Those of you familiar with my An Almighty Alpha project are aware of my opinion that human beings are a primate species that shares innate, social instincts with the great apes. These instincts include a number that relate to social ordering, such as hierarchy and status. I've encountered two recent studies that, I believe, fail to take that insight into consideration. In doing so they overlook the chest of muscles beneath a more sophisticated yet superficial shirt. So to speak.
1. Why We Kick a Loser When He's Down.
FromWinning Makes People More Aggressive Toward the Defeated we learn,
A new study found that winners -- those who outperformed others on a competitive task -- acted more aggressively against the people they beat than the losers did against the victors.
"It seems that people have a tendency to stomp down on those they have defeated, to really rub it in," said Brad Bushman, co-author of the study and professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University.
Hmm. To "really rub it in"? To me, the above reasoning runs hollow, if not off-track. In the animal world, after a heated battle, the dominant doesn't merely require the defeated to "cry uncle" and then the two walk away arm-in-arm as buddies who have just played a game of darts. In the animal kingdom, the dominant never lets up nor lets its guard down just after a heated battle. To do so would be . . . stupid. Status is serious business.
And for a loser to act aggressively toward to the victor . . . no, no, no, that is plain stupid. Unless of course you hold some sort of Freudian perspective in which emotional retaliation makes sense above all else. The stupidity holds true particularly if the loser and the victor are from the same social group, and wish to remain so. Instead, the loser needs to behave as if he or she has indeed lost and recognizes it. Otherwise, the loser risks continued aggression if not banishment from the group. Sure, at some other other time the loser my attempt to rise again. But to risk not only status but even group membership itself after a loss is a huge risk . . . to a social species.
The research authors note that,
. . . other research suggests that people are more aggressive when they feel powerful, as they may when they win a competition.
And that that I reply, "of course!" It would be insane for a 'loser' to act more aggressively after evidence that they are a weaker. In a sense, to aggress is to attempt to move up (or protect one's one position). To do this post-loss is not so smart. After a victory, well, maybe you are that strong!
2. Why the Spiritual Realm is "Up."
In my Almighty Alpha book-in-project I wrote a post, "Why Godliness is Up." In it I explored this question:
Could a hominid feel reverent about a deity beneath its feet? Or is something underfoot too easy to dominate, too easy to put under one’s heel and perhaps snuff out?
Why is the spiritual realm generally considered to be above our heads? Because we love the blue sky and twinkling stars? I don't think so. We tend to project the abode of "something greater" in the same direction as the verified geometrical relationship between the average lower-level manager and the corporate CEO. As much research into human behavior has shown, if you are tall, people instinctively view you as somehow greater.
In the clichéd version of a plebe meeting a spiritual guru, the guru sits tranquilly atop a mountain while the plebe struggles to ascend to that level. Whether or not the guru is a material entity or an imagined force. And so I found it curious that the science article,Why revelations have occurred on mountains? Linking mystical experiences and cognitive neuroscience, made no mention of that relationship -- the "moving up means encountering the more powerful" element. Instead I read,
Prolonged stay at high altitudes, especially in social deprivation, may also lead to prefrontal lobe dysfunctions such as low resistance to stress and loss of inhibition. Based on these phenomenological, functional, and neural findings we suggest that exposure to altitudes might contribute to the induction of revelation experiences and might further our understanding of the mountain metaphor in religion.
Sure, slight oxygen deprivation might do funny things to the brain. But why climb the mountain in the first place? My answer: to move up. To brush elbows with the greats. To "hear them," and to elevate one's opinions in the eyes of those who have never ascended that high.
Maybe.
Perhaps I've just been reading too much about chimpanzee behavior. And thinking that were I covered with fur, I might look at a gorilla and think, "Oh look, there goes my distant cousin!"
“Eventually Mike [a chimpanzee] calmed down and became a benign alpha. He was exceptionally generous in sharing meat.” (4)
Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters. (1 Samuel 1:4-5)
The human being is an animal. Like our close relative, the chimpanzee, we engage in meat sharing. And like other primates, when hungry we will beg for a share.
“Ape beggars hold out their hand, palm upward, very much as human beggars do on the street.”(5)
If you don't have enough food, you can ask for more. Whom do you ask? An agent who has more or has control of 'more.'
Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (Genesis 9:3)
Besides being essential to survival, and perhaps because of it, food is a commodity. It can be traded up front, such as when male chimpanzees will give meat to fertile females in exchange for "access."(6) A gift of food can also be used to invest in a future return on that investment. You give food to 'get on the good side' of another. Which means in the future you will be treated favorably.
While other apes show only a rudimentary ability to plant seeds of favor with food gifts, human beings excel at this. Consider the historically widespread practice of making food gifts to deities. Or, in a more everyday sense, we have the custom of bringing a bottle of wine or some other treat to the house of a party host, as hosts sometimes give departing guests a little something to take with them.
