This morning, I have another offering from John Brand. He lives in Texas and I grew up in Oklahoma, so his introduction rings true for me. Originally posted at The Yellow Times.
John Brand
Some friends of mine told me of a wonderful weekend they spent at a Bed and Breakfast in the Texas Hill Country. They took advantage of the available hot tub. Now they did not tell me that they enjoyed this little escapade “au naturel.” But let’s just assume they did – it certainly adds a little spice to our imagination. They did confide that they had a good bottle of wine which they thoroughly enjoyed emptying. Then in the midst of this Bacchanalian venture they started singing Southern Baptist hymns.
Now there can be nothing more incongruous than singing Southern Baptist hymns while drinking wine in a hot tub. The participants don’t even have to be in their birthday suits to highlight the polarity of this scene. Those readers unfamiliar with Southern Baptist mores need to know that good Southern Baptists do not imbibe and cavort around in hot tubs. It just ain’t done! To be in this sinful state and sing hymns is the height of contradiction.
Does it take too much of an imagination that my friends in this joyous state of abandonment were entertaining further thoughts of personal physical intimacy? Not in my book it doesn’t. While their minds were anticipating earthly pleasures, their voices sang hallelujahs to God. I submit to you this a parable of the schizoid condition of present-day America. I am not saying that enjoyment of life and spirituality are mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, when enjoying a beautiful sunset or a Rubens painting, Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto or moments of intimacy with my wife, I experience a profound sense of spirituality. I am saying that cavorting around and singing Baptist hymns are two totally incompatible activities.
I am suggesting that much of present-day America finds itself in such a schizoid state. We fly flags everywhere to evidence our patriotism. With sincere feelings we recite the Pledge of Allegiance. We proclaim with pride “Öwith liberty and justice for all.” But then we say, “Whoa, we don’t want liberty and justice for those who criticize the President.” As a matter of fact, several administration officials have stated that censure of any of President Bush’s plans, pronouncements, executive orders, edicts, decisions and determinations is just downright unpatriotic. So, what does the phrase “Liberty for all” mean when we can’t disagree with our leader? Are we singing a hymn and then cavorting around in a hot tub?
We proclaim that there is justice for all in the land of the free and the brave! But it seems to me there is more justice for some than there is for others. With one wave of the hand, the most insidious Act ever passed in the entire history of the United States, the USA Patriot Act, withdraws justice from anyone who appears to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Now what for heaven’s sake does it mean that someone “appears” to intimidate civilians?
Appearance does not require that I hold a Colt .45 to your head and threaten to kill you. No, if my activities just appear to be intimidating, then I am guilty of having violated the Patriot Act. Who or what is this nebulous “civilian population” that feels intimidated by my acts? Do my columns criticizing some of the Administration’s policies appear to be intimidating? Well, to someone who believes in the Bill of Rights, they are just an invitation for possible discussion. To truly patriotic individuals they are just food for thought. To a super-patriot, “them there is intimidating words.” Then such an emotionally charged self-defined defender of American values might just accuse me of being a terrorist. What is the distance between someone who actually brandishes a weapon terrorizing someone and the individual whose speech appears to be threatening to someone who wouldn’t know the difference between the Magna Carta and Joseph Stalin? I submit to you that in our schizoid state, that distance is becoming shorter and shorter all the time.
While we are singing hymns to our Founding Fathers, Congress at the urging of the President, gave the Attorney General the right to decide who is a suspected terrorist. All the Attorney General has to do is to certify that he believes that someone is a suspected terrorist. No proof needs to be provided. The Attorney General’s word is all that is needed. No court order is needed to detain someone accused of being a suspected terrorist in jail for up to six months incrementally. That could mean a lifetime in jail, one six months detention after another. And no legal due process steps have ever to be taken. To further evidence the mental sickness of our nation even more, the Act states that the action of the Attorney General is not subject to review by any court! Boy, if that isn’t singing Baptist hymns while cavorting around in the hot tub, I don’t know what would be.
Of course, I am always much more concerned about possible underlying reasons for what we do than to describe the actual results of our folly. What in the world would cause some leaders of our nation to salute the flag and then do everything in their power to destroy the essence of what that flag symbolizes?
It seems strange that the answer might be found in an episode that took place some years ago on a farm in Upstate New York. Paul M. MacLean, M.D., the eminent researcher of the evolutionary development of the human brain, kept a flock of ducks on his summer place. One evening he noted one duck being attacked by other members of the flock. When he went to see what the commotion was all about, he noticed that the animal being assaulted had a bloody spot on its head. The other ducks kept pecking away at that blemish. The following day, MacLean painted a red spot on the head of another duck. Sure enough, the scene of the previous day repeated itself. The flock again attacked the duck with the blemish.
Any chicken or turkey farmer has seen similar episodes many times. Members of the flock will attack a chicken or a turkey that happens to be injured and bleeding. MacLean postulates that deep within a very primitive part of the brain is a neural alarm system ringing a bell when confronted with a strange or unfamiliar situation. It can be postulated that alerting a creature in the face of the unknown is a survival mechanism. It is as though the brain was signaling, “This is strange! You don’t know what it is. You need to protect yourself against this potential danger.” Humans, no less than ducks, have a similar survival mode. In the face of the unknown we become defensive and protective.
I propose that hostility between tribes, races, or other diverse groups has its genesis in this ancient neural connection in the brain. The difference does not even have to be physical in nature, such as white skin vs. black skin. Differences arousing the defense mechanism can be conceptual, ideological, or religious in nature. Nationalistic leaders have taken advantage of this predisposition of the human brain to rouse their followers into action: Gentiles vs. Jews, Palestinians vs. Israelis, Irish Protestants vs. Irish Catholics, Capitalists vs. Social Democrats. It doesn’t take much to arouse this “blemish” factor in human beings.
