Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. They will bow down before you with their faces to the ground; they will lick the dust at your feet. Then you will know that I am the LORD; those who hope in me will not be disappointed.” (Isaiah 49:23)
Human hierarchies are a complicated thing. There are rarely clear ladders of ascension, with one individual per distinct rung. Chicken hierarchies: simple. Some primate hierarchical relations, simple as well.
You are exalted far above all gods. (Psalms 97:9)
In the above Bible verse, we see that one agent is first in line, no questions. But beneath that first rung, what? The truth: human beings often do not stand alone. Rather, their relationships to others will inform where they stand. A relationship with one on a higher rung can help elevate and maintain your own position. As the “those who hope in me” line from the opening verse illustrates.
In terms of primate behavior — and human beings are primates, their deities having the concerns and behaviors of primates — there is a notable difference between coalition and alliance: the terms for relationships advantageous to social functioning and position.
“Coalition is defined as two or more individuals joining forces against one or more individuals joining forces against one or more conspecific rivals. Now, there are many examples of coalitions in mammals and birds. However, coalitions among chimpanzees, adult males in particular, are exceptional in their frequency, complexity and flexibility. Some coalitions are so persistent that one may well call them alliances.” (1)
As for human beings, do we form coalitions or alliances? Both. Watch one episode of Survivor and you will see that our we are social opportunists. During one social event/interaction (on one issue?) we can side with and support person X. The next moment/issue, person Z. But then there certainly are those lasting relationships we remain relatively true to. We support and defend those individuals, almost without exception, we have crucial relationships with. Spouse, parent-child . . . ?
Chimpanzees, too, readily form coalitions and even lasting alliances. As Franz de Waal has noted, “A male chimpanzee’s position in the hierarchy often depends much more on his cooperative alliances with other males than is the case with male baboons.” (2)
Another noted primatologist, Allison Jolly, almost under-states the case with this conclusion: “People are not less likely to form alliances than chimpanzees.” (3)
Within a single pack of primates you will find a number of unwritten “pacts.” Sometimes blood is indeed thicker than water. But human alliances go much farther. To non-blood, close associates and more. How far to they extend? At minimum to group level. Other people are perceived as being “in group” or out. Psychological studies have found that something as basic as eye color can be used to identified cohorts.
In one study researchers found that in a rural Caribbean village adult males in two-men teams competing at a game of dominoes experienced higher testosterone and cortisol levels when competing against men from outside their village compared to when playing against village cohorts.(4)
Is it any wonder the Bible god of the Old Testament has different laws and sentiments for “one of mine” (the Israelites) and others? The commandment “do not kill” is a perfect example. For it is meant as “Do not kill a cohort – but thine enemies, have at it.”
In the following number of Alpha posts I will be exploring topics including these: the evolutionary origins of these types of social pacts, the social functions they serve, and how they are manifest in the Bible.
—
(1) Nishida, T., and Hosaka, K., “Coalition strategies among adult male chimpanzees of the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 114
(2) 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. 23
(3) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 410
(4) Wagner, J. D., Flinn, M. V., & England, B. G., “Hormonal response to competition among male coalitions,” in Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 6, November 2002, Pages 437 442.
This new bit of research found over at ScienceDaily is kindof’ interesting:
Researchers at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL (University College London) in collaboration with Aarhus University in Denmark have found that the ‘reward’ area of the brain is activated when people agree with our opinions. [emphasis mine]
The news release title read, Brain Study Shows That the Opinions of Others Matters.
While this is not surprising — we’ve known this by way of behavior for quite some time, the original part is the brain study method of verification — it is important.
Why does “the opinion of others matter”? Allow me to speculate here a little. We are social animals, which means we are emotional animals — for the two are conjoined. With a pleasant feeling comes a perception of closeness/harmony. Relationships are a resource. You may want to be on a person’s “good side” in case something hits the fan and you need assistance and/or and ally.
