The following is adapted from a talk I gave during a virtual service at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Second Life.
These past two
weeks may well have seen a turning point in humankind’s outlook for the future.
We have emerged unscathed from predictions of the end of the world, and begun the
New Year with renewed hope of a new era in which we can finally build the harmonious
world visualized by philosophers and poets, prophets and seers for millennia. Tonight I will be
speaking to you on Social Darwinism, and asking whether natural selection and
survival of the fittest made human beings inherently competitive and aggressive
by nature.
A
Paralyzing Contradiction
Few believe that
this world is so perfect that it cannot improve, and most would like to live in
a society of justice, unity and peace. However, when proposals to build such a world
are put forward, many counter that it is impossible due to some inherent,
insuperable flaw in human nature. In its 1986 “Promise of World Peace”,
addressed to “the peoples of the world” for the International Year of Peace,
the Universal House of Justice described this dilemma as follows:
“…so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the view that such behavior is intrinsic to human nature and therefore ineradicable. With the entrenchment of this view, a paralyzing contradiction has developed in human affairs. On the one hand, people of all nations proclaim not only their readiness but their longing for peace and harmony... On the other, uncritical assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and aggressive and thus incapable of erecting a social system at once progressive and peaceful, dynamic and harmonious… As the need for peace becomes more urgent, this fundamental contradiction, which hinders its realization, demands a reassessment of the assumptions upon which the commonly held view of mankind's historical predicament is based.”[1]
When I read these words and recognized their significance, I began to study
the causes for this entrenched pessimism and look for ways to overcome it. One
way I found of addressing this paralyzing contradiction is to de-myth the popular
beliefs underlying it and to disseminate the scientific developments that
present a very different view of human nature. And one of the major beliefs is the
common misconception that natural selection and survival of the fittest made human
beings inherently competitive and aggressive. This notion, erroneously
attributed to Charles Darwin, has served to legitimize and justify a number of
oppressive, unjust, violent systems for over more than a century and a half,
from eugenics and scientific racism, to imperialism, fascism, Nazism, and the struggle
among national or racial groups. It is an issue that I feel especially close
to, having worked with the marvelous team of the Charles Darwin Foundation for
many years, often on the amazing Galapagos Islands themselves.
It is not my intention here to question the existence of evolution, but rather
the notion that evolution should have favored the development of inherent
selfishness, aggression, greed, and violence in human beings. In other words, even
assuming that evolution has occurred, there is nothing that would oblige us to
accept an adversarial approach to evolution. Quite the contrary, it is much
more likely that evolution would have favored the development of propensities
and capacities for compassion and reconciliation, reciprocity and mutualism,
cooperation and generosity, empathy and pro-sociality. Let us see why.
On the Origins of Social Darwinism
In his 1859 treatise “On the Origin of the Species”, Charles
Darwin presented his now-famous theory of ‘natural selection’, by which
individuals having traits that adapted them better to their environment were
more likely to survive and reproduce than those lacking them. This resulted in
the ‘natural selection’ of those traits for that environmental niche and their eventual
spread throughout the species within that local community, thereby
differentiating it from the same species in other settings.
Shortly thereafter, Herbert Spencer suggested, in his
1864 “Principles of Biology”, that natural selection progressed through what he
called “survival of the fittest in the struggle for life.” Struggle was
understood not merely as making an effort to survive, but also––and
especially––as a life-and-death struggle against––or competition with––other living
beings. Despite Darwin’s repeated objections, these two ideas––natural
selection and survival of the fittest––soon became merged in the mind of the
public under the single category of ‘Darwinism’, as they largely remain today.
The
Sociopolitical Dynamics of Science
In developing his theory, Darwin was apparently
influenced by contemporary social thought, particularly the famous “Essay on
the Principle of Population” by Thomas Malthus, who proposed strict control of
the poor to prevent them from producing offspring. ‘Natural selection’ provided
the scientific backing required to justify this approach. Although Darwin was
wary of using his theory to explain social phenomena, he could not escape the sociopolitical
dynamics of science, by which scientists’ theories tend to reflect and
reinforce––deliberately or not––the social attitudes of their time. Evolutionary
biologist Richard Lewontin holds that “What Darwin did was take
early-nineteenth-century political
economy and expand it to include all of natural
economy.”[2]
It did not take long, therefore, for social scientists
to turn this adversarial brand of Darwinism into what became known as ‘Social
Darwinism’, despite the objections of Charles Darwin himself. According to this
notion, ‘natural selection’ favored the competing individuals and groups that
were best adapted to the exigencies of the social environment, and conflict
among them led to social progress as superior ones outcompeted the rest. Thus, Social
Darwinism was inspired in the sociopolitical and economic mores of the time
and, in turn, served to bolster them, in a feedback loop that immensely
strengthened and expanded the sociopolitical and economic status quo.
