there are so many thought-provoking situations and ideas running through my mind right now i'm not sure i could capture them all or subdue them into the semblance of sense. i'm trying to work out on my mind the duality between animal instincts and intellect, if and how to walk a line between them, and whether it is possible to break out of roles that personal life experience as well as genetic and cultural heritage have already assigned to us.
i attended a very interesting lecture today in my primate behavior class about aggression and dominance. the basic tenet is this: if you put any two primates of the same species into a space together, they will immediately sort out which is dominant and which is submissive, usually through physical fighting but sometimes only through symbolic displays of dominance (i.e. showing teeth or choosing a higher perch to signify dominance or averting eyes, extending a hand, or choosing a lower perch to signify submission.) subsequently, the two animals will get along after it is firmly established that one has dominance over the other. if, however, the researcher introduces a desired object, such as a favorite food or a female, the two animals will no longer be on good terms... and the dominant male will ALWAYS end up with access to the resource. in one very interesting experiment, researchers put the dominant animal in a glass box, where he could observe the submissive male's behavior but not directly interact with him, and then introduced a female to the environment. although the submissive animal had the opportunity to follow his biological imperative and mate, the stare of the dominant male was strong enough, EVERY TIME, to prevent the submissive male from acting.
our professor suggested that we try this experiment: in a group of people, observe who recieves the most attention. completely disregarding actual conversation, simply observe who watches whom, whose jokes recieve the most laughter, who doesn't have to BOTHER watching everyone else. in any social situation, even among people, a more or less loose dominance hierarchy will emerge. a few people will be the ones that everyone else monitors and keeps track of, the ones whose social cues everyone else will follow. in one of his essays, Freud wrote that one of the fundamental facts of human society is that in any group, one person will emerge as the leader and all others will be subservient. THINK OF EVERY GOVERNMENT YOU KNOW OF. THEY ALL HAVE A KING OR EMPEROR OR PRESIDENT. EVERYONE ELSE FALLS BEHIND. even within my roommates, it's obvious that everyone listens to barb unless someone else chooses to challenge her social dominance and assert something different. returning to Freud, one of the essential reasons why people are always dissatisfied in society is that they're stuck in a subservient role. i, as the eternally submissive person in nearly every social situation i've ever encountered, can attest to the fact that it fucking sucks to always be the last one to speak (or the one who does not speak), the last one to get attention, and the first one to give in. i do resent it often, being at the bottom of the hierarchy.
perhaps the reason a system like communism does not work is because this concept is so deeply ingrained in us by both our biological and societal teachings: there is always a leader and there are always followers. making everyone equal seems impossible because people will ALWAYS compete for resources, be they food and water or prestige or attention or mates. WE ARE NOT AS FAR FROM OUR ANIMAL COUNTERPARTS AS WE WOULD LIKE TO THINK WE ARE. though we may be capable of abstract thought, idealism and intellect, we are still bound by emotional responses we do not control.
this has more implications than i could hope to go into right now. the most compelling for me at the moment is, on a personal level, is it possible for me to not always be the one with no power? our professor stressed that dominance is determined by context: that is to say, a monkey who is at the bottom of one social group might end up being dominant in another one. dominance is not entirely dependant on a particular attribute of the animal - in other words, it's not necessarily the "best" animal who ends up dominant. if you change the social context, you could change the animal's "status". there is sometimes a safety in being last in line, and i have used that to my advantage when possible... there are a lot of people who would go out of their way to take care of a physically small, cute, emotionally fragile and seemingly helpless girl. i bank on that because i have so many social disadvantages, starting with being female and extending all the way to my sexual preference, my religious beliefs, my tendency to back down in the face of people who *seem* more confident... if even our biological history requires social hierarchies, is it possible for me to escape? can i demand respect instead of cowering in the corner and waiting for someone else to give me permission to speak? if you want the truth, pretending to be helpless will only get me so far, and i don't like the direction it's taking me in anymore. i'm tired of being submissive to other females who put on shows of confidence to minimize the threat i represent, and i'm tired of keeping my mouth shut around my roommates or other groups of people because it's assumed that i'm the one who only speaks when spoken to. i'm tired of looking into my future and seeing a long long line of employers who will exploit me and neighbors who will disrespect me. this seems to be a role that i slipped into, but not one that i want anymore.
on a larger scale, does this mean that cooperation or mutual respect or equality between the sexes, between races, between any two human beings is even a possibility? or is it just a dream? a silly ideal?
that brings me to intellect. the more i've thought about it, the more i realize that intellect is the human being's way of trying to fight its animal instincts. how many religions tell us to deny our earthly, bodily pleasures to find spiritual enlightenment? how many educated men have told us that ignorance breeds unspeakable terrors and that only through education can we hope to live better lives? is this the answer? are we to embrace ideals over the truth of human life, the demands of the body, the carnal desires we all confront? and in the process of acquiring intellect, building cities, creating technology, shaping societies... what have we lost? we have never found that utopian ideal of a city where everyone is educated, enlightened, equal, dedicated to the holy pursuits of science or religion. we're living in this strange inbetween world where society has effectively removed us from nature, displaced us in concrete and advertisements, set us adrift in a world where education doesn't stop anyone from indulging in drug use, alcohol binges, one night stands, all sorts of self-indulgent behaviors. we created a world where we have no true connection to the natural world but did not replace it with enlightment, art, ideals, ideas... we just made new ways for people to fulfill their body's needs and desires. and then named them sins. fucking ridiculous system we've got here. and should we deny our bodies? should we consider it bad to want to drink, fuck, do drugs etc? i have a friend who claims to meditate away all his feelings of fear and anger - is that really a superior option to having emotions and dealing with them?
WHAT IS THE PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE BODY AND THE MIND?
i don't have time to write more because i have to leave for work... hopefully i'll be able to return to these thoughts when i can flesh them out more fully.