Some time ago I was invited to a
conference entitled: Religion, Conflict
and Peace: Global Perspectives. These subjects have fascinated me for some
time and it was while studying for my post grad in Ecumenics that I acquired an
insight that forever changed my understanding of these issues. I have been
fascinated by the functions of the brain since I was a child. My interest
sprung from my mother’s struggles with mental illness. My interest in psychology,
personal development, and the functions and potential of the human brain has continued
unabated since those early days. I was particularly thrilled with the advent of
fMRI and other marvels of modern science that have allowed us to peer into the
working brain.
We have learned some remarkable
things from these investigations and the findings are fomenting tremendous
philosophical and spiritual debate. I wanted to do a Masters on the correlation
between neuroscience and spirituality, with the central focus being on how spirituality/religion
affects cognitive functions - more precisely, I was interested in the
correlations between the scientific paradigm of Emotional Intelligence and the
spiritual goal of the actualisation of the higher or divine self [the attainment
of spiritual maturity], with specific interest in exploring the spiritual and
bio-mechanical underpinnings of this endeavour. Sadly, I couldn’t secure the
support for this enterprise but while attempting to make this happen I
discovered something, arguably, more profound and unsettling about the role
neurological factors play in the evolution of religion, conflict, and peace.
We are all well aware that the
human organism is subject to the operations of several key drives that are
hardwired into the brain. The most well known ones would be the:
Fight-or-Flight Response, biological triggers/compulsions of hunger and thirst,
and of course FEAR. We understand that damage to the brain can impair us in a
variety of ways in terms of: speech, movement, reasoning, empathy, learning,
memory, mood, temperament, and that in the absence of a functioning brain we
are reduced to the status of vegetables.
Considered spiritually, the human
being can be understood as a type of triune entity – a being that exists in
three inter-related dimensions: material, intellectual, and spiritual, all of
which are unified through the function of personality – that volitional,
controlling, and uniquely identifying element that makes the three One.
Scripture viewed human being as a simple dichotomy: the Body/Temple/Vessel of
Clay and the indwelling and distinct Living
Being and this is a serviceable paradigm but it has its shortcomings.
These distinctions give rise to
questions: If the material body is an instrument for objectivising the will of
the supervening personality what factors should we be aware of in its
employment? Are there practices, conditions, or factors that enhance the will
or mitigate against its function? We know, for example, that physical and
emotional trauma can adversely impact cognitive function; sometimes in ways subtle
and sometimes in ways not so subtle. It is therefore reasonable to ask in what
way these factors might impact the formation or the spiritualisation [idealisation]
of our identity.
Given that neural dynamics play a
crucial role in healthy and efficient cognitive function the spiritual
implications of the brain appears to be inescapable. Can we be sure that the
brain isn’t tricking us into the belief that we are being guided by our
spiritual principles when, in fact, we are being guided by very subtle
biological inclinations? Isn’t it altogether possible for us to misconstrue
biological inclination for spiritual impulses? After all, haven’t the prophets
taught us that ‘the heart is deceitful above all things and even desperately
wicked,’ ever leading us astray? Is it possible to discern the yearnings of the
flesh from the ‘urging of the angels’?
I am reminded of an old saying:
‘the best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t
exist’. It could certainly be argued that the greatest trick ever pulled off by
the brain is the belief that it doesn’t influence our thinking processes and decision
making.
The insights afforded us through
contemporary neuroscience tells us that such a belief is an illusion, our
neural wiring has a far more profound and extensive influence on the operations
of our cognitive functions than we realise and these facts present disconcerting
implications for theologians and will inevitably generate considerable cognitive
dissonance among religious thinkers – at least until we have fully metabolised
the implications of these facts.
My insight into how all this fits
together began during one particular class while studying for my post grad.
I’ll be first to admit that I have been shining my boots on the backsides of
the institutions of Rome since I could understand the word ‘Hypocrisy’. No one
was more vociferous in their condemnation of Rome and her servants than I.
