Ch.15.1) The Cost of Chaos

Posted on August 18, 2011 by Andrew

Like all primates, human beings are social creatures. We have social needs; we have emotional needs (the two are intertwined, if not different sides to the same coin). Sure, we are individuals and, particularly to those of us from western cultures, tend to focus on the person and a POV of an individual agent. Yet working behind the scenes, perhaps even outright determining them, are our social instincts.

The online write-up of a recent study on social acceptance and rejection began with these words -

For proof that rejection, exclusion, and acceptance are central to our lives, look no farther than the living room, says Nathan Dewall, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky. “If you turn on the television set, and watch any reality TV program, most of them are about rejection and acceptance,” he says. The reason, DeWall says, is that acceptance—in romantic relationships, from friends, even from strangers—is absolutely fundamental to humans.(1)

I would bet that the more TV programming than those of “reality” sort have a primary subtext of rejection and acceptance. For example, my interest in football is not about pure score, sterile numbers and faceless feats of athleticism, but about the meaning of scores, the who of the feats. Fandom is about team victories, team losses. My team. My vicarious social group.

But yes, when my wife watches “make-over” reality shows — those worse-before and better-after narratives about self-improvement via fashion, weight loss, home landscaping, you name it — they invariable involve impressing others as an essential element. “So-and-so won’t believe how gorgeous you look!” “Won’t this be a great place to invite friends over for a bar-b-que!”

Our myopic focus on the individual extends to religion. We talk about a god answering individual prayers, about a dogma and worldview that provides comforting answers on an individual level to those asking big questions, about the ability of religious thought to put a positive spin on any undesirable turn of events. True, these are benefits felt at the individual level. Yet there is more to religion than that, as there is more to human beings than individual, isolated needs. In the upcoming posts for this project/category, I will be presenting some of the ways the belief in an almighty alpha can benefit the individual by way of the social group(s) to which he or she belongs. Or, changing focus, we might say that belief in an almighty alpha can benefit a group and thus the individual group members.

In particular, I will be making these three points:

1) Social Stress equals emotional stress. To the degree that belief in a god can be perceived to quell and prevent social upheaval, it will be welcomed as a good thing.

2) Anarchy — the state of population lacking order — causes uncertainty and anxiety. It makes a group a non-group, a dysfunctional collection of individuals. That religions seem to advocate for and maintain a social order reflects the human interest in clearly defined roles and predictable behavior.

3. A primate’s social status and aspirations are dynamic, not static. Like chimpanzees and other primate species, a human’s social status is continually in flux. Abilities change, relationships become stronger or weaker. Individuals remain acutely attuned to perceived changes in social acceptance and rejection. (If you “like” this, please hit that icon . . . oops, that’s Facebook. I mean, comment with your approval.) By creating and following an unchanging most high alpha, a religious social group attempts to attenuate the influence of social aspirations.

Stay tuned . . .

—

(1) Social Acceptance and Rejection: The Sweet and the Bitter, http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/social-acceptance-and-rejection-the-sweet-and-the-bitter.html

 

Posted in Ch.15) Benefits to Subordinates | Leave a comment

Summer Hiatus

Posted on July 29, 2011 by Andrew

I’ve been on a summer recess of sorts.  New postings to resume mid-August at the latest.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ch.15) Benefits to Subordinates

Posted on June 23, 2011 by Andrew

“If religious faith plays a role in motivating [behaviors] and if these behaviors cause the group to function as an adaptive unit, then faith counts as an adaptation.” – David Sloan Wilson (1)

In his book, Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, David Sloan Wilson argued that religion may have evolutionary value on the group level. As he succinctly put it, “cooperative groups robustly outcompete less cooperative groups.”(2)

A group out-competing other groups certainly has advantages at the individual level as well: access to fruit trees and prey, diminished vulnerability to theft and violence by strangers, etc. It must. Group and individual prosperity are intertwined. Even a marginalized member of a group will gain through such things as overheard alarm calls and access to individually unknown, distant watering holes during the dry season. Without individuals to survive and reproduce, there is no group to survive and reproduce.

If religion does exploit innate human social instincts to facilitate group super-cooperation, we must remember that although cooperation may be epitomized by work on grand tasks – the digging of a well, the synchronized movements and payoffs of a hunting party — cooperation begins and perhaps brings its most significant benefits on a more mundane level. As an illustration: When two group members meet face-to-face on a single, narrow, forest trail, the mere ability to co-operate through one individual giving way to the other reaps real benefits. Peace between individuals comes via reliable role expectations, yielding decreased stress and costly in-fighting.

As I have previously emphasized, though we are largely blind to it, the ‘hierarchical social instincts’ remain alive and well in our kind. Consider a study titled, “Dominance Hierarchies in Groups of Early Adolescents.” Author Ritch C. Savin-Williams concluded that in a summer camp setting, the following social dynamic spontaneously arose:

“… a stable dominance hierarchy was found in 8 groups of 12- to 14-year-old male and female adolescents at a summer camp. Status position was relatively stable over time and across behavior settings. For both sexes the dominance hierarchy correlated significantly with the rank orderings of pubertal maturation, athletic ability, and group leadership….”

As to the why for such phenomena, Savin-Williams explains -

“The dominance hierarchy appears to foster a reduction in intragroup antagonism, to focus division of labor responsibilities, to distribute any scarce resources, and to provide knowledge of where one’s place is among peers.”(3)

While these rank relations seem primitive and brutish according to our modern, largely egalitarian perspective, I believe it is likely that they generally continue to provide benefits. On the playground or the corporate board of directors, “submitting” to a powerful agent often makes sense. Yet we don’t do it because it makes sense. Not usually. We do it because it ‘feels right.’ The behavior is instinctive versus well-reasoned. Likewise, submitting to even an imaginary alpha, individually or as a group, can trigger good feelings that are part of the package deal of human social instincts.

Yet to circle closer to my point, while social harmony and cooperation are indeed adaptive on the group level — as Sloan-Wilson argues — they are also adaptive on the individual level. Submission to a greater agent will bring individual benefits. Thus in the books of the great-alpha religions we encounter many a verse reminding us that a god can both put you “in your place” and put you “in a better place.”

The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. (1 Samuel 2:7, King James Version)

Yes, there is some difference as to the meaning of “you” in the Old and New Testaments. You as in “you people” vs. you as in “you, John Q. Specific-son.” Yet even in the Old there are those cases of individuals — prophets, kings, elite group members including the infamous Job — suffering and benefiting from their personal relationship (or lack thereof) to an invisible, great agent.

Naturally, the benefits bestowed to a lesser do not constitute a one-sided affair, in terms of profit. It is necessary for an alpha’s rule to bring benefits; otherwise, the alpha must expend a great deal more energy in a state of despotic vigilance. In the words of Christopher Boehm, while high rank brings “extensive bullying privileges,” it also comes at the cost of ‘civic responsibilities.’”(4) While I would stop short of calling these unequal relationship dyads socially “symbiotic,” they are certainly bi-directional in terms of benefit.

What does it cost a god to have loyal or disloyal group members? What benefit does it bring? Nothing real can come to an imaginary being, of course. Even gifts of food are never “cashed in” and consumed. And so we find human beings via their innate social instincts projected onto their imaginary beings ideas of what is desired. A god’s will and laws absolutely reflect human desires. Otherwise they’d make scant sense and have little appeal to a human being.

Returning to the real-world benefits to individual subordination, renown primatologist Frans de Waal has observed this about chimpanzee behavior: “[D]ominant males selectively share food and sexual privileges with male allies to whom they owe high status.”(5)

Hmm. Do human alphas in, say, the business world, ever buy nice meals for loyal allies? Have attractive single women or even prostitutes ever been invited to a party-like gathering of male allies? Check and check.

