Evolutionary Process and Normalcy

This is perhaps more of a heuristic extension of natural process to culture and draws together a disparate group of ideas about human tendency (both as products of environment and natural selection and as cultural products and producers). That caveat stated, I wanted to think about modernity and conformity but place it within a frame of evolutionary process on the macro scale of what Darwin called incipient species.

There are many ways to view incipient species in the modern academic and scientific arena. In The Origin of Species, Darwin described certain species as having very wide geographical ranges such that at the extreme margins of these ranges, local mating groups were semi-isolated from other marginal groups. He called these incipient species because polar opposite subgroups who are likely to not interbreed due to distance may accumulate enough differences over time to distinguish them from their ancestral parent group. This is particularly true if the geographic range of the group transects a diversity of environments to which local adaptations may be increasingly the result of specific natural selection. This idea that greater isolation occurs at the margins of a species’ range has fueled ideas of the process of speciation. Colin Groves (among others) counter-argues that the speciation is taking place in the center of the region. This debate is beyond the idea that I want to discuss so I will leave that discussion there.

The idea of incipient species, whether in the center or the margins of the geographic range, is appealing above and beyond its evolutionary implications (on the macro and micro scale). This idea is what I want to take forward in thinking about normalcy. The idea of normalcy is an undercurrent in human history. Does normalcy describe the state of a society at the center, where the population is most dense, and abnormality as variable states of society at the margins (incipient cultural norms rather than incipient species?).

What is normal and how is it created? Is normal the mean for the population on a bell curve or the data midpoint? In either case, the norm would be described by an area delineating the statistically greatest density along the continuum. This can and may be problematic if we take those data to describe a normal trait or behavior. Take fidelity. There are many discussions and statistics available on the subject. In this one, the views on what constitutes fidelity are extremely variable (from sexual intercourse to holding hands with someone else). Even if we limit infidelity to having sexual acts outside the primary relationship, the average (normal) behavior may well describe someone who is unfaithful. But, these are statistics and may be disparate with culturally norms such that most societies define parameters of fidelity and find those who stray to be abnormal (even if the behavior to stray is more common than not). Thus, statistics often exist outside cultural values of normalcy, even if they sometimes intersect with these concepts. Cultural normalcy often describes not what people do but what they ought to do. .

In the context of conformity and modernity, we use the word normal as a goal. Normal is a reachable goal for which we all have potential to achieve. It is normal to seek this goal and so the goal, or reaching that social ideal, eventually becomes normal (even if the ‘average’ person fails to achieve it). This idealization of certain behaviors creates a set of expectations for those in the public eye, certainly politicians and religious figures. But, it also places pressure on every member of society to conform to this image as well.

At this point, we are dangerously close to ideal type, an outdated concept in biology popularized in the 19th century that, when led to the practice of typology, categorizing based on relationship to ideal type. The ideal type describes a few things. It could be the perfect specimen in a class of specimens or a specimen statistically created from a n average of traits (whether skull shape and size or sexual norms) from a reference population. All new specimens are categorized based on their relationship to ideal type. We can assume that the farther you are from the ideal, the less normal you are, the more pathological you are.

Anneli Rufus describes this in her book, The Loner’s Manifesto. She argues that people rejected by society, people who want to belong but are not socially accepted are mistakenly called loners. For her (and she presents a strong argument), the term loner actually refers to people who enjoy and prefer their solitude despite the fact that they may be welcomed into society and may have friends who yearn for their company and want to see more of them. A recent misuse of the term is related to the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007. Seung-Hui Cho, the killer, is called a loner, but is he? He was shunned much of his life due to a variety of reasons so his ‘alone’ status is not necessarily the result of a desire to be alone. He was a loner because society made him a loner by rejecting. This is a semantic debate that explores a class of people who are not normal with regards to sociability. We are social animals and anyone who is not social is not normal and to be feared. There is no distinction made between those who shun most society of their own volition and those who are rejected by society and may harbor malice as a result. Both are viewed as equally pathological.

There are many examples sliding scales of when an abnormality becomes pathological or dangerous to the health of the individual or the health of others: eating disorders, autism, schizophrenia, OCD, and so on. The appeal for many people to continue in psychology as a major field of study is finding out what is “wrong” with themselves. But, the “average” person has many things “wrong.” This is because there isn’t anyone that is statistically normal. Literature and media have spoofed this idea time and time again.

There is a tremendous danger in fitting oneself, one’s children–any individual in society–to the normal curve, within one standard deviation. Why? Because this practice seeks to eliminate variation, variation which is the cornerstone of survival. To return to the incipient species idea, this variation is what ensures survival of the species. Without variation, a species is too specifically adapted to a set of conditions. So, if those conditions change drastically, that species is now no longer fit and will not survive (wherein fitness is relative and refers to net reproductive success, having offspring that have offspring).

Again, I do not intend to extend evolutionary process to cultural patterns except as heuristic device, a useful analogy for advocating a revised view of norms that includes the dangers of adhering to closely to achieving them as a society. I would argue that the construction and practice of normalcy are increasingly and fatally under-considered in our society, where conformity is more important than critical thinking about what constitutes the standards to which we conform.

Evolution, Emotion, and Language

In a study on Meerkats in the Kalahari Desert, a team from the University of Zurich found that young meerkats respond to vocalization information about “threat urgency” (via tone) earlier than “threat type” (via variation in vocalization) as compared to older meerkats who can distinguish both pieces of information. The researchers argue this association between tone and urgency/emotion is hard-wired. This interests me because primate vocalizations have been studied extensively. For instance, the ververt monkey has eight different vocalizations for threat, each one referring to a different type of predator (such as chattering teeth for a snake). If the findings of the meerkat are observed in additional species, detection of emotion (as they interpret urgency in utterance) might indicate an evolutionarily conserved trait.