However, I had an unusual reaction once while in a room surrounded by
individuals that were either not brought up in the tradition or had made an
open break with it. The speaker offered patronising commentary on Catholicism,
which was picked up and amplified by the group. I was suddenly and unexpectedly
seized by disgust and contempt and felt immediately defensive. I was shocked at
these feelings; shocked, not only that I wasn’t joining in and being the most
condemnatory voice in the group but, that I felt the urge to defend my
tradition [my people] from these naysayers. I was utterly paralysed
between what I was observing and what I was experiencing and so remained in
bewildered silence.
This stayed with me for some
time. I reflected upon it. I endeavoured to digest the experience by discussing
it with friends. I recognised this defensive feeling as a familial feeling. As an
example of this type of feeling I will use a hypothetical family member. I can criticise family members all I
want: X is lazy; X is stupid; X is a grasping, greedy, lying, selfish, money
grabbing, little so-and-so. However, the moment someone from outside the family says the exact same thing, even if it is
factually true, I get immediately defensive. It is acceptable to me and for me
and mine
[the In-Group] to make such assertions but not for anyone outside the family [the Out-Group]. The very fact of their
Out-Group status makes their assertions appear hostile, ill-advised, rooted in
ignorance, and maliciously intended. We feel this engage when someone from
outside our neighbourhood criticises our neighbourhood, when a daughter that is
critical of her mother hears someone else criticise her mother, as we watch our
team suffer defeat and have to endure the taunts of a pundit or some other
Out-grouper, we hear it in the speech of our fellows: We did this, We
lost, We were in trouble there. The ups and downs of the We
is a visceral experience regardless of the fact that the ‘I’ of this equation
had no material hand, act, or part in
the achievement of the asserted We.
The We experience is wired into a
simple philosophical inclination: All-for-One-and-One-for-All, such that if you
attack one – you attack us all, conversely – if you attack US ALL you attack
One, meaning that I personalise [internalise] the feeling – I feel this as an
attack on ME/US and react out of the inherent neural defence mechanisms.
Examples of the operations of
this dynamic abound and it is rooted in what I call the neurological entity of
the Host Identity/the US/the Blended Self [in the parlance of Social Theory it
is known as the In-Group]. A functional example to highlight this would be the
parent-child relationship. A child is nurtured in the womb for X number of
months but upon being born it is still dependent upon the nurturing care of the
parents. The Parents take over the role of the placenta/womb and, in the case
of caring parents, they become - in a very real sense - an extension of the
child’s immune system; they will vigorously defend their child’s well being and
go to great lengths to nurture it. Even though the child is a physically
separate entity, it becomes a living part of the hosts; a neurologically encircuited active
and integrated value within the Host
Identity of the In-Group called Family.
The nurturing In-Group expands
outward from immediate family to extended family, to the larger Community to
which we are attached. It has experiential roots in family, and it is therefore
unsurprising that the reality and concept of Family is primal in dignity and
power in the wider context of culture. The growing child is supplied with a
cultural matrix that nurtures and forms identity; while the adult [ideally] has
a cultural matrix that facilitates the actualisation of its highest self. These
matrices are absolutely vital to our well being. We acquire the essentials, and
a few luxuries, of life through group association; Group belonging is essential
to survival, especially so for children. The brain understands that it exists
and survives because of [owes its life to] the Group/Host Identity.
The Host Identity establishes the
Key-Note, the contextualising value, of a system. Just as the child is a very
real subset within a larger In-Group system the Host Identity likewise
exercises a determining influence in the operations of a system and of the
individual’s role within that system. It is worth bearing in mind that the things,
events, and forces that affect the H.I. positively or negatively can affect the
individual in-group member with just as much force as if those forces were
acting upon the members own child.
The fact that the sense Host
Identity is as visceral and evocative of emotionally rooted behaviour as is the
connection with one’s own child is easily proved.
