The Evolution of Communities
For most of their evolutionary period, humans lived in the jungles of Africa along with other animals. To survive better in this harsh environment, for protection, they evolved some social traits to ease the forming of groups. Humans are not the only living beings to use this mechanism of living together as a group. Other creatures live in groups of varying sizes. The size of a group is optimized to the dangers it faces.
There is a balance between the desire of man to fight with the others take for himself the largest possible share of resources on the one hand, and the desire to belong to the community to enjoy the benefits that it offers on the other. The life-cycle of communities is much like that of individual human beings.
One short and interesting definition of the human life-cycle is: “Find food, reproduce and eventually die.”
Human communities are often 'born' from the consolidation of more ancient communities, a process much like the mating of humans.
Then they acquire wealth and power – these are the food of communities and grow to be a nation or even an empire. When the community’s power is at its peak, people in the community allow themselves to advance their own needs, putting them above those of their community. This causes the solidarity of the community to crumble like the bones of an old man. The old community becomes ill with social diseases, such as corruption and extreme gaps between classes. Then more and more people leave the community and choose other directions. This is the moment that predators are waiting for. The predators (called 'Barbarians' when we refer to a national community) leap forward to devour those individuals who have left the community’s 'circle of protection' and, eventually, the community is conquered and dies.
Different species have different balance points. The more they are vulnerable to dangers, the greater the herd becomes.
The natural balance of the human race was a family or tribe. But the sophisticated culture of humanity enables it to create communities much larger than dictated by the natural balance.
When its culture weakens, the large community breaks down. Predators are organized in small groups while the groups of the weaker members, the prey, are organized in large groups.
The human race faces fewer dangers than do zebras, but more dangers than predators such as tigers. Therefore people had the ability to form groups, but only the size of a family or a small tribe. A small group, such as the family or tribe, was enough to ensure its safety but despite this humans succeeded in forming very large groups, using culture and communication capabilities.
In such large communities, humans could devote more resources to perfect their culture and communication even more, and reach new levels of achievement.
The factors affecting the development of a community and its ability to compete with other communities are:
The Effective Size of a Community
The size of a community, for the purposes of assessing its development, is not measured by counting the number of individuals it contains but, rather, by counting the number of individuals contributing to its development, since a community’s strength lies in the accrued contribution of individuals comprising that community.
A community under a dictator has a very small number of active contributing individuals. The masses are no more than an unskilled workforce and therefore can provide only a meager contribution to the group. This creates a smaller community rather than a dynamic democracy in which a large proportion of free individuals participate in the development of the community.
From this perspective, Israel is no smaller a community than all the Arab countries put together.
By way of example, we can describe an economic development comparison: China is known as a huge country with a poverty-ridden population, which allows it to be the center of world production because of low wages. When it comes to labor costs, it has no competitor. But the most productive Chinese worker, receiving a low wage, and working long hours under slave-like conditions, is unable to compete with automated production lines that function at high speed, without stopping, without salaries or social benefits, working 24/7. All day and every day. All that is needed is a supply of electricity and ongoing maintenance. If production lines like these were set up in Israel, China would lose some of the advantages of having this huge population.
The Nature of Culture
A veteran actress complained in rather a crude language about the government not investing enough in culture. She demanded more public money for her theater as she thought that theater is culture. For me, a polite individual represents culture more than this actress, even though that individual might not like theatrical entertainment.
Culture can be defined in numerous ways;
One definition states that culture is: “The sum of values as manifested by the behavior of humans”.
Another definition is more specific. It states: “Culture is a system of values, ideas, and shared behavioral norms in a particular community, conveyed through a process of social learning passed from one generation to the next”.
Tradition, art, clothing, customs, and the like are all included in the phrase: 'behavioral norms in a particular community'.
A person born and living in a particular community absorbs the modes of behavior and thinking patterns typical of that community.
Culture to a community is like a worldview to the individual. Both dictate the rules of behavior. The worldview dictates the rules for the individual, while the culture dictates the rules for the community.
When trying to understand the other, it is important to understand the basic mechanisms of culture. In Chapter 1, we examined the impact that a worldview has on the person's decisions. In the same way, we have to study in depth the culture of the community that influences the other person's decisions.
To illustrate the meaning of culture in detail, we can imagine culture as the wall of a fortress surrounding the community, protecting it from external influences of other communities, while consolidating the people within it:
The foundations: shared mythology, religion, and history.
The building blocks: rules of conduct at the individual level, and between the individual and the community. The rules of conduct formulated in terms of “to do” and “not to do” are conveyed through education and personal emulation, from one row of stones to the higher row of stones, from father to son, from the past to the future.
The cement that binds the stones together contains: the language, the images, education, the close interactions when working together, and more. In Judaic culture the unifying cement is defined by the statement, “All Jews are responsible for one another”. In the Western culture, it can be represented by: “All for one and one for all; united we stand, divided we fall” from the book “The Three Musketeers”.
The plaster overlay giving a uniform appearance to the wall symbolizes the uniformity of all individuals belonging to that culture. This includes language, customs, clothing, and manners.
The paintings on the walls display the narrative of that culture, told by stories and displayed in the arts.
The wall is topped by sculptures, representing the symbols of that culture: its flag, anthem, historic symbols, and heroes.
