Читать книгу Cultural DNA - Bains Gurnek - Страница 12

Even if differences exist, why bother focusing on them as opposed to what we have in common? We are in many senses a co-operative species – but once even small group differences are introduced, elements of wariness, suspicion and frequently hostility ensue. Social Psychologist Henri Tajfel graphically illustrated this in his minimal-group experiment in which he was able to engender surprisingly high levels of intergroup rivalry and discord simply by artificially dividing people between those who liked a particular artist or not.18 Anyone who doubts the power of trivial group differences to elicit powerful emotions can simply observe the dynamics between groups of teenagers at high school or go and see a soccer match just about anywhere in the world.

Another thing that makes discussion of group differences sensitive is that there is an automatic belief that merely identifying differences involves ordering groups of people hierarchically. People who repudiate all talk of difference seem to do so because they actually hold the implicit, but unacknowledged, view that in any comparison non-Westerners will come out for the worse. If, however, you accept the argument that different groups' psychological instincts are actually finely tuned to the environment in which they are required to survive – and that fundamentally all groups have qualities that play out for good or ill in different situations – discussing differences becomes less emotionally loaded.

Nothing illustrates the gravitational pull of immutable hierarchical thinking better than the whole controversial field of intelligence quotients (IQ) and race – which is the natural place many go to when thinking about group differences. Books like The Bell Curve19 and, more recently, A Troublesome Inheritance fall into this trap.20 The first point to make is that standard IQ scores, thought to be relatively fixed in populations, have been changing quickly the world over – the so-called Flynn effect. James Flynn found, for example, that IQ scores had risen by about three points per decade for several decades – this may seem small but actually makes a massive difference over just a few decades.21 Diet, the spread of technology, control of infectious disease, as well as familiarity with IQ tests themselves, have all been hypothesized as leading to these improved scores. Different groups show different levels of this effect, and some developed countries appear to have stopped improving. It is likely that many developing countries will continue to post sharp rises and, until things have leveled out, nobody can make accurate statements about intergroup differences.22

More importantly, there is inevitably a danger in applying tests developed in one culture to others that might see the world very differently. Each culture's intellectual orientation is finely attuned to the ecology of the environment and the survival challenges that that culture has faced. Therefore, nobody is more or less intelligent than another in a fundamental sense; they are just different. The analytical/logical/structured approach so beloved by Western academic researchers is only one way of looking at intellect. It ignores wisdom, judgment, creativity and intellectual flexibility as well as emotional intelligence. The ecology of the new global environment will lead to a greater convergence of scores with respect to standard Western measures, as well as leading to many non-Western modes of intelligence becoming more and more valued and appreciated – thus challenging the notion of hierarchy.

Another reason for focusing on and helping to explain differences is to aid cultures in developing greater levels of empathy and respect for each other. Psychologically, since humans are one of the most social species in the animal kingdom, the development of empathy is one of the most important tasks that a person faces. Surprisingly, if one maps brain size against body mass, most species fall on a fairly tight curve. There are a few species that are clear outliers in that they have much bigger brains than their body size would indicate. Humans are one and apes, as well as dolphins are others. The clue to what is common lies in the two nonmammalian species that have much bigger brains than they should; ants and bees. All the outlier species are highly social. This leads to a natural conclusion that at least in part our large brains exist as tools for navigating our interpersonal environment.

There has been much research in recent years on the importance of mirror neurons in our brains that fire sympathetically when we observe people doing things or experiencing certain emotions. These were accidentally discovered by the Italian researchers Giacomo Rizzolatti and his colleagues at the University of Parma while studying the firing of individual motor neurons in the brains of Macaque monkeys as the monkeys reached for food. The researchers found to their surprise that some of these neurons started to fire when the monkey saw the experimenters handling food. Thus was born the idea of mirror neurons that is, neurons that fire sympathetically when we see an action or an emotion in others.23 At some level we experience the same neuronal activation that the person we are watching does and this drives both learning and empathy.

