Fall back

I went to a lecture this morning by Michael Salzman, Ph.D., on globalization and religious fundamentalism. He discussed the connection between the two, not as a cause and effect, but as a consideration of where these topics connect to each other.

He began by talking about globalization's effect on culture, and people within a culture. By bringing in world-wide outside influences into previously secluded/segregated populations, a global homogenization occurs. From a global standpoint, we all become more like each other by repeated exposure to what was previously a different way of thinking/living/acting/being. But from an indigenous standpoint, globalization can be perceived as a threat to one's culture and heritage as these repeated exposures begin to change the traditional values within your system.

Similarly, when many different religions come together, there are two sides to the results. On the inter-religious side, you have tolerance and a new acceptance that perhaps 'truth' is relative (each religion has its own truth that is just as valid as the others). On the intra-religious side, you have a threat that tolerance and acceptance will invalidate the truth of your own personal religion.

Culture and religion are very similar to each other in that they give individuals and communities meaning, purpose, and truth, which in turn create self-esteem, self-efficacy, and a feeling of one's personal value in the world. Here's a quote from Becker (1975). "Culture itself is sacred, since it is the 'religion' that assures, in some way, the perpetuation of its members" either literally or symbolically. And this is very important. People need to have 1) meaning in their lives, and 2) an assurance of some sort of continuation. These psychological needs that are fed by culture and religion are very important to people, and will in fact trump physiological needs.

A positive and a negative example: People will fast, will go hungry despite the protests of their body, in order to fulfill a religious or spiritual obligation or desire. The psychological trumps the physical. Similarly, an anorexic person will starve themselves in order to obtain an unobtainable ideal of beauty. The psychological trumps the physical.

Culture and religion infuse a person's world with meaning. When culture and religion are shaken (due to globalization, for instance) the world becomes less meaningful, or perhaps loses its meaning altogether.

This can cause a backlash.

In 2006, Pyszczynski investigated the effect of 'mortality salience' -- a person being confronted with and becoming aware of their own mortality -- on martyrdom attacks among Iranian college students and on the willingness of American students to support extreme military action with heavy collateral damage. Both groups of students were more likely to support diplomatic action when their mortality salience was low, and were more likely to support these respective forms of attack when mortality salience was high.

Which means, yes, Dick Cheney on an aircraft carrier in the Middle East increases mortality salience among the people living there (of the 'holy crap this world leader is determined to kick our ass, we're all gonna die' type), which in turn will increase the likelihood of suicide bombings and the like.

This is true in lesser-extreme examples of confrontation against culture or religion. Mortality salience is the "Yes, you will die," threat. But what of a threat to culture due to globalization, or a threat to religion due to the introduction of other religions into a community? Well, when people's beliefs (cultural or religious) are threatened, they often exhibit a strong defensive reaction. If their beliefs are shown to be wrong (or relative truths rather than absolute rights), they can pull back into an 'us versus them' mentality.

This is, however, all in the case where some degree of 'us versus them' exists before the threat occurs.

If my religious beliefs or cultural beliefs already set me apart as having superior ways, superior knowledge, separate identity than 'those others', a threat from 'those others' is going to cause me to become even more convinced of my superiority and the need to eradicate what has become a threat to my beliefs and way of life.

But, if my religious beliefs or cultural beliefs are based on compassion, understanding, acceptance, tolerance, etc., a 'threat' from the outside will be greeted by increased compassion, understanding, tolerance...

Meaning, my reaction to changes around me is going to be based entirely by how I have been "primed" to react. If I have been primed with "us versus them", I will polarize these categories further. If I have been primed with "relative truth", I will push equally hard for diplomacy.

It's like what my dad is always saying. "You do not rise to the occasion, you fall back to your level of training." He didn't quite mean it like this, but it's true regardless. And it's very important as this world continues to become smaller and smaller. At some point, it really does become a choice. What is the training that you would rather fall back into? How are you going to react when things start to change?