The high walls can defend the people within it from the influence of all other communities outside the walls.
If we wish to see the other persons in a culture beyond the walls, we must climb the high wall, and peer over it.
I am aware of the fact that when we climb to the top of the wall to be able to see the others, we are exposed to the others as well.
When Western culture, in the name of tolerance and multiculturalism, encourages lowering its cultural wall, it weakens its own ability to survive. A flood of Muslim extremists can break through it, and reach the heart of the Western community.
Despite the process of removing row upon row of bricks of their cultural wall, many individuals in the West still have difficulty in understanding the Muslim culture in spite of living with them in the same city.
To really understand members of a foreign culture, we need to go one step further and remove the masks behind which they hide.
A lack of understanding can result in a dangerous flood of immigrants into Europe. Even those Europeans who understand the dangers are afraid to act as they do not wish to be viewed as xenophobic and racists.
Yes, it is confusing. Some -- but not all -- of those acting against the members of a foreign culture are really racist xenophobes.
The evolution principle is also valid for communities.
In the name of its culture, a community fights with other communities. Similar to the evolution in species, the fittest survive and its culture wins.
There are aspects in a war that are good for the community along with the devastating damage. The very fact of being at war helps the community unite. This consolidation is achieved by diverting internal tensions outward, causing people to cooperate in the face of a shared existential threat, whether real or imaginary.
The long war of the United States with the USSR is an example of the importance of the existence of an enemy to a community. As long as the US faced the Communist culture as an enemy, it flourished. Now, for some years, the US has not had any powerful enemy, and the US is weakening.
Competition between cultural communities is always good for humanity, in the same way that competition between businesses is good for the economy, or competition between species helps to perfect their traits.
The Importance of Culture
Through its culture, the community influences the way we think and react. Therefore, we need to explore every aspect of the community's culture in detail.
The human race, like all other species, was developed both as an individual and as a community of individuals in the same mechanism of the evolution. Here is how culture evolved:
Evolution of the species is responsible for the sophisticated structure of the human body and brain.
Evolution of the communities enabled the development of a culture that is responsible for those most incredible achievements of the human race.
Individuals tend to function according to their animal nature as defined by the evolution of the species, but their behavior is constrained by culture. These cultural constraints are called morals, ethics, conscience, fairness, integrity or simply, “the cultured being.”
Culture allows humans to live together while foregoing some of their individual freedom in exchange for other advantages. That is why culture is vital to living in a social framework. Sometimes there is a conflict between the natural tendencies and the rules of culture. When that happens, the human brain finds a way to ignore the cultural rules, by disconnecting the context of this action, from the rules of the culture. In such cases, when the action harms the social group, the individual is described as having committed a crime, while he himself thinks he is not guilty. An example would be excessive use of an expense account, allowed the employee by his employer. While the employee might not see this as theft, continued excessive use over time, could amount to sums greater than a direct theft from the employer’s business.
The culture reflects the behavior of the community as a whole and the interactions of the individuals within it. Hence the importance of understanding how culture functions.
In ancient communities, a culture was identified primarily with religion.
The monotheistic faiths are cultures in every aspect.
The Jewish culture was the Jewish religion and its cultural norms were formally prescribed for the first time in the form of the "Ten Commandments". These core rules were developed later to become the Jewish religion.
There is a big difference between the Jewish religion and the other monotheistic religions that stem from it, regarding the attitude to the other person and to other communities.
The Muslim faith demands total solidarity. This demand leads to proselytizing to coerce all humanity into adopting that faith. In countries controlled by Islam, violence is directed toward non-Muslims who are regarded as “infidels”. This is no different from the behavior adopted by Christian countries in the Middle Ages.
Judaism, in contrast, has always supported freedom of thought. “Choose your own Rabbi" is a famous adage in Judaism. It means that each person can choose to follow views of his liking. Judaism chooses a defensive strategy to build high cultural walls against the attacks of other cultures. The other religions prefer the offensive strategy.
This freedom of thought gave the Jewish culture strength to change its rules with the changing of circumstances. This is the basic evolutionary rule of survival.
That is why Judaism survived all these years.
This flexibility of the Jewish culture is evidence of the advantages of a balanced culture where free thinking is allowed within the community.
The Jews have contributed greatly to humanity in diverse fields. Communities with cultures more rigid than Judaism force all its members to comply with the mainstream, thus suppressing innovation.
The impregnability of a specific community compared to any other is directly related to the degree of solidarity, which is linked to the community's culture.
Let me explain this.
In the West, the culture focuses on the welfare of the individual; therefore people are less willing to sacrifice their convenience for the good of the community. This is one reason why the West has trouble in defending itself from the Muslim suicide bombers. The life of each individual is more precious than any other value; this is why people in the West are reluctant to defend cultural values with their life.
In Muslim culture, on the other hand, the individual is less important than the culture of the community - Islam. That is why people -- such as the suicide bombers -- are willing to die for the cause.
Communities with extreme cultures are not stable.
In the Muslim extreme culture where the individual does not count, the individuals have no initiative to contribute to the community. This is why some Arab states are not developed.
In the extreme Western culture where the individuals think only of themselves, the individual does not contribute to the community's strength. This is why some Western countries are so vulnerable.
Of course, these are extreme cases. Most communities are not extreme, but we can detect in many communities these tendencies toward the extreme.
