The great ape alpha is a threatening individual. Not only does he threaten his own groups members to get them to defer to him, this master of threat will turn his imposing nature outside the group and protect it from dangers in the external world.(3) What are these external threats? Gorilla males will protect their harem and children not only from predators, but from other males.(4) Male gorillas practice infanticide on the offspring of other males. Foreign males are also a threat to chimpanzee communities. Like the gorilla, the aggressive chimpanzee will take the lead in protecting the group from predators. He will also, like the gorilla, keep his eye out for lurking ‘foreign’ males.
A logical consequence of having an in-group is the existence of out-group others. By creating an ‘us’ a not-us is generated in consequence. The boundary of a group separates inside from out. And outsiders can be dangerous: they can usurp resources; they can upset group stability. So chimpanzees are wary of them. As Barbara king has noted in her book on the African great apes -
“Community membership is apparently meaningful to the chimpanzees, because boundaries are patrolled. Patrollers, typically males, silently walk the perimeter of their communities, seeking the presence of noncommunity individuals. Although some members may switch communities at certain times in their lives, intercommunity interaction, when it occurs, tends toward the aggressive, and sometimes even the lethal.” (5)
In fact, in the social psychology of chimpanzees we can discern the origins of human xenophobia and perhaps even genocidal behavior. For decades our kind has been quite naïve about the psychological and social complexity of other primates. As an illustration, consider this anecdote:
“In West Africa the fist hint of intercommunity violence came in 1977, within Senegals’s Niokola-Koba National Park, when conservationist Stella Brewer brought a group of ex-captive chimps into the forest with hopes of reintroducing them to a wild existence. But repeated attacks by native chimpanzees, including a terrifying nighttime raid of the camp by a gang of four adults, finally forced Brewer to shut her experiment down.” (6)
Other episodes of chimp ‘gang violence’ have also surfaced. In the Mahale Mountains National Park, it was documented that in wild groups of chimpanzees, one group, the ‘K-group’ seems to have been exterminated by another group, the ‘M.” (7) Or at least the males were killed; the females were likely incorporated into the winning group. In other words, inter-group hostility is not a strictly human thing.
This verse from Deuteronomy (21:10-11) readily comes to mind:
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Likewise, the inclination to view us as good (safe) and them as bad (threatening), extends farther than the human species. This us-them propensity has even been extended to the supernatural realm.
The nations will hear and tremble; anguish will grip the people of Philistia. The chiefs of Edom will be terrified, the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling, the people of Canaan will melt away; terror and dread will fall upon them. By the power of your arm they will be as still as a stone—until your people pass by, O LORD, until the people you bought pass by. (Exodus 15:15-16)
It may be true that the Old Testament alpha more closely resembles a male chimpanzee in its temperament. Yet that is likely due to the similar social environments of the chimpanzee and of the semi-nomadic bands of early Israelites living among bands of foreigners. Potentially hostile foreigners.
---
(3) Bourne, H., The Ape People, Putnam, New York, 1971.
(4) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.166
(5) King, Barabara. The Dynamic Dance: Nonvocal Communication in African Great Apes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004, p.25
(6) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p.20
(7) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About HumanSocial Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p. 17
“Silverback gorillas use pig grunts to stop fights, and dominant chimpanzees routinely pacify the quarrels of subordinates.” (40) - Christopher Boehm
Where you find clever, aspiring and ultimately selfish social primates, you will also find episodes of discord and conflict. In ancient communities with a size sufficient to dilute and confuse family bonds—neighbors unrelated to one another—what could be done to keep personal disputes from escalating into something more serious, something that could disturb and harm the entire community and potentially ripping it apart?
“Sure, your family’s elder, your grandfather, says the cattle belongs to you because you found it. But my grandfather says it belongs to me because it is the offspring of my cow.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if an entire community could share a grandfather? Wouldn't it be handy to have an elder of undisputed authority and free of family bias to fill the role of social referee? Before books and legal systems and agencies to enforce the rules, what could a community do?
