Our Childlike Past

Graeber and Wengrow assert that prehistoric individuals resisted the degradation of conforming to rigid social norms. However, I contend, as expressed in “Were People More Childlike in Prehistory?”, that their perspective aligns with a developmental framework. Prehistory can be likened to a state of childlike freedom and play, whereas civilization embodies the stagnation of accumulated adult experiences and knowledge.

As I noted:

> On the individual level, adults often objectify the world, restricting their imagination more than children, who are still adapting to their foundational experiences.

Children, equipped with instincts but no prior knowledge, would be lost without the ability to store memories from their experiences. Without this capacity, they might navigate adulthood with the mindset of naïve infants, oscillating between unwarranted fears and blissful ignorance.

How, then, could prehistoric humans be anything but childlike and shortsighted in transmitting their knowledge across generations?

Collective Imagination and Cultural Fiction

This leads to an intriguing connection between the childlike nature of our ancestors in creating social norms through playful imagination and the mass hallucination that characterizes our adherence to contemporary norms. In “Mass Hallucination and the Dream of Waking Life,” I argue that social norms become ingrained in us as we gradually lower our inhibitions through enculturation.

Hypnosis, I assert, isn't merely about mind control; rather, it involves relaxing one's inhibitions to express a subconscious desire to play or follow commands. This phenomenon can also be observed in our daily lives.

For example, when driving, we often overlook the dangers of navigating busy highways, assuming that other drivers are well-trained. We convince ourselves that driving is safe, despite the high risk of accidents.

Moreover, in “Saturated in Fiction: Consensus Reality as a Web of Stories,” I argue that much of social life has a fictive aspect, from caricatures and narratives to scientific principles and cultural gossip. We create stories to give meaning to otherwise meaningless events. Science explains mechanisms but does not provide purpose, leaving fiction to fill that void.

A Humbling Hypothesis

Consider this broader hypothesis: prehistoric individuals were not inherently foolish but rather engaged in anarchic experimentation with social structures to enhance their freedom and enjoyment. Furthermore, our adherence to social norms may be trance-like, indicative of how modern adults live within a fictional landscape.

If we accept this premise, we might suggest that the subjective dimensions of social discourse—from religion to politics—originated as childlike whims and continue to manifest as such. For countless years, our ancestors reveled in the playfulness typical of children during recess.

What if all human cultures are essentially games? What if they were intentionally so throughout prehistory? What if our ancestors viewed these norms as anarchic experiments rather than rigid doctrines? The development of societal norms could resemble the uninhibited play of a child, moving from one whimsical game to another.

In our contemporary society, however, we take our ideologies seriously, identifying with the roles dictated by these conventions. We adhere to cultural norms to belong, often ostracizing those who do not conform.

If these norms were not divinely ordained but instead emerged from the creative impulses of our ancestors, then it becomes challenging to argue that our social constructs are any less arbitrary. By studying laws or doctrines, we might be mistaking the innocent babbling of children for profound truths.

The Hypnotic Nature of Social Ideals

Consider the playful imagination of a child, like my niece, who believes in the existence of unicorns. Suppose I indulged this fantasy to the point of establishing serious institutions around it, leading generations to debate the significance of unicorns in society.

This analogy suggests that the social norms we accept as truth may, in fact, be no more substantial than whimsical inventions—ranging from religious beliefs to secular ideologies like democracy and capitalism. Perhaps all societies are rooted in childlike creativity, yet many mistake these playful constructs for profound wisdom.

When adults observe children at play, their games might seem absurd. Children invent narratives and flexibly alter rules, while adults often view their own norms through a critical lens.

Yet, a more advanced perspective could regard adults' serious engagement with societal norms as equally nonsensical. Cultures, whether secular or religious, can appear bizarre when viewed through an anthropological lens.

What does it imply for us to take social ideals too seriously? When friends gather and engage with a hypnotist, the performer may prompt one to act in a ludicrous manner, eliciting laughter from the audience. However, this laughter also reflects the audience's own hypnotic state, as they seek amusement without a rational basis.

Digging deeper into their motivations for entertainment reveals a foundation of shared, often nonrational, assumptions. This collective state of hypnosis, termed "enculturation," governs our behavior.

Unlike staged hypnosis, which is directed by an external performer, our adherence to societal norms is often driven by our desire to conform. Freud’s concept of the “Superego” can be seen as our internal hypnotist, guiding us into a trance of social conformity.

Entrapment by Absurd Ideals

Who, then, exhibits greater folly: the child indulging in imaginative play or the adult who mistakes that play for serious belief systems? How do we arrive at such entrapment, forgetting that our social interactions are often mere acts of storytelling?

This question is complex, but one aspect is clear. In our prehistoric past, human populations were sparse. Between 40,000 and 16,000 BCE, Europe’s population hovered around a mere few thousand, making the chance for collective cultural innovations slim.

The likelihood of a singular creative genius captivating a small population is low. Even if an individual introduced a transformative idea, the means to effectively share and integrate it across generations were limited.

Only with the advent of art, writing, and a population surge could widespread cultural adoption occur. In densely populated societies, individuals had incentives to conform to shared cultural narratives, leading to the rise of political structures that harnessed collective childlike creativity.

This hypothesis aligns with existential themes: life is inherently absurd, and our deepest truths are likely ironic. Given our inherent selfishness and shortsightedness, we may not deserve a more dignified foundation for our cultures. If our ways of living stem from the whimsical outpourings of childish imagination, it may serve as a humbling reminder of our nature.