INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIETY
A Study in Thought
sa023
by
Marius Heuff
Chapter 1
Content
Man's individuality versus the requirements for social cohesion.
Biological origins of social behaviour.
The less obvious mechanisms necessary for social cohesion in the larger human societies.
The tensions between culturally transmitted belief patterns and actual experiences.
Growth processes in a social environment.
Man is an individually existing entity, if we emphasise the independent mobility
of his organic structure, but, in the light of his behavioural totality,
man is clearly woven into a complex web of interdependencies with other human
beings. The varying and contrasting needs of human existence are reflected
in a variety of conflicting trends. On the one hand, there is always a strong
tendency to rely, increasingly, upon successful interdependencies, (because
existence becomes, then, so much easier), but, the inevitable vulnerability
associated with interdependence, together with the conflicts of interest
and competitive drives of interdependent members, tend to inhibit this trend.
Yet, the struggle between these opposing trends lies at the core of our awareness
of individual existence, and, it provides the foundation for a development
of individualised differentiation.
We have tried to understand ourselves in many different ways, and, our artists
and thinkers have always focussed, either intuitively, or consciously, upon
these contrasting human tendencies. These contradictory trends are a source
of numerous tensions and conflicts, as well as the foundation for achievements
and aspirations. Let us try, perhaps, in vain, to trace a more intellectual
perspective for understanding these contradictory aspects of human existence.
Let us sketch a point of view, that explains the amazing range of predictable
and unpredictable behavioural characteristics of the species of mankind.
From our studies of the evolution of life, we have learned to see, that the
processes of cooperation and interdependence between members of the same
species, serve a clear-cut existential need. Social interaction is, not only,
essential for the continuation of a species by providing an avenue for sexual
contact, but, in many species', evolutionary pressures shaped a complex behaviour
of social inter-actions between the members of a small group. This trend
indicates a continuing search by the mechanisms of natural selection for
this elusive quality of security and viability. Viability is accomplished
by an ever more efficient adaptation of the living organism to environmental
pressures. In other words; socialisation, or, rather, secondary social
integration represents one of the many searches for viability carried-out
by the forces of natural selection during the exploration of possibilities
of existence.
The biological origins of the social relationships in a herd of grazing animals,
or a group of socially integrated anthropoids, point to the fact, that such
inter-actions should have a clear-cut existential advantage, and, we have
no reason to doubt, that this biological heritage, this ability to cooperate
and form bonds of social interdependence is shared by the human species as
well. Who will doubt, that the tendency for man to cling together in small
groups, is genetically encoded? This trend reflects the experiences of countless
generations of human beings, that an effective grouping and working together
of vulnerable members would, indeed, increase the existential security of
all the members.
However, an application of this simple criterium of viability through cooperation
to the larger human society, is not immediately relevant, especially, when
we observe and describe our awarenesses and experiences from a vantage-point,
where we find ourselves existing somewhere within such a large social
environment. The society we find ourselves in may be so complex, so confusing,
and, the relationships with our relatives, friends and neighbours may be
so diverse, so guided by contradictory trends and desires, that we rarely
perceive, with any degree of clarity, the basic biological reasons for the
existing social order.
In fact, we often argue, with a remarkable degree of justification, that
our existence in the particular social circumstances we happen to find ourselves
in, is far from being beneficial to us, nor, is it beneficial to the smaller
sub-grouping we belong to or identify with. We experience the existence of
our social relationships, so often, as a hindrance, as an obstacle, or, as
an object for contempt and rebellion, that the idea of an existential need
as the reason for social order, becomes an alien concept. It becomes an idea
that is not applicable to the larger societies of mankind, because this notion
is directly contradicted by our immediate experiences.
What, then, are the reasons, that the social organisation of the human species
leads, so often, to feelings of oppression and alienation, rather than a
deep sense of belonging and gratitude? Yet, even the most ardent revolutionary,
who would give his life in a fight against the established social order,
has beneficial relationships with his family and friends within his small
social sub-grouping. We also know, now, that this complex social order must
have been of some benefit to a significant proportion of the people, at some
time in the past, in spite of the fact, that a social order has often been
forged by conquest and brute force. No social order exists for any length
of time, if the great majority does not find something of value in it.
On previous occasions, we have discussed the concept, that man reacts, not
only, according to physiological mechanisms, (just like any other animal),
but, one of the cardinal characteristics of the human species is the development
of a belief structure that is shared by a socially integrated grouping of
human beings. The members of a social environment are, therefore, guided,
to a large extent, by their common structures of belief, which circulate
among the members of such a social grouping as highly valued, sacred beliefs
and ultimate truths.
We have also discussed the idea, that these belief structures take time to
develop. They are slowly forged by the shared experiences and common attitudes
of the members, and, these ideas tend to lag, therefore, behind changing
circumstances. In short, we have argued, that the cultural code of ideas
and beliefs is a result of proven attitudes and opinions of the past, and,
we know, now, that there is always some sort of conflict-situation between
the cultural guidelines and beliefs of a social environment, and, the actual,
contemporary experiences of the living generations.
These discrepancies between beliefs and experiences place a strain on the
form and content of every culture, and these discrepancies transform its
contents slowly but surely. These stresses provide the drive towards changes
in beliefs and ways of doing things, but, the mechanisms whereby the cultural
content of a society adapts to the changing needs and circumstances of the
living generations, vary remarkably from one culture to the next. A very
quick process of cultural change leads, often, to confusion, because too
many guidance-patterns disappear at the same time, and, a profusion of cultural
experiments lacks nearly always a sufficient measure of cohesion, but, a
very rigid and slowly changing cultural code will lead to a staggering
discrepancy between cultural content and its relevance for the contemporary
generations.
During its formative period, a society develops, gradually and virtually
imperceptibly, (especially, for those who live in a particular social
environment), a cultural repertoir of ideas, practices, customs and guidance
structures. These cultural guidance-patterns are, occasionally, extra-ordinarily
successful and may transform a social environment into a vital, bustling
and confident social entity that is, inevitably, expanding and dominating
the surrounding territories and their peoples.
The usefulness and success of these cultural guidance-patterns and
belief-structures re-enforce their validity, and, they become quickly rigid
and sacred. This period in the life-cycle of a culture, corresponds with
the age of maturity. However, quick social growth always leads to quickly
changing internal and external circumstances. The cultural guidance-patterns
acquire ever more prestige, and become enshrined in a rigid ritual. However,
the comprehension and relevance of these rituals fade quickly into slovenly
imitations. Discrepancies and tensions build-up, as the affluence of a successful
society leads to boredom and egocentric attitudes, and, only the veneer of
a common culture remains as a scaffold for social unity.
Decline sets-in, imperceptibly at first, but, we have to realise, that the
mechanisms of youth, vigour, growth, maturity and decline, only describe
an overall process that is characteristic for every living organisation.
These periods are often interrupted by temporary reversals of the general
trend. Growth may be interrrupted by set-backs, and, decline may be halted
by several rallies and rejuvenations, but, eventually, the cycle of birth,
growth, maturation and decline, will be completed.
This is a re-statement of the concept that a society behaves, indeed, like
a living organism, and, we have emphasised, once again, the importance of
cultural guidelines in regulating human relationships. The similarities between
our biological heritage and the remarkable variety of cultural guidance-patterns
should provide us with a useful view in our efforts to grasp, once again,
the essence of being human.
.......
Chapter 2
Content
A comparison of our experiences and insights in social development with the processes of individualisation.
The evolution of identity feelings, and the search for individuality.
Communications and the sense of individuality.
The problem of relevance.
The factors and mechanisms we have mentioned in the previous chapter, will
become meaningful, whenever we focus upon the main question in this discussion.
