In Harmonium

Posted By Marc on January 13, 2009

In the past couple of posts, I have been jotting notes, as it were, about how people view ways in which we, as a species, simulate our perceptions of objective reality and then pass on our understandings of how best to operate within these perceptions.  All well and good but, in an age when we have de facto instantaneous, global communications and the ability to annihilate ourselves as a species, techniques we developed back in the Paleolithic might not, perhaps, be the “best” choice (quote he with no little amount of sarcasm).

One of the cornerstones we, as a species, developed was the ability to “protect” our perceptions against change.  Not surprising, since if we didn’t have something like that, we would constantly be changing our minds and running all over the place like chickens with their heads cut off.  Indeed, as a species, we couldn’t have survived without such an ability.

The ability to “protect” our perceptions via a series of almost behaviouralist rewards and punishments is crucial to much more than “games” – it include all manner of social activities such as training, education, communications, social interaction, etc. ad nauseum.  The perceptions and associated actions are one facet of what Anthropologists call “Culture”, at least in the sense of culture as the symbolic and perceptual interface between a group of humans and their operational reality.

However, please note that the ability to protect perceptions of reality is only one side of the coin – we, again as a species, also have the ability to perceive our operational reality in a different manner; to change our understandings and, as a result, refigure what our best actions are.  This ability to change perceptions – our “stance” as it were – is always available, but often discouraged for obvious reasons. I want to talk about three very general ways in which cultures have developed some type of balance between the requirements of “protection” and of “adaptation” (i.e. shifts in perception).

First of all, historically, most of this balancing act has tended to come out of cultural institutions that may be broadly classified as “religious” or deriving from them.  For example, the modern concept of a Liberal Arts education stems directly from the Renaissance adaptation of Christian monasteries as learning centres, while many cultures use some form of “Spirit Quest” as a basis for changing (and challenging) perceptions (e.g. a number of First Nations groups, the Norse [Seitha, not Galdur if you want precision], the Finns, and any other group that practices some form of “shamanism” [cf Mircea Eliade's Shamanism]).

At the same time, the same class of cultural institutions is also the basis for some of the most “protectionist” thinking as exemplified by the early Sumerian Temple States (cf Kramer and Wolkstein’s Inanna for a really good example) through the psychosis of the Inquisition or Al Qeada.  Clearly, at least to me, “religion” (broadly construed) is not any solution; it is merely the most common institutional “wrapper” that contains both protectionist and adaptive impulse.

But contained within that “wrapper” are some interesting insights.  One observation in particular stands out (again for me ): all religions develop technologies that induce neurological and neurochemical changes in their members, aka “rituals”, and we are now starting to get a handle on what some of these changes can produce.

I’m certainly not going to go into any detail, but let’s just say that the old adage that Laughter is the Best Medicine is probably true in many ways.  Amongst other things such as increasing the effectiveness of your immune system, laughter also produces endorphins that de-couple your perceptions from prescripted “ruts” allowing you to perceive more of operational reality including how others perceive it.  This ability to increase ones capability to “see through the other persons eyes” is not just for the “Bunnies and Light, California Crunchie” crown of New Age thinkers – it is also critical for, amongst others, academics and military analysts.

Are there other “ritual technologies” that would be of equal use?  One that I have been discussion with my friend John Fishel is an acting technique called the Stanislavski System or “Method” (aka Method Acting).  This technique, which is actually very similar to Ruth Benedict’s Culture at a Distance methodology in The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (see also Margaret Mead and Rhoda Métraux’s The Study of Culture at a Distance), immerses an individual into another mindset to such a degree that they “become” what they study, at least for a while.

Having done both method acting and fieldwork (both in situ and “at a distance”), I can certainly testify that they have a similar effect on the mind, producing “personae” that are startlingly “real”.  “Real” enough, at any rate, that they certainly do an excellent job of simulating some of the perceptual reality of the group (or character) one is studying.  Indeed, when one comes back to “normal”, there are still perceptual effects that linger on, most noticeably, the skill to “switch” between perceptual realities.

Of course, this “skill” comes at a cost – it is all to easy to become “lost”; a cost that I have seen paid by a number of Method actors over the years.  I won’t talk too much about the “cost” to Anthropologists who really use this technique, except to say that we rarely “let our hair down” in public.  “Alterity“, to use a currently fashionable neologism, is, quite frankly, really, REALLY scary when it happens inside your own head. Speaking purely personally, I can certainly attest to the value of laughter as a counter to the experience of alterity!

Let’s face it, most people want to “know” that they are “right”, and having little voices in your head (okay, that’s an exageration… most of the time) disagreeing freaks most people (it’s that “protection” thing again).  Our “need to know” we are “right” can be so strong that we exile, banish and declare herectic any who disagree with us (as a side note, check out where the word “heretic” comes from…).

This reaction made evolutionary sense as long as only a tiny part of the species was effected by it.  It is now both counter-productive and, quite frankly, species suicide.  We need to develop our skills and abilities to perceive operational reality from other perspectives.  This does not mean that we necessarily give up our values but, rather, that we explore them through other eyes and learn to laugh at ourselves.  We need to do this not only for ourselves, but because reality is to serious to be taken seriously.

Category: Anthropology, Epistemology
Tags: Epistemology