Predatory Urges, Plastic Brains And Empowerment

[Guest guest]

Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:08:48 UT

" Medialens Cogitations " <noreply

Predatory Urges, Plastic Brains And Empowerment

 

 

 

 

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

 

December 8, 2005

 

 

MEDIA LENS COGITATION: PREDATORY URGES, PLASTIC BRAINS AND EMPOWERMENT

 

By David Cromwell

 

 

One of our readers wrote to us recently quoting historian Mark Curtis's

accurate observations that:

 

" Britain is a major, systematic contributor to much of the world's

suffering and horrors and this contribution arises from the basic

economic

and political priorities that governments pursue at home and abroad.

These fundamental policy stances are the result of planning broadly

determined by the domestic structures of society which define `national

interests'. " (Curtis, The Ambiguities of Power, Zed Books, 1995, p. 4)

 

But, sadly, our reader suggested that such horrors were unsurprising,

even inevitable. His reasoning ran as follows: " in our highly `civilized

cultures' our predatory nature manifests itself in theft, murder,

manipulation, abuse, and other sociopathic behavior. " There is a strong

innate tendency, ran his argument, for governments to prey on each

other as

well as individuals; a tendency that stems directly from the predatory

instinct in humans. In short: " We are hopelessly enslaved to our DNA's

predatory urges. "

 

This is the classic depiction of our species as " killer ape " . Richard

Davidson and Anne Harrington note that this has been " the dominant note

of the biobehavioral sciences in the West " . It is a " tragic-machismo "

approach that focuses on " our potential for violence, explor[ing] the

genetic and biochemical bases of our capacity for selfishness,

depression, and anxiety. " (`Visions of Compassion. Western Scientists

and Tibetan

Buddhists Examine Human Nature', edited by Richard J. Davidson and Anne

Harrington, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, page v)

 

But, as careful investigators have pointed out, we have to be cautious

not to make categorical statements on human nature; particularly such a

flawed and sweeping thesis of humans as predatory " killer apes " . The

German psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (1900-1980) wrote:

 

" Human nature is not fixed, and culture thus is not to be explained as

the result of fixed human instincts; nor is culture a fixed factor to

which human nature adapts itself passively and completely. " (Fromm, `Man

for Himself', Routledge, 2003, p. 15)

 

It is dubious practice to identify attributes of society, such as

rapacious capitalist behaviour, with supposed fixed characteristics of

the

human species, such as innate aggression. Fromm cautioned:

 

" Human nature can never be observed as such, but only in its specific

manifestations in specific situations. " (Ibid., p. 17)

 

Human nature is dynamic, displaying considerable variations according

to circumstances and context, rather than being fixed, predetermined or

static. Our reader's depiction of homo sapiens as " predatory " is

therefore one-dimensional; or worse, plain wrong.

 

 

The Multidimensional Human Being

 

Predatory urges +are+ part of humanity's makeup; but so too are

cooperation, empathy and love. Psychologist Steven Pinker, who

emphasises the

importance of our DNA in `explaining' human nature, notes that there is

" an evolutionary basis for altruism. " He observes, too, that

" sociobiology shows that a sense of justice has a deep foundation in

people's

minds. " †(Pinker, `The Blank Slate', Penguin, 2002, p. 111)

 

Pinker goes on:

 

" evolution endowed us with a moral sense, and we have expanded its

circle of application over the course of history through reason (grasping

the logical interchangeability of our interests and others'), knowledge

(learning of the advantages of cooperation over the long term), and

having sympathy (having experiences that allow us to feel other people's

pain). " (Ibid., p. 188)

 

In a similar vein, evolutionary expert Elliott Sober points out that:

 

" biologists now universally acknowledge that altruism can evolve and

actually has done so. The picture of nature as thoroughly red in tooth

and claw is one-sided. It is no more adequate than the rosy picture that

everything is sweetness and light. Kindness +and+ cruelty both have

their place in nature, and evolutionary biology helps explain why. "

(Sober, in Davidson and Harrington, op. cit., p. 54)

 

Sober points out the evolutionary success of cooperation:

 

" Groups of altruists do better than groups of selfish individuals, so

altruism can evolve, even though selfish individuals do better than

altruists in the same group. "

(Ibid., p. 53)

 

This may have been the evolutionary seed for the development of

compassion, even if altruistic behaviour was at first directed towards

one's

offspring only. But how was compassion later extended to much wider

circles in human society, even encompassing complete strangers? Sober

puts

the question thus: " it is not puzzling why +some+ compassion should

evolve and replace the trait of having no compassion at all; what is

puzzling is how +extended+ compassion could evolve and replace +limited+

compassion. " (Ibid, p. 62)

 

He offers the possible explanation that the capacity to feel extended

compassion is +correlated+ with the capacity to feel compassion toward

one's offspring. There was an adaptive advantage in parents being moved

by the cries of their children. A side effect of this " evolutionary

event " is that the cries of +any+ baby can move us.