The main question reflects the problems involved when trying to relate the
diverging trends of individualisation and social integration to each other,
and, we hope to show, convincingly, that we are not dealing, here, with an
inevitable trade-off or compromise. We hope to show, that human individuality
and awareness find their roots and origins in a social context, and, we hope
to make it plausible, why a vibrant and harmonious social environment is
impossible without a sufficient awareness, and experience, of individual
dignity and essence.
If we can demonstrate that these apparently contradictory trends are, indeed,
only apparent contradictions, (but represent, in reality, complementary searches
for the fulfilment of existential security and the unfolding of potentials),
we may facilitate, to a remarkable extent, the construction of a useful and
comprehensive mental imagery of human existence. We would, once again, further
the cause of understanding, which is, so often, the dissolution of apparent
contradictions into a harmonious co-existence of many different factors on
a different plane of perception.
If we could show, that both trends are, not only, necessary, but essential
in the full actualisation of our human potential, we may, also, strike a
chord in our continuing search for individual happiness. If we learn to avoid
emphasising the mechanisms of polarisation, pitting one trend against the
other, we may be able to see the interdependence and complementary nature
of these trends. We may come to the conclusion, that social integration is
not possible without a shell of privacy and individuality, and, we may also
appreciate the fact, that the search for individual meaning ends, inevitably,
in a social concept or context. This is the task we have before us, and,
we hope, that it is possible to shed some light upon these complex topics
and crucially important awarenesses and emotions.
Let us start with an analysis of the trend towards personal identity-feelings,
or, the awareness of a process of differentiation or individualisation. It
is, probably, fair to say, that an awareness of existing, somewhere, on earth;
of existing somewhere, as an individual member of a particular social
environment, reflects the beginning of a sense of individuality. We suddenly
become aware of our own existence as an individual entity, and, the ability
to see ourselves as an object of observation, leads, naturally, to the common
questions of reflective insight; who am I, what is life, what is our purpose
in life, etc. These questions indicate a slight and largely intuitive urge
to wonder, and, they indicate, also, a certain subconscious dissatisfaction
with the traditional answers and interpretations of our culture, including
the contents of its reality explanations.
We have a tendency to forget in our search for satisfying answers, that we
all grow-up in an environment where these questions have been answered, and,
our first task should be to determine, exactly, why we have difficulties
believing in the traditional answers. Sometimes, there is a profusion of
religious and philosophical or political view-points in our social surroundings,
and, we want to make a choice from the many inconsistent and contradictory
interpretations available to us. Our culture may have become irrelevant or
confusing, and, we want to sharpen our convictions and beliefs. Therefore,
this process of awakening; this search for personal meaning; this desire
to reflect, is, in itself, a reflection of this tension we discussed before;
the tension between our actual experiences, and, the cultural content and
guidance-patterns of the society we live in.
Every cultural transformation, change or renewal is born out of this tension,
and, the search for meaning is carried-out by a variety of people, throughout
many segments of the social environment. Our search for meaning forms a dialogue;
either, with a group of likeminded people, or, a dialogue with ourselves,
as we think and read. The notions, ideas, reflections and thoughts ferment
slowly, and, occasionally, they become the origin for a beautifully expressed,
coherent view-point. Often, the fermenting mixture of thoughts and sense
impressions becomes rather stale, as we grow older and lose our zest to find
real meaningful answers.
The process of individualisation is, therefore, a process where we become
somewhat different from the rest of society, but, eventually, we have to
make a contribution to the culture of our society, if the products of our
fermenting and individualising mind are to find a measure of viability; if
not, these tentative ideas and notions will die with us.
Individualisation means, therefore, a re-examination of existing cultural
guidelines, and, a renewed, heightened awareness of our cultural heritage
may provide a fresh re-interpretation of values that became stifled through
a loss of meaning. Therefore, reflection and re-interpretation are the foundation
for a continuing adaptation and rejuvenation of a viable cultural code.
The search for personal meaning and identity comes back to the need for relevant
belief structures, which are partially well-established, partially newly
re-interpreted, and, partially, new elements taken-over from other societies,
but, as always, the significance of an individualised search for meaning
or identity, is, ultimately, determined by the response from others. This
response may not have to come from the same social environment or from the
same generation. If the search and its products are recognised as valid,
they will find, increasingly, a measure of recognition and responsiveness,
and, we see, then, that an essentially artistic type of evaluation determines
the value of the search for our individual identity.
I can see your eyes light-up. "You are making a mistake", you say to me,
"because you confuse the need to be relevant as an artist with the privilege
of being just yourself, when we search for the personal meaning of our existence
and identity. What does it matter, whether someone else agrees with the way
I find meaning in life? Is this not one of the glories of our human rights;
to find meaning and happiness the way we like it, regardless, whether or
not it pleases someone else"?
Yet, such an attitude or conclusion is not quite justified, and, it reflects
our somewhat romantic worship of a misunderstood essence of individuality.
Certainly, it is attractive for many of us to seek happiness in a remarkably
individualistic way of life, and, to search for a very personal meaning of
our existence, but, if an individual thinks that he or she has finally found
happiness or meaning, then, there is always this over-powering need to share
this find with others, or, to proclaim a conviction in a life-style that
is convincing because of its tenacious persistance with a relevant
stance.
It is unlikely, that anyone can experience a sense of genuine happiness,
or find a wholly satisfying meaning for individual existence, without feeling
the need to communicate this sense of harmony to others, even, if this
communication takes place in the form of a non-verbal attitude, or a prayer
to one's God. The question arises; why is there such a need to communicate?
Why do we want to communicate? Is happiness simply an emotional state that
wants to be communicated or expressed in one way or another? Are all emotions
communicated? Why are emotions expressed? Do we have to share emotions of
guilt or sadness, as well as those of happiness and quiet understanding?
We have defined an emotion as the psychological equivalent, or the
psychologically experienced sensation accompanying a behaviour-pattern that
is based upon a reaction to existentially significant stimuli or circumstances.
These behaviour-patterns have been inherited as part of our biological endowment,
but, at least, in the human being, these patterns are all modified and influenced
by cultural factors that have been absorbed from the social environment.
This explains, why emotions are being communicated, and, why we have an urge
to do so, but, in order to feel happy or satisfied, we have to know, whether
or not something is of value. How do we know that an experience or a find
is valuable to us? Certainly, we could rely entirely upon our own experience
and evaluation, but such a confidence and independence of the mind is
exceptional.
If we find or make a tool that allows us to gain some kind of an advantage,
we may be reluctant to share this tool or knowledge with others out of fear
that we may lose the advantage, but, in order to experience this anxiety
that someone else may want to use or steal our tool, we have already accepted,
tacitly, the conclusion, that the tool or find which is valuable to me, will
be equally valuable to others.
The same considerations apply to all our value-judgements, because very few
of us could function harmoniously, if our value-judgements would be completely
different from the people around us. We all share, regardless, how
individualistic some of us are, in the reality perceptions of our culture,
and, these reality perceptions include, quite often, a series of
value-judgements.
Individualism, therefore, becomes meaningless, even to the most ardent
individualist, if we lose the criteria of value or relevance, which are
essentially determined by an agreement with other people. The process of
individualisation does not mean, that we try to construct an entirely
individualised and arbitrary value-judgement or belief structure, with relevance
only for one individual. Individualisation means, that we are trying to give
a new, more intense and better understood meaning to a set of awarenesses
and values, which are commonly accepted throughout the community. These
awarenesses have been worn thin of understanding and appreciation by thoughtless
use and slovenly imitation.