The In-Group can comprise Family,
School, Team, Company, Religious Grouping, Profession, Political Affiliation, College,
Nationality, Race, ideological persuasion, you name it. The neural circuitry of
the In-Group is integrated into the deep brain [most likely the Limbic System],
much lower than our higher cognitive faculties, and can therefore solicit
aggression from otherwise peace loving individuals. Consider the gentle
grandmother who enjoys knitting booties for the grandchildren upon whom she
dotes; now consider this same grandmother pitch-side when one of her little
darlings is playing an important match and a member of the opposing team [an
out-grouper] fouls them. Her language and demeanour change. She becomes flush
with rage and screams obscenities at the offender, the referee, the opposing
team, and the whole area they are from. Were the offender close enough she’d
should him what a foul was! This is the same lady who, under ordinary circumstances,
wouldn’t say boo to a goose but through the operations of deeply rooted neural
circuitry is transformed into a vicious defender.
As another example, any one of us
may have been subject to aggressive or intimidating behaviour but we’ll most
often just talk our way out of it or find some way to defuse the situation with
a minimum of discomfort. We are not as motivated about ourselves as we are about
our In-Group because the brain sees the In-Group as more
important; it places a higher value on the In-Group than on individual. Our
In-Group loyalty can veto our instincts for self-preservation and give rise to
what we generally regard as selfless behaviour; that is
behaviour that seeks to preserve and enhance the In-Group regardless of the
consequences to the individual self. This particular type of behaviour is
universally regarded as the highest virtue; while the most heinous of sins is
to place the self ahead of or above
the interests of the In-Group; to enrich oneself at the expense of the
In-Group.
What is significant about this is
that the same neural Self-Defence mechanism
or circuit that operates to effect self-preservation engages when we
fall under the impression that the In-Group is under threat – the brain has no alternative mechanism.
The brain translates the ‘I’ into the ‘We’ - the Blended Self/Host Identity - and
acts with the exact same neuro-biological mechanics and power as it would when
the higher cognitive functions lose the upper hand to Panic. The potency of this dynamic is bound up with the fact that to the brain the In-Group has as a
higher value than just the self; the
needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is a value that is hardwired
into the brain.
We should bear in mind that, in a
normal person, during times of Panic all higher cognitive functions become
subservient to the lower brain. It is older and, from an evolutionary
perspective, far more effective in getting out of dangerous situations. It is
non-reflective, instinctive [automatic or practically so], and therefore much faster than the higher cognitive
faculties in dealing with unexpected emergencies; more definite in decision and
therefore not prone to ‘freezing’; and absolute in its prerogative to survive
at all costs. However, when the individual feels that the In-Group has become
prey to perceived threat from an
Other the Panic experienced is of a different order: it is the survival of the
Group that is at stake and therefore the self vanishes in significance, the
self becomes utterly absorbed into the goal of defending the In-Group; the line
between Self and the H.I. is blurred and the full cognitive and physical
resources of the individual are put at the disposal of the H.I. Remember:
Under such circumstances it is not just you that is in danger but your entire
support network: your children, siblings, parents, country, your ‘way-of-life’,
your values, the memory and sacrifices of your ancestors, everything is in
danger of being effaced, and the profound urgency communicated by this sense of
danger exerts a tremendous mobilising effect on the cognitive capacities and
physical powers of the individual. Consequently, we could say that the presence
of the self is inversely proportional to the value of the perceived threat and
we can argue this position as the actions during times of such stress are very
highly automatic, pre-programmed, such behaviours result from pre-established
programs embedded in our neural circuitry and have little, if anything, to do
with our conscious [higher] minds.
Community is inevitable and
fundamental to our existence and identity. Its primacy is early programmed into
our sense being. We early learn to appreciate that our existence is an effect [a
function] of the existence of the Group. We reason, however poorly, that one
[I] cannot exist without the other [the In-Group] and this has profound
implications in terms of identity formation, one’s sense of duty, and the
horizon of your moral cosmos. After all, without the Group – what am I?