 

To emphasise what Sober is saying: the development of extended

compassion, which may confer no adaptive benefit of its own, is,

nonetheless,

consistent with the theory of evolution. If this still seems puzzling,

consider an enlightening argument that Charles Darwin had with Alfred

Russel Wallace, the scientist who independently proposed the mechanism

of natural selection.

 

As Sober explains, Wallace's view was that " natural selection cannot

explain mental abilities that provide no help in surviving and

reproducing. " For example, keen eyesight is useful in hunting, but why

should

natural selection favour the ability to devise new scientific theories,

write symphonies or paint masterpieces? Wallace argued that natural

selection could explain practical skills, not " higher " abilities. But

Darwin

countered that the separation of " practical " and " higher " abilities is

an illusion; the same mental abilities that helped our ancestors

survive and reproduce now allow us to pursue intellectual activities

that may

have no practical benefit. (Sober, ibid., p. 64)

 

Extended compassion likely developed as such a " higher " ability. There

is, however, a growing body of evidence that developing and practicing

compassion also has practical benefits, both for others and for

oneself. See, for example, David Edwards, `Happiness is Dissent – The

Truth

About " Looking After Number 1 " ';

www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2001/de_number_one.html.

 

 

Escaping Our Hardwiring

 

The influential American black activist Malcolm X once observed that we

can become locked into static patterns of thought and behaviour that

cut off options for individual growth, renewal and empowerment:

 

" Children have a lesson adults should learn, to not be ashamed of

failing, but to get up and try again. Most of us adults are so afraid, so

cautious, so `safe', and therefore so shrinking and rigid and afraid that

it is why so many humans fail. Most middle-aged adults have resigned

themselves to failure. " (`The Autobiography of Malcolm X', with Alex

Haley, Penguin Books, London, 1965/2001, p. 37)

 

A major finding in neuroscience in recent years is the extent to which

our brains display advanced levels of `neural plasticity'. We are not

forever `hardwired' for rigid modes of behaviour; we are not static

`slaves' to our DNA. There is a remarkable degree to which we can change

ingrained patterns of thought, intention and practice.

 

Psychologist Daniel Goleman addresses this in an inspiring book,

`Destructive Emotions' (Bloomsbury, London, 2003). In the first chapter,

Goleman presents remarkable results from experiments into the mental

traits

of a Buddhist monk who focused on generating a state of compassion

during meditation. The monk's brain patterns were monitored during this

meditation. The research, conducted by Richard Davidson of the University

of Wisconsin, revealed high levels of activity in the monk's left

prefrontal cortex – the region of the brain associated with positive

states

of mind such as zeal, enthusiasm, joy, vigour and mental buoyancy. It

appears that such enhanced levels of positive emotions can be attained

by conscious effort and discipline over years of meditation practice.

(See David Edwards, `Animal Rights: The Case for Kindness', August 4,

2004;

www.medialens.org/cogitations/040804_COG_Case_For_Kindness.php)

 

Thus, the notion that we are " hopelessly enslaved to our predatory

urges " is unfounded.

 

As well as insights into human nature from evolutionary science,

psychology and neurobiology, we can look at human history. There are, of

course, plenty of examples of horror, cruelty and violence. But consider,

too, the fundamental desires of people everywhere, throughout history

and across all cultures, for peace and freedom. As Howard Zinn, author of

`The People's History of the United States', puts it:

 

" People are not naturally violent or cruel or greedy, although they can

be made so. Human beings everywhere want the same things: they are

moved by the sight of abandoned children, homeless families, the

casualties

of war; they long for peace, for friendship and affection across lines

of race and nationality. " (Zinn, 'You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving

Train', Beacon Press, 2002, p. 208)

 

The reader who wrote to us about humanity's " predatory urges " was right

in one respect, however: that people can, and do, combine to create

oppressive institutions and structures in society. The transnational

corporation is one prominent example, as are the powerful governments who

act as agents for corporate interests.

 

But there are people around the world who are resisting these organs of

brutal, illegitimate power. Zinn, once again, offers wisdom and hope:

 

" Only the corrective of historical perspective can lighten our gloom.

Note how often in this [20th] century we have been surprised. By the

sudden emergence of a people's movement, the sudden overthrow of a

tyranny, the sudden coming to life of a flame we thought extinguished.

We are

surprised because we have not taken notice of the quiet simmerings of

indignation, of the first faint sounds of protest, of the scattered

signs of resistance that, in the midst of our despair, portend the

excitement of change. " (Ibid., p. 10)

 

In short, there is an integral link between " lighten[ing] our gloom "

and the potential for societal improvement. Just as we, as individuals,

are not hardwired for selfishness and aggression, so are injustice and

oppression not necessarily fixed features of human society.

 

 

 

To sign up for Cogitations please click here and .

 

http://www.medialens.org/_cogitations.html

 

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

 

Send us your views:

Email: editor

 

Please consider donating to Media Lens:

http://www.medialens.org/donate.html

 

This Cogitation will shortly be archived at:

 

http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html