Vox interviews political scientists Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, about their book Prius or Pickup. Heterington and Weiler seem to be contending that the nation is now divided according to two opposing "world views." These world views seem to be expressions of what we fear. It seems that present-day Republicans fear certain threats to tradition while Democrats fear those same traditions.
But this -- not necessarily their -- analysis so far ignores that these fears have two facets or parts: how people feel and how other people use how people feel. This latter part is the part that manifests itself in the US Congress, where the division between Republicans and Democrats is a division between two warring camps. In a war, people choose sides, regardless of how they feel. What is important is not how they feel, but rather how they behave; and that behavior must be in concert with the behavior of the group -- to act otherwise can get one branded a traitor. How one feels about the "cause" of the group is irrelevant. What is important is how one publicly supports that cause, and public support can only be shown by behavior: one's public statements (speech acts), one's facial expressions and body language, one's actions. What one "truly feels in one's heart" at the time these public expressions are made is known only to the one who emits this behavior. And cognitive dissonance will most probably do its work and bring how one feels into line with how one behaves.
The "warring camp" interpretation is strong in that it is based on the human trait of being a social or pack animal. Humans have evolved as social animals and therefore allegiance to the group and how one feels about the group is an expression of that evolution. Key, then, is the need for power and control. Fear is the emotion that is exploited or used to achieve group cohesion, which then increases the power of the group. The benefits of group power may not be distributed equally within the group, but a powerful group is able to distribute more benefits to its members than a weak, dominated group can benefit its members.
Language and rationality are an attempt to codify and build a theory of our behavior and feelings. But rationality does not "explain" manifestations of our evolutionary heritage. Those manifestations can only be described; those manifestations can only be "explained" by saying "because we are built that way." They are like geometric axioms, and therefore cannot be defined or explained -- they are the basis for definition and explanation. Defining an axiom can only result in a contradiction or a circular argument.
But if people are motivated by the same thing, then why do they have opposing views and goals?
Conditions, both internal to the person and external in their environment, determine or influence the expression of a particular trait: inheriting a specific allele, mother's diet, environmental conditions (stress) influencing mother's endocrine response, environmental conditions post partum, parenting, neighborhood, etc, etc, etc.
Our species survives through sexual reproduction. What brings two people together do this? There does not appear to be a necessary connection between sexual attraction and the gender of the partner, though there is a statistical one. Neither is the strength of that attraction binary -- all consuming or indifferent, though watching some animals copulate gives the impression that for them it is. Humans continue the species following a sexual reproduction program or algorithm. Because we are conscious and self-aware and use language we write about romance and watch Rom Coms; but these things would happen even if we were completely oblivious to what we were doing. Our awareness of what we are doing articulates a narrative of our behavior and complicates things as this awareness creates a secondary environment for our behavioral expression. But other animals presumably reproduce and raise their young without the aid of romantic comedies.
But this -- not necessarily their -- analysis so far ignores that these fears have two facets or parts: how people feel and how other people use how people feel. This latter part is the part that manifests itself in the US Congress, where the division between Republicans and Democrats is a division between two warring camps. In a war, people choose sides, regardless of how they feel. What is important is not how they feel, but rather how they behave; and that behavior must be in concert with the behavior of the group -- to act otherwise can get one branded a traitor. How one feels about the "cause" of the group is irrelevant. What is important is how one publicly supports that cause, and public support can only be shown by behavior: one's public statements (speech acts), one's facial expressions and body language, one's actions. What one "truly feels in one's heart" at the time these public expressions are made is known only to the one who emits this behavior. And cognitive dissonance will most probably do its work and bring how one feels into line with how one behaves.
The "warring camp" interpretation is strong in that it is based on the human trait of being a social or pack animal. Humans have evolved as social animals and therefore allegiance to the group and how one feels about the group is an expression of that evolution. Key, then, is the need for power and control. Fear is the emotion that is exploited or used to achieve group cohesion, which then increases the power of the group. The benefits of group power may not be distributed equally within the group, but a powerful group is able to distribute more benefits to its members than a weak, dominated group can benefit its members.
Language and rationality are an attempt to codify and build a theory of our behavior and feelings. But rationality does not "explain" manifestations of our evolutionary heritage. Those manifestations can only be described; those manifestations can only be "explained" by saying "because we are built that way." They are like geometric axioms, and therefore cannot be defined or explained -- they are the basis for definition and explanation. Defining an axiom can only result in a contradiction or a circular argument.
But if people are motivated by the same thing, then why do they have opposing views and goals?
Conditions, both internal to the person and external in their environment, determine or influence the expression of a particular trait: inheriting a specific allele, mother's diet, environmental conditions (stress) influencing mother's endocrine response, environmental conditions post partum, parenting, neighborhood, etc, etc, etc.
Our species survives through sexual reproduction. What brings two people together do this? There does not appear to be a necessary connection between sexual attraction and the gender of the partner, though there is a statistical one. Neither is the strength of that attraction binary -- all consuming or indifferent, though watching some animals copulate gives the impression that for them it is. Humans continue the species following a sexual reproduction program or algorithm. Because we are conscious and self-aware and use language we write about romance and watch Rom Coms; but these things would happen even if we were completely oblivious to what we were doing. Our awareness of what we are doing articulates a narrative of our behavior and complicates things as this awareness creates a secondary environment for our behavioral expression. But other animals presumably reproduce and raise their young without the aid of romantic comedies.
posted by Godel at 8:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home