Compassion or Aggression?

The Road Not Taken: The Power of Choice and the Knowledge to Merge Divergent Paths
By: Jessie Dryden

Compete
Compassion or Aggression?

Cooperate

Deviate 11 Negative Outcomes Comply Moral Internalization

Compassion or Aggression?

Individual

Collective
Compassion or Aggression?

Divide
Compassion or Aggression?

Multiplicity

War

Peace

1|Page

Humankind emerged from nature alone and helpless, afraid and ignorant, and overwhelmed by an unfamiliar and unpredictable environment. Man first claimed his rightful place over nature, yet was mercilessly humbled by the volatile uncertainty presented by his environment, leaving him to act on instinctsfight or flight, compete or cooperate. Woman arrived on the scene thereafteror so the story goes, with her very presence challenging mans unfettered access to resources as she is introduced into the world as mans other. Man, being the stronger of the two and with privileges of being first, is given a choice and reacts on instinctsto succumb to his fears and continue to journey alone or to coexist with woman. Woman is presented with choices influenced by this interaction: she can opt to follow his lead and take the same action; or she can create her own path, find her own niche alongside man as his counterpart. And as each made their selection to cooperate and merge paths, man and woman went forth and multiplied; creating a world of individuals who are introduced and reintroduced to this conflict of humankindthe individual choice to compete or cooperate as a means of survival. This eternal clash of civilization lies in the individuals choice to combat to survive or to work to coexist. What influences these choices and causes people to deviate and construct conflict from the lowest level of social interaction to the global level has been subject for debate for scholars for centuries. What causes people to diverge and create conflict? What causes this omnipresent divide in humankind? The scholars referenced in this paper diverge in backgrounds and disciplines themselves, yet there is an underlying theme that connects their arguments and resolves this fundamental rivalry between the individual and the other. They argue that individual choice is influenced by the knowledge each person acquires along their journeyknowledge that enables them to analyze conflict and respond either by competing or overcomingthrough use of aggression or compassion. As this proposal will illustrate through examining the psychology of conflict and its evolution in humankind as it is transferred from the individual to the group, as examined by Sulloway and Gershoff and further developed by Freud, Lasch, and Bacevich; this group intends to argue that the end of bipartisan divide begins by choosing a path of collaborationfinding points of compromise to end legislative stagnation. As individual choice is influenced by knowledge, it follows that educating the community is one of the best ways across the divide. Shall I go right? Or Shall I go left? Methods of self-defense are echoed in a pattern throughout history. Individuals are given the option to compete or cooperate, to comply or deviate, and to act in self-interest or for the common good. Their approach is either dictated by aggression, a reaction to fear; or compassion, openness to the 2|Page

experience. As the individual bands together with others into society, there become dominant strains of choices, influenced both by the individual and society. This influence becomes cyclical, with the individual psychology feeding into that of the society, with the society in turn developing its own psychological inertia, eventually drawing individuals into its gravitational pull. As this pattern devolved from the individual to the group, the choice becomes division or multiplicity, war or peace. Compete or Cooperate? Beginning with the individual, Sulloway (1996) argues that the first introduction to the conflict over resources can be related back to the family dynamic. Related back to Darwinian evolution, species develop different niches in order to maintain homeostasis by diversifying so that they may live successfully in varied and unpredictable environments (Sulloway, 1996, pg. 335). The birth order dynamic within the family carries on this tradition. Birth order, he writes, promotes different strategies for understanding the world, which leads to the development of specialized skills so that siblings no longer compete with each other for parental investmentthe resource that is threatened (pg. 335). The effect that birth order has in an individuals decision to compromise is determined by the amount of conflict experienced measured by what Sulloway refers to as the birth-order effect. Sulloway writes, Social organisms seek access to valued resources in two basic waysdomination and cooperation. Status-enhancing behavior is a firstborn tendency. It is also a male tendency. Cooperation is a laterborn tendency, and it is also a female tendency (Sulloway, 1996, pg. 77). The cycle of aggression begins with individuals perceived threat of the other for survival. Firstborn children zealously defend their interests and are socially dominant and defensive. Furthermore, they do not like being second best, and they readily forsake amicable forms of discourse to forestall this outcome, which exemplifies a tendency towards competition and aggression (Sulloway, 1996, pg. 101). Firstborns are first to experience access to resources; and when they are joined by a sibling they react aggressively towards the sibling, the perceived threat to resources, setting the stages for competition.
The family niche of a firstborn is largely about being born first. To the extent that this family niche entails advantages denied to other siblings, firstborns zealously defend their interests. Toward this end, firstborns tend to be more socially dominant and defensive. Like the alpha males of primate societies, they are protecting their special status (Sulloway, 1996, pg. 100).