Practical Applications
of Social Darwinism
We have addressed some conceptual aspects in the
notions derived from Darwin’s original theory, but as they say, “the proof is
in the pudding”. The practical applications of Social Darwinism can be grouped in
two categories that show its true colors, which are dreary indeed:
First, it served as a theoretical grounding for
Scientific Racism, or the use of various disciplines to fabricate typologies by
which classify human populations into physically discrete races that were
claimed to be superior or inferior. This, in turn, served to support Eugenics,
the use of diverse methods to increase the reproduction of more desired races
and traits, and to reduce the reproduction of less desired races and traits.
The two were used jointly in Nazi Germany to justify discriminations,
persecutions, unethical research, and other crimes against humanity, which
culminated in the exposure of its ultimate political implications in the
genocide of the Holocaust.
Second, Social Darwinism was used to legitimize the
development and continuance of social structures based on competition and
conflict, aggression and violence. It served to legitimize laissez faire policies that provided legal protection to those who
wielded enormous wealth and power, and to justify abandoning the extreme poor
and disenfranchised to their fate. The rich were rich due to their innate
superiority, and the poor were inferior beings who should not be protected by
the “Poor Law” (in Darwin’s time), but allowed to die off naturally in the best
interests of humanity as a whole. It also provided moral backing for unjust
institutions such as feudalism, slavery, neo-slavery, and oppressive labor
conditions even today. The market was a jungle, and competition for limited
resources was the law of that jungle, in which only the best competitors
survived and the rest were devoured. It was a dog-eat-dog world, and unbridled
capitalist accumulation was in keeping with the laws of the universe.
It also served to legitimize the institutionalized use
of aggression, violent repression and warfare against less powerful peoples.
War was the great natural selector that would invariably crown the most ‘fit’
nations with victory. It helped to rationalize and explain away the barbarity
of two devastating world wars among what had considered themselves the most
civilized nations and superior races in the world. Even today it is used to convince
the masses of the need for an enormously powerful, expensive, unproductive military
industrial complex in order to sustain an international arms race in the name
of deterrence and national security.
Let us briefly take a deeper look at these categories
and see why they are no longer considered to be scientifically valid. We will
briefly address the first, to spend more time on the second.
Scientific
Racism and Eugenics
The various theories grouped under the name of
Social Darwinism were used in 1865 by Darwin’s half cousin, Francis
Galton, to propose a ‘modern’ version of Eugenics, which sought the biological
‘improvement’ of humanity through what came to be known as ‘Scientific Racism.’
Darwin insistently rejected this further distortion of his ideas and claimed
that although helping the weak might counteract natural selection, not doing so
would pose the even greater danger of losing the “instinct of solidarity”,
which he deemed the “most noble part of our nature”. Instead, he highlighted
the importance of using other means to improve the human condition, such as
education.
However, for eight decades, Eugenics and scientific
racism served to justify a variety of abuses, discriminations, human rights
violations, and crimes against humanity, using methods that went from birth
control and segregation to euthanasia and genocide. Finally, two world wars
provided humanity with an extraordinary opportunity to observe first-hand the
horrifying consequences of applying false science. Following the horrors of
World War II, which included the Holocaust and the A-bomb, they were rejected
by the scientific community as anti-ethical, dangerous anachronisms. Scientists
from diverse disciplines and countries have repeatedly come together under the
aegis of the United Nations to draft statements such as the 1950 “The Race
Question” and its various revisions,[3]
the 1978 “Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice”,[4]
and the 1995 “Declaration on Principles of Tolerance”,[5] which
progressively conveyed a new universal ethos of racial equality and harmony.