So the betas in a group can receive kick-back’s from the alpha. What about those further down in rank?

Margaret Power makes the bi-directional dynamic explicit:

“[T]he negative connotation of the term dominance as involving the aggressive means of gaining rank is firmly fixed in the lexicon. This one-sided concentration utterly ignores the positive, protective, peace-keeping role which is the key feature of dominant primates organized in a normal hierarchical order.” (5)

Subordinates accept individuals having greater rank not simply to save their skin. There is a payoff to subordinates, and not just at the group level — at the individual. You might classify this payoff as how a submissive stand is profitable.

In the following chapters I will look at three types of benefits that an alpha can provide group members, whether that alpha is of the flesh-and-blood primate kind, and the benefits real, or the alpha is of the supernatural variety, with the benefits illusory or produced by the labor of flesh-and-blood agents. They are: 1) in-group stability and peace, 2) protection from outside forces, 3) access to valued resources, including food and fertile wombs.

Stay tuned . . . .

—

(1) Wilson, D.S., Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002.
(2) Wilson, D.S., 2002, p.138
(3) Savin-Williams, R.C., “Dominance Hierarchies in Groups of Early Adolescents,” in Child Development, Dec. 1979, p.923-35.
(4) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 27
(5) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p.65
(6) Power, M. The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, p. 76

Posted in Ch.15) Benefits to Subordinates | Leave a comment

Ch.14.16) Following The Sky Piper

Posted on June 1, 2011 by Andrew

“The more one accepts what is materially false to be really true, and the more one spends material resources in displays of such acceptance, the more others consider one’s faith deep and one’s commitment sincere.” – Scott Atran (55)

What does an alpha ask of followers? Loyalty. And signs of it. If a god is a supernatural pied piper, heard but not seen, we may ask two questions: What is in it for the piper? (as projected by its human creators), and What is in it for those following the alluring song?

To answer the first question strictly: Gods are but sock-puppets of those who throw their voices. They gain what humans imagine they would desire. Loyal followers, praise, glory, gifts of food, etc. The voices behind gods, on the other hand, can gain both personally and socially. As can the followers of the voices, for the piper and the followers are all social creatures with the same instincts and often mutually beneficial, overlapping needs.

In Bible verse after Bible verse we can detect two general themes for what an almighty alpha provides, the first more personal, the second more collective. Or maybe I should reverse those, for in the Old Testament group issues play a greater role, in the New, personal issues.

For the Group

“The notion of ‘God’s chosen people’ resonates with evolutionary in-groupness.” – Michael Shermer (56)

The worship of an invisible alpha can provide a group with an identity, and through it it, cohesiveness and stability. Group life is a valuable resource for the very simple fact that there is strength in numbers. Strength that leaders and individuals benefit from.

Reflecting the need for identity, and the importance of being part of a group, we find this question raised in Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan: “Who are God’s people?” (57) Implied in that is, “Who are not?”

As Bible passages in the book of Numbers, Judges and others baldly manifest, it is important to be named and counted as part of one’s group, either by person, by family or tribe. From simple allied dyad to greater coalitions of smaller coalitions, there is strength in numbers. Chimpanzees innately understand it is much easier to catch a monkey for a prized meat meal when you travel and work as a pack.

As mentioned previously, there are many enticements to be included as a loyal group member. Both of gain and of avoidance of loss.

The out-group individuals are often portrayed as agents of evil. The out-group groups, as enemies. And it is promised they will suffer loss.

So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD call David’s enemies to account.” (1 Samuel 20:16)

What a religion provides is a social glue. It offers unwritten and written contracts, informal and formal peace treaties between individuals, between families and villages. By circling around a single alpha, a group declares, “We are not unaffiliated persons, but a people.”

The concept of an almighty alpha is a powerful tool. To establish and maintain groups, to make goals a non-debatable mandate from above.

Jehoiada then made a covenant between the LORD and the king and people that they would be the LORD’s people. He also made a covenant between the king and the people. All the people of the land went to the temple of Baal and tore it down. They smashed the altars and idols to pieces and killed Mattan the priest of Baal in front of the altars. (2 Kings 11:17-18)

For the Individual

But my covenant I will establish with Isaac. (Genesis 17:21)

What can individuals gain from an alliance with an invisible alpha above? For some, an elevation their status. Those perceived to be closely allied to the greatest above can become the greatest on earth. They can become leaders of families, tribes, kingdoms, nations.

Of course, gain of status, power and privilege in one can come at the expense of others. And this may even be intentional. As Daniel Dennett and others have argued, having a powerful partner — even if invisible so long as others “buy it” — is a resource that can be leveraged for personal gain. Political, financial. Some have gone so far as to argue that the priesthood is little more than a con-game based upon this social dynamic. While I don’t subscribe to this view in general, in specific cases there is likely truth to it. In Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Dennett writes,

“How might a religion support a kleptocracy? By an alliance between the political leader and the priests, of course, in which, first of all, the leader is declared to be divine, or descended from the gods, or, as Diamond put it, at least having “a hotline to the gods.” (58)

Today? In the United States, if you publicly state a belief in a supreme being (“God”), and perhaps are good friends with recognized “spiritual leaders,” you can become president. If you don’t — it ain’t going to happen. Without that social leverage, the overt non-believer is at too great a disadvantage.

In 1 Chronicles 10:13-14, and dozens of other verses, we learn that the alpha above controls who on earth will rule. With backing by the supreme being, how could you fail to rule?

Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.

One’s personal power can also be elevated by the alleged special abilities that a privileged relationship with a supernaturally supreme being can bring. As in,

Stephen, brimming with God’s grace and energy, was doing wonderful things among the people, unmistakable signs that God was among them.” (Acts 6:8, Message Bible)

Today also, if you are capable of performing impressive deeds, even when fully natural and understood by science, you are likely to gain in status. Singers with perfect pitch and the ability to hit a “high C” . . . electric guitarists who can make the amped-up instrument scream melodically . . . football halfbacks who regularly bowl their way over the opposition and into the endzone . . . baseball players who can smack the ball completely out of the park . . . these people get asked for autographs. Which are not just signatures. They are signatures written in gold ink, psychosocially speaking. A connection to power, however distant, is prized by our kind.

[Jesus] called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. (Matthew 10:1)

As in interesting aside, in the New Testament status was not based upon brute rank so much as it was reputation. As is the case in many modern social groups. Why? An important reason is that in the times and social setting of the nascent Christian church, elevated rank in the larger social environment was a near impossibility. What real resources would brute rank bring the disciples control over? In their small group, among a rag-tag band of followers and their relatively poor communities, it was the perceived power over health and evil that was the best they could do.

The Overlap

Of course, individual and group benefits can overlap. When a person becomes a more constructive group member, both the group and the individual benefit in turn. (As we will more fully explore in a coming section of this project.)

For one, subordinates primates are less inclined to ‘act up’ when an alpha is present. The group is more placid, stress levels go down. It is obvious to me that one of the things the monotheistic religions provide is a perennially present alpha (as perceived, of course). Even when focusing on individuals and simpler relationships, the social emotions are powerful motivators.

Consider 12-step programs for alcoholics, drug abusers, gamblers, etc. The first step is to admit one’s powerlessness. To give up power and submit to something greater. One might speculate that the real dynamic here is the movement toward a so-called co-regulation of behavior, through an omni-present, invisible partner. The true partner, however, is a brain region activated to a degree it wasn’t before. Maybe the co-regulation consists of a person sublimating limbic-system drives to frontal lobe control. But even beyond that, and perhaps more importantly, is the joining of a group. AA. “My name is John . . . I’m one of you.”

