1.3.1.1. Mythological Paradigm

Humans in primitive societies never doubted their belonging to the world of life that we call “the biosphere.” Hunter-gatherer bands, like communities of animals, formed part of natural ecosystems. Dances, rock art, and religious rites emphasized similar features of humans and animals. Moreover, animals were often regarded by humans as related to them. Legends about humans that could understand animal languages still exist in numerous human societies. People believed in totems—their mythological forefathers (animals, plants, or celestial bodies that were regarded as living things as well). Every living thing was thought to have its own spirit. Before hunting, for example, a bear, primitive inhabitants of the Arctic Region asked its spirit to forgive them. Myths about the creation of the world including life and humanity were centered on the activities of mystical heroes often having animal images. For instance, the duck called Luvr created the land amidst the primeval ocean according to the myths of some tribes in Northern Siberia.

Widespread in Ancient Egypt, India, and pre-classical Greece including the Creto-Minoan and the Mycenian cultures were biomorphic (resembling living things) mythological images. The cat-like goddess Bast(is) played a major part in the Egyptian pantheon. The Indian culture was characterized by a special protective attitude toward plants and animals that were regarded as sacred beings (as witnessed by the Ayurveda).

Cretan vases at the beginning of the second millennium B.C. were adorned with biomorphic and particularly zoomorphic (resembling, or related to, animals) images, such as octopi and other aquatic animals (Fig. 1.1). A large number of zoomorphic mythological personages were deified in the Mycenian epoch (the second half of the second millennium B.C.) and later incorporated in the pantheon of the Antique Greece. Myths involving biomorphic images in conjunction with empirical observations were subsequently rationalized and systematized, providing the foundations for the first scientific theories based on the natural-philosophy paradigm.

Historically, natural philosophy can be considered a result of ancient mythology, a result of reformulating mythological ideas in logical terms. Despite the differences among various natural-philosophy theories developed in Greece, Rome, the Medieval and Renaissance Europe, the Middle East, India, and China, natural philosophy was informed by common basic ideas emphasizing the central role of life in the world. From the natural-philosophy viewpoint, the whole Universe was based upon unitary principles. In Ancient Greece, most philosophers believed that the four primary elements—Fire, Water, Air, and Earth—combined to form any living or non-living object. They were related to the four fluids of the human organism (blood, lymph/phlegm, bile, and “black bile”) as well as to the four human temperaments (the sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric, and melancholic, respectively). The life of humans and animals (plants, etc.) was believed to be based on the same universal principles/elements and, therefore, a researcher was actually similar to the living being he studied.

Natural philosophy prepared the ground for scientific ideas that are to be considered “pre-biopolitical” in retrospect. The natural-philosophy concept of a coherent, homogenous, life-imbued Universe encouraged scholars to draw analogies between humans and other living beings. In the sixth century B.C., Ionian philosophers in Greece saw no principal differences between animal and human souls. Heraclites (Heraclitus) only admitted that an animal soul was more “humid” and, therefore, compared it to the soul of an alcoholic that was “moistened” with wine. As early as in antiquity, the concept of “man’s biological nature” was invoked to justify social inequality. Slaves were thought to be “naturally” predisposed to perform their functions. Specific female roles in society were also attributed to natural peculiarities of women supposed to be mentally retarded to some extent.

Comparisons between human and animal behavior as well as anthropomorphic images of animals were characteristic of works by Democritus, Epicures, Lucretius, Plutarch, and some neo-Platonists (e.g., Porphyrus).

Nevertheless, another antique trend of thought emphasized the differences between animals driven by instincts (ήand humans endowed with a reasonable soul. These views were, for example, adopted by the Stoics. This trend in philosophy and science provided a conceptual basis for medieval theology that contrasted humans, having immortal souls, with other creatures.

Aristotle already acknowledged the difference between humans possessing “reasonable souls” and animals endowed only with “vegetative” and “sensitive” souls. However, Aristotle also emphasized human-animal similarities, particularly in terms of social organization. His term “political animals” () referred, apart from human beings, to social insects and birds that also cooperate in order to do collective work. Aristotle pointed out that some “political animals” have leaders in their groups, while others are “leaderless.” Interestingly, this point has been recently re-emphasized by ethologists and biopoliticians who discuss hierarchical and non-hierarchical structures in animal and human societies (see Chapter 3).

Importantly, Aristotle’s opinion on this and many other subjects, along with the views held by Plato, Hippocrates, Galen, and Plinius, was generally accepted in European and Middle East countries in the Middle Ages and went unchallenged for more than a millennium. This increased the stability and durability of the whole natural-philosophy paradigm.

Natural philosophy adherents of various historical periods emphasized similarities between biological and political systems. The state was compared to a living organism and social classes to its organs. The slaves were called the “hands” of the state “organism,” and its supreme ruler was its “head.” The rich and non-productive social classes were considered the “stomach.” There are ancient fables that stress the interdependence of the “organs” of the state. In one of the fables, the “hands” refused to work for the “stomach” and died together with it.

The idea that the state is an analog of a living organism is still supported by some schools in political science and sociology (see, e.g., Franchuk, 2005).