In an extreme example, the ass-kissing yes-man attempts to tickle a superior’s “pleasure center” so as to get or remain on his or her good side. Or, in the least, to avoid being on a bad side. When conflict arises, the human brain seems to switch into “friend-or-foe?” mode. To protect our own derrieres, we prefer to not to face adversity alone, or face a more powerful and/or more peopled opposition.
In the less extreme example, a bulk of small talk seems to consist of offering up relatively trivial statements — hot enough for ya? — as a way of testing how readily another person will play along and agree with us. Not so much with the fact of the statement, but with the intent: I’m friendly, if anything I mean to please you. Perhaps even help you.
Proverbial small talk can be a means of “courting” a potential ally. Testing their potential. It can also be a way of maintaining an already established bond. But rather than money being the currency of exchange, it is pleasure. Thanks to the ventral striatum.
Have you had your ventral striatum stroked today?
A god can be many things to many people. One role “he” fills is that of the ultimate master. God the overlord. The alpha of alphas. He’s the guy who makes the rules and writes the contract. He specifies what is right, and what is no-way-Jose.
“Servants are not to talk back to their masters. You want to work hard so that your employer will make the money. If the master is wrong, that is his issue. Don’t fight back. That’s the way to get along with the boss.”
Those words were spoken by a radio preacher, in earnest, broadcasting his message across the gator-filled swamp-waters of Florida. The point: Just as you shouldn’t question your boss here on earth, for he will answer to someone bigger, you shouldn’t question your boss in heaven, because he is the biggest.
The radio preacher may have been inspired by Ephesians 6:5 (New International Version):
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Or maybe it was Colossians 3:22:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Or perhaps 1 Timothy 6:1:
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.
Or maybe Titus 2:9:
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them.
Then again, it could have been 1 Peter 2:18:
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
You get the picture.
What’s the ultimate message? If authority isn’t recognized, all hell will break loose? So obey your father, obey your boss, obey your preacher, and obey the most high Lord, for thou art a lowly piece of nothing, and only if thou stayest on thy back, tail betwixt thy legs, will thou ever be spared the agony of personal responsibility and the uncertainty it may bring?
Could be.
—
[simultaneously posted on Atheist Nexus blogs.]
The other day, while parking my car outside the town post office, I realized I’m doing a poor job of “keeping up with the Joneses.” My vehicle doesn’t have four wheel disk brakes. As did the immaculate, huge, black SUV I pulled next to. Our small, pollen-covered, old wagon has a hole busted right through the plastic, rear bumper cover (from backing up too fast to hitch up our small, old boat), tears in the ceiling (from throwing surfboards in), only a cassette deck for music, and mechanical, roll-up windows. Sure, it is electric start, which means I don’t need to insert a mammoth key into the grill and crank. But it was built in a previous millennium. Seriously. Total book value of the car is somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple grand. Sure, the insurance costs less than a bucket of dirt, but who am I going to impress with that car?
Speaking of the boat, that, too, has seen better days. Though we bought it earlier this year. A fixer-upper. And I’ve fixed it up, mostly. Put some hours into the boat and the trailer and even into the small, eco-friendlier 4-stroke outboard. Got my hands dirty. Had to break into a new box of Band-Aids.
Like the wagon, our floating means of locomotion isn’t going to take first place in any parade.
So the Joneses, with their sparkling black SUV hauling an imaginary, big, fast, sparkling boat, have definitely passed me by. That’s assuming there is a destination that the quality of your possessions will get you to.
Am I ashamed of my blemished, hand-me-down car and boat? No. But I’d actually like to become more proud of them. Why? Because I frankly believe my values are better. If your car or boat gets you from here to there just fine, why is it somehow better that one cost ten times more than the other? Is the sparkle worth that much? I don’t think so.
Back to the parking lot. Post-realization of my trailing others in the “nice stuff” rat race, I remembered scientific studies that tell me in terms of happiness, those driving the fancy vehicles have nothing on me. In fact, they may be in my rear-view mirror.
Studies such as this one — Shopping for Happiness? Get a Massage, Forget the Flat-Screen TV — suggest that life satisfaction is tough to buy, if what you are buying is material alone.
