AnonymousApril 16, 2008 01:26 EST

Hello,

I am presently reading Jacob's System of Survival—-and I like it very much!

I have a few comments about this article.

First of all, I have to say something about the arguments against separation of Quebec: "that many Quebecers want to remain in Canada; that Quebec’s language and culture have flourished while remaining within Confederation; that if Canada is divisible, perhaps so is Quebec."
These are very bad arguments against separation, and I don't think that these arguments would have been relevant in Jacob’s point of view on separation. I think that you are taking sides about separation of Quebec. Jacob's point of view is very, very interesting and she brings very rational arguments for separation, arguments that are not necessarily well known — not usually the ones that guide people in their political choices. Jacob's ideas about separation of Quebec, just like most of her ideas, are truly clever, people need to know about them, and the criticism proposed here I think is a bit narrow minded and biased. On the contrary, I think that Jacob’s neutral position in this debate makes her theories even more interesting.

Secondly, the proposition that Jacob’s theories about depoliticizing statehood and nationality are “naïve or irresponsible” after 9/11 need to be explained. In what way 9/11 or any recent political events contradict Jacob’s theories? Your proposition seems very questionable to me, and it is strangely introduced, just like that at the end of the paragraph. It is another weak criticism proposed here in this article. Do you mean that it is irresponsible not to worry about the army and defense of territory? This criticism would also be, in my view, ideologically biased and eventually annoying, and missing the point of Jacob’s work.

Finally I just want to add that Jacob is one of the few intellectual whose ideas indeed really do matter, maybe because she grounds her theories and research on empirical data, as you cleverly highlighted. Too few intellectuals put together such brilliant, useful, and moreover true theories about economy, culture and human behaviours. I think that everyone should read her (and also Daniel C. Dennett, while we’re at it).

I am reading Systems of Survival presently, and I think that Jacob pinpointed a fundamental fact about professions and cultures with her dichotomy of moral values. I think it is a genuine piece of free-thinking about culture, and is very well written. I think that the way she presented her theories, in a dialogue between fictional intellectuals, is very useful to explain better, and defend, her uncommon theories, and allows us to confront them with what would be the most spontaneous and common criticisms about them. It is a good thing because, just like most thinkers who are trying to explain cultural phenomenon, Jacob could easily be accused of reductionism. But I think that this dialogue form, however useful against eventual criticisms, eventually keeps her from being more direct and thinking about these syndromes in a more straightforward and personal manner, and going deeper into the questions brought by her observations. For example it would have been interesting to discuss how and why these moral syndromes came to be dominant in certain countries’ cultures and certain religions, and how the dominance of a syndrome over another is brought about in the political life of a country/cultural zone—how these syndromes are ‘fighting’ each other. She talks about that when addressing the question of agriculture, but I feel like this would need more precisions and more examples/case studies. Also many links between her theories and other theories about culture can/need to be made. For example the link between Protestantism and capitalism. The link between genders’ cultures and behaviours and these syndromes. The question of the birth of commerce in prehistoric times. The link between these syndromes and the political right and left. These are important and complementary pieces in the puzzle of understanding and explaining human culture. It would also have been interesting to see in greater detail how these syndromes are spread and propagated in media, and how they are sometimes ‘imposed on people’. It would have been interesting to develop also on what fundamentally distinguishes a field suitable for a syndrome, commercial or guardian, and to see how these moral syndromes are essential and functional in certain fields—what does it take exactly in the environment to favour/justify guardian activities? Are some environments suitable for both syndromes? Agriculture, as Jacob points out, is an activity that has been occupied by both syndromes, but I feel like we need more precisions on how and why. Links with memetics would have been welcome. Jacob’s book triggers many questions and needs for precisions. But that will maybe be the object of other books, by other people. With Systems of Survival, she surely set the basis for a new way of considering culture and economic activities. That book will surely be very influent, mainly because of one very accurate empirical observation: that two fundamentally different syndromes of moral values repetitively appear, throughout history, in two different types of fields of the human economy and activities.

Wai Yip TungJanuary 03, 2011 15:41 EST

Anonymous,

You comment, an essay of hundreds of words in itself, is more insightful than the article.

"Jacob's point of view is very, very interesting and she brings very rational arguments for separation, arguments that are not necessarily well known ... just like most of her ideas, are truly clever, people need to know about them"

This sum up my general feeling about Jacob's work pretty well. I'll be very interest on to follow her work on separation, whether I end up agree with her or not.