Why we need to admit we are animals (before it's too late).

Ism's and Ogny's

Racism, sexism, misogyny, patriarchism and other divisive attitudes such as homophobia are aggressive attitudes that come from a negative outlook towards anything or anyone different to our self.  They tend to precede a desire to control or dominate anyone or anything that could be seen as a threat.  Ultimately they come from a place of fear.

The ego is responsible for our sense of identity but can become oppressive.  As we've already explored, it can be through the size and prominence of an ego, or the fragility of it, that can result in it becoming overbearing and stopping at nothing to remain or become 'top dog'.  That includes wanting to control or dominate, fight for territory or legacy and weaken anybody that poses a threat to the status quo.

This is such a sensitive subject that I find it hard to put it into words about humans.  These attitudes and behaviours are a prime example of how animalistic the human race can still be.  If we could only start talking more about just how much we are still driven by our animal instincts, maybe we could really start changing our behaviour.  We simply need to recognise what is going on for us and then make the right choices - better choices.

Imagine a 'tribe' who look the same and who are comfortable with hierarchy and knowing their place within their community.  It may, on the surface at least feel like a pretty comfortable place to exist.  Perhaps they have known territory and known routines too so daily life is familiar, with familiar faces and familiar things. 

Imagine, one day, that one or more than one person comes in to their space who are completely different.  They look and behave differently, they are totally unfamiliar on every level.  They talk, move and relate to each other in a way that is foreign to the existing tribe.  

Of course we see this scenario in many movies!  Avatar is the first one that springs to mind for me.

Or, imagine a 'pack' where the male is dominant keeping everyone, and particularly the females, in check.  In order to do this, they may show fair leadership, so that the pack chooses to follow, but it's most likely that they are in the position due to their aggression.  In an animal world, this is the most likely way to keep daily life and the pack in order.

And what about any other differences, perhaps gender or sexuality?  This may be seen to the 'leader' of a pack or tribe as a threat to survival from an evolutionary perspective, the start of some form of 'chaos', or just something unknown and therefore 'threatening'.

THROUGH A SURVIVAL LENS

Given that human personalities, and the ego, are so diverse, there would likely be a wide range of reactions in the tribe.  From the Big 5 personality factors, for example, we know that some people are more agreeable and open-minded than others, some more neurotic (sensitive) and some more reserved.  As a result, people will always 'see' things differently - I refer again to the Anais Nin quote "we don't see things as they are, we see things as we are".

Undoubtedly then, some of the existing tribe would be interested, curious perhaps to know more about these strangers and open up a dialogue to find out about their lives and habits.

Others might be afraid and would hold back until they understood more about them, fearful perhaps, but also submissive.

For sure some and at least one (likely to have installed themselves as leader) would feel threatened and want to dominate or control the newcomers from the outset.  They would fear the consequences of anything new changing or challenging the status quo, threatening the legacy or leading to dissatisfaction in their own tribe.   They would want to show that they are dominant and not to be messed with.  There would be no curiosity or willingness to listen or watch.  Just a feeling of threat and therefore defensiveness and/or aggression from the outset.

Any kind of chaos in a tribe or pack would be deemed a threat to its survival.  Therefore, keeping everyone, including the females, in line, would be imperative.   It is not just the immediate risk that is taken into consideration in nature, it's the long term survival of the entire species.

Sometimes the more dominant and bigger the ego, the more likely the person seems to want to develop their identity and become even more dominant.  Just like our animal counterparts, there are also clear signs that some people's sense of identity goes beyond their 'self' and includes territory and their 'tribe' too.  They will do anything to protect it, which is logical if you think of it from an evolutionary perspective.  It would make no sense for any animal to give up land and their pack as they, and their future generations, would almost certainly perish as a result.  

However, trying to land grab now doesn't make sense from a survival perspective as it once may have done.  Now it is much more likely to be about ego and dominance than any rational need to occupy more territory.  Yet still that many thousands of years old instinct persists.

Females are mostly controlled in the animal (and insect) world with the males being socially dominant.  Presumably this is for evolutionary purposes too.  There are only a handful of mammals, for example, where this is not the case and, in those groups, the fact that the female leads is often because they have the greater skillset for survival.  

Perhaps that is what is seen as a threat given that women in our current societies probably also have the best skills for survival in today's modern world.

There is one thing that sets humans apart here though and that is that we know we are animals, even if we are choosing to ignore it!  We can collectively do something about these behaviours if we choose to.  

CHOOSING TO CHANGE

Humans show so many similar traits to animals, such as these and yet we haven't been able to rise above it - despite being so intelligent.  Perhaps that really is because it's not recognised or discussed enough and, when it is, it's often academic or scientific and therefore not always very accessible to mere mortals like me.  The introduction of 'unconscious bias' training, for example, is a step in the right direction but has a title that not all people can relate to.  We seem obsessed with using language for these very important subjects that is simply off putting.

For anybody who recognises the attitudes talked about here in themselves and wants to change, that can be done.  Awareness and intention are positive first steps.  Some of the tools at the end will help with stopping unwelcome thoughts that contribute to these negative attitudes. 

Learning more about the unhealthy behaviours associated with ism's and ogny's (and more), and how they impact the people that suffer from them, is essential.  There are far too many books on these various subjects to list here but I have recently finished reading "Why I'm no longer talking to white people about race" by Reni Eddo-Lodge, for example, which is a very accessible read and really showcases the attitudes, and the outcome of those attitudes, that I've deliberately simplified in this section.

I fear, however, that for people born with a dominant side to their personality and an ego that needs to be continually fed, it would be difficult to even recognise that they need to change, let alone actually consider making that shift.  Education and communication through the generations has to be the long term answer to this.  

There are a lot of downsides to the amount of media, social or otherwise, that we are exposed to now.  For sure, though, it helps that people see examples every day of how tolerance, compassion, diversity and inclusion have improved and continue to improve our societies.  For over 50 years there had been progress and it's worth noting that these newer, kinder and more modern (think less prehistoric) instincts have not detracted anything from the strength of humanity.  Kindness and being 'woke' are not a threat to humanity.  Ultimately they are the only things that will save it.