A successful community should find a balance between the individual and the community.
A balanced culture allows the individual maximum advantages without undermining the existence and development of the community of those individuals.
Comparing Culture & Laws
In some democratic cultural groups, there is a tendency to see obedience to legal rules as a basic value that underlies everything.
This is also true for religious people keeping the traditional laws of their religion, even if they contradict the spirit of their own faith.
Can civilized behavior really be replaced by compliance with legal rules?
Let us first find the reason why the justice system was formed in the first place.
The reason for this is that wherever there are people who choose not to behave in a cultural manner laws must be legislated to ensure a cultural behavior.
Culture has a far greater range of influence on a person's behavior than state laws, and it reflects far more justice than religious rites. An acculturated individual will behave according to his internal cultural code, even when others are not watching.
Laws are legislated when too many people behave in an uncultured manner. In such cases, the cultural code needs to be enforced. In a community where no one steals, there is no need for laws to protect property. When the culture of a community is religion, people obey its laws either from tradition, persuasion, or fear of an omnipotent God watching every move. In such cases, there is almost no need for a legal system and means of law enforcement. But even in such communities, irregularities occur, making it necessary for a religious leader such as a Priest, a Rabbi, or a Shaman, to set things straight.
In Western culture, religion has weakened and, in its stead, we find that the state law holds a higher standing over cultural or religious behavior.
I respect the belief in the superiority of the state law, just as I respect any other religious belief. However, I wonder why devout law-abiding believers justify the unquestioning application of the law in every circumstance. Why are laws more important than moral principles?
Laws are, by their very nature, rigid and thus cannot be applied to every case. Modern judges, as opposed to the demands of the judges in the Bible, are there to judge according to the laws of the state, not to apply justice.
Laws are the product of some compromise reached during the process of legislating. Sometimes laws are regulated by corrupt legislators, or influenced by the interests of a small power-group.
The superiority of state laws can result in severe injustice. A way should be found to override the law in order to preserve human dignity.
One extreme example would be when Nazi Germany’s racial laws were applied to the Jews. According to these laws, Jews should be handed over to the authorities to be sent to the gas chambers. Nonetheless, certain individuals chose to override the laws and to remain faithful to moral principles.
As much as a modern justice system has its shortcomings, it is obvious that a set of laws is necessary.
Laws exist to regulate the lives of people living in a group; a lone person, living
Robinson Crusoe does not need any law.
On the other hand, a group of people who know how to live together, whether through mutual respect or guided by tradition and morals, does not need a legal system.
Such was the situation among the ancient tribes.
In the huge communities of today, these measures cannot work. This is why we find the application of social punishment whenever legal laws do not apply. Social punishment acts through rejection from social activities and, in severe cases, through excommunication. This kind of banishment can be found in extreme cultural groups where anyone daring to voice non-politically correct (PC) views is considered a traitor and is a pariah. Both types of penalization, by state laws and by social excommunication, may be unjust and immoral.
Throughout the law enforcement process there are failures and lapses:
Some legislators are unethical, voting for the wrong reasons.
Judges, whose duty is to enforce these laws, are trained lawyers, not the wise, authoritative judges of the past. They are regular people, with personal opinions. Their moral judgment is no better than that of any other person. In any event, even the most talented and ethical judge must judge according to the written law, and not according to justice.
Laws exist primarily to protect the community from individuals threatening to disrupt its integrity and harmony. Law and order are vital to the existence of the community. Too frequently the law tends to protect the accused rather than the victim, and ignores public interests, setting the pyramid of justice on its head. As previously argued, public interest should be the first consideration, then the victim and only then the rights of the accused.
The “contract” between the citizen and the state obligates the citizen to obey the rules of that state, to ensure the protection of all other citizens.
Laws are like crutches supporting a lame person, the community being the body in this metaphor. The broken legs are the criminals.
Applying laws to convicted criminals in the community would be like using crutches to help the lame person. Both have their disadvantages:
A person using crutches reduces his willingness to invest greater effort in walking, resulting in the weakening of the muscles even more instead of strengthening them. Laws, in the same way, weaken the willingness to use moral decisions. With no moral inhibitions, criminals find ways to circumvent the laws and continue their deeds with no fear of punishment.
People learn to cast responsibility on the law, instead of on their own moral judgment, just as the person places all his weight on the crutches instead trying to use his legs.
The Balanced Culture
One of the dangers faced by communities is extreme inequality within the community.
There is a basic truth in the socialist theories that see the danger in class inequality, not from the moral perspective but from the worldview of the advantages that a balanced culture community has. This balanced culture will aspire to prevent large disparities between segments of its community on one hand but, on the other, will try to maintain some level of disparity, which motivates people to make an effort.
Inequality is not the only parameter that should be balanced in a community. I presented it for the sake of demonstrating what should be the rules in a balanced culture. All cultural parameters in the community should be balanced. It is not in the scope of this book to list all the parameters, and to explain why they should be balanced, but here is one example to give an idea on what, in my opinion, is a balanced culture.
The community of the Jewish people is an example of a balanced culture.
This is why;
The principles of Jewish culture were formulated in the Ten Commandments.
If we remove the “divine component” which, in my view, was added to ensure obedience, we find that:
Three main rules remain for organizing coexistence among individuals.