Individual and group needs overlap. Social structures and their incentives bring gains to individuals and the group. They are a powerful tool of the cultural sort. While they are immaterial, they are real.

In Genesis 21:27 we read,

So Abraham brought sheep and cattle and gave them to Abimelech, and the two men made a treaty.

While it seems like the verse is fully about the two men and their relationship, it is not. For there is that treaty element. Even among modern, “hand-shake” business agreements, the inherent social element goes largely unnoticed. But it is there. For who enforces the treaty? What is the cost of violating a hand-shake agreement? There are social sanctions to be paid for violations of promises, whether they are overtly formalized or consist more simply of a potential loss of status. “He is untrustworthy; do not work with him.”

Religions proclaim, follow our leader, and you (and your people) will benefit. If you do not, you are not good. Socially speaking.

They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved-you and your household.” (Acts 16:13)

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. (Matthew 12:30

To follow a leader, you must sublimate some of your own drives and aspirations. You must “submit,” to leadership.

And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3-4)

Religion is a cultural tool, built upon the complex set of human social instincts. It says, Follow our leader, join our group . . . and you will gain.

And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Luke 22:29-30)

—

(55) Atran, S., In God’s We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Oxford University Press,Oxford, 2002, p. 5
(56) Shermer, M., The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule, Times Books, New York, 2004, p. 39
(57) Pagels, E., The Origin of Satan, Vintage, New York, 1995, p. 51
(58) Dennett, D., Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Viking, New York, 2006, p. 172

Posted in Ch.14) The Pacts Within a Pack | Leave a comment

Ch.14.15) The Risks and Benefits of Following or Not

Posted on May 18, 2011 by Andrew

In terms of today’s world, it seems there is quite a range in how seriously people ‘invest’ in their religions. This likely reflects the perceived consequences of participating or not. Why get passionate about something of mere ornamental value?

A recent study found a correlation between (a) increased lifespan and overall health in a population and (b) decreased religious involvement [source]. If my own nation’s health care were back as it was a hundred years ago, my bet is that church attendance would higher than it is today. Why? Where both knowledge and perceived control are lacking, religion can fill the void.

As a participant in a few humanist/atheistic organizations, I have noticed that there seems to be a disproportionate amount of former Jews and/or current ‘secular’ Jews among members. While I am sure there are a number of reasons for this — including higher average affluence and education levels among Jews — I have a hunch that another key variable is the diminished role of the Old Testament god of the Israelites in today’s America. While Judaism the religion likely provides a benefit in the form of an idea to form a group identity around — and help in maintaining the identity and group through rituals and celebrations — the one time crucial elements of providing a kingdom, of making a people fruitful, sending rain, and protecting the borders . . . has bottomed out in value. In this country. In the Middle East things may be different. What it boils down to is mindset. Which is influenced by one’s social environment and other factors.

In contrast, there seems to be relatively more zealous Christians in this country. There may be a number of reasons for this, including the likely culprits of lower relative affluence and education. And, very importantly, there is their status as the majority. In other words, Christians have a status quo to protect. As the majority, it is much easier for them to feel that their land is being infiltrated by people with foreign ways. People who are, intentionally or not, changing things — people who are wrestling control away from them. This type of thinking is manifest in the Christian organization “Moral Majority” claiming that Jews have a stranglehold of Big Media. And it’s wrecking our country.

Beyond their present kingdom — the best nation on Earth, ‘god bless it’ – Christians additionally have a future kingdom to be concerned about. In brief, they have more to lose, more to gain. And so the potential to get more passionate about religion. And by that I mean their religious identity and all it stands for.

Even with greater passion for religion among some, the cost for belonging does seem quite a bit less today than in ancient times. Sure, many give to their church at real cost, both in money and time. And maybe that is fully in line with ancient times, if we factor in the value of a weekly tithe compared to, say, the periodic sacrifice of an animal. We may also need to factor in not only inflation to the cost of consumer goods, but, again, the deflation of the perceived tangible payoffs for belief. By and large, religion is no longer perceived to be a primary provider of health care and social services.

Religious belief is ultimately about the social phenomena of following a leader — a human prophet and/or a supernatural entity — and thus being part of a group of followers. As for general incentives for belief, the psychologist in me, in good reductionistic fashion, envisions four general categories or types. [Founding behaviorist B.F. Skinner would likely be proud.] In the pages of the Bible I see two types of reinforcements and two types of punishments. These general classes of motivators, by the way, also hold for other primates and the alliances and coalitions they are motivated form and keep.

Of reinforcements there are two types, one straightforward, the other widely misunderstood. It should be emphasized from the get-go that a reinforcement is generally something that increases the likelihood of a particular behavior.

1. Positive reinforcement. Positive in this case can be interpreted as “adding something.” A positive reinforcement is basically the presenting or adding of something the individual welcomes, something the individual perceives as pleasant or satisfying. There is a huge range of things that people will find reinforcing, from food to praise to sex. Speaking of sex, in one context, a spanking could actually be perceived as a positive reinforcer. A positive reinforcer is all about introducing something the individual values and enjoys, if even in an S&M way.

What examples of positive reinforcers for religious behaviors — for establishing an alliance with the leader and his group — do we find in the Bible?

Before we address that, let’s take a quick glance at positive reinforcers chimpanzees employ to motivate “loyal” behavior. They include (off the top of my head): access to females and undisturbed mating (and the offspring it will bring), the sharing of special food items, being groomed, better nesting/resting spots.

In the Old Testament you can find these promised and/or perceived positive reinforcers for alliance loyalty: A homeland, becoming a greater/larger nation, fertile wives/women, offspring (especially sons), slaves, plunder from success in battle, long life , assistance in battle, rainfall and bountiful crop yields, wisdom, wealth, loving attention . . .

You, O Lord, are loving. Surely you will reward each person according to what he has done. (Psalms 62:12)

In the New Testament we find these promised and/or perceived positive reinforcers for forming and maintaining a loyal alliance with Jesus and other followers:

A kingdom to come (heaven), health, eternal life, miraculous powers (particularly to apostles and true believers), wisdom, loving attention . . .

“I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age and in the age to come, eternal life. (Mark 9:29-30)

2. Negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement sounds like punishment, and is frequently yet incorrectly used to refer to it. Despite the “negative” word, it is not a punishment, nor is the term an oxymoron. As stated above, a reinforcement is something that increases the likelihood of behavior. It is a perceived pleasant change. In the positive form, this is achieved by providing something good, something desired: a pleasing change. In the negative form (similar to “negative” medical results, which is also good), there is a subtraction of something bad, which results in a pleasing change. To take away something that a person perceives as unpleasant is a reinforcer. Such as the taking away chores for the child who completes her homework on time. Even a mother’s behavior of giving candy to a child can be reinforced (made more likely) by the child subtracting its full-throttle whining.

In the Bible we find quite a bit of use of negative reinforcement. Particularly the perception of. “My disease is gone! Thank God!”

Among chimpanzees, a common for of negative reinforcement is the termination of harassing behavior. “You submit and show loyalty to me, and I will respond by ceasing behaving in a way that you so dislike. I won’t charge at you; I won’t stare at you; I won’t push you out of your resting spot.”

In the Old Testament you will find a lot of this type of behavior promised by Yahweh, or perceived to have occurred. The reason being that in those times all non-explainable natural events were perceived to be of supernatural origin. So anything unpleasing was also from god. Removal of these, a blessing of this god.

Negative reinforcers said to be dolled out by the god of the Old Testament include: The opening of closed wombs, keeping droughts and plagues and violent storms away, stopping enemy actions, obliterating enemies, freedom from sickness and early death . . .

