For the last couple of years, I have been studying leadership qualities, fandoms, and most recently, the Bible. One well known biblical idea I have been considering is if the meek really will inherit the Earth. My first question is where are the people who will be identified as "meek"? As Western society advances, it seems there are fewer and fewer individuals who could be considered humble. New social technologies allow anyone with certain resources to write a book, promote themselves on a website, and post formally meaningless details about one's life on the internet for the world to see. Who are these meek people who shall inherit the Earth? In terms of leadership studies, it's followers who shall; people who put certain other people up on a pedestal and say they are better than the average person, or fans of people who are famous. Now even though modern media makes it really easy for many of us to feel like leaders in our online universes, I think followers have a lot more power than they realize. In order to illustrate how, though, I will start with a story about someone very few would consider meek.
In 1966, singer/songwriter John Lennon was overheard saying to a friend that the band he belonged to (The Beatles) seemed to have more influence on kids than Jesus Christ. He was later murdered for uttering that thought out loud. Why? How was it that someone disagreed with John Lennon's evaluation of "followership" so strongly that he felt compelled to shoot him in cold blood as he returned to his New York apartment one evening? Maybe because at the time, what John Lennon said was basically true. But don't get me wrong. Comparing one's own influence on Western society to that of the influence of the hero of the second part of the Bible seems pretty out there … even legitimately offensive ... if you consider yourself a Christian ... and especially if he had said it in a public forum (which he did not.) Yet the threat was felt. It was real. And someone chose to abandon their own life to make sure that that threat was neutralized 14 years after it was made. But what was being threatened, exactly? A belief. And threatening an individual's beliefs can feel the same to a person as being attacked with physical violence, especially when the idea being challenged is the cornerstone of how a person lives. Totally understandable, then ... except for the fact that biologically, beliefs are not a physical part of a person. John Lennon, according to his shooter, was not allowed to have that opinion about his fans. And that is because John Lennon had a lot of social influence. So was the permanent silencing of John Lennon justified? Most would say no. Most would claim that the shooter was not stable and not a typical representation of someone who calls themselves a Christian. Yet this "extreme" response to a challenge to one's beliefs seems to exist across cultures. Is it possible that it really is based in biology? Or does the fight or flight reaction to simple words only happen when the person doing the challenging has a lot of social power? Perhaps. For as the old saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.
In addition to studying leadership and followership, I have done quite a bit of personal research in the fields of Evolutionary Psychology and Sociobiology. Because of this, one might make the assumption that I may see less value in religious works, but I have to say that the Bible does a pretty darn good job of summarizing how we should live as humans. I am certainly no religious scholar, but here's my best summation on the human race's responsibilities to the natural world: The Bible states that God created the Earth and everything that lives on it. He also chose people as more special than every other living thing. But what is not so clear to me is how much more special people are than everything else God made. Do people have the right to treat animals as mere resources instead of other important species that exist with their own specific purpose on the Earth? Were the plants and animals created so people could be entertained and live more comfortably while they are in existence? Other religious rule books are also not 100% clear on this issue either. Perhaps that is because when they were each put together, the authors of these documents could not have imagined the eventual efficiency to which we humans would be able to consume resources (including animals and the environments they live in.) I think these ancient authors would find our modern consumption/control skills staggering. And if they were watching us now, maybe they would wish they could go back in time and clarify their stances on the protection of the natural environment and all the non-human creatures who call Earth home. Or maybe, just maybe, we special, brilliant, enlightened, modern humans could just make that adjustment for them on our own and take meaningful responsibility for the amazing non-human things that currently exist. The Bible suggests that the meek shall inherit the Earth. As a human race, we could all become huge fans of ALL the things that live on our planet. But instead of other people, let's put nature on a pedestal, embrace a universal "oneness," and make sure there is more than just "something" left to pass on.
Up Next: It's not just a midlife crisis in "It's Just a Mid-life Crisis"
Bastardoz, N. & van Vugt, M. (2018). The Nature of Followership: Evolutionary analysis and review, The Leadership Quarterly, Online.
https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1107253394?and_facet_journal=jour.1036864
Bergland, C. (2019). Does "Flow" Open our Minds to Believing in "Oneness"? The Athlete's Way, Psychology Today.
Bouma-Prediger, S. (2001). For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care. Baker Academic, Michigan.
Chadborn, D., Edwards, P. & Reysen, S. (2018). Reexamining differences between fandom and local sense of community. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(3), 241-249. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-32096-001
Cheng J.T., Tracy. J.L. & Henrich, J. (2012). Pride, personality and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334-347.
Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom. Farrar and Rinehart, New York.
Harari, Y.N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (English) Harper Perennial, New York.
Waytz, A. (2017). The Psychology of Social Status. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican
Click on "Congirl vs Cavegirl" above to see older posts. Comment below. Thanks!
© 2020 Penny Fie. All rights reserved.
In 1966, singer/songwriter John Lennon was overheard saying to a friend that the band he belonged to (The Beatles) seemed to have more influence on kids than Jesus Christ. He was later murdered for uttering that thought out loud. Why? How was it that someone disagreed with John Lennon's evaluation of "followership" so strongly that he felt compelled to shoot him in cold blood as he returned to his New York apartment one evening? Maybe because at the time, what John Lennon said was basically true. But don't get me wrong. Comparing one's own influence on Western society to that of the influence of the hero of the second part of the Bible seems pretty out there … even legitimately offensive ... if you consider yourself a Christian ... and especially if he had said it in a public forum (which he did not.) Yet the threat was felt. It was real. And someone chose to abandon their own life to make sure that that threat was neutralized 14 years after it was made. But what was being threatened, exactly? A belief. And threatening an individual's beliefs can feel the same to a person as being attacked with physical violence, especially when the idea being challenged is the cornerstone of how a person lives. Totally understandable, then ... except for the fact that biologically, beliefs are not a physical part of a person. John Lennon, according to his shooter, was not allowed to have that opinion about his fans. And that is because John Lennon had a lot of social influence. So was the permanent silencing of John Lennon justified? Most would say no. Most would claim that the shooter was not stable and not a typical representation of someone who calls themselves a Christian. Yet this "extreme" response to a challenge to one's beliefs seems to exist across cultures. Is it possible that it really is based in biology? Or does the fight or flight reaction to simple words only happen when the person doing the challenging has a lot of social power? Perhaps. For as the old saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.