Three additional rules deal with relations between individuals and their community.
One Commandment advocates an altruistic framework for the good of the entire community.
I refer here only to the cultural rules and not to the religious ones.
The basic framework of rules for coexistence between individuals lies in the following:
“You shall not murder”. People must live in an atmosphere of personal security.
“You shall not steal”. This allows financial security. A person can accumulate assets without fear.
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”. Integrity and tolerance toward other members of the community prevent suspicion and assure harmony.
The basis for coexistence between individuals and their community can be found in the following rules:
“Honor your father and your mother”. All people must be treated with respect to ensuring harmonious coexistence.
“You shall not commit adultery”. This sets the relationships within the nuclear and extended family, which is the basic unit within a community.
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image”. A community must unite around ethical values, and not around the worship of celebrities, media images, or famous objects.
These rules allow for the consolidating and preserving of the community.
One additional rule within the framework of Judaism enables the community to change and prosper:
“Remember the Sabbath day”. As I see it, this means that for one day of the week, we should forget our own interests, and contribute our efforts towards altruistic activities for the benefit of the community.
Communication in the Community
The human species is not unique in its ability to communicate. All living things have some ability to do so but a person’s communication is far more sophisticated and complex than that of any other creature or plant.
Beyond enriching human knowledge, communication is vital for producing the culture that unites individual humans into a large consolidated community. A community of this kind can achieve much more than simply responding better to the challenges of survival.
Communication, in its broadest sense, strongly influences the advancement of knowledge. Advanced communication allows the accumulation of knowledge over time, making each generation more knowledgeable than its predecessor.
The advent of human communication in its broadest sense has enabled the accumulation of knowledge. Good communication enables the sharing of knowledge from one generation to the next and storing knowledge in sophisticated mechanisms. Thus humanity accumulates knowledge with time, and this knowledge becomes ever more accurate and spread over more areas.
The progress of communication was achieved by successive leaps, as follows:
Speech
People could share knowledge using language. The sophistication of speech using a rich language allows the precise transfer of information and ideas from one person to another. There is also a dark side to the ability of speech. It can cause harm, as one can express dislike and even hatred of the other.
The speech also enables persuasive people to convince others into carrying out evil deeds. But this is true for every invention. In every invention lies its inherent dangers. It is up to each individual’s character to determine how he uses the invention.
Animals can make communicating sounds. But they are far less sophisticated than human language and convey the richness of information of which the human language is capable.
Reading and Writing
Speech as a form of communication was limited only to the people with whom a person actually met face to face. Consequently, knowledge could be shared only by people being in the same place and time.
With the invention of writing, humans could leave behind a testimony of their knowledge. This allowed others to read and learn from it, even if its writer had long been dead. It was also possible to convey written knowledge to places far from where it was originally written. Writing improved the ability to convey knowledge across time and place. It was yet another huge leap forward for humanity.
Writing is, without doubt, one of the most important inventions in human history, allowing people to preserve knowledge, pass it down over generations, and increase the total number of individuals able to contribute.
Writing has allowed us to develop advanced cultures, commerce and trade, science, and systems of government.
The earliest known evidence of written messages was found in southern Iraq where the ancient Sumerian people lived. That was less than ten thousand years ago, barely one minute in terms of human existence.
These people used tablets of soft clay and wrote into them with a narrow stick. Initially, the writing was a series of images depicting objects and actions but it slowly evolved into formalized shapes of letters, which were used to create words. As time passed, many more nations developed written languages of their own.
Not many people had the skills of reading and writing in the ancient world. This knowledge
was limited to the narrow ruling class. The rest of the people were ignorant for they had no access to written knowledge.
There was one exception to this – the Jewish people. Around the first century AD, their leaders issued a rule that every father had to teach his children to read and write. Later these Jewish leaders built a system of schools to spread these crafts of reading and writing even for those that could not learn from their parents. This ability of the Jewish people has played a role in their survival and even in their excellent achievements for humanity in general.
Printing
In Victor Hugo’s book, “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” a studious man is described as spending his days hunched over his books, gazing at a newly-printed text, which was to eventually replace the hand-written books of his day. Then he looks through his window in the Church of Notre Dame and muses aloud. “This will bring about the end of that.”
By this, he meant that printed books would lead to the end of the dominance of the church, which held the monopoly on knowledge which was concentrated in hand-written books.
Until that time, writing books and letters was limited only to those few who could read, write and had access to those books. For centuries, very few people had access to what was considered a privilege; usually, they were members of the ruling elite who possessed not only the knowledge to read, but also the means to buy these expensive books.
The invention of the printing press enabled the production and sale of reasonably priced books; now many people could afford them. That had been impossible when books were written by hand.
Now, at the time of this invention, there was a growing circle of people who could read and write. These two events vastly increased the number of people able to contribute to the community, and they enhanced its ability to accrue knowledge.
The invention of printing affected human social consolidation as well, by standardizing the language in the country, thus contributing to unifying the many dialects into one language that all citizens could understand.
Before the advent of printed books, almost every geographical area had its own unique dialect which was frequently so different from the others that it prevented mutual understanding. Books printed in a specific dialect of language led to broader assimilation of the linguistic structure according to that found in the books. Secondary dialects fell into increasing disuse. In this way, even people living far from the center of the country gradually absorbed the main linguistic structure. In France, for example, the language developed primarily from the dialect prevalent in the center of the country, the city of Paris.