Beyond parent and dependent child relationships, food sharing is actually quite rare in the wild. Among chimpanzees it is the exception rather than the rule.(7) Give food to another . . . why? The social payoff must be greater than the immediate nutritional benefit. And this explains why food sharing is much more common among humans. It isn't just a case of human nature, but of human food production as well. Put briefly, where there is surplus, the immediate value of a food resource diminishes, increasing the value of potential trade.
When we think of food surplus, we tend to think of crops, of agricultural production. Yet perhaps there is a more ancient type. The finding or felling of a large animal also provides a surplus of food. What individual could eat a whole antelope itself? With the successful hunt of a large animal, we have surplus, at least in the near term. That immediate surplus plays no small role in food sharing. Christopher Boehm has noted that among human groups of hunter-gatherers:
“Large game is shared by the entire band, and the resulting prestige lends itself to political ascendancy.”(8)
The prestige, of course, goes to the provider of the rare and rich food resource. The new, the scarce -- the exciting -- why wouldn't others be interested and eager to have some? Jane Goodall has recounted many an observation in which one "brave" individual chimpanzee steals something from the human camp, and other chimps gather round for a share of the novel item. Filched pieces of cardboard and an entire wool sweater proved particularly appealing to chimpanzees, who seemed to appraise their value by chewing and sucking on them.(9)
Of course, the more individuals you can impress, the greater the impact on your prestige. In the Old Testament, Elisha feeds a hundred men with "twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain along with some heads of new grain." (2 Kings 4: 42-43) Later in the Bible, Jesus ups the ante and prestige factor by feeding . . . FOUR THOUSAND! with a mere seven loaves (Matthew 15:36-38). That's one huge piece of cardboard.
In today’s relatively affluent communities, food is not scarce, nor is it a readily threatened resource. With local Albertson’s and Publix supermarkets, the idea of god as the deliverer of food has become more metaphorical -- he provides food for the soul -- if not outright quaint.
But the old time gods, they created the world and the world was the source of all sustenance. As this verse about the Egyptian god Ra tells:
You place every man in his place,
You make what they need,
So every one has his food,
His lifespan counted. (10)
Roughly two thousand years later we find verses like this from a nearby part of the world:
I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. (Genesis 1:29)
Yet who gets their food directly from the land today? Thanks to the world economy, local droughts don't cause the same level of religion-enflaming concern they once did. No rain for weeks? There may be water use restrictions enacted. Can't do the regular washing of your car. Lawns may die. But hunger? Most of the time, it is droughts in other parts of the world that will impact the consumer. In terms of higher prices, which is not quite life-threatening.
It then seems that many verses in the Bible were addressed to farmers.
Then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and oil. I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied. (Deuteronomy 11:14-15)
So few people today have gardens, particularly gardens they depend upon to feed their families. And so, again, while they may relate to the following Bible passages in a superficial fashion, I suspect they don't relate to it as deeply as subsistence farmers would.
Isaac planted crops in that land and the same year reaped a hundredfold, because the LORD blessed him. (Genesis 26:12)
As to why a mythical agent would promise his people rain bountiful crops -- this is because he speaks to the primate mind. The chimpanzee who shares food does not do so arbitrarily. He or she is much more inclined to share with family, individuals of 'shared' blood. Then come friends -- members of the extended, pseudo-blood group. Finally, chimps will share food as a commodity of trade. Implicit with a gift is indebtedness, of favor owed. When you fail to act favorably toward the gift provider, you will fail to receive future gifts.
If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit. (Leviticus 26:3-4)
Follow his decrees. Why? That will maintain social order, an order advantageous to him. Praise him. Why? That will help him maintain his social position. At the top. If you have a friend in that agent at the highest place, you will benefit.
---
(4) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 75
(5) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 197
(6) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, 1999, p. 173
(7) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 209
(8) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.7
(9) Goodall, J., My Friends the Wild Chimpanzees, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., 1967.
(10) Quirke, S. The Cult of Ra: Sun-Worship in Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, New York, 2001, p. 161
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.
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
Maybe that guy isn't a jerk; maybe he's just low on oxytocin.
A new study conducted on macaques has generated this proclamation:
Oxytocin, the "love hormone" that builds mother-baby bonds and may help us feel more connected toward one another, can also make surly monkeys treat each other a little more kindly. [article source]
In the experiment, macaques in the experimental group were administered oxytocin--a hormone we humans share--via an inhalation mask. Relative to the control group, these monkeys displays greater pro-social behavior, as gauged by their willingness to give some sweet juice to their cohorts.
I wonder: would outfitting automobile air conditioners with an oxytocin injector eliminate road rage?
Recent Comments