From Social
Darwinism to Conflict and Violence
Today, the more obvious form that Social Darwinism
took under Scientific Racism and Eugenics has been discredited and ousted
around the world, but its more subtle form, as the ‘scientific’ basis for
institutionalizing conflict and violence, is still current on a global scale.
It is this false creed that a beleaguered humanity must now overcome and
replace with more up-to-date science.
One of the notions underlying this approach is that
natural selection was caused the evolution of increasing levels of competition,
conflict and violence in human society. According to this version, there was a
time when human beings had varying inherent degrees of aggressiveness and
gentleness, of competition and solidarity, of greed and generosity, of
domination and comradeship, etc. Over time, the most aggressive individuals
killed off the gentler ones, and the most competitive let the most cooperative
die of hunger. Eventually, the bearers of the supposed ‘genetic weaknesses’ of
kindness, cooperation, generosity and solidarity died off, while those having
the more aggressive, competitive, greedy, and power-thirsty genes produced more
offspring, leaving the human race with a predominance of adversarial features.
According to its proponents, this theory explains why the world is so full of
aggression and violence, conflict and competition, war and killing.
However, in the Seville
Statement on Violence, written and signed by 20 of the top scientists in their
respective disciplines, that this is not the case: “It is scientifically
incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a
selection for aggressive behavior more than for other kinds of behavior. In all
well-studied species, status within the group is achieved by the ability to
cooperate and to fulfill social functions relevant to the structure of that
group.”[6]
Let us see why this is so.
Adaptability
as Responsiveness to Change
The first error is to think that natural selection
means survival of the strongest
traits, in terms of physical strength, mental sharpness or emotional
aggressiveness. Actually, the original theory predicted survival of the most
highly adaptable traits, i.e., better
adapted to the exigencies of a changing environment. In this regard, the
following phrase is often attributed to Darwin: “It is not the strongest of the
species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the most responsive to
change.” Whether or not Darwin
actually said this, it sums up nicely the idea that beings whose physiology and
behavior are best adapted to their
environment are better able to survive and leave more descendents, while the
less adapted die off faster and leave fewer offspring.
When the dinosaurs became extinct, despite their great
size, physical strength and aggressiveness, the species that survived were the
smallest and weakest, but better adapted to their new environmental conditions.
In the case of human beings, the notorious weakness and vulnerability of our
physiology require that we ask rather what behaviors
have enabled us not only to survive, but to prosper and flourish. People could
not survive alone for very long, much less reproduce, so human survival has
always depended on our organizing in societies. And it turns out that when the
members of a community act in aggressive, violent, competitive, and greedy
ways, the whole group is weakened and its probabilities of surviving decreased,
so that kind of behavior would have been maladaptive.
Nor has natural selection operated through war by
granting victory to the most aggressive, warlike nations or ‘races’ and
eliminating the better-natured, peaceful ones. After all, which of the world’s
peoples have been most successful at ensuring the survival of their differentiated
genes through war? None! The fact is that at some point in their history, each and
every one of the human communities has conquered some and been conquered by others.
In most cases, their victory or defeat was not due to any difference in
emotional aggressiveness, physical strength, intelligence, or character, but
rather to circumstantial factors such as geography, recent history, and
available technology. In all cases, none of their genetic features turned out
to be better adapted, since they all killed and were killed by the same causes.
Cooperation
as the Adaptive Behavior Par Excellence
If we accept that in humans, natural selection was based
on behavior, then it is logical to conclude that it would have favored the
ability to reconcile differences and achieve cooperation, mutualism and peace,
which alone could have ensured our collective survival on the long term. In the
words of anthropologist Ashley Montagu:
“The society of man
has survived because the cooperativeness of its members made survival possible… It was not an advantageous individual here and there
who did so, but the group. In human societies, the individuals who are most
likely to survive are those who are best enabled to do so by their group.”[7]
This has been confirmed by studies of indigenous
cultures throughout the world,[8]
most of which promote among their members attitudes of cooperation, mutualism
and reciprocity, and firmly repress any expression of aggression, violence,
competition, and stinginess. However, not all scholars in the different
disciplines seem to be aware of this. Anthropologists Howell and Willis state:
The great majority
of researchers assert that ‘aggression’… is an integral part of human nature;
and that the aggressive impulses and behaviors have somehow to be directed and
controlled for human relations to be sustained over time in a social setting…
We wish to… challenge the assumption that aggression is an innate human drive.