In our efforts to become an individualised member of our society, we do not
search for entirely new modes of existence or perceiving reality, but, we
try to find new relevance in the cultural currency of our social environment.
We try to give new life to well-worn concepts through our own experiences,
as we try to reconcile the many discrepancies between our actual experiences
and the traditional values and beliefs of our cultural environment.
After all, we search for our individual meaning with tools and ideas taken-over
from the cultural pool. In searching for our meaning and individuality, we
try, with a personal effort, to renew or increase the relevance of the somewhat
tired, somewhat incomprehensible cultural symbols. We remain part of our
social environment, even, if we act or react against a commonly accepted
interpretation or meaning, and our validity is tied-in with a measure of
recognition given to our ideas by others.
Some of us may happen to exist in a state of "existential isolationism",
where we can afford to exist aloof and unconcerned about other people, but,
we conveniently forget, that we still count on the continuing tolerance of
society to allow us our aloofness and exclusivity, and, we also count on
a scrupulous maintenance of our individual rights by the rest of society,
while we seem unconcerned to make any contribution to the social environment.
Obviously, an aloof and elitist attitude is parasitic and exploitative,
regardless of the status of financial independence we may be able to
enjoy.
All forms of radical individualism that deny any allegiance to society, or,
which deny the need to be meaningful to others, slides into an autistic
incomprehensibility, indistinguishable from madness and utter uselessness.
The salvation of such eccentric behaviour may be the recognition, by a future
generation, that, at least, some of the fruits of such behaviour-patterns
are relevant after all, and, this accounts for the fact, that we may recognise,
at the present time, certain people as relevant artists, who led during their
lifetime an existence that was considered to be merely a mental
aberration.
If absolute individualism turns-out to be a romantic fantasy, an entity of
non-existence that is a remnant from a vaguely delineated dream-world, we
should go back to a previously elaborated definition of knowledge and awareness,
where, in the light of a biological interpretation of human existence, we
see, that the origins of awarenesses and conceptualised ideas go back to
the act of communication itself. Our ability to distinguish between true
and false, depends, entirely, on this act of communication and the level
of consensus that has been established amongst ourselves.
If we feel somewhat disappointed about the limited degree of individualisation
that seems possible, before losing all meaning, we may be consoled by the
fact, that the degree of congruence required between individual and social
environment, is much less than we commonly believe to be necessary for a
state of social harmony. While we can not become as different from each other
as some of us would like, we do not have to be as similar as many of us think
necessary.
.......
Chapter 3
Content
Cooperation, happiness and emotional synchrony.
The development of the child, and the role of trust.
The requirements of mutual trust.
The generally rigid beliefs and guidelines of the small social grouping.
Mechanisms of adolescence.
Levels of tension between the individual and the social surroundings.
Let us analyse, then, how individuality acquires meaning in relation to other
people; how happiness is a state of the mind depending on trust and cooperation;
how the meaning of life always seems to come back upon the making of a
contribution.
Happiness is not a sentimental affection between two people, because the
sugary sweetness of sentimentality is, so often, merely a cloak to hide
contradictory, or, even, spiteful attitudes. The individual with a somewhat
widened intellectual and emotional horizon experiences his meaning in being
an integral part of a much larger entity, whose nature and essence is largely
beyond his grasp. Indeed, man has always been inclined to acknowledge his
belonging to a larger entity in an act of reverent submission to the Awe
of God's Greatness.
We all are born, so totally helpless, so totally dependent upon parental
care for our very survival. A few years will have gone by, before we even
realise the existence of ourselves as a separate entity; as an individual,
able to initiate certain actions; to experience certain desires and to call
ourselves by our name. Later, we will abstract the ability to call ourselves
in the general designation of "I"; an ability we all share as human beings.
In these initial phases of our existence, our dependence is so complete,
and our reliance upon our parents or guardians is so great, so completely
taken for granted, that we can not even speak of trust. In the act of placing
trust, we imply a deliberate, if subconscious act of reliance upon others,
and, it is remarkable, how we become, throughout our formative years,
increasingly aware of the need, and the desire, to rely upon others in an
act of trust.
As early as we can remember, we learn that certain forms of behaviour are
appreciated, while others are frowned-upon, and, in this way, we learn, mostly
subconsciously, to adapt our behaviour in such a way, that we feel satisfied
and content. We learn what is right and wrong, and, we learn to emulate highly
esteemed and virtuous examples of behaviour, which become, by and large,
the basis for our goal-patterns and our ability to identify with certain
people. We identify with our hero or ideal, and, this provides us with a
beacon in our efforts to realise our dreams. Our cultural environment provides
us with our goals and ideas, and helps to shape our behaviour-patterns. This
guidance-function of our culture is similar to the guidance-function of the
genetic code. As human beings, we are a specific example, as well as a particular
result of the complex inter-actions between these two codes.
It is important to remember, that we start our lives in a state of complete
dependence, and, that we become slowly aware of ourselves as living organisms,
who are not always in tune with the way our environment wishes us to be.
We learn to become more selective with our attitudes of trust, because we
know, that our dependence upon others may not always benefit us. We know,
that we may be exploited by other people for their own benefit. Throughout
our formative years, our position of nearly complete and unquestioned dependence
changes into a greater selectivity and awareness about the time and place,
where we may place our trust confidently, and, where we have to be
cautious.
As parental protection is gradually withdrawn, we learn to stand on our own
feet, and we learn to initiate a course of action that may bring the results
we want. We realise, with increasing clarity, that we can not remain completely
and passively dependent upon others for the fulfilment of our needs. This
process reflects a clear-cut biological program of genetically endowed
instructions, because parental care provides only a temporary shelter. Of
course, any organism will instinctively try to prolong such an easy and
beneficial situation as long as possible, and children will not hesitate
to exploit immediately any reluctance on the part of their parents to push
them into a state of responsibility and independence.
There is, therefore, a natural, genetically endowed basis for adaptations
to the continuous changes in relationships and attitudes that are taking
place, especially, during the period of maturation, but, in the human society,
we see, also, a strong input from the cultural code, which influences behaviour
by influencing value-judgements and belief-patterns, while the individual
member searches for his place in society.
Culturally determined values and beliefs are commonly shared but largely
unquestioned tools with which the individual begins to assert himself, while
he learns to classify his experiences in commonly accepted categories. Just
as the biologically given commonly shared reaction-patterns of the animal
become a repertoir of characteristic traits, (shared with the other members
of the species), the small, closed and isolated but homogenous society of
human beings shares with its members an unquestioned and rather rigid heritage
of cultural values and belief-patterns, which is not shared in exactly the
same way by any other grouping or culture.
Trust is a natural attitude of the healthy and well-developing youngster,
and, the deliberate act of placing trust represents an important stage in
the process of individualisation. Prior to this deliberate act of placing
trust, there was only an absolute and subconscious dependence upon the
environment, and, deliberate trust evolves from this stage of complete dependence
to a carefully selected and balanced act of trusting other people. Trust
is the norm, however, and the members of society demand instinctively from
each other a measure of trust in exchange for the trust that is being given.
Trust that is not being reciprocated, turns, quickly, into suspicion, and,
this is a logical course of events, because the act of trust implies an attitude
that leaves an individual somewhat vulnerable, especially, if the anticipated
behaviour of reciprocated trust is not forth-coming.
Trust has to be mutual. It has to be a mutually agreed-upon pact which is
closed intuitively or subconsciously, and, it is clear, why the extremely
defensive, mistrusting individual becomes, quickly, a social outcast. However,
we have to realise, that such an abnormal behaviour is the result of an
unfortunate or, even, lethal emotional deprivation during the formative years,
where an insufficient degree of protection and stimulation evaporates, quickly,
the ability to be trustful and dependent.
