by Vic Hernandez
[At the author's request, we are publishing this article unedited.]
In keeping with the celebration of the bicentenary birth of Charles Darwin and the thirtieth anniversary of the Radical Faery Community (RFC), it is fitting to speak from an evolutionary perspective of the RFC. The RFC is evolving as a community that has many elements of human nature. Certainly both Charles Darwin and The RFC have been considered radical in their expression of ideas, perspective and their radical nature has often times been considered a threat to society, notably organized religion.
This speaks to two things: What is the evolutionary pattern of the RFC, past, present and future? Secondly, the unique approach of both Darwin and the Radical Faeries to carve out an understanding of community tribes: For Darwin, a broader swath and for RFC, a community of radically loving men. Both Darwin and the RFC speak to evolution and ask the same questions in coming to and understanding of human nature.
The sufficiency of evolutionary theory to explain humanity’s spiritual and moral qualities has been in question. Then as now, the evolution of humans was a touchy subject, and after the publication of On the Origin of Species, Darwin devoted a separate work, The Descent of Man, to untangling how evolutionary understanding could be applied to humans and their special traits. Does Darwin’s perspectives apply to RFC past, present and future development and how so?
Since his account of the “descent with modification” leaned heavily on natural selection of the individual, Darwin wondered how moral behaviors, which focus on others, evolved. When lying, cheating, manipulation, greed, and other less than admirable qualities seemed to benefit those individuals who practiced them, how could their opposites evolve? Pointing out that he “who was ready to sacrifice his life…would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature,” Darwin pondered how members of a tribe became endowed with moral attributes.
His simple answers still apply. One who aids his fellows commonly receives aid in return. Darwin called this a “low motive” because it is self-regarding. So-called reciprocal altruism: I’ll carry your baby if you take my son on the hunt tomorrow at dawn; is operative in species whose members are capable of recognizing such others’ faces. More important is the praise we love and the blame we dread, instincts that help bind tribe members who work together. Reciprocal acts of kindness and aid underlie families, tribes, and religious groups; they ensure survival and reproduction as “naturally selected” perpetuating, living entities. What binds RFC tribes to work together? What reciprocal acts of kindness and aid underlie the RFC and does this perpetuate the tribe?
Our human sort of mutual care, along with the strong feeling of life we have in the presence of sexual partners, family, friends, colleagues, classmates, and fellow citizens (in short the company of meaningful others), necessitates frequent communication: symbols, language, music, teaching, learning, etc. Do these activities fundamentally distinguish us from the non-human life forms with whom we share the planet and upon whom we depend for our survival? I doubt it. For visiting where RFC is at and where it plans to go and hopefully flourish, how does the expression of communication have to be with our fellow meaningful others?
This may sound inadequate to true believers in human uniqueness, especially on religious grounds. But religion serves and obvious evolutionary function: it identifies, unifies and preserves adherents. Admonitions to desist from the seven deadly sins inhibit behaviors that threaten group solidarity and survival (read Dante’s Inferno). Greed, for example, privileges the individual in seasons of limited resources. Lust: the biblical coveting of the neighbor’s wife (in its male/ heterosexual-centered perspective); interferes with ideals for the nurture of healthy children and effective warriors. Prohibiting sloth enhances productive work intrinsic to survival and reproduction of the social unit. Anger, perhaps useful in battle, destroys family and other social relationships. Envy and pride promote individual interests above those of the larger social group. The survival value of prohibiting sin seems obvious.
By contrast, “Love they neighbor,” interpreted from an evolutionary point of view, is an algorithm for social connectedness. The touted virtues of chastity, moderation, compassion, diligence, patience, moral commitment, and humility provide touchstones for effective group action. Compassion is the crucial link among the major religions. The golden rule of Jesus, Confucius and others is that we should not do to others what we would not want them to do to us. Is this not a clear precept for the evolutionary perpetuation of specific cohesive groups in familiar habitats? Perhaps that was the preface for organizing a radical group of loving men? If you look at the RFC, we seek similar ground in reexamining our purpose and direction. Speak to RFC evolution and introspection to determine direction, survival and ultimately peace.
We differ from other species in that fewer rules of social behavior are communicated only by shout, groan, touch and facial expression and more by verbal explanation. But all tend to maintain and perpetuate unity of the pack, gaggle or herd. We people share a linguistic version of the universal tendency toward socio-ecological wisdom measurable in life forms at every level. The genetics, microscopy, and biochemistry of the cells that adhere in their lives together, I consider the neo-Darwinist overemphasis on competition among selfish individuals, who supposedly perpetuate their genes as if they were robots, to be Victorian in caricature. Disease microbes that kill all their victims perish themselves as a result of their aggression. This is an important concept to grasp in shaping our intention and motivation and when established, checking into it as a matter of daily practice.
I disagree with the assertion that the accumulation of random genetic mutations is the major source of evolutionary novelty. More important is symbiogenesis, the evolution of new species from the coming together from members of different species. This should be the springboard for diversity of participants that welcomes change and change is nature. Cross pollination makes for a better plant. So when considering the fruitful survival of the RFC, it is important to encourage a variety of ethnic, cultural and socio-varietal groupings. With this comes an improvement or sustaining of what already exists, I believe. Symbiogenesis is the behavioral, physiological and genetic fusion of different kinds of being; it leads to the evolution of chimeric new ones. Thus, the prospect of a phenomenal RFC in keeping with the visions of the founders and leaders lies in invitation to change and evolve. An example is found in a new type of fruit fly that evolved after it acquired an insect-loving bacterium that prevented it from successfully mating with its old partners. Indeed, the only documented cases of the “origin of species” in real times involve not selfish genes but “selfless” mergers of different forms. Now I wonder how could that apply to the evolution of the RFC? Ah, the Radical Fruit Fly Community! Chemical and genetic evidence suggests that even mitochondria, bodies inside of our cells that suffocate without oxygen, came from ancient mergers, truces between oxygen-respiring bacteria and the nearly poisoned cells of other kinds of microscopic beings. The mergers, naturally selected, survived to thrive and spread across the planet. What can the RFC learn from this element of nature to evolve strongly to impact consciousness?
Gifted with large brains that permit us great neurological processing power, we humans plan further into the future. We recognize more of our own kind with whom, now via global communication, we establish relationships of identity and trust. But on a crowded planet, there has always been a premium on effective togetherness. Our moral nature reflects rather than conflicts with nature.
Free will may also be nature-deep. Large single-celled forams choose brightly colored sand grains the correct ones with which to make shells. Aware of shape and color, they make choices and reproduce their kind. Awareness in some form has been naturally selected for at least 550 million years. For me, our spirituality and moral nature help perpetuate our living communities, just as similar attributes aided previous living communities whose evolution is chronicled in fossil record. We must look to the evolution as a template for the evolution of the Radical Fairy Community to provide for sustainability. I wonder what Darwin would have made of the Radical Fairy Community and what observations and suggestions would have he made to support its evolution, its thriving?