The laterborn sibling is introduced into the world relying on the guidance of the firstborn and is aware of their subordinated position. When the firstborn reacts aggressively, the laterborn responds in the only way they can to diffuse that aggression and reduce competition. As Sulloway observes, We have seen that laterborns are especially open to experience, as evidenced by personality tests and history. 3|Page

But why? Openness helps younger siblings in their quest to find an unoccupied family niche. This psychological capacity is the engine that drives Darwins principal of divergence. (Sulloway, 1996, pg. 86) They diverge and rely on their openness to experience to generate a cooperative resolution through the use of niche partitioning (Sulloway, 1996, pg. 150). Other variables, including parental-conflict, general temperament, gender and race are factored in as well, as there is a higher propensity for conflict and therefore rebellion. Sulloway further observes, Most innovations in science, especially radical ones, have been initiated by laterborns. Firstborns tend to reject new ideas, especially when the innovation appears to upset long-accepted principals. During the early stages of radical revolutions, laterborns are 5 to 15 times more likely than firstborns to adopt heterodox point of view. During technical revolutions, laterborns are 2 to 3 times more likely to lend their support. For their own part, firstborns are drawn to reactionary innovations, a domain in which they are also the principal pioneers. Firstborns typically welcome conservative doctrines as potential bulwarks against radical change, supporting them 2 to 1 over laterborns (Sulloway, 1996, pg. 53). Sulloway not only makes the argument for individual choice to compete or cooperate, but he expands on how those choices are affected by the underlying motivation. When competition is motivated by aggression, life is conceptualized as win/lose and domination becomes the primary objective. When competition is approached with the language of compassion, the competition becomes synergistic. The same goes for cooperationit can either be forced on others or appeal to them as the better choice. Although birth order determines the order in which the individual is introduced to aggression and compassion, there are other factors that explain how individual choice to dominate spirals into neverending war. Comply or Deviate? Birth order also influences the internalization of morals, as firstborns are more predisposed to be obedient, and laterborns to rebelexplaining why the first man ate the forbidden fruit after the defiant first woman. An individuals general disposition influences whether or not they comply and internalize parental values when reprimanded. Gershoffs (2002) study on the efficiency of corporal punishment in a childs ability to internalize morals articulates the ways children comply or deviate from parental attempts at educating values based on several factors including parent-child relationship, severity, and temperament. Gershoff defines corporal punishment as, The use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain but not injury for the purposes of correction or control of the childs behavior. Gershoff further distinguishes corporal punishment from physical abuse 4|Page