Enter religion. In a god one acquires a truly great grandfather, an agent capable of filling the role of mediator, judge and corrections officer rolled into one. Of course, you can’t see him. But he has his spokesmen, and they know his rules and values; "grandfather" speaks to them, and his words are right there: contained in mysterious marks on a roll of parchment.
A god is a judge beyond reproach, distant enough from individuals to be impartial, but with vested interest in the group. In this light, we can see how an imagined alpha can bring benefit to a group. A god is an invention that can help squelch squabbles, mediate conflict, and manage contested resources—just as, to some degree, a primate alpha can.
Squabble Squelcher
As Jimoh left adolescence and matured, the females in his group began acknowledging his superiority. From lowest ranking to high, they bowed down to him, simultaneously vocalizing their deference. Eventually, even the highest ranking female bowed before the greatness that was Jimoh. Among the males, his status likewise increased. He eventually took on a "control role." An alert individual, Jimoh was often observed quickly "breaking up the smallest squabbles before they [would] get out of hand.”(41)
Jimoh was a chimpanzee. And while he was an exceptional individual within his group, you could not say that his type was not unique for all groups primates, that he was one-of-a-kind. Consider these anecdotes about other primate ‘masters’:
“Luit’s leadership was a significant improvement. Remarkable peace and playfulness reigned, even among the older females, who normally never gallop around uttering the throaty chimpanzee laugh. Luit took the so-called control role, acting as arbitrator in disputes with great authority and impartiality.”(42)
“Compared to Spickles and other rhesus leaders I know, Mephisto takes a more central position. While dominant rhesus males stay pretty much out of female affairs, Mephisto breaks up disputes among females and never fails to protect youngsters in need.... After major disputes Mephisto is always groomed by some of the antagonists, often of both sides. Everyone recognizes his influence.”(43)
When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?” (Exodus 18:14)
In a primate community, an alpha can exert maximum social control: as arbitrator, mediator, judge. With one present, conflicts can be mitigated if not outright prevented. For human primates a behavioral sensitivity to “who is in the room,” begins early. Developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan has noted,
"Each person remains continually sensitive to the presence of individuals who are more potent than self, whether the source of the potency is size, intellectual talent, strength, beauty, wealth, status, or endurance. When there are a large number of these more potent individuals, the child or adult may inhibit initiations that might be implemented if the more powerful persons were absent."(44)
In terms of religion, many new readers of the Bible—at least those that venture beyond the more warm-and-fuzzy passages—might be surprised by the inclusion of fear as a central component to the spiritual life. What? Isn’t that contradictory? Well, no. It depends on what kind of deity you worship.
In passages such as Psalms 111:10 we see the connection:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding.
What is wise about fearing your leader, your god? First, on a personal level, you will avoid wrath consequences for stepping out of line. Just as high-ranking chimpanzees will quell within-group conflict by making threat displays (45)—in effect telling the others to “chill” or there will be hell to pay—the god of the Bible will threaten natural disaster, invasion by foreigners, personal calamity, hellfire.
On a group level, it is wise to fear the lord, for with him "in the room" of your consciousness (it is believed/felt) then you are less likely act selfishly and cause social unrest in your community; you are less likely to spoil group cohesion.
In a section of my book, The Naked Bible, I argued that although there are many verses in the Bible that contain both the concepts of love and god/lord, fifty percent or less of these are clearly about a god loving his people. The Bible god also demands to be loved.(46) Spiritual love can be both from and for a god. But when it comes to fear—that is a fully one way emotion. The Bible is unambiguous about this point: if fear belongs in the spiritual life, it is of a people fearing their god.
Why do bad things happen? Because you do bad things. So behave.
This happened [the murder of his family] because of the sins Jeroboam had committed and had caused Israel to commit, and because he aroused the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel. (1 Kings 15:30)
In recent times, television evangelist Pat Robertson has gained notoriety by claiming that select natural calamities such as hurricane Katrina, and the earthquake that devastated Haiti, were caused by people behaving badly. And a god's response.
