The Grand Illusion
Sometimes, it’s called the myth of the Frontier, or “Superman,” or “Rambo,” or even Trump, but in the end, this all too popular myth infuses American culture. The basic idea is that “the others” are evil, and that only the chosen one can put things right, because the laws are ineffectual or even part of the evil.
Yet, for all the growing popularity of the myth of “the One,” for the most part, the myth is not only a fallacy, but its popularity undermines the very roots of society.
Take a good look at history. In recent years, archaeologists have discovered that once upon a time, there were a good number of human species and forebears, and given the rate that more ancestral species are being dug up (literally), it’s like that we’ll find even more. All of that raises the question as to why homo sapiens is the only one to survive.
Although archaeologists don’t like speculating on why this is so, as a F&SF writer I don’t have that problem, and, to me, at least, the answer is simple. For all our infighting, based on the evidence so far unearthed, homo sapiens is and was the most social of all primate species, and apparently the only species able to live in larger groups.
That cooperation is what allowed the development of technology. No matter how bright an individual is, the requirements for survival require pooling efforts, initiative, and intelligence to get above a hunter-gatherer existence, and the higher the level of technology and standard of living one desires, the more cooperation that is required.
Unfortunately, the myth of individual inspiration or sole genius (an offshoot corollary of the myth of “the One”) also pervades society, particularly American society, often ignoring actual facts. Despite all the citations, James Watt didn’t invent the steam engine from whole cloth. He improved on the design of Thomas Newcomen, who in turn had improved on the initial design of Thomas Savery. Isaac Newton acknowledged that his discoveries were based on the discoveries of those before him.
This has been the pattern of all technological development and materials science. History has also shown, rather conclusively, that government by dictator is unstable and unworkable over any period of time, and that broad-based governments that acknowledge individual rights and responsibilities under law tend to be more stable.
Yet today in the United States, too many people are still flocking to the myth of “the One,” looking for the one person [usually male] who can save them and the country. They overlook the fact that, like it or not, messy as it’s been, Joe Biden has, through cooperation and persuasion, accomplished more in two years than Trump did in his entire term.
Conservatives often cite Ronald Reagan as “the man,” but most of them who cite him weren’t there. I was, and I actually served in the Reagan Administration, which was remarkably decentralized and cooperative [admittedly with several major gaffes and disasters] and was anything but one-man-rule.
The real solution to current problems lies in rejecting the myth of “the One” and all it’s corollaries and permutations (such as the idea that only one political party represents “truth” and the way), and returning to constructive cooperation. “One man” ideas will only divide us more.
Not everyone who favors a figure that some regard as “the One” thinks of them that way. Some may think them merely better than the alternatives, or even value their disruptive influence against the complacency and privilege of the institutional creatures – not that such figures are desirable all the time, of course.
I’d rather not live in “interesting times”, except that all times probably are, but in most of them that’s kept under the table.
“… its popularity undermines the very roots of society.” Yes, especially in the US, we love our own creations of celebrity magnified by mass communication).
Your focus on THE ONE caused my mind to wander off to the superficiality of CELEBRITY; the religiosity of MESSIAH; and the fact of human individual UNIQUENESS. As with Oneness, and Freedom, and Diversity one is forced to ask ‘In what way?’ Each noun means nothing without some adjective to give it substance. Then one can discuss the reality referred to by the myth.
Eventually to the politics of human society ‘ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE’. This was interesting: https://interestingliterature.com/2021/06/one-for-all-and-all-for-one-phrase-origins-meaning/ The argument is a little weak, but if you think Shakespeare is “The One” …
This article agrees with your underlying observation: From: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/01/science-technology-vaccine-invention-history/672227/ SOCIETY: a network of people doing collectively what individual actors cannot. (Hmm … Not even individuals with absolute individual sovereignty)
The assent of Homo sapiens over our sibling species probably has more to do with differences in reproductive success than any “magic smarts” or “magic social tricks” or any other magic evolution ingredient. As I point out in my classes, Homo sapiens probably just “out-rabbited” the competition. We’re not really super special except maybe earlier puberty, slightly shorter gestation, more robust Y chromosomes or some other factor that made like a 0.2% fertility differential.