This is why our fathers have fallen by the sword and why our sons and daughters and our wives are in captivity. Now I intend to make a covenant with the LORD, the God of Israel, so that his fierce anger will turn away from us. (2 Chronicles 29:9-10; underline added)

In the New Testament:Removing sickness and disability, exorcising evil spirits, and, significantly, there is the the whole “the meek shall inherit the earth” thing. While this is an obvious form of positive reinforcement, it is also a form negative reinforcement. The sentiment means means that “those held down,” the meek, will be held down no longer.

But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first. (Matthew 19:30)

As one might guess, the general definition for a punishment is ‘a response or consequence that decreases the likelihood of a particular behavior.’ The individual must perceive the consequences for their action as undesirable, as unpleasant. As with reinforcers, there are two basic forms of punishment, positive punishment and negative. With positive punishment, something undesirable is ‘added,’ with negative punishment, something desirable is ‘subtracted.’ Older-school parenting relies on punishments such as the addition of soap to the mouth of a foul-mouthed child, or the child being told, “no video games for a week.” Both of these are punishment, one of the positive type, one of the negative.

Some variables can function as both a positive punishment and a negative reinforcer. Consider hunger. Can hunger be a positive punishment? You bet. When perceived to be added to a situation. Can hunger be a negative reinforcement? Sure, when perceived to be removed from a situation.

Another example: A bully might tell his victim that if the victim doesn’t tattle about the stolen lunch money, he won’t get beaten up. The victim is then motivated to stay silent for two reasons: He won’t suffer the very unpleasant consequence of receiving a beating, and he will experience the pleasant consequence of a reprieve from further bullying. The threat of a positive punishment, when withheld, can be a negative reinforcer, for the behavior of ‘not doing x.’

In a strict behaviorist fashion, punishments and reinforcements typically take place after the behavior in question. They are consequences that make a behavior more or less likely to occur again. Human beings, however, are very intelligent animals, so even the imagined, pre-behavior anticipation of a pleasing or non-pleasing consequence can influence behavior. We can thank our large frontal lobes for that.

3. Positive punishments. In terms of the Bible, many specific and specified bad behaviors — tops among them being ‘to follow another supernatural alpha’ — have the same undesirable consequence dangled before them. Defeat in warfare, drought . . . . The consequence can then either be presented as a positive punishment (bad infidel!), or withheld as a negative reinforcer (good follower!).

Among chimpanzees, positive punishments primarily consist of physical aggression and threats thereof. We could also throw ‘social spurning’ by an individual or group of individuals in the mix as well. You are bad, therefore I am giving you the cold shoulder; you are bad, therefore we are giving you the cold shoulder. Go away.

In the Old Testament, we find these positive punishments, either threatened or alleged doled out by the most high alpha: Death, social chaos, loss in war, lightning, hail, flooding rains, drought, enslavement and death of loved ones, plagues, sickness, snakes and predators, fire and raining sulfur, attack by enemies, loss of land and livestock, unfaithful wives, hunger, violence done to family members, including rape of daughters and slaughter of children. Yikes.

Therefore the LORD rejected all the people of Israel; he afflicted them and gave them into the hands of plunderers, until he thrust them from his presence. (2 Kings 17:20)

In the New Testament we find relatively fewer uses of positive punishment: hell on earth, death, eternal anguish post-death . . .

And do not grumble, as some of them did-and were killed by the destroying angel. (1 Corintheans 10:10)

Perhaps one of the reason why Jesus is referred to as the prince of peace is because he made so few specific threats of positive punishment. But then again, his status as ‘among us’ and ‘in human form’ would have made that difficult. Being constrained by his visible, corporal body, as he was. Frankly, it would also have been stupid for Jesus to employ positive punishments. He was attempting to form a new group and couldn’t afford to drive any of his followers away by direct threat or harsh action.

4. Negative punishments

Among chimpanzees positive punishments include social neglect of some form, loss of status, as well as any other form of an already acquired resource “taken away.”

In the Old Testament: Loss of land, loss of crops/livestock/possessions, abandonment by group or exile from it, divine neglect/abandonment, female infertility, no long life, no rest, loss of children/daughters . . .

I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children. (Hosea 4:6)

In the New Testament: loss of heaven, death without eternal life, no place in the kingdom-to-come, loss of status (those who are not humble will be humbled), loss of wealth (for the rich/greedy), loss of sight, rejection by Jesus . . .

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. (Romans 1:26)

You may wonder how the above verse is a form of negative punishment. Again, we must consider what desirable thing or ability has been taken away. The answer is twofold. First, the verse could be interpreted as a god taking away a people’s self-control. But more importantly, the ultimate yet unstated consequence is a loss of status. Shame is a social emotion reflecting the social concerns of a primate. What will others think? Will I be looked down upon, will I be outright rejected? Will I bring shame upon them, thus bringing down the whole group?

As expressed in my previous section on the use of threat displays by primate alphas, we perhaps now better understand the tactic as employed by the Bible god (primarily in the Old Testament). For example:

God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day. (Psalms 7:11)

Why the wrath? As a reinforcement when it is withheld, as a punishment when used. It is a tactic of the despotic kind, employed by many a ruling human and dominant aggressive male primates of other species.

When modern thinkers give Jesus credit for being a kinder, gentler deity, they are partly correct, partly in error. While it is true that Jesus resorted more to using the ‘carrot’ of the spiritual shepherd vs. the ‘stick.’ But the error lies in attributing this to the character of Jesus rather than his social circumstances. The more despotic god of the Bible spoke to and ruled an already established group largely consisting of people bonded by the strong ties of an extended family. Jesus, on the other hand, was primarily working to win converts. To establish a new group. It would have been downright asinine for him to threaten his ragtag band of followers and assorted potential recruits within earshot with undesirable consequences for their not following him and his way. Too risky. Individuals that didn’t follow Jesus had other groups to participate in — other means of acquiring and protecting real-world resources. They could afford to say, “no thank you.”

Why do leaders ask for loyalty? Group strength. Which equates in individual strength.

All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. They took an oath to the LORD with loud acclamation, with shouting and with trumpets and horns. All Judah rejoiced about the oath because they had sworn it wholeheartedly. They sought God eagerly, and he was found by them. So the LORD gave them rest on every side. (2 Chronicles 15:13-15)

Join the group, be loyal and show signs of it, and ye shall gain.

A reason why Christianity has great appeal today, in my opinion, is because it has a more democratic feel. It is more individual-oriented. In the modern multi-cultural world, it seems less dangerous, more friendly. In the Old Testament, the LORD talks to us. In the New, Jesus talks to me. In the modern, multi-cultural world, the us is far more fragmented (and less essential for survival) — better to go with the more personal god. What’s in the supernatural for me?

Muslims, it seems, fall more to the “us” end of the spectrum. Are you one of us, or not? In areas of increasing Muslim populations, non-Muslims feel threatened. It is much easier to assimilate individuals than it is groups. Particular groups that to some degree are socio-culturally insulated. So the Muslim religion is perceived as less-fit for the modern world. And it very well may be.

A final Bible verse manifesting the primal social instincts of our kind:

Then Nebuchadnezzar said, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego be cut into pieces and their houses be turned into piles of rubble, for no other god can save in this way.” (Daniel 3:27-29; bold added)

Do we need religion today to help us form and sustain productive alliances and groups? Absolutely not. Just look to the social lives of chimpanzees.

Posted in Ch.14) The Pacts Within a Pack | 1 Comment

Ch.14.14) Religion and Social Investment – III

Posted on May 7, 2011 by Andrew

When the perceived rewards of religion are greater, there is often a likewise greater cost for involvement. Who would make a great sacrifice for something believed to have mere ornamental value? Not many.

