by Bankole Arowobusoye:

This is in response to a village square discussion thread titled Allocation of Responsibility

The chicken and egg paradox

Cell microbiologists, unlike the layman when asked the seemingly irresolvable question of the origin of the chicken and the egg are not unduly baffled by this age-old question of origins. Their unequivocal answer to this question, we are told is the egg. This reckoning, requires an elementary understanding of evolutionary and microbiology theory. When distilled to its simplest essence, it goes like this:In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of any newborn animal. Chickens evolved from non-chickens through mutations to the DNA of the non-chicken that then produced the first non- chicken zygote.That is, two non-chickens mated and the mutated DNA in their new zygote produced the first true chicken. The zygote cell in the non- chicken's egg is the only place where DNA mutations could be expressed to produce a new animal. So, quite very clearly, the egg must have come first. … http://science.howstuffworks.com/question85.htm

The individual and Society paradox
Knowing fully well that the individual is a product of society and vice versa, an examination of the dynamics between society and the individual, just like that between the chicken and the egg is not easy. While it is very convenient for the individual to blame society for its and their own failings, it is not quite as easy for society to blame individuals for its failings.

The reason for this is quite clear; individuals do not usually own up and accept blame for the failures of society when accused. As a rule, individuals, if they can get away with it will either simply ignore society or vehemently rise up to defend themselves against any negative allegations, no matter how well deserved.

On the contrary, when an individual blames society, society does not generally rise up to defend itself, possibly because for some strange reason, society is not quite as strong or as tangible as the individual. Perhaps it is possible that society is like an ephemeral mist, an abstract concept, something lacking form and not very concrete to the individual.Bearing in mind that purely scientific questions can prove hard to answer even when tackled with all the weapons in the arsenal of science, one wonders what hope, if any, there can be in answering purely sociological questions. Still we have to try.Having found an elegantly simple answer to a vexatious scientific question through genetics, no matter how unscientific it may be considered, perhaps it would be possible to extend this analogy to society, in order to define answers to the even more vexatious sociological question of origins. The sociological question I have in mind is the evolution of leadership responsibility and the role of the individual and his/her responsibility in society in general and Nigeria in particular. The question runs thus; does a society produce the type of individuals who inhabit it or do the individuals make the type of society they inhabit?

The burden of Responsibility; society or the individual
If the society can be considered as the whole and the individual considered as a zygote or cell, then it is clear at least from a geneticist’s point of view that the individual holds the key to origination of society. In other words the individual clearly first births the society

This is a frightening conclusion as it strips away the comforting cocoon of irresponsibility so many of us seem to enjoy as we recklessly blame the ills of our society on government, the leadership, colonial legacy or any other convenient scapegoat that may suit our fancy. Of course, at least up to a point, the individual’s shortcomings and responsibilities can credibly be blamed upon externalities, however, at some time, the line must be drawn and the individual must be prepared to face up to the consequences of his or her actions or lack thereof.Considering how post colonial Nigerian society has evolved since independence and examining for example the art of coup making and leadership by the Nigerian Army, it is easy to discern that the character of the individual leader has undoubtedly played a central role in the evolution of Nigerian society. For those whose memories may be short, kindly compare the impact of the two military leaders, Muritala Mohammad and Ibrahim Babangida.

These two very different personalities, after seizing power duly stamped their psyche upon society, and the directions in which the force of the personalities of these two responsible individuals took society were as different as night and day. Muritala Mohammed led the country in a largely positive direction while the personality of Ibrahim Babangida led society in his own uniquely negative way down a cosmic black hole, the depth of which society has not fully emerged from.