Consumers found that satisfaction with “experiential purchases” — from massages to family vacations — starts high and increases over time. In contrast, spending money on material things feels good at first, but actually makes people less happy in the end.
And then there’s this: Money Only Makes You Happy If It Makes You Richer Than Your Neighbors and this: Materialistic People Liked Less by Peers Than ‘Experiential’ People.
So, can you buy happiness by spending on possessions? Only if you can out-spend your neighbors, it seems. So maybe. But then those neighbors might not think so highly of you.
Of course, the person stepping down from the Lincoln Navigator, Darth Vadar Edition, would probably just say I’m envious, and all this is just a way of rationalizing where I am versus where I would honestly jump to at the chance. While there may a smidgen of truth to that — for human beings can hold multiple sentiments simultaneously — I’m not so sure.
I recall a video clip featuring Paul Ekman that I regularly included in my general psychology class. It showed an elder man from a remote tribe in India being greeted by females. In the ritualistic greeting, he placed his bare foot atop their heads, one by one, as they knelt before him. Dominance/submissive gesture, anyone?
One of the most interesting questions concerning the evolution of Bible religions, if you ask me, is why the baldly despotic deity of the Old Testament became the more touchy-feely, Alan-Alda-like deity of the New: Jesus “I’m kinda-one-of-you” Christ.
To illustrate the significance of the transition consider this verse from the Old Testament:
“Who knows the power of your anger? For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you.” (Psalms 90:11, New International Version)
A quick online search of the New International Version of the Bible revealed that mention of “wrath” falls off 50% in the New Testament. As for the word “anger” that appears at roughly 5% of the rate in the New Testament as it does the old. Why?
Additionally, the agent to be worshipped in the Old Testament tended to speak with select, elite intermediaries. Only Moses was allowed on the mountain top. Meanwhile, with Jesus we find a significantly different dynamic. In John 13:1 he washes his disciples feet, for crying out loud! He rubs elbows with prostitutes and outcastes of all sorts. As a leader, Jesus was one who did not rule by fear and intimidation (at least not nearly as much), but rather by messages of love and togetherness. Why?
Allow me to give my short, albeit speculative, answer. Jesus — a presumably human individual — lived and preached in a time when he faced two entrenched hierarchies: the Jewish priesthood and the ruling Roman empire that occupied the land. Facing those odds, Jesus chose the route of arguing for a reverse hierarchy (see previous posts in the “Alpha” series for more on this). He preached about egalitarianism. At least on earth. What does a reverse hierarchy do but level the playing field? It emphasizes the equality of individuals and in doing so it brings those in power down to earth. It dethrones them, so to speak.
Jesus was not a king nor a tribe leader. Why would then behave like a typical alpha? Instead, he became a charismatic leader. Which is an alpha of sorts. But you might say one that inspires others not to accept the subordinate position they occupy. Again, what this accomplishes, at least theoretically, is to knock the current leaders down a peg or two.
As many a biblical scholar has pointed out — look at the standing of Jesus’ followers. Basically, they were outsiders. Outcasts, you might say. What ladder was there to ascend? If there is one, they had many a missing rung before them.
Matthew 21:32 (New International Version) provides an apt example of the “reverse hierarchy” Jesus preached about:
“Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, the tax collectors [despised individuals] and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.’”
And of course there is this from Matthew 5:5:
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”
The meek — gee, what social position do they occupy?
Yet, with all Jesus’ talk about raising up the lowly (and, consequently, lowering the lofty) he still left open a huge door to his own exalted nature. Though on earth he was elbow-to-elbow with the common man and woman, he had an alliance with the greatest of alphas. Or perhaps he was the greatest of alphas incarnate and disguised as an omega.
“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. (Mark 15:2)
“They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, ‘Jesus, Master, have pity on us!’” (Luke 17: 12,13)
A master who rubs elbows with us? That is radical.
“Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ ” (Matthew 4:10)
Exclusivity, such as expressed above is certainly a hallmark of alpha-thinking.
