Why do alpha males tend to be keepers of the garden?
Before answering that question, let me explain what I mean by ‘keepers of the garden.’ No primate species but one will cultivate and tend a garden. Yet many if not most will defend a territory — not because they win Monopoly money for doing so, but because any territory worth defending contains gardens of the naturally occurring sort. Food sources.
Dominant males are also keepers because they fight not to lose what they have. Lastly, our own species qualifies as keepers in terms of tending to it in order to insure and optimize food production. In this regard females play a significant role, the size and importance of that role depending upon the particular culture.
Why do males tend to be ‘keepers’? Male primates tend to be larger and stronger. Which makes for a good defender. Additionally, males are more expendable. Evolutionary speaking. If you lose a female, you lose more than one individual. You also endanger if not lose dependent children, as well as lose the potential production of more offspring. The social group that has 5 females to every male will grow more quickly than will the opposite. To put it bluntly, wombs are limited resources. In contrast, as a naturalist friend of mine put it, “sperm is cheap.”
Why alpha’s? In terms of physical power and aggressiveness, alphas tend to be “at the top.” Perhaps more importantly, in terms of social power, they are definitely at the top of the heap. They are more likely to have others follow them and thereby multiply the muscle available for a task. Indeed, as Jane Goodall and others have documented, dominant males tend to take the lead in defending a “feeding territory for all members.”(1)
But why would a territory need to defending? Because resources equate to survival. They are valued for a reason. And can be stolen. As evidenced by these . . . Bible verses [emphasis added].
The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled. They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses. (Genesis 34:27-29)
So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves. (Deuteronomy 3:3-7)
Gardens need to be protected from vandals and other threats. Yet can you protect a garden from plagues and drought? Well, you can try. And when it comes to food, to not do everything in your power to protect it — that would be crazy. So maybe the many Bible verses that evidence attempts at assuring a healthy garden — while they are misguided — are not so crazy.
Let us fear the LORD our God, who gives autumn and spring rains in season, who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest. (Jeremiah 5:24)
What brings the rains that nourish your garden? If your understanding of nature is rudimentary and/or you have a hyperactive tendency to attribute events to the work of agents (related to the theorized human HADD – hyperactive agency detection device (2)).
Of course, a great leader-god gets credit for the good, because he is loving and/or pleased with his people. So be sure to please him. Refrain from behavior that could anger him. But when plagues strike, when rains don’t come and plants wither, this is also a god’s doing. But the bad does not reflect poorly on his nature. Rather, a bad turn of events will be attributed to a people’s bad actions, which provoked their god. Just ask Pat Robertson. This renown preacher from a more modern age informed people that the reason for the hurricane of 2005 that wrecked havoc on the city of New Orleans — bringing way too much of those nurturing rains — was that people had sinned. The nation had been too soft on the issue of abortion.(3)
A productive garden must be nurtured. And protected. This is why religion speaks to the issue so often. Food is indeed sacred — though in a fully mundane, evolutionary way.
—
(1) 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. 19
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
(3) http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1953778_1953776_1953771,00.html
If you delve into specifics, people today ‘hunger’ for a god for reasons that poorly overlap with more ancient reasons. At least in areas of the world with amply stocked supermarkets and respected borders. Today we enjoy relative peace and little hunger. Years ago — not so much. And so hundreds of verses in the Old Testament speak of a god as one who not only could vanquish the enemy, but also alleviate hunger. In fact, the Biblical drama all began in the Garden of Eden.
In a time of uncertainty, what individual wouldn’t welcome a leader who satisfied real hunger?
At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God. (Genesis 16:12)
The actions of gods in all religions reflect human concerns. As with all animals, for the human primate food ranks at the top of concerns, followed by reproduction and others. No, these issues are not transcendental, but fundamental.
Bread. What a fantastic commodity. It staves off hunger and provides the necessary energy to stand up and do what needs doing. To be daily provided with bread—what fortune! It is no surprise that the word bread appears in the Bible 250 times (New International Version). Of course, there are other terms that appear throughout the Bible and reflect this basic need. For example, famine appears 94 times, and crop(s) 60 times. Not to mention the many verses about a god as the provider of rain (such as Psalms 65:9).
As telling is the how the “promised land” granted to a god’s children is described.
Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. (Genesis 33:2-3
But it doesn’t stop there.