Transportation
Improving means of transportation over land, by sea, and in the air, allows those living at great distances from other people to meet and exchange ideas. This can be considered as a means of communication. A person from one cultural group who migrated to another country could meet with the local scholars to exchange ideas. Today there is no place, however distant, which cannot be reached within the space of a day’s flight.
Wire communication
The invention of the telegraph comes first, then the telephone, with physical wiring. With these inventions, people could enjoy long-distance calls. Information and knowledge could be exchanged, even if the people could not travel, physically, to meet for that purpose.
Wireless communication
Wireless communication appeared initially in the form of wireless telegraph machines. Later this was developed into a mass media system. First, the radio was invented, followed by the invention of television. These means of mass communication allowed the spread of knowledge and views from one central point to a vast mass audience. It also helped to consolidate a culture which could now be shared.
The establishment of entertainment and news channels had no small impact on human culture as well as the group’s ability to recruit others into that group.
Internet
The continuing drop in the price of personal computers has made them affordable to many. Computers are currently owned by vast numbers of people. This and the invention of the internet made another leap forward in the ability of humans to access, store, and share knowledge.
No less important than producing knowledge is the ease with which knowledge can be accessed.
Improved automated translation systems offered by internet companies help break down language barriers. Social networks have increased the possibility of social bonding abilities. People can share ideas and form groups in ways which were unimaginable in the past. They are not limited by borders, nationality, or distances. Social networks and the Internet have already produced yet another major leap forward in global communication. They have a great impact on the nature of communities.
Smartphones
The invention of smartphones allows everyone, irrespective of time and place, to come into contact with others. This invention also enables access to the media and the Internet in the same way as though they were at their home or office.
Communication becomes personal, making everyone available to everyone else.
A smartphone is actually a computer with video capabilities; it includes a camera and navigation tools in addition to being a telephone.
The smartphone with its many applications furthers the ability to consolidate communities.
Communication is the empowering factor which increases a community’s scope and its strength.
The means of communication have been developed chiefly in the Western world, which pushed it far ahead of other cultures, and was the primary factor in empowering and reinforcing the Western Empire. But in recent years, the Western world has begun to use communication more for trivial purposes, such as spreading gossip and playing games, more than for the purpose of spreading knowledge, and the advancement of the community. This tendency should worry about anyone in Western culture.
Seeds of Failure
Throughout history, empires have risen and fallen. They were defeated after reaching the peak of success. One reason for this is the loss of solidarity within the community, thus losing the urge to fight for the integrity of the community. Here are some examples of the rise and fall of the large communities we call Empires;
The Roman tribes won the battle against the ancient Greek empire when it was in its peak. The Barbarians conquered the Roman Empire when the Romans dominated the world. The Ottoman Empire was defeated in the same circumstances.
It seems that all empires underwent the same fate for the same reasons. The people of rich and prosperous empires became addicted to luxurious lifestyles and were not ready to fight for their community. They were too busy caring for themselves to risk their lives for their country, like their "barbarian" ancestors.
The new "barbarians" on the other hand, were full of fighting spirit which gave them the victory.
There is a disturbing similarity between the life cycle of the Roman Empire, and the current status of our Western empire.
From an organized and disciplined warrior nation, the Romans became a collection of people seeking no more than “bread and circuses” – “Panem et Circenses” – or, in other words, shallow amusements.
Anyone closely observing the nature of current Western culture can discern this same phenomenon. The West is placing increasing importance on wealth and entertainment in all its forms. It focuses on the economic wellbeing of the individual and on “the good life,” which is the modern version of “Panem et Circenses”. Our satiated, wealthy Western community lacks all motivation to fight in its dying days. The Western empire, in the name of tolerance and hedonism, is risking its own existence.
Autocracies, such as the Muslim culture, are much like the barbaric tribes that attacked Rome. Free and prosperous democracies tend to have bitter disputes that weaken the community or even cause it to collapse because of the lack of solidarity.
As an example, the Muslim culture is fighting relentlessly for total dominance over the Western infidels, while people in the West are willing to accept the Muslims, and share their wealth with them. We can conclude that here the Muslims have a distinct advantage.
True, in the war between cultures, as with many other processes, we can identify various and contradicting trends.
People in a culture of oppression, like that of the Muslim tyranny, will ultimately rebel in order to attain a minimum of rights and freedom. Many oppressive governments have collapsed following an internal rebellion by their citizens.
It is difficult to know which of these opposing trends will win but history shows us that the barbarians eventually defeat the prosperous cultures, even if it takes longer than we might expect.
That is how things come to a full circle: the seeds of failure germinate in a bed of success.
Leadership
The human community needs a leader just as any herd needs a shepherd.
A leader can cause others to cohere around him, like drops of rain that need a speck of dust to begin the process of condensation. Under the right conditions, these drops of people pour down on the community, causing floods of aggression with such force that no one can stand up against them.
Leaders are not necessarily unique persons that possess “leadership qualities”, just as a speck of dust does not have to be unique to make drops of rain condense around it.
One can be a leader by chance, or through familial inheritance.