All In-Groups have their defining
characteristics. Membership of a group is dependent upon shared values, ideals, and beliefs. Outsiders are regarded with suspicion until
their orientation and alignment with group values become known. Membership
confers rights and responsibilities, privileges and obligations, opportunities
and protections; all of which have a cost, refusal to conform sets in motion a
series of progressive punitive measures culminating ultimately in the loss of group
membership [ostracism/expulsion/death].
One can be born into a group or
adopted by it. Being born into a group inevitably entails involuntary subjection
to the consciousness/identity forming elements of group customs and conspires
to effect the fluency of the individual in the customs, values, ideals, and the
historical narrative of the group identity, all of which serve to contextualise
the individual’s identity [their origin] within the meta-narrative of the Group
– establishing a shared identity and destiny. The group, quite literally,
becomes our world in that it establishes the horizon of cultural experience [at
least in youth]. Adopted members must swear oaths of allegiance and undertake
to abide by the rules, live by the values of the host group, and, if necessary,
defend with their very lives the welfare of the group. All groups have their
creeds and their codes: Biker gangs, Freedom Fighters, Nations, Religions, even
the Boy Scouts.
The global community of
Christendom is divided up into many - [largely] mutually exclusive - ‘nations’,
whose borders are defined by their respective creeds and codes, many of whom
who have made salvation and passage into communion dependent upon the willingness of the prospective member to
subscribe to their particular variation of their respective creeds and
proscribe and reject everyone else’s; a salvation by right beliefs sort of
thing. The fact that these structures are found repeatedly in such endless
profusion [across all races and cultures] is not a coincidence– it has a
biological root. It is the stamp that indicates the operation of deep
neurological circuitry.
So, what can all this
teach us about religion, conflict, and peace?
Let us take Catholicism as an
example. It is best that I do as I am a member of that family, [albeit that I am
one of the black sheep] and can therefore speak with relative impunity – as one
family member speaking about the others. For now, at least, they haven’t kicked
me out. Though, realistically, it’s only a matter of time really, and after
this article I doubt I’ll be welcomed anywhere else.
The Catholic Church, the
institutions and ideologies of Rome, all her servants high and low, and the
lowly flock she shepherds, is one enormous Host Identity. It has its defining
features that make it distinct from others but at heart it differs in words
only; structurally it is largely the same. Protestant groups have their creeds
and codes to which you must subscribe if you are to be adopted by their community.
The nation of Ireland or Russia presents their demands to any prospective
citizen. Citizenship is only a right to those born within the community, everyone else must earn the privilege; the means of earning this
privilege varies from place to place.
When one In-Group shares the same
living space with other and competing
Out-Groups, the neurological dynamics of Dominance
come into play. A key driving factor in this interplay between groups is the
process of internalisation of Group Identity through which ‘I’ becomes ‘US/WE’
wherein and whereby an individual learns to contextualise their existence by
means of the cultural instruments of the In-Group or, put another way, the
individuals identity becomes encircuited into the Host Identity such that their
fates are seen as identical. Dominance behaviour is rooted in our biology; it
is a key step towards securing unfettered access to the perceived limited resources
of an environment. Dominance is little concerned with things like: Fairness, Justice,
Karma, Morality, Ethics, Mercy, and Goodness. These ideals and values are discerned
by the higher mind. The biologically dominated brain is single minded, crude,
and brutal. Morality is a blessing bestowed upon the faithful [loyal] members
of the In-Group.
During the struggle for dominance
the bestial comes to the fore, albeit that it often appears in the habiliments
of self-righteousness – more than figuratively, the wolf of biological
inclination in the sheep’s clothing of the raiment of cultural sophistication.
When, for example, the Catholic Church is perceived to be ‘under attack’ from an
‘ISM’ of one form or another, the neurologically rooted self-defence mechanisms
engage [the exact same mechanism that engages when two people (or peoples) fight
or prepare to fight]. The brain immediately screens all knowledge of the
Other/Out-Group for weaknesses and amplifies the supposed ‘wrongs’ suffered at
their hands [the biological roots of prejudice, this same screening occurs when
two people argue] and concocts a multi-pronged plan of attack involving
rhetoric, invective, threats, intimidation, deception, aggression – exactly the
sort of behaviour that animals demonstrate when they find themselves in strange
territory and feel inclined to assert dominance for fear of appearing weak.