In the smaller community, the goal-patterns and attitudes tend to become
rather absolute, and, they are less flexible or amenable to questions and
scrutiny compared to the much larger social entities. The bonds of mutual
trust have to be strong, and, any deviation from the common path is looked
upon with a great deal of suspicion. The mechanisms of individualisation
are nearly impossible under such circumstances.
A strong submission to the absolute values of the local group may, at times,
be felt as restrictive by a perceptive member. It may be felt as a hindrance
to personal freedom, but, far more often, such thoughts or feelings are
suppressed by a guilty conscience as "evil", unbecoming or cowardly. This
conscience may be so strong, that it negates all feelings or tendencies to
self-preservation in an attitude of courageous heroism, which is, in essence,
a behaviour that is motivated by the anxiety not to deviate from the rest
of the group.
It is not surprising, that such attidues are not associated with a liberal,
philosophical and relativistic point of view. Such strong and rigid cultural
guidance-patterns may be extremely useful for short periods of time, but
the demands of mutual trust and loyalty require a large amount of energy
and a strong will to suppress any tendency towards diverging trends. Yet,
such a strong need for social cohesion may not last long without some degree
of mutual concern, and, we see, indeed, how a member of a strongly integrated
grouping, like a well-adjusted adolescent, needs the stimulating company
of his friends, where he can enjoy the rapid communications and understanding
that comes with a closely-knit social grouping.
A shared cultural background and an openness in attitudes facilitate the
processes of understanding to the point, that a glance or gesture is sufficient
to evoke a quick-witted response. We see, how this stimulating atmosphere
of mutual trust and loyalty, shared goal-patterns and synchronised emotions,
leads, quickly, to an ebullient over-confidence, where the adolescent tests,
continuously, the limits to which his social environment will tolerate the
effervescent pranks and mischief of a healthy elan vital. There can be little
doubt, that we would not be able to mature into an adult human being without
having shared, to some extent, the sensations of mutual trust and friendship
with other people.
Quite true, the situation is, often, far from ideal for the youngster, and,
we have good reasons to believe, that a youngster would benefit from experiencing
a slight tension between himself and his social environment. He will then
be encouraged to reflect upon the nature of this tension, and, he will be
able to recognise similar tensions between other people and their social
environment. He will be less likely to condemn glibly and despise anyone,
who does not seem to fit-in with a particular social code, and, he will begin
to realise that a social code is, after all, a rather arbitrary guidance-patterns
for socially integrated behaviour.
Those, who grow-up within a very smooth atmosphere of social relationships,
are never able to see the world beyond their immediate cultural horizon,
but, those, who grow-up under a severe strain, run the risk of becoming
psychopathic, irrelevant and sickly individuals; distrustful and misanthropic.
Occasionally, an individual, who survives in spite of a high level of tension
between himself and his environment, may become, largely by an accident of
history, a valuable sounding board for the thoughts, aspirations or sentiments
of his social environment; the hall-mark of a genuine artist.
People, without any significant experience of social tensions, will never
develop the sensitivity and insight necessary to reflect, genuinely and
precisely, the experiences and feelings of those who are miserable, but these
low-tension individuals may well remain the basic strength of a viable existence;
this remarkable human trait of resilience and decency, which emerges miraculously
after devastating strife, turmoil and destruction. High-tension individuals
may totter on the brink between genius and insanity; a barely perceptible
difference in judgment, that is based, solely, on the criteria of relevance.
If the works of a high-tension individual become relevant, these works will
be admired, and the individual will be considered a creative genius, but,
if the expressions remain clinically isolated as the work of an impenetrable
individualist, he is kindly forgotten as a lunatic.
While mutual trust, loyalty and involvement with a common cause may reach
extreme limits, (especially, if a small community is subjected to severe
stress, transcending the concerns for individual safety and existence), it
is far more common to see a rather fluid transition between trends that emphasise
cohesion, and, those that allow divergence and individualisation. This more
common feature indicates that fluidity is, by and large, a more valuable
and more viable attitude than the extreme rigidity and cohesive strength
required on special occasions and under special circumstances.
The level of cohesion, as well as the degree of individualisation, are factors
that may enchance security, and, we have seen, how often a dense population
concentration, resulting from such a status of enhanced security, gives a
powerful and dominant segment the chance to exploit a majority of the people
by force, leading to resentment and hatred, destroying, eventually, the last
remnants of social cohesion and exploding, then, into a violent rebellion.
But, we have also seen, how an individualistic indulgence saps the meaning
of coherence by the emergence of the instincts of opportunism. Either trend
may be highly disruptive, and, each one of these contradictory trends may
also make a valuable contribution to the stability of the social
environment.
.......
Chapter 4
Content
The role of belief structures in attitudes and relationships.
Pacifist attitudes, and the factor of compassionate understanding.
Humility and pseudo-humility.
Bonding processes; the sexual drive, parental care and the deliberate bonding on the basis of a belief.
Relationships between a judgement of the self and social inter-actions.
Muted aggression, mellowing wisdom, and the faculty of compassionate understanding.
So far, we have been considering, primarily, the overall mechanisms of bonding
and individualisation that are playing a role in social cohesion and personal
differentiation. Let us look, now, at the more complex and sophisticated
motivations that make the attitudes of people towards each other such a
fascinating and ever-varying kaleidoscope of surprising twists and
turns.
First of all, let us look at the individual who sees the meaning of his existence
increasingly in terms of a willed, conscious effort to belong to society
and to contribute to it. We should, also, consider this remarkable inversion
of the natural search for dominance, when we see, suddenly, a search for
humility and a lowly position on the hierarchical scale. By refusing, suddenly
and deliberately, to exhibit the expected resistance and defensiveness to
an attitude of challenge or anger, we see a subtle but powerful weapon of
confusion and defusion, when the intuitively expected behavioural response
is found to be absent, or, even, completely inverted.
The consequences of such a dramatic change in attitudes during the natural
course of events in a conflict-situation, are remarkable, especially, when
the source of energy igniting the flames of belligerence has suddenly been
smothered by the softness of a humble attitude. Yet, the motivations, emotions
and attitudes are complex, and humility may slide, imperceptibly, into an
attitude of pseudo-humility, where the initial defusion of the conflict turns-out
to be nothing more than a temporary delay in an even more violent
explosion.
The attitude of humility is indeed complex, and, before we can begin to
understand the rationale for loving our enemies, we should, again, review
the reasons for loving our friends, and taking care of our offspring and
relatives. There are three categories of behaviour that constitute, together,
the processes of binding people together in a bond of attraction, mutual
concern or understanding. The oldest bond, in evolutionary terms, and,
biologically, the most precise and energetic type of bonding, takes place
under the promptings of the sexual drive. We have discussed, before, how,
and why, this type of biological bonding is based upon the egocentric
satisfaction of an inborn instinct; in other words, nature "bribes" the
individual members of a species with a strong pleasure and urge to carry-out
the temporary bonding of the sexual act for the sake of the continuity of
the species.
The ultimate objective of nature to search for the viability of a species
or gene-pool, transcends, completely, the awareness of the individual members,
and, their behaviour is, therefore, in essence, an instinctive, will-less
act in the play of nature. The sexual drive remains an important part in
the emotional spectrum of the human being, and, we will come back upon these
aspects, when we see, that, many forms of bonding between human beings are
based upon the demands or expectations of egocentric satisfactions.