A god is the most powerful agent recognized by members of a religious group. Like a parent pulling squabbling children apart, or threatening them not to begin in first place, a most high alpha can bring greater peace to you and your group by diminishing disturbances to it. As the following few verses exemplify:
Let the trees of the forest sing, let them sing for joy before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth. (1 Chronicles 16:33)
"Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. (Ezekiel 3:20)
May the LORD judge between you and me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. (1 Samuel 24:12)
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Isaiah 2:4)
---
(40) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 155
(41) de Waal, F. B. M., “Conflict as negotiation,” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 167
(42) de Waal, F., Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 64
(43) de Waal, F., 1989, p.156
(44) Kagan, J., The Nature of the Child, Basic Books, New York, 1984, p.274
(45) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.26
(46) Bernardin, A., The Naked Bible, CreateSpace, 2010, ch. 15, “The Myth of the Loving God.”
Specificity and precision are crucial to doing good science and to critical thinking.
Exaggerating the results of scientific research goes in the opposite direction. Too often, findings are blown out of proportion. To do this you have to become less precise, less specific; you have to be less scientific.
How do findings get exaggerated? Largely in how those findings are explained and/or advertised. A philosopher friend of mine, Mike Earl (his website: Reasonworks.com) and I often discuss how there is a difference between data/facts and the way we describe and explain and even model them. There is big step between the "hard" facts of science and how these facts are presented. Too often that step gets overlooked.
Consider recent science finding that was presented this way:
What "hard data" was that statement based upon? An experiment that generated this specific result -
The children cooperated more than 78 percent of the time compared to about 58 percent for the chimpanzees.
Study author Daniel Haun said,
"In such a highly controlled situation, children showed a preference to cooperate; chimpanzees did not."
Hmm. A preference for the humans. A strong preference, even. While the chimpanzees showed . . . maybe a weak preference.
While the first blockquote is fully scientific and factual, the second is less so. Between hard facts and the ways we talk of them we find the crucial element of word choice. And words can be used to magnify and exaggerate the findings of science. Or to diminish them. Which somewhat hypocritically runs counter to core scientific values.
Sure, you've got to give researchers some wiggle-room in their choice of words. But fidelity to the facts should be a greater priority. At least to this critical thinker.
Give up all varieties of religiousness and just surrender unto me; and in return I shall protect you from all sinful reactions. Therefore, you have nothing to fear. (28)
Imagine a large family gathered around a table for a holiday meal. Parents, children, aunts and uncles, grandparents. Were a number of the participants outspoken atheists and others outspoken believers in a god, or, alternatively, were a number outspoken liberals with others conservative, and you have a recipe for verbal discord. When members of a group believe different things, and feel strongly about them, harmony is difficult to maintain. Even among family.
The above quote is from a religious text, but not the Bible. That teaching from the Hindu deity Krishna could have been from any number of prophets. Join my group and you shall be better off. My religion is so true it is not a religion, it is The Way.
We may think that “the way” religions teach are about the explicitly stated goal: enhanced spirituality, enlightenment, heaven. But implicit in such teachings is the goal of group harmony. You will be a better person, you will feel more peace . . . Your community will be better off. More godly. And peaceful. So follow me and my way.
As I have previously argued, an ideally egalitarian group is actually not the most stable and peaceful type of group in practice. Those that do better tend to at least have a virtual leader to follow in the form of a sacred book or political manifesto. Without something to maintain order, particularly beyond blood relations, human behavior is far too dynamic and opportunistic to make peaceful relations a natural state.
Somewhat ironically, research tells that intra-group aggressive behavior is more likely to occur when individuals are of equal and near-equal status. Studies into bullying, for example, find that this type of behavior is significantly more likely to be engaged in by individuals in the fat of a status bell curve, not at the extremes.(29) Roger Gould put it in his aptly titled book, Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict:
“Conflict, including violent conflict, is particularly likely to occur in relations that are explicitly symmetrical, such as ‘friend’ or ‘sibling.’”(30)
Social conflict among friends and family? An anonymous stranger bumps your elbow while dining in a restaurant, and your response to his reflex response “oops, sorry,” is likely to be a quick smile and wave of your hand. No problem. Your slightly younger brother does the same and you may actually respond more heatedly. Perhaps you pause a moment—did he intend that?—before giving a smile and poking fun at his clumsiness.