There is much bluster and locking of horns, albeit that this occurs on a much
higher intellectual plane.
Religious ‘nations’/In-Group
Identities/Host Identities like Catholicism or Protestantism do not war as
might England and France with weapons of steel and fire, their wars are fought
using different means but the desired result is usually the same – the
extermination of the diseased vermin that is the Other, and the mechanism and
values that drive this behaviour in both parties is identical. A brain engaged
in hostility naturally dehumanises the Other. The defensive brain creates
highly simplified and distorted characterisations of the Other [exactly as
occurs when two people argue]: this helps dissolve empathy and is the
biological root of institutional racism and sectarianism. Group Alpha’s set the
tone, inculcating group hate, group animosity, group acrimony, through
consciousness forming propaganda that demonises the other; covertly or implicitly
in times of ‘peace’ or overtly and explicitly in times of ‘war’. Like the Wasp Queen,
she sets the mood of the nest. If she’s stressed, everybody gets stressed. If she’s
at ease, everyone will feel at ease. If she says ‘FIGHT!’ everybody gets out and
fights.
The images of the Other concocted
by the stressed brain are stereotypes: simplified, shorthand symbols referring
to threatening entities or competitors for dominance [persons or groups].
Stereotypes emerge from within In-Groups, they require the over-arching context
provided by the Host Identities in order to be intelligible. Stereotypes are
usually highly simplistic and drift easily into gross misrepresentation. As
symbols their roots can be traced to the emotional functions of the Limbic and the
symbol making Right-Brain systems – the long and arduous path across the higher
functions of the pre-frontal and orbito-frontal cortex and language and logic centres
of the Left Brain means that logic and rationality are often not a part of these
exchanges.
Stereotypes are an attempt by the
subconscious of ‘one’ [some group Alpha] to effect the conformity of
consciousness, to co-opt or entrain the consciousness of an ‘other’ in the
In-Group and thereby seek to establish the behavioural standard of one
[favoured] group toward another [ill favoured] group. This is a key step in the
effecting of the dominance of one group over another. Dominance is not about
respect, it is about control of perceived limited resources, and is ultimately
rooted in fear of death/extinction. Such behaviours have their roots in our
biology, not our pneumatology. It is significant that we are emotional beings
long before we ever learn to be rational beings. The simplistic emotional
‘logic’ of the brain I term ‘Bio-Logic’ and unless we are specifically trained
otherwise bio-logic is the default operating system of most individuals.
These factors highlight the
necessity of transcending biologically rooted self [the Ego] and one’s Host
Identity as a prerequisite for the apperception of truth and, furthermore,
indicates the value of the quest for the ultimate meta-narrative of the whole
of Creation and the super Host Identity of the Great Cosmic Brotherhood that it
promises.
Dehumanising and objectifying the
Other dissolves and dismantles any moral quandaries or apprehensions that may
exist about executing violence and injustice against the Other. The In-Group is
always seen as noble, pure, honest, brave, loving, worthy, while servants of
the Out-Group are depicted in opposite tones: ignoble, corrupt, cowards, hate
filled, wretched, poisonous, treacherous. They are said to ‘hate us and all we
stand for’, they are toxic, association with them is dangerous, their disease
is infectious, contact with them must be avoided at all costs.
The biological program of the Host
Identities is predisposed to suspicion of aliens and is naturally primed for defensive
behaviours upon contact with perceived potential ‘competitors’. Outsiders
create stress in a system because their alignment with the values and ideals of
the group is unknown. In the absence of information systems tend toward chaos,
and the absence of information on this issue fosters mistrust, suspicion, and
paranoia, and motivates the In-Group to establish a ‘polarising filter’ through
which the ‘outsider’ can only pass by projecting or assuming ‘shapes’ and/or
‘positions’ familiar to the interrogator [oaths of loyalty – tests of fealty].
