American Discord: Why Humans Need Hate Like Air

Michel Foucault writes, “A name makes reading too easy.” Foucault, a famous philosopher and activist during the latter part of the twentieth century, believed his celebrity made it impossible for people to hear what he was actually saying. People no longer read his work, they read him. So Foucault says, if he has written anonymously in the past, it was “a way of addressing the potential reader…more directly: Since you don’t know who I am, you will be more inclined to find out why I say what you read; just allow yourself to say, quite simply, it’s true, it’s false. I like it or I don’t like it.” Foucault’s point: names blindside us with bias; impulsive associations tethered to monikers and brands make it nearly impossible to read plainly what is truly being said and why. The surface always wins.

A personal example: I’ve always been fascinated by the immense disdain people have for the band Nickelback. At a friend’s house once I got in a heated discussion about the band. I insisted they weren’t all that bad, while she said they were the absolute worst. I played a Nickelback song and asked for feedback, and she responded that it was “the most awful crap in the world” and “so mundane and repetitive.” The trick, of course, was that I was playing a Nirvana b-side, not a Nickelback song. Perhaps my friend would still not like the track, but would she be so critical if she knew it was Nirvana? A name makes reading too easy.

Science, insofar as modern science can be accurate, syncs up with Foucault’s insight on surface bias. Neuroscientists at Emory University presented liberals and conservatives with factual, negative information about their favorite political candidates. They discovered, using M.R.I. scanners, that their subjects’ brains rejected this information — and, even more amazingly, that their brains rewarded them for doing so by shooting off chemicals associated with pleasure. In other words, the human brain is wired to make us feel good for being close-minded. The following video from wearethechange.org is a good example of this at work out in the world.

The stunt the reporter pulls is similar to the Nickelback/Nirvana trick I played on my friend. He asks Obama supporters for their opinion on what he claims to be a Romney policy, when in fact the policies all belong to Obama. The people are quick to dismiss and slander the so-called Romney legislation. But the polices all actually belonged to President Barack Obama (not Romney). What would they have said if they were told these were actually Obama polices? A name makes reading too easy.

When we think, are we even thinking? Or are we just operating off a combination of assumed truths and surface emotions? Who among us has actually read the legislation of the politicians we support? How many of us, on either side of the spectrum, has thought through these things with any sort of intellectual vigor? Is the political, or the cultural for that matter, just a big soap opera of primitive impulses masquerading as a higher calling?

Evolutionary psychologists like Richard Alexander and John Hartung give us ample evidence to understand why humans are so, to put it mildly, thoughtless in their interpretations of things and the world. In-group morality and intergroup competition were staples in the evolution of human consciousness, thus, humans have been hardwired to see the world binarily: Us vs. Them. This hardwiring is not based on logic or analytical thinking, but rather on an animalistic tribe mentality. We are predisposed to think of ourselves in one group and vehemently against another. Thus, as Foucault notes, humans prefer to judge the world, rather than analyze it. “Judgement is being passed everywhere, all the time. Perhaps it’s one of the simplest things mankind has been given to do.” Simple because it’s so natural to hate when the other both metaphorically and literally carries a different name, a different surface badge of association. Our brains reward us for this close-mindedness to ensure evolutionary survival: If you want to survive don’t cross your tribe, trust your team, hate the other team.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian political scientist Georgi Arbatov ominously remarked that the Soviet Union’s greatest trick was still in the works: “We are about to do to you the worst possible thing we can do [to America],” said Georgi. “We are going to take your enemy away.” Yesterday, the front page of the The Washington Post read, “Election Day reveals a growing political divide… There appears to be a Red and a Blue America, each seeing a different reality.” Today, it seems from Fox News to NBC, the Drudge Report to The Huffington Post, The New York Times to The Wall Street Journal, Georgi might be right: America, lacking an external concrete enemy to fulfill our innate desire as humans for tribalism and surface division, has found a punching bag in itself. And, if it all goes south, let’s not forget which side lives on high ground and owns all the guns. TC mark

One story, told five ways…

Advertisement

Meet the students of Five Points High School. You probably already know them—or at least you think you do.

Five Points is an unflinching look at the other versions of the same reality.
Catch Five Points, a new series only on Facebook Watch.

Watch Our Favorite New Show
  • Thought Catalog

    Reblogged this on Exploring My Culture, Exploring Myself and commented:
    I’ve always wondered whether people were simply incapable of not hating something or other. Every time we manage to suppress one kind of prejudice, another rears its head. When one kind of hate is out of fashion, another in en vogue. It’s why I’ve always believed that world peace will only be achieved when there is an alien invasion, because we will finally have an ‘other’ that is more ‘other’ to all of us than we are to each other.

    It’s like the Omega wolf in wolf packs. The member that helps maintain the mental and emotional health of the pack by being literally the whipping boy for the rest: the one who gets picked on, that the others take their frustrations out on. Humanity is very much like a wolf pack

  • Thought Catalog

    Reblogged this on calmerzot and commented:
    Interesting

  • Thought Catalog

    Reblogged this on Paige LeBlanc's Blog and commented:
    Interesting. Sad that this what we’ve become.

  • https://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/how-to-understand-your-neighbor/ How To Understand Your Neighbor | Thought Catalog

    […] don’t even need to study new media to understand this fragmentation and natural polarization of America. Just look at the English language. There are about one million English words now, with […]

  • http://www.itmakesmestronger.com/2012/12/how-to-understand-your-neighbor/ Only L<3Ve @ ItMakesMeStronger.com

    […] don’t even need to study new media to understand this fragmentation and natural polarization of America. Just look at the English language. There are about one million English words now, with […]

  • https://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/so-we-avoided-the-fiscal-cliff-kind-of/ So We Avoided The Fiscal Cliff, Kind Of | Thought Catalog

    […] parties tap into a tendency we have as human beings to be part of a group, to belong in one and compete with others. I believe that we can overcome this baser inclination. We certainly can’t expect to fix the […]

  • http://www.itmakesmestronger.com/2013/01/so-we-avoided-the-fiscal-cliff-kind-of/ Only L<3Ve @ ItMakesMeStronger.com

    […] parties tap into a tendency we have as human beings to be part of a group, to belong in one and compete with others. I believe that we can overcome this baser inclination. We certainly can’t expect to fix the […]

  • https://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/the-13-most-important-things-ive-ever-learned/ The 13 Most Important Things I’ve Learned Thus Far | Thought Catalog

    […] Judging others doesn’t define them. It defines you as someone who needs to compartmentalize […]

  • http://www.itmakesmestronger.com/2013/03/the-13-most-important-things-i%e2%80%99ve-learned-thus-far-2/ Only L<3Ve @ ItMakesMeStronger.com

    […] Judging others doesn’t define them. It defines you as someone who needs to compartmentalize […]

  • https://thoughtcatalog.com/2013/should-we-talk-about-politics-on-social-media/ Should We Talk About Politics On Social Media? | Thought Catalog

    […] what I witness is a severe lack of understanding of the political process and an exacerbation of political polarization. It is a reasonable assumption that people with similar political beliefs gather, and the […]

  • http://www.itmakesmestronger.com/2013/03/should-we-talk-about-politics-on-social-media/ Only L<3Ve @ ItMakesMeStronger.com

    […] what I witness is a severe lack of understanding of the political process and an exacerbation of political polarization. It is a reasonable assumption that people with similar political beliefs gather, and the […]

blog comments powered by Disqus