People think that a leader should have one central trait that distinguishes him from the masses. Often, in a leader, this trait is called "charisma" but we can find many leaders in history who lacked charisma.
Often the very fact of holding a leadership position puts the leader in a preferential place at many levels. The highest level is the love of the people for the leader, which may even bring them to be willing to sacrifice their lives for their leader. At one level lower comes admiration, then respect, and then social identification.
Among those outside the group around the leader, we find opposing manifestations in various degrees; these range from a low level of derision, then to fear, and hatred.
Hitler is an excellent example of someone who would never have been marked as a leader.
Hitler did not seem to be a particularly authoritative figure: he was short, and ugly, at least according to Nazi standards; he lacked the blond hair and blue eyes of the pure Aryan. He never completed high school, he was rejected by the art academy due to a lack of talent and was, in fact, an abject failure in his youth. He was not a brilliant orator. His voice was high-pitched, and he spat as he shouted slogans at his audience. He lacked any outstanding qualifications yet he found himself turned into that speck of dust that caused the drops of rain to cohere around him. This rain became a flood, threatening to drown Europe.
How did such a man manage to excite an entire nation which was considered to be the most cultural nation in Europe? How did he succeed in gaining the position of leader?
The answer lies in his being in the right place and at the right time to promulgate ideas that were presented as holding the solution to the dire straits in Germany at the time.
He stepped in during a period of economic depression, and deep national humiliation after Germany's defeat in the First World War. He also stood out compared to other leaders by manifesting compassion-less extremism. In this way, he gained the image of a strong and uncompromising leader.
He expressed what the nation needed most at that time: pride and a unifying power that would heal the country’s economy. In times of crisis, the people seek a strong leader who can decide unhesitatingly.
Many are the leaders who have wielded their power for evil purposes once they have achieved the position of leader. Many of them have used their powers for personal gain.
Even when a leader slaughters some members of his herd for a feast, all the rest continue to look up to him in admiration. In a time of war, facing the danger from the outside, the nation consolidates even more behind its leader.
Independent thinkers are not welcomed by the community, and therefore these people usually cannot become leaders. Nonetheless, some thinkers can be called upon to lead. The story of the biblical Moses describes such a leader.
He reached leadership status by coincidence after fiercely protecting a Jewish slave.
It is important to understand how people who blindly follow their leader’s orders lose their individuality.
To some degree we can see God in the role of an imaginary leader, and his believers just follow his orders.
Faith
For much of human history, the only culture that unified a community was religion. Even today, a large proportion of the human race believes in some sort of religion. Even some of those who claim to be secular believe in a divine power.
Issues of religion and faith have been discussed widely for many years. It is not in the scope of this book to discuss faith, not even my opinion on the subject. Here we will discuss the subject of faith only in relation to its impact on the individual person and on communities.
Religion has a great impact on how people think and act. Therefore we cannot ignore it in our quest to understand the other person. Let us keep in mind what was noted in the previous sections. A person is motivated by his own beliefs; therefore we should study those beliefs no matter what we think of them.
Belief in a divine entity is the product of our natural tendency to attribute to God the coincidences or natural phenomena that we do not understand.
Brain scans show that religious faith activates neural networks that mediate social communication, emotions, memory, and imagination. It shows the great impact that religion has on the brain.
As mentioned in the first chapter, numerous studies show that the human brain is always trying to fit phenomena into a known pattern. When no pattern is found for a phenomenon that we do not understand, it is attributed to God.
Just as secular people tend to match their pets’ behavior with known human traits through the mechanism of personification, and perceive them as members of the family, so the believer attributes human behavior patterns to God. The human brain perceives the divine as “another person”.
Dr. Jordan Grafman conducted a study where he found that the basic neural networks which allow understanding other people are adapted for the cognitive processing of religious belief.
The use of the same traits for different purposes is common in nature.
It is interesting to note that the same neural areas of the brain have been activated in many studies where researchers examine political claims of persons holding various political views.
It shows that in any faith, whether religious, political, or environmental, our brain uses the same mechanism. Thus understanding this mechanism is important for the task of understanding the other person.
Studies show that, in comparison to secular people, the believers are healthier, happier, live longer, and contribute more to the needy. They accept life’s hardships, and are more at peace with themselves. Communities of believers are more united and their members tend to line up with the group. They have the characteristic of a 'herd' that cannot tolerate free thinkers.
Can Culture be Changed?
Every culture experiences spontaneous changes that were not orchestrated according to a specific plan. Usually, these changes are slow. The question is this: Can a community’s culture be consciously changed in an extreme manner?
Historically, the answer is yes, it can.
Numerous examples of extreme cultural change exist. The French revolution is one predominant example in modern history. Nazism is another. Generally such changes occurred in the form of revolutions which gained impetus from a background of severe crisis.
Can a leader change the nation’s culture?
A strong leader can bring about changes in values, only after he has taken control over his people. It is human nature to show empathy toward a leader who represents the majority of a nation. This is how Hitler was able to bring about a complete change in the values of the German nation.
Crises can change cultures.
The crisis must be immense for it to drive an entire nation against its previously unifying culture.
Cultures can also change very slowly.
Social processes do not bring about change at the speed of modern technology
but technology accelerates social processes. The very ability of technology to change how people communicate by offering non-stop communication no matter when or where they are allows human interaction without the limitations of geography. This enables the creation of new types of groups, which ignore a particular location, or even a particular nation. The fact that most cultures have such free access to other cultures makes it more difficult for any culture to remain utterly isolated.