Now let's back up a bit. Where do I get off suggesting that what John Lennon said about The Beatles being more influential than Jesus is true? Because even though The Beatles were "just" a rock band, they were fulfilling a purpose identical to the purpose religion fills for many--a sense of "oneness." It's the feeling that we, as humans, are part of something bigger than just ourselves ... and the need for this sense of oneness IS biological. It's rooted in our evolutionary pasts. It's the sense that we are part of a tribe, we will have back-up if we need it, and that we will be protected. This feeling can be achieved by being part of a congregation or part of a fandom, and when one finds it, it can make one feel confident and resistant to idle threats. But John Lennon's shooter claimed to be a Christian. Why didn't he feel confident enough in his beliefs to let Lennon's comments roll off his back? Because in addition to a general sense of oneness, people also need a tangible safety net made up of physically accessible people. The daily/weekly ritual of checking in on or hanging out with other people we trust is a biological necessity for human psychological health. In the case of John Lennon's shooter, I am gonna go out on a limb and say that he did not have a dependable safety net. His wife was interviewed after the incident, and it was determined that she did not know anything about what her husband had planned on doing. Perhaps he could not trust her with it. Perhaps he did not trust very many people. But let's not forget, just before he was killed, John Lennon did write that very catchy song (“Imagine”) which is about removing cultural barriers. It publicly and purposely suggested that if religion were not as important to people, perhaps we would all be better off. Too bad he did not take his responsibility as a famous person with lots of social influence seriously enough, but I'm not sure he was aware of religion's biological importance OR the sense of oneness that can come from being part of an organized group of fans.
So I am pretty sure that Christianity's rule book clearly states that killing people is bad. The Bible also says a whole bunch of other stuff about how people should live--and some of these things are less cut and dry. Ironically, what I appreciate most about the Bible is how it shares multiple perspectives of single events written by different people...but that inclusive element is exactly what can end up sending mixed messages. One of these less clear rules is not about how humans should treat each other, but how we should treat all the other living things on our planet. To me, this topic is no less important than "Thou shalt not kill." This might seem like a sharp right turn in my discussion, but the respect we should have for the environment is not that different than the respect John Lennon should have had for his influence as a famous person--It's still true that with great power comes great responsibility.
In addition to studying leadership and followership, I have done quite a bit of personal research in the fields of Evolutionary Psychology and Sociobiology. Because of this, one might make the assumption that I may see less value in religious works, but I have to say that the Bible does a pretty darn good job of summarizing how we should live as humans. I am certainly no religious scholar, but here's my best summation on the human race's responsibilities to the natural world: The Bible states that God created the Earth and everything that lives on it. He also chose people as more special than every other living thing. But what is not so clear to me is how much more special people are than everything else God made. Do people have the right to treat animals as mere resources instead of other important species that exist with their own specific purpose on the Earth? Were the plants and animals created so people could be entertained and live more comfortably while they are in existence? Other religious rule books are also not 100% clear on this issue either. Perhaps that is because when they were each put together, the authors of these documents could not have imagined the eventual efficiency to which we humans would be able to consume resources (including animals and the environments they live in.) I think these ancient authors would find our modern consumption/control skills staggering. And if they were watching us now, maybe they would wish they could go back in time and clarify their stances on the protection of the natural environment and all the non-human creatures who call Earth home. Or maybe, just maybe, we special, brilliant, enlightened, modern humans could just make that adjustment for them on our own and take meaningful responsibility for the amazing non-human things that currently exist. The Bible suggests that the meek shall inherit the Earth. As a human race, we could all become huge fans of ALL the things that live on our planet. But instead of other people, let's put nature on a pedestal, embrace a universal "oneness," and make sure there is more than just "something" left to pass on.
Up Next: It's not just a midlife crisis in "It's Just a Mid-life Crisis"
References
Bastardoz, N. & van Vugt, M. (2018). The Nature of Followership: Evolutionary analysis and review, The Leadership Quarterly, Online.
https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1107253394?and_facet_journal=jour.1036864
Bergland, C. (2019). Does "Flow" Open our Minds to Believing in "Oneness"? The Athlete's Way, Psychology Today.
Bouma-Prediger, S. (2001). For the Beauty of the Earth: A Christian Vision for Creation Care. Baker Academic, Michigan.
Chadborn, D., Edwards, P. & Reysen, S. (2018). Reexamining differences between fandom and local sense of community. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(3), 241-249. http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-32096-001
Cheng J.T., Tracy. J.L. & Henrich, J. (2012). Pride, personality and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334-347.
Fromm, E. (1941). Escape From Freedom. Farrar and Rinehart, New York.
Harari, Y.N. (2014). Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (English) Harper Perennial, New York.
Waytz, A. (2017). The Psychology of Social Status. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican
Click on "Congirl vs Cavegirl" above to see older posts. Comment below. Thanks!
© 2020 Penny Fie. All rights reserved.
Comments
Post a Comment