The second form of bonding between the individual members of a species comes
to the fore in the behaviourally flexible animals, where the gain in individual
adaptability, flowing from the faculty of behavioural flexibility, means,
that the younger generations have to rely, increasingly, upon learned
behaviour-patterns. Most of these learned behaviour-patterns are acquired
from the parents through the mechanisms of imitation, and, these acquired
behaviour-patterns are essential in the search for survival. The attitudes
of parental care have been sharpened, genetically, into the adult generations,
and these attitudes are brought to the fore by the presence of newly born
offspring.
The human equivalent may be seen in our emotional responses, as well as the
inborn trend to help and protect the helpless individual. If this helpless
individual is our own offspring, the response is even more clearly biologically
programmed. There must be a feeling, or emotion, that is felt as pleasurable
or beneficial, when we give-in to an urge to protect and care for those in
need, and, we feel, indeed, a strong and pleasant emotional surge, when we
give-in to our instinctive desire to help.
In both types of bonding, the bond of sexual attraction and the instinct
of parental care, we see, that the attitude of trust plays an important role,
because we have to rely upon a more or less accurate anticipation of behaviour,
if harm is to be avoided. The attitudes of parental care and infantile dependence
evolve, gradually, into an attitude of mutual trust between more equally
placed members of the family, but, during the later stages of childhood and
adolescence, this atmosphere of mutual trust is frequently punctuated by
episodes of discord, when the egocentric interests of the members break
through.
The most difficult type of mutual bonding is based upon a consciously willed,
and, partially, intellectual decision to form a bond. This bond is also based,
at least, to some extent, on an expectation of emotional reciprocity, but,
as a result of a long process of maturation and individualisation, there
is also a growing awareness of the need to contribute without exacting a
price. These complex mechanisms can, probably, best be summarised by saying,
that the process of increasing individualisation and an ever increasing freedom
to pursue egocentric goal-patterns, leads to a feeling of bewilderment and
emotional starvation, and, this is, eventually, recognised, intellectually
and emotionally, as a deceptive goal; as a dead-end, a mistake, a non-answer
to our search for meaning, because we start to lose the life-giving contact
which is necessary to formulate any concept of meaning.
Partly, the intellectual basis for such a trend away from egocentric
self-actualisation, is formed by a feeling of personal insignificance, which
arises out of widespread contacts with the surrounding realities. The more
we become aware of the vastness of the knowledge or experience-sphere of
an informed individual, the less we can maintain a feeling of individual
importance. This enormous increase in the sphere of our awarenesses allows
us to generalise and classify our information in a far wider and broader
framework of references. As a result, the totality of our own existence has
a tendency to become dwarfed by the vastness of our awareness-sphere.
A very important factor in this shift away from personal importance is our
ability to see the essential similarities of human behaviour-patterns. This
insight allows us to recognise in the behaviour patterns of others, traits
we share with them, in spite of, or, perhaps, because of the fact, that these
behavioural traits are egocentric in nature.
Our defensiveness is muted by the appreciation of the similarities between
ourselves and our enemies. If we are truly awed by the vastness of our reality
perceptions, and, if we are able to avoid the temptation to use knowledge
for personal gain, we may, indeed, become less egocentric and less defensive
in our attitudes. Our aggressiveness becomes muted, and, we may reflect a
quiet glow of understanding. We begin to realise, that the chaos and misery
around us is a reflection of the same egocentric desires and the same defects
in understanding, which we were subjected to until so recently. We may become
aware of the fact, that we still revert, time and again, to the same reactions;
the same primary biological behaviour-patterns, which we have deplored and
condemned, so often, with great force and aggression in others, whenever
we realised that the misery and chaos of human existence is a direct result
of egocentric and exploitative attitudes.
The attitude of mutual trust may, therefore, become strengthened by an
intellectual recognition of the essential similarities between all human
beings. Defensive and aggressive tendencies may be muted by the realisation,
that we exhibit the same existential requirements as those who are competing
with us, and, we become humble and subdued, once we realise, how utterly
foolish and unnecessary most human suffering really is.
We are mellowing into wisdom, which is, existentially, not the most vigorous
or viable state for a single individual to be in, but, as a basis for cooperation
and understanding, it is a tool that is unsurpassed in its value for reaching
long-term viability. We may well argue, that, truly beneficial leadership
of the human society is never the exclusive expression of personal powers
and ambitions. The successful and popular leader is always someone, who has
strong tendencies towards mutual bonding, and, who has a lively awareness
of the benefits of mutual trust and compassionate insight. Only those, capable
of helping others, of feeling a genuine concern for those who are in a more
vulnerable position; only those people, who are truly capable of enlarging
the sphere of their concerns to the entire community, are successful
leaders.
In the more complex, modern societies, the value of this insight, be it
intuitively or intellectually, is indispensible for the attitude of concern
for a large number of people, and, such an attitude adds a comforting glow
of wisdom and temperance to the atmosphere of beneficial leadership and social
well-being.
The embarrassment arising from the realisation that strife and conflict are
reflections of the same ego-drive that lives in us all, leads to a restrained
and understanding attitude; firm when it needs to be, educational and forgiving,
when the generalised biological drive is recognised in the behaviour of an
individual who has difficulties reconciling his instinctive drives with the
generally accepted values and behavioural guidelines of the social
environment.
Compassionate understanding accepts, deliberately, the risks associated with
an attitude of trust, and, it understands the motives behind a breach of
this trust. Compassionate understanding also recognises the egocentric returns
that are required by the traditional do-gooder, who expects, and demands,
instantly, his share of gratitude, recognition and respect from those who
are being helped, and, who is baffled and hurt in his pride, when he detects
a measure of resentment or ingratitude for his superficial acts of
good-will.
.......
Chapter 5
Content
Compassionate understanding and religious beliefs.
Rigidity and strength; the tendency towards elitism.
The fading of individual importance.
Altering a conflict-situation by adopting an attitude of humility.
Heroism, courage, pseudo-humility.
Humility and the Christian martyr-hero.
The trade-off between peaceful co-existence and the yearning for victory.
Compassionate understanding also looks with a slight bewilderment at the
heroism of the fanatic self-sacrificer, who struggles so hard and unceasingly
to fulfill the demands of his Creed, or the commandments of his God, and,
who is completely absorbed by this titanic struggle to subdue his primary
biological drives in the mistaken belief that they are evil; the devil in
disguise.
Such struggles may lead, occasionally, to an exemplary and beautiful form
of behaviour, but, most often, we see a fantastic waste of energy, when the
erroneous interpretations of a sacred Creed lead to frantic denials of the
biological nature of human life.
Compassionate understanding looks with concern at the numerous forms of subtle
and not so subtle attitudes of elitism, where the followers of various moral
and religious codes consider themselves to be slightly better and slightly
more favoured in the eyes of their God compared to the people around
them.
Indeed, this attitude of judgement, reproach and condemnation of
behaviour-patterns we do not share and do not understand, is the basis for
a dangerous process of polarisation within society. As a result of these
attitudes, society decays into antagonistic factions, where hatred and bigotry
find an ever richer feeding ground in the attitudes of mistrust and suspicion,
as people drift ever further apart. Again, we lose sight of our common origins,
reflected in the fact that we all share the same basic needs. Again, we start
to divide the world into those, who believe and those, who do not; those,
who belong to God's chosen few, and those, who form an amorphous mass of
doomed and ignorant sinners. Why should we care for those, whom, we think,
the Lord Himself has already condemned?
Compassionate concern and informed understanding are based upon a frank
acknowledgement of our human traits, where we recognise that people are
essentially the same, even, if they are specifically unique. This is the
only sensible and understandable way to care for others, and, to forgive
those who hate us, because, we know, that we may have been somewhat responsible
for this attitude of hatred. Our sense of individual importance will slowly
fade into an awed respect for the totality of all human potential, and, the
acceptance of our personal decline, decay and death will not be found in
a desperate effort to regain our vitality, nor in the transposition of our
hopes towards an eternal after-life, but, in an attitude, where we gradually
become one with the totality of human existence; where we understand the
nature of man, his achievements and short-comings; his potentials and
weaknesses.