We can say that communication technology alters culture.
Radio, then television, and later, the Internet, can all be regarded as instruments for brainwashing. The Internet can even lead to changes in a regime as was demonstrated in the Middle East. Whoever wields control over social media and the various instruments of communication can bring about cultural change. The question is whether an individual or organization can gather sufficient authority to bring about a change. It would seem that there are numerous attempts to do this with a number of successful outcomes.
Whether holding such power is desirable would depend on each individual’s point of view.
Culture continually changes, even without being directed intentionally.
The ways in which people dress, what they eat, or how they organize their free time, all change with time. Many changes are spontaneous, and are linked to the economic and social status of the group in question.
Education is a tool used to influence the direction of the culture. Children are frequently the focus of education, as they represent the future of the culture. Every regime tries to exert influence on the culture through various forms of education, ranging from institutionalized education to brainwashing and preaching designed to overcome the individual’s natural filtering mechanisms, and prevent the undesired influences of other cultures.
Narrative is another tool used to create a culture that binds together its members, while differentiating them from other nations at the same time.
Narrative mixes facts and imagination, and forms the nation's historical story.
Narrative works for the community just as the human brain works for the individual. Some people brag that their belongings, behavior and actions are the best. That is because our brain tries to justify and praise everything we do and say. The narrative brags in the same way for the community.
Culture influences individuals at all levels of brain activity:
At the level of constructing reality pictures, cultural ideas blur facts, adapting them to fit the shared culture. This is in addition to the other reasons which cause people from one culture to see reality differently from people of another culture.
At the second level of understanding reality, the brain uses cultural stereotypes in addition to the personal stereotypes. The stereotypes of another culture will be different from those of ours, thus changing the way in which information is processed in the minds of people. All this should be taken into consideration when we try to understand the other.
At the third level of consciousness, values are ranked very differently in different cultures. This is vital for understanding how someone of a different culture will react in specific situations.
SUMMARY
What Do We Need to Learn?
In order to understand how the other person thinks, feels, and reacts, we have to gather information from different areas, as well as exploring how the brain works. Here is some of the information we should gather:
What information the senses present to the brain.
On what database the brain relies to build the reality images. This database includes patterns (stereotypes) engraved in the brain, the person's life experiences, and what he learned in the past.
How he processes his picture of reality to reach decisions. How he reacts after reaching a decision. The reaction is influenced by his character, and the extent of his involvement in his cultural group. All this should be investigated.
To which cultural group he is most committed, and how this culture influences the picture of reality in his brain.
These are very challenging tasks. The best we can hope for is to learn all we can, and apply our estimations to what is going on in the other person's mind.
We have to keep in mind that there are always contradictory trends influencing a person's brain. The trick is to estimate which trends are dominant in the mind of the person we are analyzing.
These include freedom versus willingness to accept authority, fear versus courage, and so on.
All this information can help us, for example, to estimate the other person's reaction to specific events.
Below are several categories that must be explored if we are to understand the other person:
How the other person perceives reality. In earlier sections we reviewed the complexity involved in structuring a picture of reality.
The rules of the other person's cultural group.
The other person’s relevant personal knowledge. This may not necessarily be true knowledge but, rather, what the other knows concerning the relevant issue.
The threshold’s level of reaction. If it exceeds his high level, then a person will react. A person will ignore anything that does not reach his individual lower threshold.
The intensity of the reaction to any given situation, provided that it is greater than the threshold.
It is also important to examine the other person's sensitivity to a specific situation, and not only the power of reaction that exceeds his threshold, the latter being defined as a change in the force of reaction relative to the change in the force of the situation.
If we accept the thesis that the person is actually an organic machine, controlled by a kind of a computer we call the brain, the other person can be understood. All we have to do, is gather enough relevant data and knowledge. This is in contrast to the approach that sees the human behavior controlled by a mysterious soul, or some equally mysterious mental consciousness. In that other approach it is an unsolved enigma.
A significant part of the meaning of "understanding the other" is to assess how the other person would react to the event.
In this book I introduced another thesis called the 'human fractal'. It states that we are part of a greater being, which means that we cannot fully understand a man by analyzing him as an individual. We have to analyze his behavior as part of a larger cultural community within which he operates.
Here are several formulas to demonstrate scientifically how we can estimate the other person’s reaction to an event.
Of course this is no easy task. It is difficult to estimate the parameters in these formulas, and the formulas do not include all elements that affect people’s decisions. These formulas are, therefore, incomplete and inaccurate.
I assume that when, in the future, there is progress in finding more accurate assessment tools, we will have a more accurate assessment of understanding how other people will react, or at least a better understanding of how most people belonging to a particular cultural group are likely to respond.
Let us define:
Es is the part of an event received through the senses. It is not exactly the whole real event because of:
1. Our sensory limitations (limitations = l).
2. We see only the parts of reality to which our brain is directing the senses in order to get as much important information as we can in a short time. - Direction = d.
Individual = i, indicates a personal part of the brain. i can have a value between 0 and 1, depending on the human tendency to rely on ourselves.
Community = c, indicates the part of the community in the brain. c can have a value between 0 and 1 depending on the human tendency to rely on community culture.
