I just watched a TED talk I liked. The speaker (Sally Kohn) was articulate and funny; her message about hatred powerful. Fearing that a synopsis of her talk would detract from the way she conveys her point, I’ll simply share the link to her talk, with my strong recommendation.
But I do have one disagreement with her. At one point, she refers to “study after study after study that says, no, we are neither designed nor destined as human beings to hate, but rather taught to hate by the world around us…”
I’m not so sure. Last year I saw a science show on TV that presented a series of studies of very young children; its disturbing suggestion was that we are born to hate. Can anyone enlighten me about these studies, suggesting (one way or the other) whether hatred is learned, or innate? A product purely of culture, or of biological evolution?
It has always seemed to me that while some of hate is surely learned, a predisposition toward it may be innate. But what would a predisposition toward hate look like?
Sally cites the early 20th century researcher Gordon Allport as saying that Hatred occupies a continuum, that things like genocide are at one end and “things like believing that your in-group is inherently superior to some out-group” lie at the other. That much makes sense to me. In fact, the very idea of a “hate continuum” with feelings of superiority lying at one end is why I think the answer to the innateness question may be important.
Whenever I hear it said that a positive self-image is important to mental health, I think of Garrison Keillor’s joke that in Lake Wobegon, everyone is above average. I suspect the great majority of us think we’re at least slightly above average. And don’t psychologists say that that’s good? Don’t we justify keeping our positive self-images by the corollary view that people who “suffer from a negative self-image” are likely unhealthy? Don’t we think it would be beneficial if everyone thought of himself or herself as above average? Wouldn’t that mean an end, for example, to teen suicide?
But even if I’m far below average, there are at least some people in the world who are not as good (or as smart, or as fit, or as valuable) as me. No? And if I think my liberalism is superior to your conservatism, or the other way around, you must lack some quality or insight I possess, no? Does “feeling good about myself” require that, in some way, I feel superior to others?
Maybe not. Maybe my positive self image need not depend on comparing myself to others – maybe I can see value in myself – have a positive self-image – without thinking of myself as superior to anyone else at all. But the only way I can discern to do that is to see equal value in everyone. And if we’re talking about wisdom or intelligence or validity of things in which we believe, that means that my own power of discernment is no better than than the next guy’s; that everything I believe in has value, but everyone else’s beliefs have equal value. And I see great debate about whether that’s desirable. Does it require me to abandon all my convictions? To forego all my beliefs? What does it even mean to say that my belief in God has no more value than your belief in atheism, or vice versa? Can I really believe in anything, if I think an opposing belief is just as “good”? I think most of us say no. I think that, for most of us, feeling good about ourselves and our beliefs is only possible through at least implicit comparison to others, a comparison in which we feel that our beliefs are at least slightly superior to somebody else’s.
Even if it’s both possible and desirable, it strikes me as very, very hard to have a positive self image without feeling such superiority. I mean, can I really have a positive self-image if I think I’m doomed to be the very worst person on earth, in every respect? It certainly seems likely that, for many, most or all people in the world, positive self-image depends on feeling superior to at least some others, in at least some respects. I’d venture the guess that a tendency toward positive self-image (in comparison to others) has evolved in our species because of its evolutionary health benefits. In any case, I suspect there’s a strong correlation between adults who feel their beliefs are superior and adults who feel disdain for the beliefs (or intellects) of others, and a strong correlation between those who feel disdain for the beliefs and intellects of others and those who hate them. At the very least, positive self-image and a feeling of superiority seem at least early stepping stones in the direction of Hatred.
However, my suspicion that the seeds of Hatred are themselves innate doesn’t depend entirely on positive self-image and feelings of superiority. The science show I watched last year dealt not with self-image, but with group identification and preference: the idea that we ‘re willing to assist and protect those others who are most like ourselves, while we seek the opposite (competition, aggression, violence) directed at those who are unlike ourselves.
“My God, my family, and my country.” The familiar formula implies a great deal, I think, about the subject of identity, as does the advice we give to our children: “Don’t ever talk to strangers.” Why do we alumni all root for the home team? Why would most of us save our spouse and children from an inferno first, before saving strangers, if we save the strangers at all? Why do we lock our doors at night to protect those we know, while excluding those we don’t? Why do we pledge allegiance to our respective flags?