by stating, Behaviors that do not result in significant physical injury (e.g. spank, slap) are considered corporal punishment, where as behaviors that risk injury (e.g. punching, kicking, burning) are considered physical abuse (Gershoff, 2002, pg. 540). Throughout her research, children who received a higher frequency and severity of punishment presented more negative outcomes, including aggression and noncompliance. Gershoff identifies immediate compliance as the primary goal of corporal punishment and states, The primary goal most parents have in administering corporal punishment is to stop children from misbehaving immediately. Laboratory research on learning has confirmed that corporal punishment is indeed effective in securing short-term compliance. (Gershoff, 2002, pg. 541) In addition to gaining short-term compliance, Gershoff identifies several possible negative outcomes, and ways that disciplinary techniques mold children. Moral internalization is one of the ways children are affected by disciplinary actions taken by children. By disciplining children, parents hope to engrain and pass on the moral values and standards that they believe in to their children. Some of the negative outcomes associated with parental disciplinary techniques include aggression, criminal and delinquent behavior, and mental health issues. Previous studies suggest direct correlations between corporal punishment and these behaviors exhibited by both children and adults. Gershoff observes this using aggression and states, Over the years, several reviews of the literature have concluded that corporal punishment is associated with increases in childrens aggressive behaviors. Corporal punishment has been hypothesized to predict increases in childrens aggression because it models aggression, promotes hostile attributions, which predict violent behavior and initiates coercive cycles of aversive behaviors between parent and child (Gershoff, 2002, 541). These methods, identified by Gershoff, guide a childs personality traits and defines their choices between compliance and deviance, but also demonstrates why the use of aggressive measures to internalize morals (i.e. corporal punishment) generates more negative effects than positive ones (Gershoff, 2002). Individual or Collective? Another invisible hand guiding individuals along the way, relates to that force that guides the marketcreating an individual Lasch labels as the narcissist. He writes, Notwithstanding his occasional illusions of omnipotence, the narcissist depends on other to validate his self-esteem (pg. 10); to fill the vacant parts of the self that is plagued by anxiety, depression, vague discontents, [and] a sense of inner-emptiness(pg. 10); heavily dependent on the advice of experts who determine on their behalf what product best fulfills their emotional requirements. He argues that in times of crisis, people arm themselves not with methods of survival but of measures designed to prolong their own lives, or 5|Page

programs guaranteed to ensure good health and peace of mind; or what he terms psychic selfimprovement (Lasch, 1979, pg. 4). Instead of those who use talents for the common good, the Narcissistic human lives for self-preservation. They act in defense of aggressive impulses rather than the compassion of self-love (Lasch, 1979, pg. 32). Lasch (1979) attributes this to the erosion of any strong concern for posterity (pg. 5) stating that elements of social justice and a sense of continuity (pg. 6) were absent in modern society, paving the way for the emergence of the Narcissist. The Narcissist, who consumes in order to find a secularized salvation, however as Lasch (1979) clarifies the new religion is a faith of those without faith (pg. 51) because the very definition of faith is lost in transactions. From individual fears of vulnerability to the fantasies of consumption, people begin replacing emotions with psychological distractions, surrounding themselves with purchased goods like a fort to conceal their true selvesto muzzle their desires with superficial gratification. This is reinforced by ads and various propaganda promulgated by contemporary media, teaching the public to translate emotions to consumption. Lasch (1979) emphasizes that Advertising serves not so much to advertise products as to promote consumption as a way of life, (pg. 72) which Narcissists can do at any time regardless of whether they are depressed or happy, afraid or fearless, or just plain bored. Consumption promises to fill the aching void; hence the attempt to surround commodities with an aura of romance; with allusions to exotic places and vivid experiences, (Lasch, 1979, pg. 73) and with the chimera of celebrity; but more importantly, it is the cure to satiate the insatiable desires of the Narcissistany problem they have can be resolved by buying a product, just ask the advertiser. Lasch writes, Overexposure to manufactured illusions soon destroys their representational power. The illusion of reality dissolves, not in a heightened sense of reality as we might expect, but in a remarkable indifference to reality (Lasch, 1979, pg. 87). By maintaining a distracted population, leadership is able to further extend its power. Times of national crisis are also used to further this distraction, rather than be used as an opportunity to advocate for a less indulgent citizenry. These consequences caused by partisan divide fail to use the opportunity to educate people on the complex issues the country faces, and how a responsible citizenry can or should respond. The creation of a Narcissistic state, as Lasch suggests, driven by a self-interested populace creates a culture that believes that the values they maintain are exceptional, and therefore allow them to seek dominance rather than cooperation.

6|Page

War or Peace? The consequence of a partisan divide in American culture has caused people to become distracted. Because they are distracted, people are largely unaware of the reality of the actions taken by the people voted into power. This division and distraction, Andrew Bacevich argues, is intentional, and is used as a means of the United States acquiring and retaining global supremacy. Bacevich notes,
Although the United States kept up the pretense that the rest of the world could not manage without its guidance and protection, leadership became less a choice than an imperative. The exercise of global primacy offered a way of compensating for the erosion of a previously dominant economic position. Yet whatever difference Washington was able to command could not conceal the extent to which the United States itself was becoming increasingly beholden to others. Leadership now carried connotations of dependence