Many people consider the sentiment expressed in the following Bible verse to be the essence of Jesus’ message:
Whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:9-10)
What is the meaning of that message? Be nice? While the overt meaning is one thing, the implicit can be something moderately different. In the above we read an explicit command to “love thy neighbor,” and the explanation that love is good because it does no harm. It fulfills the law, which is a god’s will. Implicit in the message, I propose, we find more subliminal messages, such as: 1) to love is to accept, whatever a person’s status, high and low, 2) to harm is to disturb, and 3) by disturbing an individual you will likely generate ripples of unrest in the community at large, so do your part and behave.
Another key teaching is expressed as “love and honor your family.” But loving your husbands and wives and children does not mean treating as equals. Same goes with loving your neighbors.
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)
Find your place and accept it. Accept the place of others. Order will be maintained. Order is good. It helps a social group function harmoniously, which is beneficial the group, which means it brings benefits to individuals of the group. But not equally.
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. (Colossians 3:22)(31)
Order Starts at the Top
To our democratic values the idea of respecting a leader can, at times, seem to be at odds with modernism. And yet the instinct is still there, even if dormant. Recall the political landscape early in this century, post 9/11 and during the invasion of Iraq. We were indirectly instructed that during uncertain times, particularly times of war, we must stick together. We must follow our leader; we must show our allegiance by way of flying flags and not speaking in open opposition.(32)
Still, it is a social reality that though hierarchical positioning is born of struggle, once an order is set there is less need for struggle. Which can generate this seeming paradox: people of lowly status behaving in ways to preserve the status-quo. Although positions within a hierarchy are initially set by way of contest (unless culturally determined), there can be a trade-off. “Obviously, those lower on the scale would have preferred to be higher, but they settle for the next best thing, which is to be left in peace.”(33)
Once an order is set, those with a less advantaged position may in fact protect it, for it is “the next best thing.” Those in positions of advantage would naturally protect it. One way to protect a given social order is to sanctify it. When religion and politics do mix, it is often the case of religion being used to support a given order. Don’t change, that goes against what our god wants.
In ancient Egypt, kings were gods themselves. They had their own divine authority on their side. Later, at the right hand of kings we find high-priests giving consent, we find kingdoms expressing allegiance to one religion or another, to one god, perhaps to one prophet. This is who we are; we must act together to preserve our group.
It times past, gods gave rulers legitimacy.(34) Although this is not fully true in my home-nation today, the United States, try electing an atheist as president. Here in Florida it wasn’t long ago that members of a city counsel walked out on an atheist as he gave the opening convocation. Why? Because they refused to listen to someone who didn’t ‘believe in a supreme being.’(35) Which is a telling choice of words. Human beings apparently still carry the feeling that social order best comes from above. Why? Because that is where greater strength resides. And it seems that even the person at the top of a social order can use support from above. To legitimize and stabilize his/her position. From below, many desire a president who bows down to a god. Otherwise, how could we trust him? How could our order be assured?
With religion can come an order-stabilizing mythology coupled with rituals, practices and taught values that help chill the pot of potential social and cultural change.(36) As Jane Goodall has noted: “In the natural habitat the hierarchy, the patterning of all the different relationships within the chimpanzee society, is never static.”(37)
Once a social order is achieved, it will change unless something stabilizes it. It seems both chimpanzees and humans have similar ways to do this. Consider these parallel declarations, one from each world:
“The male hierarchy is heavily formalized, that is, males frequently communicate their status to one another. Among such fierce competitors, formalization is a requirement for relaxed relationships.”(38)
Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite: "Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his house in the days of his son."