And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. (Isaiah 7:22)
You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you. (Joel 2:26)
Plenty to eat. And honey no less! If hunger were a real occurrence in our lives, and there was a possibility of starvation, I imagine that the thought of being granted abundant food would just about make you fall to your knees. In thanks . . . to what? The government? As social animals, our instincts favor the thanking of an agent, even one of the imaginary sort.
In the New Testament, written during a more modern time–one of trade and markets–there is less talk of a god as the provider of food. Still, it appears in a number of places. Such as the “Lord’s Prayer.”
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. (Matthew 6:9-13)
Notice that in the prayer first comes praise, then an appeal. Chimp primates will “ask” (beg) for food from others with an extended hand, palm up. With this prayer, are humans asking for food by pressing their palms together?
I also discern in the prayer a sort of inverse hierarchy of needs. First comes food, sex/procreation is skipped, then we get to social needs. Help me get along better with others, for belonging to a social group is a real resource.
But back to the New testament. Jesus performs a number of food and hunger-related miracles. Okay, there was the water into wine thing. But you can’t use food stamps on wine, for good reason. So scratch that one. But there are least two beloved stories of him feeding many with food for a few. The fish and loaves thing.
Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. (Matthew 14:19-20)
Elsewhere, Jesus helps men catch an abundance of fish–a miraculous amount following hours of failed attempts by the experienced fishermen. And at the last supper, Jesus informs his followers that their high spiritual act will be to honor him by eating his body and drinking his blood. Weird? Not really. First, there are the numerous religious precedents that this idea is based upon. It didn’t come out of nowhere. Second, we have this mundane verity: Religion and food are intertwined because religion is a human invention, fully reflecting the concerns of an intelligent species of primate.
Despite the claims that religions promote universal love, what they best promote is love-for and loyalty-to the ‘brothers’ in one’s own group.(21) Why? If we look at the nature of social groups, it is highly likely that from the family unit came extended-family units–clans. With further extension we get tribes, collections of actual brothers and sisters and virtual brothers and sisters. These early groups had individuals bonded together for reasons of safety and the procurement and protecti0n of resources. The groups were territorial and competed against other groups. As Paul Ehrlich writes,
“Territories are typically established to protect or monopolize resources, mates, or offspring, and animals may defend territories against a wide variety of potential competitors.” (22)
The human animal is no exception. In fact, we excel at drawing group lines and defending our groups. Furthermore, we often seek to expand our group and to even eliminate competing groups when they get in our way or threaten us. As these Biblical verses testify:
Our sister, may you increase to thousands upon thousands; may your offspring possess the gates of their enemies.” (Genesis 24:60)
“Our sister.” One of us. Where there is an ‘us,’ there is a ‘them.’
I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove savage beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country. You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. (Leviticus 26:6-7)
Who wouldn’t want a powerful ally like this? Who wouldn’t accept this Lord as their leader?
Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield. (Genesis 15:1)
While a supernatural agent has no real ability to protect you from harm, being part of a strong social group can. By encouraging individuals to follow a mighty leader, individuals gain strength in numbers.
—
(21) Wilson, D.S. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002, p. 217
(22) Ehrlich, P. R., Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Island Press,Washington, D.C., 2000, p. 177
With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample down our enemies. (Psalms 60:12)
Human concerns and needs are reflected in the characteristics of the god they worship. We can chalk up the many faces and changing nature of “most high” supernatural agent in the monotheistic religions to this fact: gods are designed and revised to meet the needs of a people. As a group leader, a god an lead his people in many ways. One way is in war.
As Karen Armstrong and many others have pointed out, “Yahweh was the god of war.”(13) In fact, that was the original specialty of the high god of the Old Testament. And it created a problem. As Armstrong relates, “He had no expertise in agriculture or fertility, and so many Israelites, as a matter of course, performed the ancient rituals of Baal and Anat to ensure a good harvest, because Baal was the power that fertilized the land.”(14) This provoked jealousy in Yahweh (i.e., the supporters of this god).
Why would the Biblical god be so concerned about warfare in some books of the Bible, unconcerned in others? Times and social environments change. For example, during Jesus’ time, the issue wasn’t so much about a boundary war, but about a revolution within that boundary.