(Bacevich, 2008, 31). The United States now had a dependent interest in maintaining its position of leadership, and was not willing to sacrifice it. This dependence forces leaders to maintain the partisan divide as a means of distracting the American populace (Bacevich, 2008). The penalty of the imperial presidency and American indulgence are constant war and foreign turmoil. As Bacevich further observes,
In the wake of 9/11, these puerile expectations that armed force wielded by a strong-willed chief executive could do just about anything reached an apotheosis of sorts. Having manifestly failed to anticipate or prevent a devastating attack on American soil, President Bush proceeded to use his ensuing global war on terror as a pretext for advancing grandiose new military ambitions married to claims of unbounded executive authority all under the guise of keeping Americans safe

(Bacevich, 2008, 132). Rather than asking Americans to sacrifice for the greater good in a time of turmoil, President Bush used the opportunity as a means of further distracting the populace to advance a military agenda. By maintaining a distracted population, leadership is able to further extend its power. Times of national crisis are also used to further this distraction, rather than be used as an opportunity to advocate for a less indulgent citizenry. These consequences caused by partisan divide fail to use the opportunity to educate people on the complex issues the country faces, and how a responsible citizenry can or should respond. Divide or Multiplicity? The partisan divide has been embedded in American politics since the birth of the nation, changing names over time but consistently melting down the diversity of American ideals into two, narrowly defined groups. And, if a citizen finds him/herself in a position where they do not agree with 7|Page

either side, then their voices are limited to the representation of a third partyand even that third party is treated like the red-headed stepchild of the American political system, as their voices are recognized but restricted, never in the forefront and always in the sidelines. And, that is where we find ourselves todayallowing the partisan gridlock to thwart the execution of the laws, to inhibit the voices of the American people because those voices are so scarcely represented. The Senate has become a haven for nonproductive contestation; the House a place full of representatives representing ideals of self-interest and not the interests of their constituents. And the line between the two parties has become almost imperceptibly blurredthe issues masked by narcissistic propaganda and overshadowed by a conflicted legislature. Divergence appears in different forms, from individual social interaction to individual group-think. Currently the stability of the American political system is threatened by bipartisan division. As capitalism is used not to educate the masses but to distract them from truth it enables a government to act out its own self-interested will; rendering truth inoperative so they can proceed without public accountability and without contestation. Expanding on Lasch and Bacevich, this is institutionalized narcissism and penetrates the very core of government decision-making to the point where Republicans and Democrats are matching levels of aggression, unrelenting. We are left we a nation divideda nation that has nearly forgotten the power of compromise and the language of compassion. To portray a realistic depiction of the power of each choice, the choices that lead us down paths of compassion or aggression, that cause us to act to compete or cooperateit is necessary to understand the underlying psychology that guides and transforms the individuals movement into legislative movement. Ways to resolve the divide should focus on educating methods of collaborationlanguage that diffuses aggression and propels individual steps toward compromise. A public education campaign can achieve this objective. Starting with a survey on issues, the campaign will use data to find points of collaboration in order to propose incremental changes agreed to by the majorityfractionalizing the divide. Incremental changes, starting with pushing for policy changes at the city level, then county, then state and so forth, are small steps in the direction of cooperation, not diverting paths but merging them. Citizens no longer have to wait for changethey do not have to wait to have someone tell them what to believewhich side to choose. The role of education as an agent of social change has been widely acknowledged throughout areas of social sciences. Social change can be proactive. Social change does not require passivity or blind acceptance for the blatant exploitation that exists among race, class, gender. It requires that citizens become active participants, to be the synthesis to break free from 8|Page