Reproductive success is linked to social success. Tigers are the most fearsome predator on a one-on-one basis, but they don’t stand a chance against technology or mass hunting. Technology — even at the bronze age level — isn’t possible without large social groupings. So far, there’s plenty of evidence that homo sapiens had larger social groups than any other “sapient” primate.
Probably not at the time when they were co-existing. Forager bands of hominids seem to be size-limited by environmental conditions. And there isn’t a lot of evidence currently for social groups for species other than Archaic Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, but there are some sites that indicate Neanderthal groups were likely equivalently sized Homo sapiens, the new “related” group from Siberia, the footprint evidence of the “Neanderthal day care” from Spain (where also get indications that Neanderthals may have had a greater range in height). The evidence from Israel and Mount Skhul and Qafzeh show equivalently sized groups of Homo sapiens and Neanderthals turning over the same location, back and forth, as the environment cooled or warmed. And now we have the “early adopter” Homo sapiens who apparently came and lived with Neanderthals probably in one joint settlement, for one generation during the terminal Mousterian.
And Homo naledi is upending pretty much everything… If near-Australopithecine hominids are living along Homo sapiens in South Africa and maintainng a long “tradition” of using fire to get to very hard to access caves in order to inter their dead… a lot of anthropocentric assumptions are getting challenged by some pretty persuasive evidence. There doesn’t appear to be a one-answer-fits socio-cultural magic ingredient that made us successful, much as we would like to think we’re super-special because of the things we use to define ourselves, it seems more and more likely it was something else. We won the Darwin game. They lost. But it’s probably not because of language, art, how social we are, how violent we are, how smart we are in making better tools, etc.
Agreed on the whole.
The scarcity of archaeological artifacts of Neanderthals and other humanoid species allows anthropologists to suggest theories regarding their cultures rise and fall. Examining the apparent history of human language allows one explanation for the appearance and disappearance of Neanderthals. We have various languages disappearing (with and without disappearance of their last DNA carriers) even in the 21rst century. Disappearance of a species is neither uncommon nor necessarily because of the lack of cooperation and coordination; or even genocide.
e.g.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5525259/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_time_of_extinction
I would be interested in how you feel this observation affects your writing. It seems that many of your novels especially the fantasy novels focus on the “one” and downplay the rest of society. The societies you create are economicly realistic and other people are involved. But they focus on the unique hero who “saves” society at great personal risk and often cost.
This question doesn’t mean I’ll stop reading. I greatly enjoy your novels and pre-order them as soon as I can.
The books of “The Grand Illusion” address the issue of the conflict between “the hero” and society more directly. I think you’re missing an underlying point. From the beginning, a great number of my protagonists build structures to accomplish their goals. Quaeryt builds the imagers into a body that strengthens society. Beltur can’t accomplish much of anything until he builds a functioning town. Saryn succeeds by uniting Sarronyn. Most of the “lone wolves” may “succeed,” but they don’t change society much. Lorn uses force to restore a crumbling society, but he doesn’t do it alone.
I think you’re looking less at the actual story and more at the fact that we’re 100% in the protagonist’s head and see their individual efforts very heavily.
But as Mr. Modesitt already said, none of them accomplish anything on their own. I think the closest thing to a protagonist who handles it all is Anna, and that comes down to two things. She creates so much fear in those who might oppose her that they instead help and she’s, for better or worse, a legitmate super human in a world of normals. Her education and vocal training put her in a place where people cannot face her directly and live.
Even there, though, did she really do it alone? Her players, he allies, her apprentices, she never truly acts on her own, simply inspires people to work with her to accomplish much.
I suspect the root cause for “the One” is reproductive pressure/evolution. “If I can stand out, I’ll look like good mating material.”
So people want to be noticed, pointed out, looked up to, etc. “The One” may be just an extension of that.
There’s a yin and yang of most accomplishments- the cooperative work of many people to build toward a goal, and the forceful work of an individual.
Human nature focuses on the one individual rather than the cooperative group. We focus on the sound bite rather than the explanation.