Primate alphas lead their group in war. The ‘most powerful man on earth’ was once considered to be the president of the United States. Why? Because of the great resources he could control, including military might. Even today the U.s. president serves as the commander-in-chief. As for the Bible alpha, in early incarnations he definitely led his people on campaigns to attack and defeat the others. As expressed in verses such as these:
Blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” (Genesis 14:20)
The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.” (Exodus 14:14)
All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the LORD, the God of Israel, fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:42)
Worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies.” (2 Kings 17:39) (15)
As a mighty, supernatural alpha, a god is also capable of empowering his earthly captains. Messiahs justify and buttress their own roles by declaring they have a god on their side. They have a special relationship. And so they draw upon preexisting sentiments within their group, and the innate instincts of primates in general, to their own advantage. Chimpanzees, baboons, macaques, and humans all take more seriously other primates that have a close alliance with an alpha. So Jesus didn’t say, “I am god.” Rather he spoke of being the very special “son of.” That way he could justify his actions as a religious revolutionary. This very old tactic is still used today. “I have a special relationship with the greatest one.”
The god-as-war-leader phenomenon is not exclusive to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tree of belief. For example, in the 5th century BCE these words were spoken about the Egyptian god Ra (also Anum-Ra):
“Hail Ra in your rising,
Anum, the Might of the Gods….
You pass by the sandbank of the waving water, and your enemies are felled.” (16)
Now that’s a god you’d want to follow. Provided your needs included battling enemies.
Why do gods sometimes have the face of warriors? Because the creators of gods are primates. Primates are group-living social species with the need and instinct to protect their territory and resources. What’s more, we tend to forget that in ‘primitive’ cultures there was no distinct line between religion and politics. In fact, you might say that religion served as the rudimentary form of government. As Scott Atran wrote, “In tribal cultures, religion was inseparable from polity.”(20) Even today, it seems many citizens are unwilling to make a complete separation. Why? My guess is that people tend to relate better to the idea that do’s and don’ts and should’s and shouldn’ts appropriately come from an entity with parent-like connotations: a committed concern for it’s ‘children’ and unquestionable authority.
There may, in fact, be a link between the war-god (outside-threat-oriented) and the law-making, moralizing (do’s and don’ts, inside-threat oriented). That link is group size coupled with the existence of competing groups. As Frans L. Roes and Michel Raymond have outlined in their paper, “Belief in Moralizing Gods,”
“Cross-cultural analysis support this line of thought: more competition between societies is found in environments rich in resources and larger societies tend to occupy these environments, large societies engage in external conflicts at higher rates and are more often characterized by beliefs in moralizing gods . . . we speculatively picture the historical chain of events giving rise to a belief in moralizing gods.”(21)
The moralizing god says, “You must behave in a way that maintains group harmony. And you must help protect the group.” This second element of a god as war-leader and troop-recruiter is reflected in these two verses from different religious trees:
“If, however, you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.” Bhagavad Gita, 2:33 (19)
“Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world’s life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.” Qur’an, 4.74 (20)
What of those today who worship a god with the face of a war general? They are likely living in a setting where there is a real or perceived enemy to their way life. And so the call upon their most high commander-in-chief to lead them. The almighty.
—
(13) Armstrong, K. The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions, Knopf, New York, 2006, p.45
(14) Armstrong, K. The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions, Knopf, New York, 2006, p.64
(15) See also: Genesis 35:5, Genesis 49:8, Deuteronomy 9:3, Deuteronomy 11:23-25, Joshua 21:44, Judges 20:35, 1 Samuel 7:10, 2 Samuel 7:23, 2 Samuel 8:6, 1 Kings 5:3, 2 Kings 19:34-35, 1 Chronicles 14:14-15, 2 Chronicles 14:13-15, Psalms 18:17, Psalms 18-29, Psalms 44:5, Ezekiel 30:22
(16) Quirke, S. The Cult of Ra: Sun-Worship in Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, New York, 2001, p. 61
(17) Atran, S., In God’s We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 120
(18) Roas, F. L. & Raymond, R., “Belief in Moralizing Gods,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 24(2), 2003.
(19) Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta, Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Collier Books, NY, 1972.
(20) http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=114839
Xenophobia. Fear of foreigners. In a sense, to fear the foreign, the strange-to-you, is wise. For what we don’t know can hurt us. And the foreign is less known, more unpredictable. So we prefer the familiar, at least when it matters most.
