The Human Predicament Cycle as Evidenced by Babies

When I was teaching American Heritage, we taught a political science concept called the Human Predicament Cycle.  This is the idea that most of human history, with some notable exceptions, has fluctuated between periods of tyranny and anarchy.  It also hypothesizes that, given the choice between the two, most humans would readily pick tyranny over anarchy.  Tyranny is the proverbial devil you know, whereas anarchy is just unstable and unpredictable, and we'd rather be oppressed the same way everyday rather than not knowing who would oppress you tomorrow and how.

Eventually, according to the Human Predicament Cycle, those under tyranny will forget that that was their compromise for stability and revolt.  This revolution will usually devolve into anarchy.  This power vacuum will bring competing groups, all grabbing for the power in the power vacuum.  Then, a competing group will come up and a tyrant.  This is why most revolutions to leave tyranny end up back where they started: with a tyrant.  The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, most of the Arab Spring Revolutions, etc.  This isn't always true.  Most stable nations today are in neither tyranny nor anarchy, and that, according to political scientists, is because they experience a founding, which is a deliberate act to create a fair, agreed-upon government.  Usually this government has some sort of democratic element, even if it remains a monarchy, but not always.

Anyways, I introduce this to everyone because of my experience with babies this week.  I learned that babies are interesting creatures.  So, I went up to the nursery on Monday to stab the babies.  On their heels.  For blood collection purposes.  Don't worry, I don't just stab babies for fun.  Anyways, I was thinking that the babies would scream and cry lots.  But I was kind of surprised.  The majority of the babies didn't mind being stabbed on their heels.  They would pull their foot back when I put the alcohol on it (because it's cold!), and they would scrunch up their faces when I pushed the lancet.  But then most just sat there happily while I milked the blood from their foot.  At least until I tried to put their foot on the little filter-paper circles that you have to soak in blood for newborn screening.  That's when they cried.  Because they didn't like me controlling their foot.

It's this weird thing with babies.  Because they like to be secure.  AKA they prefer tyranny to anarchy.  They aren't ready for modern liberty.  They still need the security of being swaddled.  This is why when we heel stick them, we unwrap them, pull their foot out of the blankets and then rewrap the blankets with just their foot sticking out.  It makes them uncomfortable to not be restricted and then they cry.  But then, when the tyranny gets too extreme (like trying to put their heel in the little filter-paper-PKU-testing squares), then they want to revolt.  And then they devolve into anarchy and there's blood all over the screening card, there are the competing groups fighting for power in this situation (you and the baby) and then when you're done, you wrap them back up in the blankets and they calm down.  Because though they were fighting for the control of their own foot, they like it being bound to the other foot by receiving blankets better than feeling like it's just waving out there with no control at all.

Comments

Amy R said…
Interesting analogy. Your mind works in fascinating ways.

Popular posts from this blog

Over-analyzing Disney Movies: The Little Mermaid--Why Eric is White.

Derevaun Seraun! Derevaun Seraun!

What does it mean to be a Russell?