Why should we really be so concerned about the perpetuation of our personal
existence, when we see, how essentially similar we all are as human beings?
Why should we be so concerned with the existence of our particular ego, when
this ego is, in so many ways, indistinguishable from other instinctive centers
that are desperately clinging to life? Let us be concerned about the attitudes
and insights of future generations, and, let us concern ourselves with the
increasingly important task of shaping a global code of thoughtful and
far-sighted human behaviour, because the survival of the human species may
well depend on it.
Have we said enough about compassionate understanding? Probably not, but,
let us return to this very special change in attitude, which leads to such
a surprising reversal of the belligerent expectations of people in conflict.
Let us see, how startling the effects can be, when we manage to interrupt
the biological program of stimuli and their responses, which is set into
motion with such a seemingly inevitable necessity when we start a fight.
I am referring to those surprising modifications in attitude that occur,
when we react to an atack or provocation with unexpected serenity, calm,
or, even, humbleness. We should look at the mechanisms and reasons, why we
can choose such a behavioural response. We have to analyse the reasons, why
we would ever want to modify our primary response of belligerent defensiveness
in such a dramatic manner.
Long before man developed a rational explanation for the reasons to be humble,
he had discovered, from experience, that an explosive confrontation could
be cooled-off by yielding. By assuming an attitude that did not reflect,
fully, the strength of a reaction to an insult, attack or provocation, the
energy of the aggressive drive would be muted, and the aggressor would, suddenly,
feel less enraged by the surprising experience of encountering less of a
reaction than expected. While this reduction in resistance is highly effective
to defuse emotional forms of aggression, it does not apply to the clever
opportunist, who will only see his task to be easier than expected.
There is another beneficial effect of an attitude of humility, because, in
recognising the value of such an attitude, we may remove ourselves, at least,
to some extent, as a competitor. This, in itself, contributes to defuse a
conflict, where competition with an adversary plays a role in the origin
of the conflict. However, the reasons why we adopt an attitude of lessened
resistance to aggression, may be vastly different. It may be the result of
timidity; a lack of self-confidence, which makes an individual behave below
his potential, but, such an attitude is a form of pseudo-humility, because,
at any time, the individual may reassert himself, when his confidence grows.
Besides, an awareness of his lack of confidence may create serious tensions
within such an individual, as he becomes increasingly aware of the depressing
gap between what he is and what he ought to be. This is a source for deep
disappointment with oneself, and, it may lead to an attitude of
self-destructiveness that manifests itself as capricious and tactless or,
even, cruel behaviour towards others.
True humility is reserved for a deliberate choice of behaviour. This behaviour
is chosen, not on the basis of a lack of strength and courage, but, on the
basis of an intuitive or conscious insight, that the natural response in
a conflict-situation only aggravates the feelings of injustice and hostility,
and, that it perpetuates an endless series of feuds, fights, bloodshed and
suffering. The attitude of true humility is an enormous gamble, and, it is
often misunderstood by the adversary, as well as by his friends, unless the
principle of humility has been clearly spelled-out and accepted in a behavioural
code that is shared by the adversaries. Then, the attitude of humility may
be recognised as virtuous, productive and, even, courageous, but, it remains
difficult to really understand an attitude that seems to go so much against
the grain of our natural inclinations.
The results may be astonishing, however, as well as extremely beneficial
for the group. Suddenly, the aggressor is shamed into the recognition, that
the humble response has made his own aggressiveness somewhat ridiculous,
and, his anger disappears to make way for a willingness to compromise and
reach a rational settlement. Again, we should emphasise, here, that a calculated
and exploitative aggressiveness does not react in this way to a humble response.
An attitude of exploitative or opportunistic aggression always requires a
firm resistance.
The conflict may quickly subside. A new element of understanding, and, perhaps,
a measure of mutual respect may kindle the possibilities for a rational
compromise. However, it must be a genuine response of humility; a response,
which is not seen as a defiant act of condescension towards the aggressor
from a position of moral and intellectual superiority.
True humility is an attitude that is free from condescension and feelings
of superiority, and, it is enlightened by a genuine understanding, or, even,
affection for the motivations and attitudes of the opponent. Pseudo-humility
is a tacit elitism; a tacit feeling of superiority and condescension, which
is immediately felt and treated with an attitude of suspicion that slides,
easily, into an attitude of hatred for having been deceived.
True or genuine humility can not be divorced from a feeling of compassionate
understanding for the motives of the aggressor, as well as the recognition
that we all are subject to similar motivations. It is this act of understanding
the motives of the aggressor, as well as the successful transmission of this
understanding to the opponent, which will defuse the tensions. If the opponent
feels, that there is an atmosphere of genuine understanding or, even,
appreciation for the reasons that have aroused his anger and aggression,
he will suddenly feel, that it is not necessary to gain by force what he
may gain by communication and contact. At the same time, this feeling of
having been recognised by the adversary and the unexpected absence of a defensive
hostility in the target of his anger, causes a feeling of slight embarrassment
and confusion.
We have all been prepared by the biological organisation of our emotional
behaviour-patterns to act and react in a situation of serious conflict. Suddenly,
we find ourselves understood, at least partially, and, we feel, that there
is a willingness to engage in a dialogue, to compromise, to exchange view-points.
Suddenly, our rational abilities are called into play, and, we know, at least,
intuitively, that our rational faculties do not function all that well, if
we are submersed in an emotion of rage or anger. Our emotions quieten-down
quickly, and, we search cautiously for the next step in the confrontation.
We suddenly feel the need to be calm and careful in order to avoid being
outwitted by this superior understanding we have come-up against.
We feel, intuitively, that an atmosphere of trust has been created by our
adversary. Can we respond to this trust? Can we afford to reciprocate this
trust? Again, we must make absolutely sure, that we are not being deceived,
and, there will be a lingering sense of suspicion as our anger subsides.
If we suspect this humble attitude to be a camouflage for the real
defensive-aggressive counter-attack, coming at an opportune moment, our
suspicions will remain, and, they will flare-up with an even greater violence,
if we find out that it was, indeed, only a deceptive tactic.
Pseudo-humility is a poorly understood attitude, and, it is so frequently
adopted by people who have accepted, on authority, the value of their cultural
and religious beliefs. They try to be humble, because their religious beliefs
command them to behave this way, and yet, they lack, completely, the ability
to understand genuinely their enemies. Under this facade of a humble attitude
may exist a seething and biologically programmed, aggressive and hostile
reaction to any perceived insult or provocation, ready to come to the fore,
as soon as an opportunity presents itself.
Pseudo-humility, then, becomes, intuitively, honed into a technique of deception,
but, these same people may still think, in all honesty, that they have responded
to the demands of their religious beliefs, and, they are astonished, when
their superficial intentions are being mistrusted.
However, we have to ackowledge, frankly, that compassionate understanding
is not always possible. The ability to truly understand and sympathise with
an adversary is rare, indeed. Most people can only do their genuine best
to understand their adversaries, and, they can try to see their own short-comings
and contributions to a conflict-situation, but, to feel a genuine sympathy
for their adversaries is often impossible, because most of us are not
sufficiently aware of the dynamics of our human psychology. Most of us do
not know ourselves well enough to be able to recognise the enemy within
us.