It is undeniably the
case that in Western society aggression is regarded as part of human nature.
But perhaps this tells us more about Western society than about human nature.
We… cannot assume an a priori
aggressive drive in humans. The presence of innate sociality, on the other
hand, has much evidence in its favor. Humans are a priori sociable beings; it
is their co-operativeness that has enabled them to survive, not their
aggressive impulses.[9]
Louis Leakey et al. offer further details on the
dynamics that could have caused a natural selection for cooperation:
“Throughout our recent
evolutionary history, particularly since the rise of hunting as a way of life,
there must have been extreme selective pressure in favor of our ability to
cooperate as a group… The degree of selective pressure towards cooperation,
group awareness and identification was so strong, and the period over which it
operated so extended, that it can hardly fail to have become embedded to some
measure in our genetic makeup.”[10]
Biologist and systems
scientist Peter Corning adds:
“Cooperative behaviors have
been a key to human evolution since before we were humans, going back some 5
million years, because of the context within which a small, bipedal ape less
than 3 feet tall had to survive and reproduce successfully when there were at that
time more than 20 species of large pack-hunting predators about, for whom these
small proto-hominids would be ideal prey. Only by collective action could these
animals have survived and defended themselves against these predators.
Therefore, it seems plausible… that indeed cooperation is not something that we
have invented in the last few centuries, but is absolutely fundamental to
understanding the nature of human nature.”[11]
Darwinian
Thought and Cooperation
Many assume that Darwinism
is based primarily on a prevalence of conflict, and that Darwin himself
believed in competition as necessary to the human condition. For example, in
“Darwin’s Blind Spot”, Frank Ryan states that “Darwinian selection is based
exclusively on the individual’s struggle for survival,” that “a Darwinian
perspective… lead(s) to an excessive emphasis on competition and struggle,” and
that “cooperative relationships… do not comfortably fit with the competitive
struggle that is central to Darwinian evolution.”[12]
However, Darwin himself observed that the true human capacity resided in our
ability to carry out complex tasks in cooperation and feel empathy with others.
Interestingly, in “The Descent of Man”, he uses the phrase ‘survival of the
fittest’ only twice, but mentions the word ‘love’ 95 times.
In “Nature’s Magic,” Peter Corning suggests that it
was those who misinterpreted Darwin, such as Huxley and Spencer, who emphasized
the conflictual aspects of his theory. Corning explains that Darwin’s logic is
not centered on competition but on survival and reproduction, which could
require competition or cooperation depending on the exigencies of each
situation. Natural selection is not a mechanism but a metaphor, an ‘umbrella
term’ that encompasses all factors that lead to differential survival in a
given context, which may be one of cooperation or competition. The two are
commonly found in nature and both are essential to life, as means towards the
end of survival and not as ends in and of themselves.
Darwin himself fully appreciated the role of
cooperation and mutual service in nature and wrote:
“Animals of many kinds are social; we find even
distinct species living together; for example, some American monkeys; and
united flocks of rooks, jackdaws, and starlings… The most common mutual service
in the higher animals is to warn one another of danger by means of the united
senses of all… Social animals also perform many little services for each
other; horses nibble, and cows lick each other for external parasites… Animals
also render more important services to one another; thus wolves and some other
beasts of prey hunt in packs, and aid one another in attacking their victims.
Pelicans fish in concert. The Hamadryas baboons turn over stones to find
insects, etc.; and when they come to a large one, as many as can stand around,
turn it over together and share the booty. Social animals mutually defend each
other. Bull bison in North America, when there is danger, drive the cows and
calves into the middle of the herd, while they defend the outside…”
Even in human society, Darwin recognized the
importance of cooperation for survival and linked it to natural selection,
albeit in the context of inter-tribal conflict:
“A tribe including
many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism,
fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one
another, and to sacrifice for the common good, would be victorious over most
other tribes; and this would be natural selection.”[13]
Social
Darwinism as Legitimization for Laissez
Faire Policies
Does this mean that cooperation necessarily
predominates in all human societies? By no means. There is no theoretical or
empirical justification for such a statement. Karlberg clarifies:
“…assertions such as
these need not deny the existence of conflict and aggression in human
societies. Rather, human beings appear to have the developmental potential for
both conflict and cooperation. Which of these potentials is more fully realized
is largely a product of our cultural environment – as demonstrated by the fact
that different societies vary considerably in their expressions of conflict and
cooperation.”[14]
This brings us to the use of Social Darwinism as
scientific grounding for laissez faire
economic policies and the destabilizing extremes they lead to. It has served,
on the one hand, to legitimize the excessive accumulation of power and wealth
in the hands of a few and, on the other, to justify the extreme misery that the
masses have been allowed to suffer. However, this individualistic, competitive
interpretation is due to a gross misunderstanding of the implications of using
the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest as analogies for
social relations. Let us see why.