Inability to meet the established criteria triggers an escalation in defensive
measures. Inability or unwillingness to conform may have fatal consequences. Political,
religious, and economic imperialism can trace its roots back to this biologically
rooted urge to dominance and desire to
establish conformity.
When the Protestant identity
first emerged from its Host the birth was brutal and bloody. The off-spring was
immediately perceived as an enemy – a competitor, a threat to dominance. The
Host being actually dominant spent considerable resources in its attempts to
destroy the child it gave birth to but to no avail. The child was found to be
vigorous, inventive, highly adaptable, and utterly indomitable.
Outside of the physical
implements of war employed by the servants of Rome there was considerable
theological rhetoric: justifications, defences, propositions, attacks,
apologetics, not to mention excommunication. The purpose of this was to bolster
the identity of the Catholic In-Group
with the intention of undermining the Protestant
Out-Group. A considerable amount of ink has been spilled in service to this
agenda. This fact proves that much of what passes for theology has its roots NOT
in our pneumatology [our relationship with the spiritual and things divine] but
in our biology [the bonds of the flesh that tie us to matter]. Our brains have
very successfully deceived us into thinking that our reasoning served a higher
purpose, that we were ‘doing God’s will’ but little did we realise how
profoundly true was the declaration ‘the heart is deceitful above all things’,
for in this insight do we discover that though people felt that they were
acting in service to God or a higher and noble calling the fact remains that
they were still servants of the flesh and not the spirit.
The animosity that exists between
the Religious Host Identities exists not in the Host itself but in the hearts
of its component members. Host Identities/In-Groups are not hot houses or
incubators of divisive and exclusivist theology, moreover these divisive and
exclusivist theologies are simply a testament to FEAR; the fear of the Other felt
by its members - which exists in direct contravention of the universal
brotherhood taught and lived by all spiritual masters. Religion did not invent
these things. Religion can’t. Religion is not a person. Religion has neither
reflective moral imagination nor free will. On macroscopic levels H.I. exhibit
animal like behaviour and the reason for this can be found in the beating heart
of the animal that gives life to the system.
So here we are. It was once said
that ‘That there’s only enough religion in the world to make us hate one
another but not enough to make us love one another.’ The line of reasoning that
I have herein outlined proves that the hate is not endemic to religion but is
sponsored by the fear dominated heart of the instruments of the Host Identity. It
is in our very own hearts that we find the roots of invective and aggression, the
will that facilitates and fosters institutional racism, sectarianism, and
imperialism.
In the fear driven human heart is
to be found the seed of many of the world’s troubles but it is equally in the
fear purged heart, the heart inspired and illuminated by divine spiritual
ideals – a will liberated from the bonds of the flesh, is to be found the cure
for all that ails her.
Under such conditions, as
evolving, self directing imperfect beings, conflict is inevitable but as the
race matures, and we come to understand ourselves more fully, peace will be
attained, first personally – on an individual, person by person basis, and
thereafter socially as these healthy beings come together to form healing
wholes.
This insight strikes, with lethal
force, at the biological root of theological arrogance. It does not kill
identity or tradition. It does not make them null and void. It contextualises
its role in our evolution and helps us distinguish between good [spiritually
infused] religion and bad [biologically rooted] religion. It allows us to
re-contextualise religious, political, and economic imperialism; allows us to
understand history anew and to envision a far better future than ever we could and
do so with the realisation that such a future is truly attainable.
There is much here that I have
not touched upon: the spiritual significance of Loyalty and how In-Group
loyalty sets the defining meta-narrative for sin; The phenomenon of the Internalisation
of Identity; The political, social, economic, and religious implications and
possibilities inherent in internalisation and self transcendence; Self:
knowing, understanding, directing; considerations in the synchronising of the
material self with the divine/higher self; Transcending Self, Host Identity,
and attaining membership of the Host Identity of the Cosmos.
