4.3.6 Anthropology - Conclusion



Explore: 4 Concepts And Propositions »

Header Image

4.3.6.1 Physical And Psychological Safety

We have explored many aspects of anthropology in the previous Sub-Chapters. I hope that this post might throw some light on how it is relevant in community work.

In this respect, I will explore the origins of the kind of power that keeps people who are poor (in particular the Focus Group) in their place. (At this point it might be helpful to read – if you have not done so already – the Sub-Chapter on Power and Control in Society).

‘I think therefore I am’ is the statement that the philosopher Renée Descartes claimed separated humans from the rest of species.  It means that because we can think we cannot deny our own existence. (I don’t suppose animals put a lot of thought into this, one way or another, but I cannot be sure)!

While it sounds simple – and obvious – it brought big changes to humanity. It was one of the sparks that lit the fuse of The Enlightenment which ultimately led to people raising the status of thinking, thereby leading to the world finding favour in reductionism to solve problems.

This, in turn, led to the great inventions that allow me to travel from Ireland to Australia in 20 hours or have my body opened up and my heart replaced with a new one, or to cut and paste on this laptop (which I just did now – which is why I thought of it) rather than, laboriously, use a pencil and rubber to change things when I am writing.

I believe that ‘I think therefore I am’ is undoubtedly true – but in respect of our existence – in particular how we perceive our place in the world – it’s a bit more complicated when we unpack it.

Our ability to think (and it’s implications regarding our awareness of self) gives us the ability to symbolise. The ability to symbolise gives us the ability to create, and then invent.

And the ability to invent gives us the ability to try and banish uncertainty, discomfort, inconvenience and insecurity from our lives. Ultimately it leads to us becoming food producers that use long-term strategic planning (over years or even decades) rather than hunters and gatherers who use short-term, immediate, (over days, weeks and months) tactical methods of acquiring food.

Ultimately, it leads us to esteeming left-brain technologists.

I propose that when we strategise and plan, we begin to view power in a different way.

Now let me expand on this a little so it makes some sense in respect of community work.

An immediate response to a problem that has to be solved – containing a high level of emotional energy – is completely different to a response that, of course, includes our emotions, but also includes our ability to think something through and imagine (symbolise) a solution that will bring long-term benefit.

In this, it will be helpful to introduce the notion of psychological safety.

We have the ability to think about what other people think of us and if we think that other people think ill of us, or hold us in low regard, we will feel psychologically unsafe. (Unlike animals, that only have to worry about physical safety, we worry about psychological safety. [1])

One way of keeping ourselves psychologically safe is to do a lot or to own a lot.

And doing and owning are a result of the ability to strategise and/or plan long-term. The dominant belief among humans is (certainly since we started farming) that if we do a lot or own a lot we will feel powerful.

The ability to strategise, symbolise and imagine (i.e. plan long-term) gives us a kind of power that appears to help in keeping ourselves psychologically safe.

And it also gives us the ability to have that very human and debilitating emotion, shame, as we imagine what others think of us. Fido with his head hanging low after eating a foolishly-left-out cooked chicken notwithstanding, I believe that no other animal has the same feeling of shame as humans.

Some of this shame comes from comparison of what we do and own with what others do and own. (This gives rise to the exhortation that to look good in the eyes of others we have to keep up with the Joneses)!

At another level, our ability to symbolise, think etc. means that we can invent something that will contribute to the comfort, security, convenience, longevity, emotional and physical well-being etc. of our species, (e.g. a passenger aeroplane, a great piece of literature or an anaesthetic) or something that will have a destructive effect on us (e.g. napalm that will burn people alive or a system of discipline that will scorn, hurt and shame children).

Owning very little and/or doing very little implies poverty – a potential source of shame. (See this post for further discussion on how comparison in an unequal society is very harmful to families in the Focus Group, and also the website of the equality trust – full of interesting information on the subject).

Our abilities also mean that we can choose to use our ideas, inventions, initiatives etc. in a way that makes us all collectively better off or in a way that will make some of us better off – but at the expense of others.


[1]. An animal has the power to kill another animal and eat it, or defend itself from a more physically powerful animal by running faster, or changing colour, or not!  If an animal kills and eats another animal to stay alive, it doesn’t worry about whether it has done right or wrong.  Some humans do – e.g. vegetarians and vegans.   

4.3.6.2 Final Words – Cognitive And Emotional Development

In the previous post I mentioned Descartes, and here I will mention another defining characteristic of our species, which he, I am sure, being an intelligent philosopher, was aware of.

That is – compassion.

I am sure that our tendency to be compassionate is one of the reasons why we go out of our way – in so far as we can – to try and include a member of our species that is ill or failing.

In this, I find it most interesting that the physically sick – and those who have what is known as a disability (physical or mental) are the ones that we readily feel most compassion for – and are cared for most, not the ones who cannot keep up, cognitively and materially, (i.e are poor), or emotionally, (i.e. have problems).

Related to this, the absolute dominance of left-brain thinking in our make-up means that if we go to war where thousands might be killed, injured and impoverished (or work as scientists making weapons to fight the war) we are deemed to be perfectly sane (and have not a problem). However if we chain ourselves to a tree to save a forest we are deemed to be eccentric (and have a problem) or are even thought to be a little mad, or maybe a troublemaker who might be arrested for obstructing something or other, or, at least, criticised for getting in the way of progress.

The ones who are not as smart in a left-brain sense (or are not fast processors as will be described in a later post) are often left out and ignored, or even dominated. The ones who are deemed to have emotional problems are, perhaps, worried and fretted about by those close to them, but ultimately sidelined, misunderstood and/or offered the quick-fixes already described. The ones who are poor are shunned and avoided – and also, mostly, looked down on.

This has had global consequences i.e. colonialism, conquest, slavery, etc. as so-called developed races dominated less coherent and disorganised races.  It is almost as if some societies dominated others just because they could – i.e. they saw a weakness and exploited it.

It also has consequences in family, community and society as those who are left behind (that is, excluded) naturally are angry and fearful – because they have little or nothing, while those in the driving seat retreat behind their high walls and security cameras for protection.

Now I’ll get back to anthropology and ask a question that is on my mind having read a lot about hunter-gatherer societies.

Were (or are) pure hunter-gatherers more emotionally attuned to their fellow humans than us, their modern day descendants?

It would appear to me that through thousands of years of evolution we became cognitively advanced but, for some strange reason, our emotional advancement stalled – or even went backwards.

Remember the balanced development in the left and right sides of the brain? It’s as if, over ten thousand years or more (and in particular over the last 4,000 or so) our left brains raced ahead and weren’t informed, moderated or balanced by equivalent right-brain development.

I say this because if our emotional journey progressed in parallel with our cognitive journey – that is, if our capacity to love and respect ourselves and others to enhance our emotional safety and well-being had developed in tandem with our capacity to advance technologically to enhance our physical safety and well-being – we’d value equality, nurture it, protect it, and promote it as absolutely vital to our long-term well-being. (The post on intelligence might be relevant here).

We’d never colonise any other race, we’d never go to war, we would use our wonderful inventions for good rather than harm, and the fable of killing the goose that laid the golden egg would not need to have been written.

This is probably the defining paradox of humanity.

The next Chapter is about Energy.

I find it fascinating that over thousands of years of evolution our cognitive development enabled us to enhance our physical comfort and safety by invention and use of what we call energy saving devices.

Once again a paradox emerges, as the physical energy that we are saving can be wasted on alleviating unnecessary emotional distress brought on by the inventions themselves.

Some Interesting Questions

View all Questions »
Newsletter

Would you like to keep up to date and get in touch?