The values of both should amount to one. i + c = 1
Feelings = F, Indicates the emotional filter and should have a value between 0 and 1.
The individual image a person has of an event is:
Ei = Fi * Es
The perceived community aspect part of the event is:
Ec = Fc * Es
And the total event perceived in a person's mind is:
E = i * Ei + c *Ec
In the next step, the event is compared to an existing pattern template in the human brain, to determine which reaction can be issued in time.
Patterns = p
If a partial match is found, the decision of that pattern is issued - E = Ep.
This process does not stop, and continually matching is performed while an incoming stream of information flows from the senses. If a better match is found with another pattern, the decision is exchanged for a new one.
The brain pulls the template engraved matching Ep event from his memory, as long as there is no information that contradicts it.
If the brain cannot find a suitable template, it is forced to fit the information to bits of different templates available. In this case, the decision time is longer.
In the next stage, the brain must decide on the proper response that follows the decision.
Let us define:
To decide on the proper response, the brain compares the intensity of the event to the thresholds. These thresholds are determined by the cultural values of the person's community, the personal nature of this person, and his mood at that time.
If the intensity of the event is lower than the low threshold - Er <Erl, then there will be no response as the person is indifferent to the event.
If the intensity of the event is higher than the high threshold - Er> Erh, then the brain sends the relevant commands to act.
If the intensity of the event lies between these two thresholds - Er2> Er> Er1, the person will react emotionally, but will not act upon it.
Then, according to the nature of the event and the required speed of response, the responses are directed to various areas of the brain for further treatment.
These different areas activate muscles by nerves and appropriate commands or stimulate one’s hormonal glands to regulate body function and display emotions.
In the case of immediate danger, there are some reflexive responses made by the nerves even before the brain receives the information, circumventing the described process, but in most cases, decisions are made by the brain.
We are aware of some of the decisions, but not aware of others.
When the brain finds a perfect match between the event and a well-defined pattern as in the case of driving home, or the act of walking, the brain activates the appropriate muscles automatically without alerting our consciousness. In other cases, especially when long-term planning is required, as in evaluating the next move in a chess game, the brain uses logic and imagination mechanisms and uses the help of graphics to compare possible operating routes to existing patterns for a quick decision. In these cases we are consciously alert. This is when we feel emotion, and become aware of the display of our senses.
In all cases, the brain builds these new pattern templates or modifies existing pattern templates, as a consequence of the decision that it made.
Can We Really Understand the Other?
The thesis of this book is that humans are just sophisticated
machines with an organic computer we call a brain. There is no soul,
or any other such incomprehensible mental entity whose actions cannot
be anticipated. Therefore we can estimate the thoughts, feelings, and
reactions, if we can collect sufficient data. Machines are not
mysterious beings and can be understood.
It was also discussed in previous sections (see the 'human
fractals'), how communities are entities with similar features;
therefore they also function according to rules which can be
understood.
If these theses are accepted, then all we have to know is what data
are fed into these entities, and how they process these data in order
to achieve a response.
In conclusion; if the other person is a machine then the answer to
the above question is yes, we can understand the other person, but it
is not easy.
It is not easy because we see the real physical world through
distorting filters:
We judge the world through rosy glasses that spare us unpleasantness
but, at the same time, distort reality.
We are all wrapped in our cultural garments that are woven of
traditions, customs, conservative approaches, and routine. The
purpose of these garments is to reinforce similarities; and they
blur the differences among all members of the group, thus uniting
our cultural position. These garments around us and around other
persons, create a smooth shield, enabling us to reduce friction
with others in our cultural group but, at the same time, prevent us
from seeing the true nature of other persons.
Our group is surrounded by a cultural wall that helps to consolidate
our group, and blocks the influence of other cultures. But, at the
same time, it prevents us from seeing the real nature of persons
residing within the walls of a different culture.
The foreign person within the walls of another culture is also
wrapped in garments of his own that hide him from our view.
This is why many of us cannot understand the other person. We are
convinced that the other person reflects our own image, and will
react as we do, believing in our values. This leaves us sometimes
standing, scratching our heads in disbelief, when the other person
reacts differently from the way in which we would react to the same
situation.
Because of all these obstacles, we have to remove our cultural
garments, and look beyond the walls of the culture surrounding us.
Then we have to look for the other person hiding beyond the wall of
his own culture, wrapped in his own protective garments.
Only an independent person can remove all these veils, and understand
the other. Regretfully, free thinkers are rare. They are often
shunned in their community because the group demands solidarity and
uniformity.
In this book, I have tried to open a window, through which we can
peep into the other person’s soul, and see how he feels and thinks,
enabling you, dear reader, to estimate his reaction to a given event.
But can you really remove all these walls and masks, to see clearly
the other person’s behavior?
We need to keep in mind that our feelings of distaste toward “other
persons that are not us”, are no more than chemical reactions that
our brain implants in order to enhance the solidarity of our group
and to separate our group from that of the other person.
Let us ignore them for a moment, and remember that the other has
similar feelings toward us as well.
If you can do this, perhaps you will understand the other person to
some degree. But even if you cannot do it, I hope that the insights
you have gained from this book will help you understand yourself
better, at the very least.
And that, too, is a worthwhile achievement.
The End
