During this holiday season, I think it timely to address a fundamental problem in the development of human societies ... the us v them mentality. People band together in groups ... whether formally or informally ... because they feel something in common and want to be part of a group, not alone, often to increase their security. Unfortunately, most groups form their identity by differentiating themselves from others which quickly transforms into us v them, competition, and often conflict.
We see the world as made up of some people like us, and a mass of people not like us who would exercise power over us to our disadvantage if they had the ability. The impact of this dynamic is not surprising. And it has been the basis for the development of human societies for millennia, if not from the beginning of man.
Since all mankind ... regardless our race, color, religion, nationality ... descended from a common ancestor in Africa, how did this come to be? It is probably a safe bet that the first society was a communal one, but at some point, someone in the group wasn’t happy and split off and formed another group, and then competition for resources began and conflict began. You have the same pattern in animal societies ... they are communal within the group but often fiercely territorial and aggressive towards other like groups.
Although man has a brain and can think, as he has advanced technologically his basic brain patterns have not altered at all. Man is today working with the same brain that first evolved 100,000 years ago. And so he still sees himself in an inevitable security/conflict mode.
How sad, because we are all children of the universe, of God. Regardless whether your higher power is a God responsive to prayer, a moral force or an amoral force, the divinity within you, or the force of the universe which has brought forth the miracle of the world and its species – we all are literally children of the same God, we all stem from an original source.
And we all have something else in common ... the suffering of mankind is universal. There is no one, regardless how rich or how poor, who does not suffer because we are all afflicted with feelings of insecurity.
What a different world it would be if everyone felt that everyone else in the world was one with them and vice versa. How different it would be if we followed the moral prescription of all religions to do unto others as you have them do unto you. What if we gaged our every action by the impact it would have on others, and if others were in any way harmed we would cease or alter our actions?
There would be no war, there would be no poverty, there would be no lack of access to \quality education or quality medical care. There would still be people who were richer or poorer, but the extent of inequality would be greatly reduced.
Who do I blame most for this continuing cancer on the soul of humanity? The world’s major religions. They are the force that has perpetuated more us v them feeling and violent conflict than any other force over the millennia. Even when the conflict wasn’t religious, they have stepped up to support their nation states or communities in aggressive actions against others.
Yet the major religions are the principle holders of moral authority in the world. They could, with a united voice, change this dynamic or at least begin the process of changing the dynamic. They should be able to rise above their claims to exclusivity and embrace the equality of all religions as well as those who profess no religion..
I know that this will never happen. Historical forces and our habit-energies would overwhelm any attempt to change this societal dynamic. Nevertheless, this is what the world needs and I pray that a voice, or voices, rise to proclaim this truth and further peace on earth.
In my previous post, I addressed the problems caused by widespread insecurity ... abuse and violence in personal relationships and in social interactions, as well as much unhappiness and stress even without those particular outcomes. But insecurity also plays a major role in the larger issues of social conflict and international war.
For hundreds if not thousands of years, there has been a divide in most societies between the haves and the have-nots. Whether we look at the English nobility, or the WASP establishment in the United States prior to 1960, Southern whites, or the caste system in India, the haves put in place a system which protected their interests and kept “others” or the masses from having the power to be a threat.
The reader might look at these leaders of society and say that they were immensely secure; that this is not an example of insecurity causing conflict. But I would argue that they were only secure because they had put in place these systems, which they did out of insecurity and fear. They were at some level afraid of “others” or the masses gaining power.
The English nobility put in place a system where there was little upward mobility, and then only to a certain point. The English class system ... which was the gate into good schools and good jobs ... was firmly in place until after WWII; many would say it still is. Politically, even after election reforms in the 1800s which gave a political voice to men who either owned or rented property worth a certain amount, the House of Lords, which was the province of the nobility, had the power to veto what they didn’t like until 1911.
In the United States, the WASP establishment until around 1960 had a pretty exclusive grip on all handles of power. Whether someone was Jewish or Catholic, let alone black, all “others” were excluded from the seats of real power, for example, WASP law firms, country clubs, and private clubs. Representative politics provided a path to elected status for many of the “others,” but real power was reserved for members of the WASP establishment until well after WWII.
In the South, whites from the highest to the lowest socio-economic groups put in place and violently supported a system in which blacks had no rights, or what rights they had were systematically denied them. The language may have been one of superiority and security, but here more than in the other instances I discuss, the fear of losing control was always close to the surface and apparent.
Today in the United States, while we live in a very egalitarian society in many respects and there are many laws protecting the equality of people, discrimination based on fear and insecurity is still a major issue. Much has been written, for example, about the vehemence of the Tea Party’s and Far Right’s attitude towards President Obama as being in large part based on their fear of blacks’, and other people of color, gaining more social and political power as the majority status of whites in this country begins to fade away, an opinion with which I agree.
And this is not just a Western phenomenon. For example, the caste system in India, which until relatively recently was very rigid and still causes many problems, especially for those formerly labeled “untouchables,” was an ancient system devised to keep everyone in their place and protect those with power from those below them.
As to the issue of international war, the issue of insecurity is more visible. Virtually all alliances and wars have been an effort to make countries feel secure against the threat of enemies, real or imagined. Even the strong have constantly been worried about attacks on their hegemony. And understandably so.
Obviously, in the larger social context and international relationships, the problem is not directly that children, spouses, and others are not loved unconditionally. However, the basic dynamic resulting from this which impacts interpersonal relationships ... a feeling of insecurity, of not feeling safe, of needing to project strength to counter such feelings ... directly impacts actions in the larger social and world arenas. If those in positions of power felt love towards and from all, then there would be no need for both the national and international systems that have ultimately caused much suffering in the world.
If everyone were raised with unconditional love, listened to deeply, and spoken to with loving kindness, then man would not grow up to be the way man is now and has been for millenia, at least in so-called “advanced” societies.
So far I have discussed the impact of man’s insecurity vis a vis others and its impact on his relationship with other individuals or groups. Another major aspect of man’s insecurity that has affected the course of human development has been his insecurity vis a vis nature, read broadly. It is this insecurity that resulted in the development of religion, from the earliest to the current leading religions.
Man formed religions to answer questions of why nature and other aspects of life are the way they are, and most importantly to provide a way for man to impact their course, whether through sacrifice in ancient times or through modern prayer. And since religion was formed in answer to man’s insecurity, it is not surprising that it was made to serve his other insecurities, whether it was providing a respectable foundation for the continued practice of slavery or lending its authority to a country’s going to war against enemies. Far from being the bringer of peace and understanding, religion has thus been the hand-maiden of war and untold human suffering.
And so, the book I’ve written which has just been published, Raising a Happy Child, is relevant regarding these larger issues as well. It is available through www.ThePracticalBuddhist.com. as well as through the major online retailers and your local bookstore by special order. While based on Buddhist principles, the lessons it contains are applicable regardless of ones religious affiliation. For more information about the book as well as the Table of Contents and sample text, go to the website.