In a setting lacking a central government to keep the peace, protect the borders and regulate and perform many social duties, one could see how important religion can be. When perceived to be this important, more can be asked of group members to establish/join/maintain a religion. As in the Old Testament where ‘god’ asks for animals to be sacrificed, for men to be circumcised, and for people to follow his laws.

Not surprisingly, In Jesus time, a time where there was a centralized government – rule by the Romans – the cost for belonging was diminished. Jesus and the early Christians preached that you need not necessarily get circumcised, but instead be symbolically so: “Circumcision is circumcision of the heart” (Romans 2:29). The holy day? Jesus taught, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” The laws? “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!” (Galatians 2:21)

Why the relatively discounted requirements for being religious of the Jesus variety? For one, a key set of benefits were placed, one might say, on lay-away. He offered not a great kingdom in this world, but one later, in the next.

For his inner circle of followers, however, Jesus required much greater sacrifice: They must leave worldly goods and even family behind and follow him.

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. (Matthew 19:29)

One interesting interpretation of the story and teachings of Jesus, by the way, paints him as a gun-shy revolutionary. On one hand, he wanted to overthrow the Romans and the corrupt Jewish power-brokers and bring a new world order. So drop all you are doing and follow me. But the Jesus gang had no machine guns and the odds were incredibly stacked against them. So his revolutionary message was made tepid and disguised in parable, so he and his small band would not be immediately squashed by greater forces. He offered a new kingdom . . . later. Of course, he later did cross the line one too many times, and was squashed. After-the-fact the defeat was spun into a tale of victory of the ‘spiritual’, symbolic sort.

But back to the higher cost for belonging to the inner circle of Jesus, or any group’s inner-circle, for that matter. Why? First, as a way to test the potential strength of an alliance. You are more likely to get committed individuals when the commitment comes at a cost. Second, with proximity to a great leader comes a perceived elevation in status. With status being a very important social resource. Of this world.

For today’s Christians, following a physical Jesus is impossible. Thank goodness. For then they might have to leave family, home and worldly goods. It seems that only when actually with Jesus would a wealthy person have as much trouble getting into heaven as a camel would going through the eye of a needle. Phew! When relatively distant from Jesus, the cost to follow is lessened. There are still those who desire such a close “personal” relationship with their now non-physical leader, that they are willing to show just how worthy and committed they are. And so they take vows of poverty, vows of silence. The remove themselves from society at large to be ‘spiritually’ closer to him. Proximity to power -and leaders of any kind have power — feels powerful.

How do modern Christians tangibly benefit from going to church, talking of religion, and wearing visible signs of loyalty to their god? While psychosocial benefits are only barely tangible in the usual sense of the word, they are real. A change in appearance and behavior will change relationships. For the human animal, we shouldn’t forget, next to absolute essentials such as food and offspring, relationships are a resource of tremendous value.

Whether you advertise it by spending time at church with close associates, by adorning your truck with a “Real Men Love Jesus” bumper sticker, or by hanging a gold cross around your neck, what you are doing is displaying your identity and advertising an “alliance worthy” status. I am a good person, I have value. The motto from the world of sales is relevant: Reputation is everything.

On one evening this spring, during the results show of American Idol, they showed a clip of judge Steven Tyler complimenting a country singer on his more rocker-like performance. Quite the bad-boy, hard-rocking idol himself, Tyler said, “looked like you were dancing with the devil. And it was a beautiful thing.” He meant it as a compliment. When interviewed later about it, the male country singer laughed, and said, “well, I love Jesus,” while simultaneously holding and lifting the cross that hung around his neck. Message sent. That male was in now way interested in joining a band of bad-boys.

Of course, how a message such as “I love Jesus” is received depends in a large part upon the audience. Sure, it will boost your reputation among Christians. However, to hard-rocking renegades — a group of out-group members (that is possible) – maybe not. Verbal and non-verbal advertisements of identity are sent to those people you most want to attain and maintain alliances with with.

Mere ornamental religiosity can have value in terms of reputation and status, in terms of real and potential relationships.

Posted in Ch.14) The Pacts Within a Pack | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ch.14.13) Religion and Social Investment – II

Posted on May 4, 2011 by Andrew

Ancient people knew that the easiest way to kill an animal was to drain it of blood. Without blood, no life. It is no great stretch to see how blood could become associated with a great force. An animating force. A force that, when left of it, you die. It was also likely evident to ancient minds, at least of the meat-eating sort, that humans must kill other animals to live. To eat and live another animal ‘sacrifices’ its life. Additionally, blood is serious stuff because meat is serious stuff. It’s a highly valued resource. With this in mind, it is not all that curious to this 21st-century supermarket shopper, that there is quite a bit of talk about blood in both the Old Testaments and New.

Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words.” (Exodus 24:8)

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. (Jesus, the new messiah, in John 6:54-55)

Now that’s one magical meal. Hebrews 9:22 sums it up nicely:

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Not many modern believers regularly visit a butcher’s back room, nor slaughter an animal themselves to cook and place on their dinner table. So spilled blood likely has much different connotations. Most people probably only see blood on the ground at scenes of horrible accidents or crime scenes, real or fictitious. But in the Bible, blood lends a serious sanctity to such things as social bonds and personal indebtedness.

Today religious rituals seem quite tepid by comparison. Well, beyond the circumcision of male babies. Signs and symbols of religious commitment appear to be little more than mere fashion accessories. Yet ritualized behaviors and signs of being affiliated with a great leader, a super-alpha — and/or the group of that leader — remain common. What follows are a couple specific examples of the symbolic sort.

First, over the last few seasons of the singing competition, American Idol — of all things — roughly half of the contestants have sported crosses on their bodies or clothing. A necklace, earrings, on a stylish black t-shirt suitable for gangsta-wannabes (Jesus can love both lepers and rappers, it seems), etc.

Can we take this as evidence that the seriousness of religion diminished? Is it little more than a tool of ornamental value in the modern world? I would say, Yes and No. But first my second example.

Cross tattoos. In the case of a cross tattoo the individual must suffer some initial pain and then permanent disfigurement to show that sign. Even bleed a little during the . . . branding procedure. The brand, of course, is Christianity — which comes in many flavors. With tattoos individuals can advertise their identification with . . . what? No, not I’m a lover of and loyal to my mom, or my girlfriend, or the Marines. No, not I belong to the dark world of bikers, or of dragons, that I roll with those people. Nor, for the contemporary woman, “I am a beautifully radical free spirit, like butterflies and flowers. Or even a sexual cat. (Oh my!). What they signal is an identification with not so much a religion, but with a leader and maybe a group. Like billboards, tattoos advertise a personal affiliation with individuals or groups or worldviews. In the case of a cross, it can be some of all three.

I got to thinking about tattoos and religion after viewing a documentary on prison life.

Although each convict enters the prison system as an equal — pronounced guilty and individually punished by removal from “society” — hierarchies and alliances form. Even gangs. Very quickly. You might say prisons are natural experiments on the social instincts of the human animal.

In the documentary, one particularly dangerous-looking man was interviewed. On his bare bicep he sported a detailed depiction of Jesus on the cross. How can a criminally-inclined “bad-ass” love the Prince of Peace so much as chisel it in ink into his skin? My conjecture is that this individual, and many more, love not so much the teachings of Jesus as they do the idea of having an unbreakable alliance (you can’t break the imaginary) with an esteemed high leader. It is a status thing. Apparently, today you need not be blood brothers with Jesus (by drinking his). One can instead be an “ink brother” or a medallion sister. These are symbols of an affinity if not an affiliation.