dominating political and social forces of the current parties. The question now becomes how do we effect social change? The more educated a society is the more resistant to exploitative social institutions we become. And, in that newfound accountability, change will be made because well, if not, there will be further repercussions and then a full-blown proletariat revolution is all we will have to look forward to. Using Denver as the case study for this proposal, we recommend the following for a public education campaign arguing that the end the divided union is a matter of choice. Educate and Overcome Individuals can continue to arm themselves with the shiny things money buys. They can carry on the American tradition of rationalizing war to protect their false sense of security. Or, they can choose to arm themselves with the knowledge to overcome conflictwith the language that diffuses aggression. Acknowledging that the parent-child relationship is not the only method of internalizing morals, Gershoff (2002) recognizes the association between religion and disciplining a child as well as positive parent-child relationships (pg. 563). Religion, to Freud, is composed of a treasure of ideas born of the need to make human misery supportable and in contestation of that faith, man offers science and technology to make life endurable (Freud, 1961, pg. 24).Freud posits that the path away from the pitfalls of the calcified intellects created by religion is illuminated by scientific thinking. By testing new ideas and being open to failure of those ideas, humans are able to confront those failures brought about by blind faith and religious prejudice. By pursuing knowledge unfettered by supernatural confines, humankind can expand our collective intellect towards mutual benefit through enlightened understanding and peaceful collaboration. Science in its purest form is similar to faith in creating solutions in the mind, hopeful of a beneficial outcome. Yet also creates personalities confident enough in failure to be willing to pick up the pieces and try again, secure in knowing that most failures are not damnable offenses. If the more knowledge acquired the more one rejects the insecure claims of religion, then it would appear that the less educated a person is the more likely he/she will be inclined to believe in religion. Freud expands on the connection between morality and religion, stating that religion has lost its effect because of the unfettered pursuit of scientific knowledge. This knowledge is used to replace religion, as education is the more functional method for developing an individuals sense of morality. Concluding her analysis by justifying the need for education, Gershoff (2002) claims that parents who effectively articulate to their children the reasons why a punishment was warranted or even that displays of affection post-punishment will help with the internalization process and prevent missteps 9|Page

(pg. 553). Furthermore a related scholar argued the same: Holdens (2002) suggestion is for an effective education campaign causing parents to reflect about their use of punishment while researchers provide them with alternatives, and redirect them to a reward-based discipline orientation so they can feel successful managing their children (pg. 594). The values passed from parent to child, along with societal interactions, which can lead to narcissistic individuals, and can create a narcissistic collective. The Narcissistic State is one that argues that the American way of life is nonnegotiable; that life is reduced to what is quantifiable, protecting their way of life at all costs. While Lasch argues for a shift in consciousness, Bacevich calls to accommodate, compromise, collaborate, and negotiate. He suggests that the nation pursue a strategy of containment, diplomacy, a return to the Just War Tradition, and smaller military. He suggests that the American public adopt a realistic appreciation of limits that creates opportunities to adjust policies and replenish resources because a nation satisfies its interests more easily when those interests are compatible with the interests of others (pg. 177). Humankind stands at the precipice of life looking down divergent paths awaiting the knowledge required to make a choice. But the choice does not always have to end with a loss or a win. The choice does not have to diverge from the main path, but it can emerge alongside the paths that others have treadusing knowledge of compassion to overcome competition for survival. Aggression has been perpetuating the choices of humankind. It has lead to domination, self-interest, divide, and war. To diffuse that aggression, we must respond in the only way that diffuses that behavior. We must begin to make every choice one that is motivated by the language of compassion. The choices must be one that connects people with diverse and conflicting points of view to each other, not for unitys sakebut for multiplicity. Multiplicity challenges the individual to overcome self-interest, to look beyond difference and conflict and to desire to coexist as diverse individuals united under humanity. The Power of Choice The end of the bipartisan divide begins with a simple choice. Shall I go right, or shall I go left? How far I go in either direction depends on the knowledge acquired along the waythe knowledge that encourages cooperation over competition, compassion over aggression. We take steps with each choicesteps guided by defense and coping mechanisms leading to a series of divergent paths. As knowledge is disseminated into the masses, knowledge that compels and engages all citizens in the very dialogue that dictates their existence; knowledge that seeks to overcome gridlock and divide through compromise and collaboration, negotiation and accommodationknowledge that removes aggressive 10 | P a g e

competition from conflict, removes self-interest from survival, and liberates the individual from fear of the other. The end of the divide begins with addressing the source of conflict from the very beginning and by proposing alternative methods to achieving multiplicity. The end begins with understanding that the choice does not involve partisanship. The end begins by taking the road not taken, the road that has yet to be paved by incremental steps to cooperation. It begins with the choice to be Peacemakernot democrat and republican.

11 | P a g e