(That last one’s easy, of course, if we believe that we Americans pledge allegiance to our flag because our country is the greatest on earth. Perhaps I should really be asking why all the other people in the world – who far out number us –pledge their allegiance to their flags, when they live in inferior countries? Are they uninformed? Too stupid to recognize our superiority? Aware of our superiority, but unwilling to admit it, because of selfishness, dishonesty, or even evil design? In which case, can Hatred be far behind? )
Why do we form Neighborhood Watch groups, erect walls on our borders, finance armies for self-defense, and erect tariffs to trade? Is it not because we prefer the familiar, and because that preference is in our self-interest? And isn’t self-interest as true of groups as of individuals? In evolution, groups do well who look out for each other – who favor those most like themselves – while treating dissimilar “others” with suspicion and distrust. (We know that those like us aren’t dangerous, hostile predators, but fear that unknown strangers might be.) In contemplating first contact with aliens from other worlds, some of us favor holding out olive branches, others making some sort of first-strike, but disagree as we might on how to first greet them, we all tend to think in terms of a common goal: to preserve humanity. We therefore focus on the need for global unity in facing the alien challenge. But what is it that causes us to favor “humanity” over alien beings, when we know absolutely nothing about those alien beings? Isn’t it because we know absolutely nothing about them? Isn’t it because, innate within us is a bias in favor of those who are most like ourselves?
Consider the following continuum, as it progresses from the unfamiliar to the familiar:
(1) We spend millions to combat and eradicate bacteria, giving Nobel prizes to those most successful in the effort;
(2) We spend some (but less) to eradicate mosquitoes, which we swat unthinkingly;
(3) On the contrary, we feel bad if we run over an armadillo on the road, but what the heck, such accidents are unavoidable;
(4) We try not to think much about slaughtering millions of cows, but we do it on purpose, because we have to eat;
(5) most of us abhor the idea of ever eating a monkey; and
(6) we condemn human cannibalism, abhorring murder so much we imprison murders, even if we oppose the death penalty because human life is sacred.
I think that assigning things to their place on such a continuum based on how much they seem similar or dissimilar to ourselves reflects our innate, natural preference for those most like ourselves. Yet the tendency to feel safety in, and preference for, those who are most like ourselves, is precisely what leads to racism, no?
So, is this preference natural and good? Or is it something to resist? Should we be proud of our tendency to fight for our God, our country, our state, our species, our family, our planet – and to disdain our enemies – or should we be suspicious of that tendency, aware that they largely result from the accidents of birth? And does our tendency to root for the home team – not to mention our loyalty to political ideals – exist only because we’re able to see the good in the familiar, while understandably blind to the good in the unfamiliar?
We don’t see what roosters see in hens. We’re blind to what bulls see in cows. But just like we can’t feel the love one three-headed Martian feels for another, I submit we won’t be able to appreciate the goodness that aliens will be striving to preserve when they descend upon us, maws open, preparing to treat us the way we treat swine. I want to know WHY we are all in agreement on the importance of preserving our species, even if it means the poor aliens go hungry. And I doubt its as simple as loyalty to good old mother earth, as I suspect we’d probably be happy to negotiate a peace with the invaders by offering them, say, all the world’s polar bears and squirrels, provided they’ll agree to leave humans alone. This preference for humanity would prevail in that moment, I believe, never mind the national and regional warring between earthlings that had preceded it. And it would seem strong enough to survive even if the alien species were acknowledged to be technologically “superior” to us. But in that case, would our efforts rest on a reasoned belief that, at least morally, if not technologically, we are superior to such alien species? Or would the instinctive feeling of moral superiority be only a disguise in which the instinct for self-preservation and consequent preference for things most like ourselves had clothed itself?
I don’t claim to have the answers. Whether we deserve to defeat alien invaders, whether we ought to value human beings more than chickens or mosquitoes, whether we ought to fight for our flag, these are not the issue here. My point is that I take our allegiance to things most like us to be innate, whether it’s good or (in the case of racism) abhorrent. I think the preference is a natural, inborn one, a part of who we are, whether we like to admit it or not –and that it’s a tendency terribly hard to get rid of, as our struggle with racism shows.
For the type of reasons Sally suggests, I believe that understanding our feelings of superiority and our preference for the things most like ourselves is the key to overcoming Hatred. But if we think of Hatred as merely cultural, as merely something we’ve “learned” from society, I fear that, as individuals, we may be tempted to think we’ve already rid ourselves of it, or that we no longer need to be alert to its presence deep in our hearts. If we see it only as something others do – if we fail to see at least the seeds of it, innate in ourselves, ready to manifest itself in our own actions– we may be the Hateful ourselves.