That prisoner was not advertising that he was one of the Crypts. At least not on that arm. No, his body art said, “I am a Jesus People. He’s my leader, and I am loyal.” Or maybe, “I’m in Jesus’ gang. I work for him. He is on my side.” Or some such thing. The same could be said for American Idol contestants who proudly adorn themselves with Christian crosses.

While a cross necklace may seem like a meaningless trinket to non-believers, a mere curiosity, to different people this is certainly not the case. Consider “mere” hand gestures. Raise a single finger and people will respond emotionally one way. It means “Wait a minute” or “We’re number one.” Draw that single finger across your neck and you’ll get an very different reaction. No words exchanged, yet big meaning transmitted. A wearer of a Christian cross surely has different feelings about it than you or I. They feel differently about seeing one on a stranger. The same cross necklace worn down the streets of a Muslim country might bring yet other, very strong feelings to the people seeing it. Symbols can be quite evocative, whether or not they evoke something in us.

[…to be continued.]

Posted in Ch.14) The Pacts Within a Pack | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Ch.14.12) Religion and Serious Social Investment, Serious Social Payoff – I

Posted on April 28, 2011 by Andrew

“Wild chimpanzees are masters of the political game: they seem to be constantly calculating the costs and benefits of forming an alliance with one member of the community while snubbing a second and deceiving a third.” (51)

Group harmony relies upon individuals being able to not only co-exist, but to work together and stay together. Members tacitly and even overtly make a “promise” to behave in a mutually advantageous fashion. (How mutual and advantageous may depend upon the status of the individual.) Because human beings are intelligent and thus quite capable of behavioral and verbal deceit, many promises come at a cost and/or must be regularly reaffirmed. Otherwise, they might be empty promises.

In chimpanzees, a promise of alliance is behaviorally signed and affirmed via peaceful (quasi submissive) gestures, regular grooming sessions, and the occasional deferring to another when a limited resource comes between them. In human societies we find quite a range of gestures exhibiting a peaceful intent: smiling, shaking hands, making “small” talk, kissing the ring of a superior, bowing upon meeting, giving gifts, etc.

Of course, as the only Earthly species skilled at “acting” of the Hollywood sort — (though chimps and orangutans do show some aptitude for it) — one has to wonder what keeps the value of a promise from plummeting to zero. As Robin Wright states in his book about animal morality (deceit is a serious and perhaps cardinal act of immorality) in small groups individuals are capable of monitory the members and alerting others when transgressions occur. For example, it is said that in a small town there is no escaping your past. (52)

But in larger groups we walk among relative strangers and there may be a regular influx of individuals our community lacks a store of experiences with (and talk about). How do you account for individuals strange to you? In many a tale of the silver screen there are unspoken yet obvious signs a person new to the scene is dangerous. Typically, bad guys will be ugly and may even have a nasty scar on their face. This person brings a sign of his past into a new social setting. And the audience instinctively knows — watch out for this guy.

Who is this stranger, this person without a track record? Who or what is there to allow you to invest trust in the individual? Who or what can tell you to avoid him or her? If the individual isn’t a member of a named clan, or maybe the friend of a friend, is there any other way to determine whether you want to work elbow-to-elbow with him or her? Seeing that human beings are so good at deceit, what information beyond the person can help you trust?

It is possible that one of the functions of religious participation is to provide a sign that the person has a group, a group with a reputation of its own, that the person is not a total stranger and a possible renegade agent. He or she is embedded in a social network you know something about. You have expectations of. Social ties that can moderate and guide behavior. Maybe you can work with this person, maybe you can enter into an alliance. Still, will you be double-crossed? What is to prevent pretenders from violating your alliance and costing you resources and reputation?

Over a decade ago, Walter Burkert wrote,

“Why must people have religion? In the ancient world, the obvious answer would have been, for the validation of oaths. Without gods there would be no oaths, and hence no basis for trust and cooperation, for legal action, or for business.” (53)

I would say that the above is merely the most obvious tip of an iceberg comprising largely unspoken and informal agreements.

Clearly, chimpanzees make no oaths and take no legal action. How then, could this aspect of religious behavior echo more primitive behavior and instincts? As I currently see it, there are two ways. First there is the manner in which oaths and assurances are made. Second, there are the rewards and punishments for being a good group member, or not. (I will address the second part in a subsequent post.)

First, unspoken promises and outspoken oaths often reflect elements of intimacy, connectedness, and commitment.

In Genesis 24:9 we read,

So the servant put his hand under the thigh of his master Abraham and swore an oath to him concerning this matter.

That’s intimate. Maybe a bit to intimate, with that thigh part, for the modern mind. But it is not this intimate:

“Males are much more social. They groom one another, hug one another, and hold one another’s scrotum in reassurance. (54)

That, you may have guessed, is about chimpanzee behavior, as observed by Alison Jolly. Trust and commitment, at least in rudimentary forms, are concerns of other primates. Can I trust you to be by my side — through thin and thick? In Matthew 26:35, we read of a promise made by the “rock” of the early Christian church.

But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the other disciples said the same.

Now that’s commitment. No legal papers signed, but a verbal promise made.

Chimpanzees, on the other hand, will likewise honor a working alliance at risk of personal injury and even death. Yes, they can be quite loyal.

I wonder if one of the reasons why an atheist is extremely unlikely to get elected as president of this nation is that trust factor. An atheist belongs to no religious group. He (or she) lacks a conventional, ongoing connectedness with others. Importantly, religious connectedness involves the element of sharing a “high leader” that all members are subservient to. The atheist cannot put his or her hand on a Bible and declare to be a good group member (a sub-leader, beneath the highest alpha), So help me God. To whom does the atheist swear?

Every campaign season you will find candidates for president making it known they are good group members. They have a loving family, they belong to both community and professional organizations, and they bow their heads in unison with others, showing that they, too, are bound by that great source of social glue in the sky. No, they are not renegades. Reformers, maybe. But completely solitary agents that answer to no “greater power”? No way. Too dangerous. You can’t trust solitary agents.

Of course, a presidential candidate can’t belong to any religious group, can’t follow any god. It must be either our religion, or one familiar to us. Not foreign.

Tangentially: Note the continuing, bogus hoopla about whether President Obama is truly “one of us.” Was he born in a foreign land? Does he secretly belong to a religion we perceive as hostile to our own? Can we really trust the dark-skinned man?

While you can’t fully know someone simply by the friends they keep, you can know something, you can feel they are less strange to you and less likely to behave in ways you hadn’t expected. Less likely, not fully unlikely.

In the currently wildly popular television program, “Glee,” members of the school chorus, the glee club, are identified by their group belonging. They often show great commitment to another, at personal cost (status, mostly), and will come to each other’s aid. They also don’t take deceit and desertion lightly. We thought you were one of us. How could the offending person forsake the group? All these strong, drama-worthy feelings over a singing group! Why? We are a social species and our social instincts run wide and deep.

—

(51) Fouts, R., Next of Kin: What Chimpanzees Have Taught Me About Who We Are, William Morrow, 1997, p.45
(52) Wright, R., The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Vintage, NY, 1995, p. 220
(53) Burkert, W., Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996, p. 169
(54) Jolly, A., Lucy’s Legacy, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 173

Posted in Ch.14) The Pacts Within a Pack | Leave a comment

Ch.14.11) The Friendly “Us” and Dangerous “Them”

Posted on April 1, 2011 by Andrew

Group membership and loyalty brings to mind the topic of identity formation in adolescence. As one version of psychological theorizing goes, we can view identity as not only consisting of perceptions and concepts about “what I am,” but also “what I am not.” In a sense, the teenager struggles with boundaries. Beyond loosening parental control on their freedom and autonomy, they also grapple with to what degree and how their parents are part of their identity. One the first steps of identity formation can be declaring, I am not my parents. I have my own wishes, desires, and abilities.