Redefining
Natural Selection and Fitness in Social Terms
The special ‘fitness’ of a genetic trait only leads to
evolution if it is able to reproduce and extend its benefits to an entire
species within a habitat, not merely produce short-term advantages for
individuals. For the analogy to follow, social ‘fitness’ cannot merely mean
progress for one organization, as some assume, but rather that the unique
features of an innovative social arrangement be recognized as exceptionally
beneficial for all and therefore widely replicated to enhance the wellbeing of
society as a whole. For example, for generations, many approaches have tried
and failed to alleviate poverty, but when Muhammad Yunus developed the
microfinance model, it spread like wildfire and changed the world in a few
years. Its true value was not that the Grameen Bank succeeded over and against
all others, but that the model itself ensured the success of thousands of
microfinance institutions and their customers.
However, the kinds of competitive advantages that many
relate to natural selection in the social world has little or nothing to do
with social, political or economic fitness. In today’s political arrangements,
parties tend to gain power through influences and artifices that are far
removed from the interests, wellbeing and progress of their constituencies.
Often government agencies and non-governmental organizations rise and fall due
to financial and/or political factors that have nothing to do with their
ability to meet the needs of society. Today’s economic system enables larger
companies to destroy or absorb smaller ones, even when the latter are better
positioned to respond favorably to the market. None of this has anything to do
with the fitness of an individual institution, let alone adding to that of
human society as a whole.
Social
Darwinism as an Excuse to Justify Inequalities
The fact is that natural selection and survival of the
fittest are not applied to the mighty––but only to the lowly structures–-and
then only as an excuse to let them perish. Social Darwinism is used as an
excuse to interpret patently unjust, detrimental situations as natural and
inevitable, as following the ‘laws of the universe’. When a large shoe industry
sets up a factory in a region and leaves hundreds of cobblers and their
families without their means of sustenance, it is said to be survival of the
fittest: that’s life; bad luck. After the economic melt-down of 2008, when some
of the largest US corporations were facing bankruptcy, instead of disappearing
they were salvaged by the government to the tune of billions of dollars, while
many thousands of small and medium size enterprises were abandoned to the ‘law
of the jungle’. If it were applied indiscriminately to all social
structures––large or small, strong or weak––many of those that are now immune
would promptly be discarded as unsuited to the current needs of society.
To give a few more examples, today’s global system of
production and consumption is rapidly depleting the very base of natural
resources on which its existence depends. The adversarial party system has
clearly fallen into political bankruptcy, and yet it is still implemented
because it serves the interests of the upper echelons of power. The growing
accumulation of wealth and power in fewer hands, generated by today’s brand of
industrial capitalism, dashes the hopes of billions of human beings around the
world, while dangerously destabilizing the already extreme volatility of the
global economy. These are clear proofs that other considerations are in play
that have nothing to do with natural selection, and that seriously endanger the
viability of the human race as a whole.
Social
Selection is Artificial, not Natural Selection
In reality, the process that is most applicable to
social phenomena is not natural selection, but artificial selection, an important
yet largely ignored concept in the “Origen of the Species”. Darwin begins the
book with this idea and gives it considerable attention in relation to the
development of several varieties of gooseberry. Artificial selection starts
when people select wild species of plants and animals that are best suited to
domestication, and continues through their subsequent selection of the best
specimens from each species for reproduction purposes. In this way, new
improved varieties are developed with desired features such as size,
productivity, resistance to disease or climate, etc.
In natural selection, changes are produced through
random genetic mutations, which require no decisions or actions on the part of
their beneficiaries. In artificial selection, however, change occurs as the
result of a conscious, deliberate choice. The structures of society need to be
carefully adjusted to changes in the social environment, in order to be
reproduced from one generation to the next and remain effective or ‘survive’.