Many believe that research on mirror neurons represents one of the most significant recent breakthroughs in psychology. It is possible that as many as 10 percent of the neurons in the human brain may have mirror neuron type properties. Neuropsychologist V. S. Ramachandran says, “These are the neurons that changed the world,” and argues that the significant presence of mirror neurons in humans is the very basis of our culture and civilization.24

However, what is really shocking about mirror neuron research is what happens when we observe people from groups different from our own. In one experiment, psychologists showed white people videos of a white hand being pricked by a needle. As expected, people's reactions showed evidence of mirror neurons firing in the relevant parts of their brains. But when the same people saw a black hand being pricked, there was little – and in some cases virtually zero – evidence of sympathetic neuronal response. Interestingly, when the experimenters showed a hand that had been painted purple being pricked, the relevant neuronal system dutifully fired in the expected manner. The failure of the mirror neurons to react to the black hand, therefore, reflects an awareness on the part of the white subjects that it belonged to someone from another race. Interestingly, those who scored highly on a test of unconscious bias showed virtually no mirror neuron activation in the case of the black hand being pricked.25 Numerous studies have replicated these findings across different groups, and the suppression of neuronal empathy when one observes other groups is now an established fact. This research is saddening, but it does start to make sense of huge swathes of our sorry, human intergroup history – slavery, the Holocaust and Rwanda to mention but a few. This research also indicates that one of the core objectives of this book – the development of intergroup empathy – is not an irrelevant or unimportant task in our global world.

A second objective of the appreciative approach to difference that is the focus of this book is to get people to question their implicit hierarchies. It is natural if you come from countries that are prosperous to develop a view of your superiority; sometimes this can be overtly held but, more commonly, it is an implicit view that is best not aired in public. Conversely, those at the other end of the spectrum often develop an unconscious sense of inferiority or inadequacy – although, again, this is not necessarily obvious on the surface, as many people from the cultures that are “on the back foot” express an overt sense of nationalism, pride, and display a surface confidence that may not always run particularly deep. I suspect that when you lift the lid, the underlying reality is that Westerners still feel superior and people from other cultures are playing a psychological game of catch-up in terms of their confidence and self-esteem. In fact, this is exactly what the work on unconscious biases cited earlier illustrates.

One of the motivations for writing this book is to attempt to level the playing field. While the analysis of the DNA of European and American societies identifies some clear attributes that have given these societies an edge over others in the past, it also unearths certain profound weaknesses that these societies must address if they are to retain their edge. Moreover, one – although not the sole – factor that has given Western societies an edge over others is their historical capacity for organized violence against other ethnic groups – something which I will argue is embedded more in the DNA of the West for a variety of reasons than some other world cultures. This is something that will be increasingly difficult for Western societies to leverage in today's world. In short, while other societies can learn something from those aspects of Western society that have led them to be successful, they do not have to be intimidated by their success.

However, if other societies are truly to catch up, they need to appreciate both the underlying strengths that are also the limitations that their own cultural DNA creates for them in the emerging new world. While I have tried to stay positive, some parts of my analysis for all societies will make for uncomfortable reading. In fact, I suspect that most people will agree with the analysis of other cultures but likely become sensitive about certain aspects of their own. This is not just because people only want to hear positives about themselves – which is, to some extent, true. In a very real and profound sense, one's own way of looking at the world feels like the only way, because everyone around you shares it. It is difficult to step out and question your core beliefs from inside your own frame of reference. However, as we have found in our work with individuals and organizations, an honest external mirror is often what is needed to move forward.

Having apologized in advance for likely reactions – it is time to move on to the analysis of each culture. We start our journey by examining the United States, as the relatively recent movement of people to the continent can be tracked with greater certainty, and the arguments help to illustrate principles we will use later. We then move to Sub-Saharan Africa, where the human journey began, and track the movement of people from our common home to different regions in the world.