Likewise, a group’s identity can consist of “what we are” as well as “what we are not.”

Some elements of the are and are not constitute two sides of the same coin. Consider circumcision, as described this way in Genesis 17:10:

This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.

How perfect. To circumscribe a group is to draw a boundary around it and differentiate who is in, who is out.

Sharing an ancestor and having common blood is also an easy way to identify social belonging. Oh, you are so-and-so’s boy. Or, He’s a member of the Clampett clan.

I recall learning about traditional Navajo greetings and how an individual would identify him/herself to strangers by clan/family names of both their mother and father. A quick web search confirms my recollection. From a site on one Navajo family’s geneology:

An important Navajo custom is to introduce one’s maternal and paternal clans on both sides of his family when meeting another Navajo or introducing yourself to the Navajo public for the first time. In the Navajo way, this is how Navajos know where you came from. Navajo children are “born to” the mother’s clan and take her clan name, and are “born for” the father’s clan. Therefore, Navajos precisely know who they are through identification by their mother’s, father’s, maternal grandfather’s and paternal grandfather’s clans. (46)

Clan or diné names include: Feather People, Salt People, Deer People, Meadow People, Mud Clan, Corn People, Bear Enemies, Water’s Edge Clan, Giant People, Bitter Water Clan, and the Bead People. (47) Could the large diné of the early Israelites be called the Circumcision People?

Perhaps the most common means of drawing a group identity is to circle around an authority figure, such as the village elder, tribe boss, Lord of a particular patch of land, your quarterback, etc. The petals on a flower converge at center, creating a collection of individual parts that comprise a unit, the blossom. By emphasizing allegiance to a leader, a group naturally forms. The focus of the group becomes its identity. The Jesus People, the Muhammad People. Identities can fade and/or be replaced, however, if they go neglected. And there are regular reminders in the form of customs and rituals and stories.

King David rose to his feet and said: “Listen to me, my brothers and my people. I had it in my heart to build a house as a place of rest for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, for the footstool of our God, and I made plans to build it. (1 Chronicles 28:2)

A god provides something to rally around, something potentially very inclusive, for you can be adopted into “his clan.” Yet maybe the god is merely a means to the this end: feeling and behavior “as one people.”

As mentioned in a previous chapter, the ability and inclination to follow a leader likely originates in the parent-child relationship. And religion is rife with father speak (and sometimes mother). This type of relation with an invisible being is a key element of Abrahamic belief. However, in terms of group belonging, how does one identify oneself as belonging to a god? In the New Testament the necessity of physical circumcision was an unresolved issue. So how were membersto identify their allegiance with a leader, particularly in a cultural environment with multiple groups? Many individuals today wear gold crosses around their necks to advertise their identity as one of the Jesus People. Back then, though? Besides physical signs such as circumcision, behavior could do it, could be a sign. And speech is powerful behavior, no mere formality.

“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 10:32)

Are you a Jesus People?

We must remember that the primary purpose of such identification of having a relationship to a non-blood authority figure is often not about the personal relationship. That can be completely lacking, practically speaking. Rather, it is about group belonging. I am one the mixed-blood clan following invisible leader X. Crucially, by identifying yourself as an X, you signal to others whether you are potential friend or foe. That you might work well together, or not. In return, you hope that others do not remain fully strange, but provide a sign of their group membership. The behavioral signs of group membership likely also serve to strengthen group bonds. As has been well established by psychological studies, human beings tend to feel closer to people similar to them. Both visually and behaviorally. When you share behavior with others you are more likely to feel an affiliation.

On the other hand, if threatened by an outside group, it is advantageous to highlight their differences. This will make groups members less likely to view them as “one of us.” Or view them as a join-able them.

Many Bible verses, such as Exodus 23:32, refer to a pact of sorts made with a leader.

Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods.

This is, in essence, a promise of loyalty. In effect, it is a means of establishing and maintaining a group. The us. And where there is an us there is also a them, a not-us.

From an alpha’s perspective, to be loyally followed equates to strength. To have defectors is to lose strength — something sure to provoke the diligent alpha. Loss of power is not accepted gracefully, to say the least.

In every town in Judah he built high places to burn sacrifices to other gods and provoked the LORD, the God of his fathers, to anger. (2 Chronicles 28:25)

From the follower’s perspective, to have defectors from one’s group also equates to a loss – both in group operational strength and dependability. Also a serious matter, particularly if the prosperity and protection of your family is at stake.

In the modern world — distant from the Middle East and other regions where religious and ethnic us/them conflicts are pronounced — we find more refined and/or seemingly benign and fanciful forms of group identity and belonging. Public schools and corporations large and small strive for “team spirit.” In these refined forms there may be peaceful competitions between teams, but the focus is largely placed upon the us. We are good, we can do good.

Rooting for collegiate and professional sports team is another example. In some social environments, being a Miami Dolphins fan can make you an us. In the same setting, being a fan of the New York Jets doesn’t make you a full them. You just aren’t one of the us. Sure, rabid fans will more vehemently identify with their team and view outsiders as true outsiders. As thems. “I hate the New York Jets. And I hate their fans.” But, by and large, when resources are plentiful and survival isn’t at stake, the focus is nearly completely on the us.

Still, the tendency is there. As psychological experiments have demonstrated, human beings will readily fall into groups and begin to think and behave in terms of in-group and out. Simple designations such as being in the “blue eyed” group, or the “right-handed” group, coupled with talk about the superiority of one’s own group, invariable leads to prejudiced talk and action.

Yikes. So even in our cushy, relatively stress-free times, the tendency is there.

In more serious settings — as was the ancestral environment, one presumes — group harmony is important. Sure. But so is protecting your group from outside groups, as is protecting it from disloyal individuals that will weaken it. How is one to identify a them? Fancifully speaking, not all Jets fans overtly identify themselves by strolling down Main Street in a green replica Jersey yelling “Go Jets!”

As a more serious analogue, my wife once taught in an extremely rural elementary school in New Mexico. Ranching territory. The school population was 90%+ Hispanic and Navajo. It was so remote, to attract and retain teachers, the school district had to provide subsidized housing and advertise far and wide. Although my wife arrived as a white them, her behavior soon assured the community that she was at least provisionally “one of us.” At least when it came to being invited into homes and hearts. Not so for another first-year teacher. This woman was from New York City, and indeed did speak like she was from “New Yoik City.” What’s more, while my wife spent much energy getting to know her new community and how they traditionally did things (putting the focus on the us from the eyes of the locals), the New Yorker emphasized how they did things back home. The right way. To the locals, this was prejudiced them speak. That woman was never liked, trusted and accepted.

My guess is that one element of the woman’s problem was her heavy accent. Imagine living in a small ranching community. A new person comes to town. This person not only lacks the regional accent, she speaks with a thick accent of their own. I can envision the locals wondering, “Will she abandon the us to head back to her them?” On some level (all things being equal) might a local inhabitant trust this person less, and be less likely to enter into a working alliance with her, based on the dissimilarity of the voices alone? I think so.

In modern, “enlightened,” melting-pot America, comedians continue to use heavy accents in their acts. They do this when taking on the role of one of those amusing thems. “Poking fun.” No, not often at the left-handers, or the ones with blue eyes, nor the Jets fans. At those silly neighbors with their foreign ways. Talking included.

When I read the Bible, I frequently do so with the mindset of a cultural anthropologist more often than I do with that of an evolutionary psychologist. Material directly pertinent to the latter is less obvious than the former, somewhat unfortunately.

Consider Judges 12:6-7:

They said, “all right, say ‘Shibboleth.’ “He said, ‘Sibboleth,’ because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time.