By understanding, we should think, not only, about our contemporary ability
to analyse human motivations in psychological or psycho-analytic terms, but,
we should, also, look upon the religious belief structures of the community
as a source for improving the understanding of ourselves. After all, the
primary function of all belief structures, including religious beliefs, is
an attempt to understand man and his nature. Frequently, the religious wisdoms
of our culture are difficult to understand or to feel affinity with, because
the religious interpretations of man, as well as the moral and divine
exhortations and commandments that are part of these belief structures, do
not explain, sufficiently, the link between our biological existence and
our moral awarenesses. Too often, the religious view-point sweeps a large
part of this biological heritage away as an "evil force", which has to be
suppressed at all costs.
In the Christian Faith, man is torn between the contrasting tendencies of
good and evil; the forces seeking God and Salvation, and, those considered
to be evil, because they detract man from his high ideals. However, many
behavioural traits which we have learned to see as perfectly normal, even
healthy and desirable, tend to be looked-upon with suspicion by the serious
and honest Christian, who tries to behave according to the high ideals of
his Faith. All behaviour associated with an egocentric orientation towards
our existential self-interests, tends to be condemned as "evil".
It is logical, that the Christian Faith condemned all unbridled selfish attitudes
at a time, when it started to dawn on man that most human suffering could
be avoided, if man learned to live together in peace and harmony. It is logical,
that humility, tenderness, sacrifice, as well as all the other attitudes
that defuse conflicts, were glorified, but, we know, now, a little more about
the reasons, why people may become so fiercely egocentric and aggressive
in their behaviour, and, we know, now, what we can do to avoid many of the
conflicts that are based on resentment, injustice and misunderstanding.
The Christian Faith made us recognise the beauty of compassion, as well as
the unexpected possibilities to defuse conflict-situations by adopting a
humble attitude. However, the emotional and intellectual difficulties of
the Christian Faith are numerous, and, these difficulties still persist,
in spite of many attempts to clarify the intellectual and psychological
difficulties of this strange Faith.
In man's fanatic fervor to proclaim and defend his beautiful beliefs, he
always reverts to the primary, biological behaviour-patterns of aggression,
dominance and ruthlessness, and, we have ample evidence to state, that,
throughout the ages, the faithful have killed each other, and others, for
the glory of their Faith and their God.
At times, especially, under difficult and stressful circumstances, the Christian
glorification of suffering imparted to the fanatic believer a fantastic rigidity
of his attitudes, and, the martyrdom of thousands, who were able to overcome
their primary instincts of self-preservation on the strength of their beliefs,
points to the remarkable power and influence of these belief structures on
the behavioural choices we have to make.
Primary behavioural reactions are, frequently, altered profoundly by a fanatic
belief. Or, do we have to interpret the martyrdom of the faithful differently,
whenever we look at the people who, apparently, welcomed suffering and death
in the face of a challenge to their beliefs? Do we indeed see, here, a negation
of the primary biological drive to self-preservation, or, do we see, only,
a change or transformation in the concepts and attitudes of triumph and
defeat?
There can be little doubt, that these martyrs felt themselves to be triumphant, and, they did not consider themselves to be people who were defeated in the struggle with their enemies. We may, therefore, see the apparent reversal of the biological motivation, indeed, as an apparent reversal only. The ultimate aim and goal of the struggle changed from a physical survival to the ultimate triumph over the adversary in the martyrdom of a saint, who would be elevated to an exalted position, close to his God, while the hated enemy would suffer eternal defeat and damnation in the sufferings of Hell.
We understand, therefore, a little better, the remarkable vitality and strength
which these people showed in the total commitment to their faith. The reality
perceptions of these people implied, that their death was not a defeat in
the biological sense, but, the ultimate achievement of their existence, which
was the unification with their God. We see, therefore, that all pressures
upon the faithful, all the suffering they were made to bear, only served
to increase the glory of their victory.
The goal of existence had been changed from a biological survival to an eternal
existence in Heaven. The desire to win was, and still is, as strong as ever
in these martyrs, and, it would, therefore, be erroneous to see the stubborn
resistance of the would-be martyr as an attitude that is in any way comparable
to the disarming humility of the truly compassionate personality.
Certaintly, brave martyrdom may inspire a somewhat bewildered admiration
for so much fortitude of character, because the adversary recognises the
enormous importance of fortitude in the accomplishment of his own aspirations.
Fortitude of character and stubbornness in conflict are, therefore,
characteristics, which combatants recognise, quite readily, in each other.
Paradoxically, this mutual recognition, often, serves only to intensify the
conflict, but, it tends to reduce the occurrence of cruelty and atrocities,
which flow from intense hatred and mutual contempt.
Yet, humility and fortitude of character are not mutually exclusive. The
defiant rejection of any compromise will lead to the characteristic fortitude
of character we see in our hero, the martyr, but, the humble person, who
refuses to take-up the challenge of combat, shows a fortitude of character
as well, because he understands the deceptive and elusive emotional satisfactions
that are associated with the pleasures of a good fight. For such an individual,
fortitude of character is expressed in his willingness to risk being hurt
and wounded, when he deliberately puts a certain degree of trust in his
adversary. He also displays a far more sophisticated type of fortitude of
character by risking misunderstanding, contempt, or, even, alienation from
his own social environment, where his pacifist attitudes are so easily taken
for cowardice. The fruits of compassionate understanding, as well as the
fortitude of a humble character, are far greater than those of the martyr-hero,
even, if the local social environment identifies much easier, and more willingly,
with their martyr-heroes than with their heroes of compassionate
understanding.
Unfortunately, the martyr-hero serves, primarily, as a rallying point; as
a focus of identification, admiration, or, even, worship, and, he re-enforces,
thereby, the absolute certainty and righteousness of the belief-patterns
of the prevailing cultural code. Sure, viability and aggressiveness are
increased, but the intensity of a conflict-situation is heightened, too.
So often, we still admire courage and the martyr-hero only from our own cultural
vantage-point. So often, we console our wounded pride and self-esteem, when
we reflect upon the examples of our heroes. While we revel in our emotional
identifications, we solidify the righteousness of our beliefs and attitudes,
and, we diminish the possibility of understanding, with intelligence and
insight, the humanity of our adversaries. We set the stage for the next round
of conflicts, and, we repeat the endless series of violent confrontations,
which seem to be an ever-present feature of human history.
We do not realise, that we are arming ourselves for battle, once again, when
we venerate our heroes and admire their deeds. We do not realise, that we
have opted, once more, for conflict, whenever we identify strongly with the
cultural heritage of our local heroes. We do not realise, that we narrow
the scope of our comprehension as a price for this beguiling feeling of
confidence, strength and exuberance, which flows from the certainty of being
right.
It feels so good to prepare for battle, and to engage in a battle, when we
know that we are absolutely right. Because of our strong biological programming,
we may never really learn to conquer our insatiable desire for victory and
triumph. However, we have to learn to see what we are doing, before we can
begin to change. Unless we learn to see, that we are sowing the seeds for
misery, strife and conflict at the same time that we are savouring the heady
feelings of a righteous triumph over our hated enemies, we will not have
learned anything at all.
.......
Chapter 6
Content
Exhortations.
A sense of futility.
Differences between intellectual and emotional acceptance.
The abuse of trust and good-will.
Difficulties with the Christian interpretation of human nature.
The ever increasing role of deliberate and consciously formulated behavioural guidelines.
It is tempting to fall into exhortations, but, as a rule, an exhortation
is not very effective, because it merely represents a strongly felt truth
on the part of the author. Yet, the reasons for believing in such a truth
may not be clear to the reader, or, the reader may not quite agree with the
significance given to the concepts and conclusions of an exhortation. It
is, therefore, more profitable to refrain from exhortations and come, slowly
but surely, to the conclusion we are so anxious to communicate.