The first is from de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates … The second, 1 Kings 21:28-29)
What can religion do to stabilize the more substantially numbered base of an order? For one, put the fear of the alpha in them. As previously mentioned, primate alphas are better behaved when their position goes uncontested. Order at the middle and bottom influence what happens at the top. So don’t tick off the big guy of there could be hell to pay. Somewhat humorously, Pat Robertson, a human primate from our own times is fond of blaming disasters of all sorts on human beings behaving badly, on not following “the Lord’s” way. Judging by the earthquake, or tsunami, or sickly economy, all that liberal, free-lance behavior must be angering him.
Religion also provides daily and weekly individual reminders of who to keep at the top of the social order how to behave to maintain the peace. Likely as important as the individual acts are the social gatherings and rituals that can help attenuate conflict and keep strong relationships that extend beyond the home. Prayer, Bible readings, cleansing rituals,(29) Sunday services, religions holidays—without these, believers fear, allegiance to the heavenly order will falter. And chaos will descend to earth. Or maybe it will simply roil up from within.
If society is an engine, religion is a means of governing that engine: of keeping it from idling too high, of keeping it from sputtering to a dysfunctional stop.
---
(28)Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta, Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Collier Books, NY, 1972
(29) UC Davis study finds popular students — but not the most popular — more likely to torment peers, http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9749
(30)Gould, R. V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2003, p. 66
(31) The origin of the word lord includes these meanings: “master of a household, ruler, superior” & “one who guards the loaves.” From “Lord,” Online Etymology Dictionary,
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=lord&searchmode=none
(32) This sentiment was nicely summarized by Ann Coulter’s 2004 book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Her hyper-nationalistic stance continues follow-up books such as this title from 2011—Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America. Her primary message seems to be, “If you aren’t with us, you are evil,” a threat.
(33) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 61
(34) Jaynes, J., The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, HoughtonMifflin, New York, 1976, p.227
(35) http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1063285.ece
(36) Gould, R. V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2003, p. 109
(37) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 410
(38) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p.52
(39) Wilkinson, R.H., The Complete Gods and Godesses of Ancient Egypt; Thames & Hudson, NY, 2003
[recycled material - first appeared here]
In the mammal kingdom, when one individual battles another and wins, its testosterone level rises. For the loser there is a drop. This phenomenon has been found to hold true for human athletes: While the winner in a competition -- a game -- undergoes a upward spike in testosterone, the loser's level heads in the other direction.
Interestingly, the affect holds true for friends and fans as well. In team sports, fans of the winning team experience a surge in their testosterone levels. (Does this explain why it is the fans of the winning team, after a huge victory, that sometimes go an a destructive rampage, why they get all aped-up?)
Recent research has discovered this parallel phenomenon: Presidential election outcome changed voters' testosterone. Specifically,
Young men who voted for Republican John McCain or Libertarian candidate Robert Barr in the 2008 presidential election suffered an immediate drop in testosterone when the election results were announced, according to a study by researchers at Duke University and the University of Michigan.
(For a liberal like me, both of George Bush's presidential victories were a kick in the balls.)
What about women? Does the finding hold for them? Good question.
The findings mirror what other studies have found in men who participate directly in an interpersonal contest -- the winner gets a boost of testosterone, while the loser's testosterone drops. Testosterone is a steroid hormone manufactured by the testes that is linked to aggression, risk-taking and responses to threats. Women have it too but in much lesser amounts and originating from different sources (their ovaries and adrenal glands), which makes them less likely to experience rapid testosterone changes following victory or defeat.
Is that one of the reasons why women can be more "level-headed"? Is that why men get such a charge over sports, sometimes behaving like power-drunk apes? You never see women take their shirts off at sub-freezing football games to expose torsos painted in team colors. (Maybe there are other factors involved with that one.)
This phenomenon of vicariously felt victory and defeat, what is it all about? To me, it is yet more evidence that we are a hyper-social species that takes alliances very seriously. If we didn't feel what our allies felt, how unified with them could we really be? Without being unified in perception and feeling, how unified can we be in behavior?
Of course, our primate psychology, having evolved over millions of years, may be a poor fit for the modern world. While it is unlikely that the outcome of a Super Bowl would ever spark World War Three, ancient allegiances (and only slightly more ridiculous) to ethnic and religious "teams" just might.
Recent Comments