shit am I angry— Mashed Potato Gabriele (@prof_gabriele) November 8, 2019
i'm moderately skeptical of the paper in question because it aims to answer an audacious observation re: western europe's special path. we should always be cautious.— Razib🥥 Khan (@razibkhan) November 9, 2019
but the historians expressing rage/"I can't even" ... smh https://t.co/V87Kt90Xgt
I see the paper as fundamentally misunderstanding causality. Seeing a pattern: European societies gradually became less structured around kinship groups at around the same time the church focuses on consanguinity. Ok. How do we know these two things are connected?— Georgia Henley (@georgiahenley) November 9, 2019
I do not recall any discussion of consanguineous sexual relationships in any of the papers on Viking or Anglo-Saxon DNA I have read. This could easily be determined from existing samples. I doubt incest was at all common even before Christianity arrived. One Germanic region where people have been marrying third or fourth cousins for centuries is Iceland - this occurred out of necessity due to isolation and a small population.
Icelandic researchers reporting in a 2008 issue of Science, found that marriages between third or fourth cousins in Iceland tended to produce more children and grandchildren than those between completely unrelated individuals. The researchers suggested that marrying third and fourth cousins may be optimal for reproduction because this degree of genetic similarity may produce the best gene pool. Really close relations like siblings and first-cousins would have detrimental inbreeding mutations, whereas couples genetically far-removed from each other could have genetic incompatibilities. Third- and fourth-cousin couples, though, are the goldilocks middle ground genetically, tending to be more genetically compatible while having no serious inbreeding problems.
Iceland not only produces more published authors per capita than anywhere else, but also more of the world's strongest men! Their breeding practices have certainly not hurt them, in fact they seem to have been beneficial and if these marriages result in more children, then those who favour them will outcompete those who don't in terms of number of children. That suggests selective pressure FOR consanguineous marriages, at least in Iceland...and the church did not break them up.
I am sure some right wing pagans would like to use this study as evidence for how the church destroys ethnic identities and prepares the world for globalism but I am not sure that this has been proven. I believe these prohibitions against close inbreeding were always there in many places in Northern Europe, that third cousin marriages still occurred long after conversion and that kinship networks were not maintained by third cousin marriages anyway, but by complicated rituals of gift exchange, and feasting.
It may surprise the reader to learn I dislike Western chauvinism, particularly arguments for the uniqueness of Western civilisation based on our supposedly more progressive outlook. But if we accept this premise, we must also conclude that the aforementioned tendencies of openness, individualism and independence, are higher in the North than the South of Europe, despite the North being the last place to receive the Christian doctrine. Clearly the argument falls flat. I personally consider such traits to be socially disadvantageous (in the current environment) mutations that actually emerged long before Christianity arrived in Europe, and which are more likely adaptations for small populations distributed over large areas in harsh regions of Northern Europe, where there was a selective pressure favouring those willing to cooperate with whoever they came across and also for more independent and individualistic people who would find long periods of isolation more tolerable.
5 comments:
A most fascinating article, on a line of arguments I never thought to consider. As always you feel like a true and genuine searcher for the culture and traditions of our ancestors, ressonating like few. Great work Tom, thank you!
Here's my two cents:
The higher proclivity towards out-group tolerance on account of the Aryan peoples of Europe must have come prior to Christianity, or any Abrahamic religion for that matter. This is because of the particular pattern followed by European settlers. Whenever a new group entered Europe, they did not fully displace the populace (as occurred with the Aryans in northern India) but instead, in many ways, left them to their own devices. The Sami, Iberians, Rhaetic, Illyrian, Euskadi, and other groups have coexisted in Europe, alongside Aryans, without conflict or dispute, with our peoples even adopting the customs of the locals. This is not exclusive to Europe however, as native American peoples were, if not politically, highly accepting of different ethnicities and cultures (also partially at fault for their demise). I have no solid causality for this event, although I do believe it must have long preceded any Abrahamic intervention, perhaps even that of our own religions, as the European peoples before the Aryan migration period probably behaved in a very similar way.
The other day I was discussing how nobility is the disengagement with the appetite in order to emphasize the spirited and to place the name of the soul, on the reputation, legacy, and honour of the family and the nation, understanding the nation as the shared spirited of a people, or a kinship of souls, which can extend beyond ethnicity (albeit this is unlikely). I would say this conception of the nation, which even if unconscious still infects the mind, has led people to see the out-group as potential companions, rather than necessary foes. Whilst other peoples waged wars on ethnicity (e.g. Africa), Europe waged wars on ideas and a shared identity, beyond that of race. Now, I am aware this last aspect can also be attributed to Christianity and Islam, as they themselves followed this same path, but the difference lies on that, whilst the Abrahamic wars on idea tried to impose a unique way of viewing the world, the European peoples tried to reconcile foreign thought with their own, which is why we see Romans piecing together connections between all the religions they encountered, even those that don't belong in the Indo-European group.
I may be wrong, but, I am fairly certain in my affirmation that these sorts of behaviours stem from a prior origin, one which precedes Abrahamism, and perhaps even that of our own religions (although this I could not affirm).
It seems as if the author(s) of that study are taking liberties with the premise. I would suggest that local populations mould Christianity to their extant mindset, rather than Christianity changing the people it converts. It also seems odd that the study, as you pointed out, didn't consider the fact that northern Europeans were the last to be Christianised, are the least zealous Christians and more atheistic in the modern era. When you couple this with the fact that the vast majority of scientific advancement, entrepreneurial endeavour and recent exploration was achieved by northern Europeans, the paper appears to be reaching too far.
Local populations would probably have adopted a syncretist Christian faith mixed with pagan beliefs but the church insisted upon doctrinal conformity.
I don't buy northern Europe being superior to southern Europe in any appreciable way until the last 200 or so years. The majority of ideas, wealth, culture, art and civilization was made by basically Italy and France
Good article and also good to see that you don't reach for this as a club with which to beat other religious persuasions.
Have you come across or read John Dunn's 'Traditionalism: the Only Radicalism' book that covers the issue of Christianity and the move from a community-based social approach to an individual-based (or perhaps nuclear family-based) approach?
I found it very engaging as a book - was surprised to do so, assuming little value therein - and am therefore surprised that it's not better known. He should not be confused with the political philosopher of the same name. See Amazon/Good Reads.
Post a Comment