Consumers consciously select products that best suit their needs, and companies
carefully adapt their offerings to market demands. Voters deliberately elect
candidates that best fit their concept of the ideal profile for each post,
while contestants adjust their image to what they think voters are looking for.
When societies finds that their systems and institutions no longer serve their
intended purposes, they discard them and replace them with others that are
better suited to their aspirations. This was the case of the Perestroika when
the Soviet Union abandoned central economic planning in favor of a
market-driven economy.
Artificial
Selection must be Rationalized for the Common Good
There is nothing natural, random or spontaneous in any
of these decisions; they are made consciously and implemented deliberately.
However, in an adversarial culture such as today’s, such decisions are often
made to further the vested interests of small power groups, which use the
pretense of ‘natural selection’ to convince the hapless masses that everything
is as it should be. If we were to act in a collectively rational way, as
artificial selection of the ‘fittest’ social arrangements requires, society’s
choices would be made with a view to the long-term wellbeing, not of small minorities,
not even of numerical majorities, but of the social system as a whole. The
historian Shoghi Effendi states the implications of this as follows:
“If long-cherished ideals and time-honored institutions, if certain
social assumptions and religious formulae have ceased to promote the welfare of
the generality of mankind, if they no longer minister to the needs of a
continually evolving humanity, let them be swept away and relegated to the
limbo of obsolescent and forgotten doctrines. Why should these, in a world
subject to the immutable law of change and decay, be exempt from the
deterioration that must needs overtake every human institution? For legal
standards, political and economic theories are solely designed to safeguard the
interests of humanity as a whole, and not humanity to be crucified for the
preservation of the integrity of any particular law or doctrine.”[15]
Conclusions
It is increasingly clear that conflict and aggression
no longer serve the interests of humanity – if indeed they ever did –, and that
cooperation and mutualism are what best serve our collective needs. Consequently,
there is no longer any reason to believe that competition, conflict, aggression,
and selfishness played a role in the survival of the human species, nor that
they prevailed in our evolution. Just as the ability to cooperate and help each
other has been necessary to reach this point in history, the future of humanity
will also depend on the prevalence of these characteristics, both individually
and collectively.
Notes:
[1] Universal House of Justice,
“The Promise of World Peace,” October 1985. Statement addressed to “the peoples
of the world” on the occasion of the International Year of Peace (1986).
[2] Lewontin, R.C: “Biology as Ideology - The Doctrine of DNA”.
New York: Harper-Collins Publishers, Inc., 1991, p. 10.
[3] UNESCO, "The Race
Question", 1950.
[4] UNESCO, "Declaration on
Race and Racial Prejudice", 1978.
[5] UNESCO, "Declaration of
Principles on Tolerance", 1995.
[6] UNESCO, Seville Statement
on Violence, Seville, Spain, on May 16, 1986, the International Year of Peace.
[7] Montagu,
A. On being human. New York:
Hawthorn, 1966.
[8] For example, see Leakey et
al. [1977], Bateson [1985] and Carothers [1989].
[9] Howell, Signe y Roy Willis, eds.
Societies at Peace:
Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 1989, pp. 1-2.
[10] Leakey, Richard, and Roger
Lewin. Origins: What New Discoveries
Reveal About the Emergence of Our Species. London: MacDonald and Jane’s,
1977, p. 209.
[11] Corning, Peter A. Institute
for the Study of Complex Systems. Lecture on “Cooperation in the Natural World”
at Cambridge University. URL: http://archive.org/details/HowardRheingoldIFTFStanfordHumanitiesLabPeterCorning.
[12] Ryan, Frank. “Darwin’s Blind
Spot: Evolution beyond Natural Selection”. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2002, pp.
15.24, 50–53, 84–97.
[13] Darwin, Charles. “The Descent
of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex”, 1871.
[14] Karlberg, Michael: “Beyond the
Culture of Contest – From Adversarialism to Mutualism in an Age of Interdependence”.
Oxford: George Ronald Publisher, 2004, p. 77.
[15] Effendi, Shoghi. “Call to the
Nations – Extracts from the Writings of Shoghi Effendi”. Universal House of
Justice, ed., 1977, p. 29.
No comments:
Post a Comment