Perhaps another element unique to Jesus was his use of a metaphysical carrot — the promise of a kingdom to come — as well as a stick. While the stick of the Old Testament consisted of such things as plagues and occupations by foreign people, in the New it consisted of a hell. Later. Did a relative hell on earth already exist for the meek, thus that threat carried little heft?
In the United States today a common refrain of one class of Christians is, “You have a friend in Jesus.” A friend? That word expresses relative equality. Similarly, in some churches you will witness forms of worship including singing and dancing. Any fearful subordinate would not draw attention to him/herself that way. Just what is going on?
As mentioned in previous “Alpha” posts, it is possible for one primate to gain an alliance with another, higher ranking individual. An alpha, even. Among chimpanzees, provided the lesser doesn’t directly challenge the greater, he or she does not have to show the same degree of social caution and deference.
So when, say, congregations of southern blacks stand up and sing, waving their arms, etc. — a no-no to fearful subordinates — rather than expressing insubordination, they are celebrating their perceived alliance with a revolutionary leader. Although they may have a socio-economically meek position (historically, at least), they have an ally in a deity who promises to elevate them.
On the other hand, Christian congregations that represent the other end of the socio-economic spectrum would naturally favor an alpha not so fond of potentially order-disrupting behavior. Bow your heads. Stay in line. Because things are good and we don’t want to rock the boat.
The cleverness and perhaps success of Christianity lies in a deity that viewed a number of ways, including the following two. First, Jesus is a god who judges and wields a gavel that can send a person to a heaven or a hell. He may even initiate the end of times and a cataclysm that comes with it. So watch out. Second is the messenger/intermediary hero, the “one of us,” who can feel compassion and who works to right the wrongs of those lacking the power to do it themselves. Naturally, the currently or historically downtrodden, the social outcasts, would be more interested in Jesus the friend. Those Christians in power, or on the cusp of it, are more likely to worship the Jesus Almighty. The one who brought the sword and will enforce the laws. At least the laws deemed important by the more liberal, educated believers of our century.
Of course, all of the above may be a simple case of just-so, post-hoc reasoning. In a future series of posts I will explore ways in which my god-as-an-alpha idea could be tested.
The pop psychology answer to why bullies will mercilessly pick on other kids — frequently those smaller than them and with few friends — is that deep down inside the bully feels bad about him or herself: alone and worthless. And maybe even wants to be loved by their victim. And so they lash out.
But no, that’s not the answer. First, the low self-esteem bit. Not true. In fact, if anything, the opposite is more likely the case. Second, bullies do have friends. And these friends often smile upon and reinforce the bullying. [for basic info, see Children Who Bully, put out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]
Now the findings of a new longitudinal study (tracking individuals over time) into bullying are helping to further clarify the picture. In the most recent issue of Child Development we learn of work conducted by researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Some of their findings include:
. . . most bullies are motivated by the pursuit of status and affection. [bold added; source]
Interestingly and quite relevantly, the previously mentioned government source listed “dominant” as one of the characteristics of the bully.
And this from the Dutch study:
bullies generally choose to gain status by dominating their victims. But at the same time, they try to reduce the chances that they’ll end up on the outs with other classmates by choosing as victims children who are weak and not well-liked by others. In short, even bullies care a lot about others’ affection and don’t want to lose it.
Interesting. Very interesting.
It seems to me that individuals will attempt to gain acceptance/affection and status — the later a social currency derived from the former — through the means available to them. For those children who lack skills in other areas (intellectual, athletic, pro-social) how else are they to climb the pedestal of social opinion and stay there?
Wait a minute! You might say. Bullies aren’t liked. While that is true if we add the qualifier “by many” or “by outsiders” or even “by society at large” the social group that ultimately matters is the one an individual “trades” in.
In a loosely related manner, I used to wonder why so-called “gangstas” dressed up in a way I considered ridiculous. Paints on the floor, looking like fools with their pants on the floor. Etc. But that perspective is one of an outsider. Gangstas dress as they do because it is looked upon favorably by their peers. And that’s what matters. Peers.
And who’d-a-thunk, even bullies care about what other people think, when we recognize that “other people” are their circle of peers, whatever size that circle may be.