What, then, are the conclusions or insights we want so much to communicate?
What does it all mean? Is it really logical, that we can, or should, modify
our emotional reactions for the sake of peace? Do we really want peace, or,
are we merely interested in preserving a favourable status-quo? Are we not
deceiving ourselves, when we believe, that it is possible to develop a
significant change in human attitudes by cultivating an attitude of compassionate
understanding? Is it really possible to see the process of egocentric
individualisation end, logically, into a conclusion of personal insignificance,
and, is an attitude of abandonment of our personal significance for the good
of mankind, really possible? Are we not falling in love with our own ideas,
rather than with the realities of our neighbour's existence?
How easy is it to love mankind from a distance? How easy is it to profess
a love and a kind understanding for the needs of others, while we react violently
and primitively, whenever our own security and dignity are being challenged.
Is it, then, all hypocrisy? Is it all idle talk, that has no relevance for
the attitudes and behaviour-patterns of human beings?
Perhaps, this may indeed be the case, but, on the other hand, an occasional
surge of despair at the prospect of meaningfully altering the primary programming
of human behaviour, is, not only, logical, but, it reflects a keen appreciation
for the enormity of the task to be accomplished, as well as the apparent
insignificance of our efforts. If we see, how much easier it is to adopt
intellectually an attitude of good-will, than it is to bring ourselves, in
actual practice, to an attitude of non-belligerence, we are making a good
start in recognising the strength and tenacity of our primary behavioural
reactions.
It is not surprising, that these biologically shaped, and, at least, partially
genetically determined reaction-patterns, are far more powerful than the
emotionally neutral conclusions of our fragile powers of rational insight.
We have seen, that a belief structure, denying the existence of our biological
heritage, or, the justification for our biological drives and instincts,
leads to enormous tensions. Nevertheless, we see, how our biological behavioural
instructions can, occasionally, be modified very significantly, if temporarily,
under the forceful guidance of these belief structures. At the same time,
we have discussed the fact, that the changes in our behaviour under the influence
of our religious or cultural beliefs, are, indeed, more apparent than real,
and, we know, now, that our behaviour remains much closer to a pattern shaped
by nature over countless generations, than we realise or want to
acknowledge.
Nevertheless, man has proven, on numerous occasions, that he is capable of
a pattern of behaviour that surpasses, by far, the guidelines given by his
biological heritage. This behavioural modification has only become possible
because of a successful cultural guidance or belief structure, and, each
time we look at a large and successful society, we see a good example of
human behaviour that has been tamed, and modified, by a successful cultural
code. As soon as these cultural guidelines break-down or become irrelevant,
the social cohesion crumbles, and, we have previously discussed, in detail,
the role of communal beliefs in regulating social inter-actions.
If we are able to accept, intellectually, the fact that our attitudes of
good-will may influence, significantly, the outcome of conflict-situations,
we should not scoff, automatically, at the idea that this influence could
have a global scale and significance. Certainly, the actual realisation of
a common ideal on such a large scale requires extra-ordinary patience and
persistence, as well as a meticulous and scrupulous attention to details.
It also requires a constant willingness to modify our conceptual models in
such a way, that the practical reality remains relatively free from unjust
tensions and frustrations. Just to have a common ideal of justice and good-will,
does not mean, that we all understand precisely the same by this verbal symbol,
and, it is during this period of patient implementation that many discrepancies
between concept and reality will show-up. Many unsuspected privileges and
inequalities will make themselves known, as we painfully realise, that the
implementation of justice is far more demanding than we thought.
At least, it is a start to come to the conclusion, that we all are better
of, if we give each other fundamental rights and obligations, which are shared
equally amongst ourselves, and, which are given as a birth-right to every
member born into the human species. We will often react emotionally to personal
challenges, and, we are still inclined to hate and despise those, who have
done us injustice, but, at least, we will have a conceptual framework upon
which we can build a scaffold of understanding and insight.
The acceptance, in word and deed, of an attitude where we deliberately lower
hostile tensions and increase the level of trust in our fellow human beings,
does not mean, that we have to let ourselves be abused by people who are
trying to gain an egocentric advantage by exploiting our attitudes of good-will.
Openness in all aspects of social and individual life will be the necessary
guarantee, to each one of us, that our attitudes of good-will are not being
exploited.
In a case of exploitation or opportunism, the aggressor does not reflect
a primary need or drive, such as an emotion of anger that has been kindled
by a wounded sense of justice. In an act of exploitation, we are dealing
with flagrant opportunism, which is an attitude of abuse and deception that
is often paraded as sophistry and intellectual arrogance. We do not have
to give-in to such pressures, but, we should react with a firm, emotionally
neutral response, explaining, why we resist opportunistic attitudes, but
are still willing to participate in a reciprocal attitude of trust. Then,
we remain calm, non-belligerent and essentially trustful. Hopefully, we become
an inspiration for those egocentric advantage-seekers, without hurting someone's
pride or failing to see legitimate claims.
Are we hypocriticial, when we profess to love mankind, while clinging,
subconsciously or deliberately, to all the advantages of our status-quo?
We would be hypocritical, if we would fail to participate, equally, with
everyone else, in a serious effort to reduce disparities, but, we do not
have to become the fool, who, in a misunderstood application of the principle
of good-will, allows himself to be robbed by his more clever and unscrupulous
neighbours.
What has changed then? Are we not all for the common good? Are we all, in
one way or another, not in favour of universal peace and essential equality?
Would it not be better to adopt the radical precepts of the Christian Creed,
so that we can start to change the world by changing ourselves into a beacon
of virtuous behaviour?
I do not think so, because, by precipitously advocating and practicing an
attitude that is difficult to sustain and, essentially, in conflict with
our biological background, we are bound to experience many baffling
disappointments. These disappointments are baffling and incomprehensible,
because, in every fanatic attitude or belief, we fail to come to an acurate,
careful appreciation of our biological heritage. We can not throw this biological
heritage over-board as a product of evil forces. We have to work hard and
diligently in order to understand ourselves, as well as the forces we are
subjected to, and, we may, then, formulate a manageable concept of ourselves
and our societies.
When trying to solve the conflict of the ego and its relationships with the
social surroundings, we may open-up unexpected avenues for individualisation
and social coherence, by recognising, eventually, that individualisation
and social integration are not mutually exclusive trends. In the recognition
of the essential similarity of our human existence, we may be able to crown
our search for individualisation with a multi-centric attitude of global
concerns, and, by forging ever larger frameworks for social cohesion, we
may be able to allow an unprecendented scope for individual
differentiation.
The moment we realise, that individual differentiation is, in essence, a
gift from our society and our culture, (be it a gift from the past or the
present), we will become less insistent upon glorifying individual freedoms
and rights. As soon as our social inter-actions develop the quiet confidence
that comes with maturity and understanding, the apparent contradictions and
threats of individualising mechanisms will all be seen with a kind and benevolent
tolerance, and, this seach for egocentric meaning and fulfilment may be
considered as an essential contribution to society, which, in the final analysis,
it always has to be, in order to be meaningful.
We may well see a lessening of the suspicions between society and the individual,
when each side learns to see the essence of its existence in the need for
reciprocal benefits, together with their complementary functions. However,
it is not easy to see these relationships, and, it is even more difficult
to apply these principles to the relationships between local autonomies and
a central government; an idea, we hope to expore in another essay
Yet, I am convinced, that the slow development of these insights will be
helpful for our task to formulate a code of natural ethics; a code of behavioural
guidelines, which will, finally, let us all live in a just peace and a
large-scale harmony, while we enjoy the privileges of a responsible freedom.
It can be done, it has to be done, and it will be done.
.......
Summary
.......