At the drop of a hat, we sing patriotic hymns, wave the flag, and with almost the same breath, deny someone holding different ideas the protection of the Bill of Rights. An interesting fact is that religious wars, the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, etc., etc., were not conducted to eliminate criminal elements. They were conducted to kill those whose mere ideas were different. A lot of good people were killed just because they interpreted the idea of God in different ways. Hell, we sing Baptist hymns while cavorting around in the hot tub all the time.
One of the earliest recorded events in which a leader summoned his people into action by waving the blemish factor before them is recorded in the book of Joshua, chapter 24. Joshua seeking to rally his tribe around his Lord said, “Choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served. . . or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” The implication is that “our” Lord is far better than the gods of the Amorites. It is easy to coalesce a group into solidarity by pointing out the differences existing between it and others.
Then an interesting psychological phenomenon occurs. People holding a particular point of view achieve their sense of selfhood by comparing themselves to others rather than deriving their self-worth from within their own essence. The sense of personal identification is derived through stressing and emphasizing seeming differences. It is these differences rather than an individualistic sense of integrity that validates such a person’s selfhood. We, who serve the god of our ancestors, are better than the Amorites. Never mind that some who serve the god of the ancestors may take advantage of members of their own tribe. Never mind that some Amorites have a very high sense of personal morality. The assumption is that they are Amorites and therefore they are full of blemishes. We are Israelites therefore we are o.k.
As tribes become successful states, the blemish factor applies to differences of opinions among various groups within the state. Capitalists see blemishes in labor and labor sees blemishes in capitalists. Once the blemish factor is established, it is very difficult for these groups to work with each other. Deep emotions are attached to our preferences and prevent productive co-operation. Both sides fail to realize that each one needs the other to make a whole. Capital without labor is simply an idea. Labor without capital cannot make a living. The reality of mutual needs is blotted out by some stupid subconscious assumption generated in brain tissues dating its origin millions of years ago. No wonder our country is singing hymns while frolicking around in a hot tub.
The impact of the blemish factor affects many facets of our lives. If my sense of importance arises from comparing myself to others, I will drive hard to create a deep chasm between the others and myself. If I am a corporate executive, I will seek to attain earnings that are several times as large as that of the peons who work for me. If I make 100 times as much as that hourly temp, then I am 100 times better than he is. If Bill Gates makes a bit more than Kenny Boy then Bill is a better man. But it isn’t only among the super-rich that this game is played. If I live in West Austin, I am better than all these blemish-ridden folks in East Austin. If I drive a gas-guzzler, I am a person with fewer blemishes than one who drives an economy car. Don’t tell me that I am making all this up. TV ads imply that you really are someone if you are driving a big van.
Folks in public office often derive their sense of self-hood from the mere fact of being elected. Then everyone who represents a different point-of-view is seen as a person with a blemish. These are folks who need to be eliminated. The stronger the need for deriving self-identity by comparison with others, the more intense the need to eliminate all blemished folks. If one derives one’s basic sense of being by pecking at everyone who is suspected of having a bloody spot, all those who hold different opinions have bloody spots and need to be neutralized. Having eliminated them fills the victor with a short-lived sense of accomplishment. However, because the real sense of self is lacking, soon this inner void cries out for more victims to be eliminated. Under the banner of doing away with all those who are considered unpatriotic or suspected of being terrorists, a never-ending supply of folks with blemishes is assured.
The victor sings hymns and splashes about in his little hot tub. Except this tub is filled with the proverbial blood of those whom he proclaims to be his enemies.
Of course, the blemish factor causes us to make value judgments. Whatever my particular point of view happens to be, I adjudge as right and good. Ergo, anyone differing from my position must be wrong and bad. And so, the political machinery of the potentially greatest nation on earth grinds to a standstill. Because neither side is willing to see its need for the other, much legislation is myopic and eventually self-destructive. There is no Republican America. There is no Democratic America. There is only an America based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. To be sure, these are living documents and must be interpreted against current needs and present problems. But the solution is neither Democratic nor Republican in nature. The solution lies in the effort to be and to become humane.
But as long as we see blemishes in each other, we are cooking up a stew of mutually self-destructive agendas. The President of the United States when taking office swears to uphold its Constitution. No one can uphold our Constitution and see blemishes in everyone who has different ideas. It seems to be that our sitting President sees blemishes in anyone who begs to differ with his agenda. He sees his program as a God-given mission. Therefore anyone opposing him must be silenced by any and all means possible. That is not my understanding of what the barons fought for in 1215 at Runnymede and found a most exemplary manifestation on July 4, 1776.
It seems that the present-day power structure in politics, business and religion is singing mighty hymns of patriotism while swigging away their bottle of booze in their hot tubs.
John Brand is a Purple Heart, Combat Infantry veteran of World War II. He received his Juris Doctor degree at Northwestern University and a Master of Theology and a Doctor of Ministry at Southern Methodist University. He served as a Methodist minister for 19 years, was Vice President, Birkman & Associates, Industrial Psychologists, and concluded his career as Director, Organizational and Human Resources, Warren-King Enterprises, an independent oil and gas company. He is the author of Shaking the Foundations.
You are welcome to write John Brand.
Read more from The Yellow Times.
More on Paul D. MacLean’s The Triune Brain in Evolution.