While the verse content is obviously about cultural identification — ethnic and religious elements central to this, of course — it is also about the social concerns of a primate. Outsiders can be dangerous, for they may have different motives and priorities. You don’t want to work with if an outside if he or she could threaten your ability to feed and protect your family. One can incite many a group of social animals to attack one of their own simply by altering the individual’s appearance or smell. A stranger among us!

Outsiders are such a threat to one’s own group, not only will human beings become prejudiced toward them, but they frequently will vilify them. No, they aren’t just a them, they aren’t just a threat, they are bad. In fact, they are evil.

As Robin Wright has noted in his book, The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, in religions around the world you will find agents of evil.(48) Demons and tempters that coax individuals into behaving in ways that disrupt the group or cause outright abandonment of it.

The origin of the word satan tells of a historical use of designating a general adversary.(49) That adversary doesn’t even have to be a them. Just someone who temporarily acts like one.

This from Matthew 16:23:

Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

Peter was an apostle, an “us.” Nonetheless, in groups large and small there can be behavior at odds with group goals and members. In terms of of the quoted verse, my guess is that the “human concerns” part referred to the concerns of others.

In the Biblical religions, the notion of a real-world “adversary” evolved into that of adversarial supernatural entities and their harmful, invisible influence.(50) Many churches and people today continue to believe in and speak about the devil, evil, and Satan.

What does Satan and those supposedly under the control of the devil, the doers of evil . . . do? They cause single individuals, and groups of them, to act in ways that oppose the desires of one’s own group. Satan, the devil, and evil forces are said to make individuals behave in ways that weaken and disrupt the group.

Why did that man commit adultery and abandon his family? Satan took control of his soul. Why does that girl not obey her parents? The devil is in her. Why does that other group oppose our own? They are evil. To clarify matters, you must choose sides, are you will the good us or the bad them. Don’t let an evil agenttempt you into not following our leader, into not being one of us and thus good for us.

Satan and the devil are the personification of socially threatening forces. At least in terms of one’s own group. The battle of good-versus-evil is basically a battle of those you can harmoniously work with, and those you cannot. And what is “working with” — and any relationship, for that matter — than a constellation of behaviors?

I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God. Acts 26:17-18

It seems both the Bible god and Satan have the power to influence human behavior. For the good of the group. Or bad.

—–

(46) http://www.lapahie.com/Dine_Clans.cfm
(47) http://www.lapahie.com/Dine_Clans.cfm
(48) Wright, R., The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Vintage, NY, 1995, p. 367
(49) from the Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com):

Satan . . . proper name of the supreme evil spirit in Christianity, O.E. Satan, from L.L. Satan (in Vulgate, in O.T. only), from Gk. Satanas, from Heb. satan “adversary, one who plots against another,” from satan “to show enmity to, oppose, plot against,” from root s-t-n “one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as an adversary.” In Septuagint (Gk.) usually translated as diabolos “slanderer,” lit. “one who throws (something) across” the path of another (see devil), though epiboulos “plotter” is used once.

(50) see, Pagels, E., The Origin of Satan, Vintage, New York, 1995.

 

Posted in Ch.14) The Pacts Within a Pack | Leave a comment

Ch.14.10) Religion and the Serious Matter of Group Membership

Posted on March 18, 2011 by Andrew

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. (Matthew 12:30)

To social animals, group living has exceptional survival value. Group strength and integrity are serious business. Who is a loyal member of your group? Who can you count on? Numerous New Testament verses speak of a cost to belief to pertain to group membership: how to gain entrance, you to signify your loyal belonging. Included among these are a few about the need to leave your home to follow Jesus.

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. (Matthew 19:29)

In Christianity, things ‘of this world’ take a back seat. Some say they take the back seat to things ‘of a kingdom to come.’ But what these verses seem to be ultimately about is commitment . . . to Jesus, the group leader.

In a sense, sacrifices made for and to a group express an investment in it. They can be both a test of loyalty and sign of it. In the Old Testament, Genesis 22:2, Abraham’s loyalty to the great group leader in the sky is put to a monumental test:

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”

While in the New Testament an original investment cost for being part of Jesus’ flock was leaving family and fortune, in one telling instance in the Old Testament, the cost was put at the loss of a family member. A son. That’s steep. But the great leader softened his stance and instead settled for the sacrifice of an animal. The sacrifice of the foreskin of every male group member is a related issue, explored by Walter Burkert in his thought-provoking Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions. (44) Circumcision is a big biblical deal, the sign of group membership in the Old Testament. It is certainly a creative initiatory rite and sign, carrying a definite cost – pain and permanent disfigurement. But beyond any modern-age, teenage-grade snickering about all things penile, circumcision was a big deal and to some remains one today.

Of course, without an out-group to need to differentiate from, there would be little need for rites and signs of group belonging and loyalty.

Not coincidentally, circumcision of the Old-Testament-kind likely became a pressing issue when Israelites found themselves among numerous others in ancient Babylonia. (45) Hundreds of years later New Testament writers seemed conflicted and ambivalent about the role circumcision should play in their upstart brand of Judaism (decades later to become Christianity). Consider these verses:

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. (Romans 2:25)

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. (1 Corintheans 7:19)

Why the uncertainty over the role of circumcision in the New Testament? Times had changed. No longer were group and non-group members living on their own land, battling one another over those lands. Rather, the groups existed relatively elbow-to-elbow.

When your group and your nation, your homeland, are not one and the same, but something lesser, at least according to implications for access to essential resources, why would membership cost to a particular group then not become discounted?

Enter leaders like John the Baptist, who had no actual kingdom to bestow upon loyal followers, no piece of turf to protect with those willing to sacrifice all. The ritual cost for membership in his group? A brief submersion in water. A cost almost completely symbolic. (Which is fitting for a payoff of the ‘spiritual’ symbolic kind.)

With Jesus later instructing his followers to abandon all, is it any wonder he had but a ragtag of loyal followers (including lepers and prostitutes and other societal dregs)? Forsaking real property and riches in this life is quite a price to pay for promised payback in the form of a kingdom to come…some day. How many Christian churches today set the bar that high?

My guess is that in the New Testament writings Jesus had to make extreme requirements of his followers. Why? First, as a hindsight rationalization by scribes as to why had so few if them. Second, as a means of facilitation the growth of a new religion by sufficiently breaking roots and ties to the old. Like most cults today require.

What do contemporary Christian churches require of their group members, of their followers? The steepest cost for most is a relative paltry drop of dollars in the collection basket. Tithing.

Not surprisingly, while circumcision is a de facto medical procedure among contemporary Christians (vs. an increasingly cultural rite only for Jews), baptism is the more official rite for entry into the church, for formal entry into the fold, the group. And many a modern parent takes it quite seriously, even when their own religious involvement is far from serious. The un-baptized child, why — he or she is a spiritual orphan. Who does he or she ultimately belong to? This deep fear seems to drive many a half-hearted believer into a very ancient rite for their child. Just in case.

Why is it that religious rites and rituals can carry such emotional clout? Consider the topic of mere table manners. Seems completely unrelated, I know. Yet we could similarly ask why a parent would feel a concern over their child’s dinner etiquette? Sure, at home there may be a more relaxed standard. But when dining with important people . . . that poorly mannered child may not be perceived as worthy of potential partnership and/or inclusion in a group. The parents’ own social standing could suffer as well.

Table manners and circumcision — these topics speak to the fully natural social concerns of the human primate.

—

(44) Burkert, W., Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religion, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.

(45) Asimov, I., Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments, Wing Books, New York, 1969, p. 80

 

Posted in Ch.14) The Pacts Within a Pack | Leave a comment