You might say that chimpanzees are a xenophobic species. They notice unfamiliar individuals and go on alert mode. They recognize a “them,” and appropriately don’t trust the foreigner. Not initially, it’s too dangerous. Chimpanzees will threaten, chase and fight strangers. Not because they like to. But because unaffiliated-with-us individuals pose a real threat to resources: to mates, to infants, to territory, to food.
So deep runs this propensity to be alarmed by the strange that chimpanzees will attack members of their own group who merely act strange. For example, during a documented polio epidemic – yes, chimpanzees share that with us as well – a few chimpanzees became partially paralyzed and consequently started moving differently. Strangely. They were subsequently attacked by their own group members.(8) Unfamiliarity, alarm, and fear can do that.
Among humans, in-group members tend to behave similarly. Speech is a form of behavior. Whether an American male is more likely to use the word dude or sir while addressing another male reflects their current and past social group. Group members also often share dress, customs, diet, and more. How else can you recognize an “us”? “Them,” on the other hand, have foreign ways; they act strangely.
Pants cinched well below the waist, visible tattoos and piercings, long, untrimmed beards – these are strange only relative to a particular audience.(9) If a non-idiosyncratic behavior strikes you as strange, chances are it ‘belongs’ to an outsider. Where behaviors are different, it is easy for the human mind to conclude “stranger.” Yet the “to me” goes unsaid. When there is more than one stranger with shared qualities, we can designate a “them.”
The types of ‘thems’ human beings are capable of perceiving is quite varied. Here is a short list of potential us/them categories: ethnic, linguistic, racial, sex-based, sexual orientation-based, national, political, age-based, and even sports team-based.(10)(11)
To reinforce the boundary between “us” and “them,” outsiders get painted with less noble traits, insiders more noble. This psychological tendency is the likely wellspring of ethnocentrism.
Us/them distinctions go deeper than idle opinion and abstract thought. As evidence, consider the results from a psychological experiment published in the journal, Evolution and Behavior. Pairs of men were made to compete in a ‘friendly’ game. When competing, there was a measured rise in their testosterone and cortisol levels. The increase in hormone levels was more pronounced when the competition involved between-village contestants than within-village contestants.(12)
Turning to the Bible now, a revision in how the us/them boundary is drawn around believers can be seen to progress through its books (reflecting the time written and the corresponding social context). In Exodus there are many references to “the God of Abraham.” Oh, that god. Are you a member of the group that worships that god, are you one of us? In Exodus we read references to the god of the Hebrews. In Kings and Chronicles and many other books of the Old Testament, the most high god is frequently referred to as a god of Israel. Other religious-identity references include “the god of” David/Jacob/your-fathers. In the New Testament books the most high god is spoken of a number of ways, including: the god “of your ancestors,” “of Israel,” “of your fathers,” and there are also those few mentions “of Jew and Gentile.”
I am the God of your father Abraham.(Genesis 26:24)
This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go. (Exodus 9:13)
This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says…(1 Kings 11:31)
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him. (Romans 10:12)
In a practical sense, the god of a specific people has become the supposed god of all people. Some maintain that this god was always the god of all. I suspect it is because they do not want to recognize the tribal nature of gods. Whether or not you include everyone as part of your tribe, that nature remains.
—
(8) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 330
(9) As a tangent here, I imagine that suburban white boys adopt the ways of ghetto blacks to make themselves mildly alarming to others. By dressing and acting in a foreign fashion, they draw attention to themselves and perhaps feel dangerous and more potent within their own group. Their novel dress with fox-in-the-henhouse overtones (unpredictable outsider) may slightly alarm others. And that is the point. Strangers are alarming because the strange alarms us. When the potential to attract attention and put others on notice completely wears off, this type of behavior wanes. It brings to mind the image of a juvenile or perhaps mid-status-level chimpanzee walking around with it’s shoulder fur in a state of semi erection. “Look out, I could be dangerous, give me room” (to move up in status).
(10) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p.196
(11) I imagine that cultures in which there is a significant difference in the appearance and behavior of the sexes, members of the opposite sex are more likely to be perceived as a “them.” Or maybe another species altogether, for they have really strange ways. At least according to the audience of my sex and our customary behavior. Maybe each sex could even perceived to be from different planets altogether. You think?
(12) Wagner, J. D., Flinn, M. V., & England, B. G. “Hormonal Response to Competition Among Male Coalitions,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 6, November 2002, 437-442.
Recent Comments