"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
Recent Comments