The limits of the individual
Change in an entire species as we have seen occur through mutations, which are incremental steps that start at a cellular level in an individual zygote. If there is a selective advantage in the environment the progeny of the mutated zygote prevails over its predecessors and spreads within the species. If mutation is drastic enough, a completely new species is born.For change to occur in society two things are necessary; there must be a selective advantage in the environment and there must be a mutated individual. Since the existence of responsible individuals is documented in Nigeria but society has not change, one can therefore deduce that what is lacking is the selective advantage. What this means is that there is no advantage to be gained by the individual who behaves responsibly in Nigerian society. But since we have seen that the individual births society, it is possible for society to be changed by individuals. Of course it would be easier for change to come if the mutated individual belongs to the leadership class of society.And this brings us to the concept of the class structure and allocation of responsibility in society. Apart from individual responsibility in society, it is possible to speak of the following types of responsibilities in this order of importance;· Leadership· Followership· Collective (Societal)Broadly speaking, most societies are organized along some class structure of some sort consisting of the leadership and followship. Individuals fall into these categories. The most progressive societies are usually those in which the class structures allow mobility of individuals across class lines so that a wide variety of talents can be accessed. In the past, the leadership of Nigerian and African society had been exclusive with this function largely usurped by the military.Essentially, there is nothing particularly wrong with a military rulership or any other form of rulership for that matter, provided the rulership is not exclusive, desirable qualities are manifest in the personality of the leader and the society has in place good mechanisms to bring irresponsible individuals and leaders to book. The problem with the Nigerian Military was that it never was a people’s military because Nigeria itself was never really purposed for the Nigerian people; but that is not the subject of this discussion.It would be a messy society that required the individual to act individually at all times in order to achieve anything. Thankfully this is usually the case.

While the individual may be powerful, there is nevertheless a limit to his or her ability. Neither Babangida nor Mohammed on his or her own could have made it into power. These individual no matter how powerful or brilliant still needed to work in concert with other individuals or organization in order to have any hope of achieving their goals. The sobering bottom line is this: · The individual clearly first produces society;

· All individuals are responsible and must account to society for their (in)actions but whether we or they like it or not, the individuals most responsible for the ills or good of society are those individuals in the leadership class;

· Most individuals are followers who are content to follow in virtually any direction they are led no matter how good or bad, easy or hard.

· In spite of the above, as in any society large numbers of unscrupulous individuals who ordinarily clearly have no business aspiring to leadership of society do so. The difference between Nigeria/African society and other societies is that these classes of proven sociopaths actually succeed in realizing their ambition. When they do, society as expected follows their leadership. The result is a swift degeneracy into a sick, pathological society.

· Society is always in a state of flux but even within this disequilibrium, localized stability of some sort whether good or bad is temporarily achieved within certain epochs resulting in the society organically taking over to produce and express the types of individuals it needs in reflecting itself.

· Societies then, especially postcolonial African societies are paradoxically both a very fragile yet powerful illusion in which individuals at the moment far more powerful than the collective. This means we, as individuals must initially struggle to produce the type of societies we want.
· But it is worth bearing in mind that illusions have the power to become very real and frequently become so. If they are beneficial to the collective then society becomes strong otherwise they are weak and can dissolve overnight. The responsibility or irresponsibility of the rulership class in this illusion matters the most and eventually determines the ethos and longevity of the society.

· It is quite possible for a mere handful of individuals or class of individuals to control the destiny of society for a very long time. All that is necessary is for this handful of individuals to somehow wrestle control of the leadership deliberately or by chance and that society is either made or broken.

· What has become clear to me over the years is that irrespective of our history or circumstances the greatest hope for salvation and widespread changes of any society lies in the courage, virtue and ability of the individual. But since virtue unfortunately is not easily transmitted in human society, ironically if there is to be any hope of spread of positive responsibility in society, it will not be by the individual working alone as an individual.

· The individual must infect other individuals by organized activism. Just as the Babangidas and Muritalas of this world sought out and associated with their types in order to realize their dreams, the socially responsible individuals must seek out and associate with other like-minded individuals. There is value in corporation. This will have to be the mission of the individual towards realization of his or her vision.

Bankole Arowobusoye.
20 Mar 2005

Click here to join a discusion on this topic

Robot  # 1 | 01.05.2008 22:07

by Bankole Arowobusoye: This is in response to a villa...Read the full article.