In a seemingly unrelated article from Scientific American, linguists at the University of Edinburgh have found a link between two genes (ASPN and microcephalin) involved in brain development and language in a study of 49 different populations. (The original study was published in PNAS this week.) The genes studied are active during embryonic brain development (influencing brain size). Developmentally, they may also serve a function in brain structure. Previous research has found no relationship between popular mutations of these genes and intelligence, social ability, and brain size. They appear to affect the cerebral cortex (which plays a role in understanding language). Researchers tested for a relationship between many genes and many aspects of language. They found a positive relationship between these mutations and language tone. Most languages fall into one of two categories (tonal or non-tonal). Exceptions include Japanese, some Scandanavian dialects, and Basque. Tonal languages are ones where the pitch of the spoken word makes a difference in meaning. Nontonal languages are ones where the pitch does not make a difference in meaning. The mutations date to about 37,000 years ago and are found in abundance in nontonal language speakers. Tonal language speakers do not have these mutations.

A note of caution in interpreting these findings from the article:

Northwestern’s Wong says that in a field in which researchers struggle to determine whether differences arise from experience or genetics, the new study “gives us an idea that there is a genetic side to things.” He says the research indicates that small differences in brain organization determined by genetic makeup may be amplified by cultural factors and contact with other languages through war or migration, creating today’s dichotomy in language tonality.

“Even remarkable correlations can arise by coincidence—or, in this case, possibly by prehistoric migration factors that are currently unknown to anthropology and archaeology—so we can’t rule that out,” Ladd says. “The next step is to attempt to correlate individual genotypes with measurably different behaviors on experimental tasks that are plausibly related to language and speech.”

The latter study has many components that require further study but the initial findings are interesting especially in light of the meerkat findings. This developmentally early comprehension of tone is likely to be evolutionarily conserved in mammals (dating back to a mammalian common ancestor and not lost in the majority of subsequent species derivations). So, if we accept the findings of the linguistic study for heuristic purposes, tonal languages would be ancestral to nontonal languages since nontonal languages are associated with a recent mutation and tonal language speakers lack it. But, this is counterintuitive to the meerkat study (that already has a strong base of supportive research). Why? If tone is evolutionarily conserved because it is associated with fitness, or net reproductive success (here, survival via an ability to perceive urgency of threat and, thus, escape predation), then alterations to the meaning of tone would interfere with its function as a vehicle for emotion, urgency. Tonal languages innovate a new use for tone. Rather than urgency, tone now conveys a difference in meaning. But, with what little linguistic knowledge I have, the tonal languages that I am aware of are older than nontonal one (ex. Chinese is tonal and English is not).

I know I am linking the findings of two unrelated studies. But, so much of what occurs in the science research today lacks context within and across disciplines. By lack of context, I mean a failure to contemplate evolutionary meaningfulness. I expect case studies in smaller specialized journals to disseminate current research findings to the discipline but in a larger journal like PNAS, I expect more context.

So, that said, I wonder if this finding, after further exploration and testing, will actually be supported as a valid relationship (e.g., one that has meaning as opposed to one that is coincidental). At the very least, it presents interesting data to those interested in this growing gene-culture approach to prehistory (with language representing genes) and population migrations.

Do you enjoy your life?

I overheard a man asking this question of the woman next to him on a commuter train a year ago. The boldness of the asking contrasted with the gentle and sincere tone in which it was delivered. He managed to convey, to me at least, that he cared about the response he might receive.

The question still lingers in the air like an a faint scent. I think of it all the time. My answer changes regularly. Because the answer is relative, I think the asking bears more weight.

Turning the question upon oneself has a tremendous inventory value, an assessment of where you are right now and what you are doing in your life (not what you want to be doing or will be doing). I read an article on fiscal wisdom and happiness recently in the June issue of Self magazine, excepted from JP Dunleavey’s soon to be released book Money Can Buy Happiness. A very eye-opening exercise was instructed the reader to take 2-3 minutes to write down all the things that he/she enjoyed (with or without cost). Examples included chatting with a friend over coffee, sunsets, travel, and so on. Then, the reader made a list of where money was spent over the past 2-3 weeks. You then compare lists to see if things on the first list that cost money showed up again on the expenditures list. An interesting way of seeing if you put your money where you heart/soul is so to speak.

So, take a few minutes to ask yourself the question. Do you enjoy your life?

(Re)Productive Years

The 70’s seemed to bring change for women. Choices. Marriage followed by reproduction was penultimate rather than ultimate. Many still reproduced (without partners, with female partners…) but more than every before, women produced (art, leadership, inventions, and so on). Even more revolutionary, women were choosing not to reproduce. For a brief time, there was a successful striving towards social, civic, educational, and professional equality with male peers. But, recently, there has been a strange reversion to revelling in being a “mom”. When did women start referring to themselves as ‘moms’ rather than mothers, or better yet as women?There is an entire ‘mom’ culture setting the standards for modern motherhood. On the extreme side there are the women who quit jobs to stay at home and make their own organic baby food and discuss the merits of inoculating their children against infectious disease. On the less extreme side, there are those who keep their careers but revel more in the “mom” role (and try to keep up with the stay-at-homes). In practice, the aggressive cultism in this “mom” culture doesn’t allow women to express doubts and fears. There is no room for a woman to be honest about herself, to make mistakes, to be imperfect, or to ask for help. No one wants to hear that she is flailing or that her child isn’t developmentally average or better than average. There is no room for variation. She is the 1950s housewise but often with a career and a new, improved, insurmountable set of expectations to meet. Somewhere along the way, women lost the point. Rather than being liberated, are women more oppressed than ever by modern reproduction?

On the professional side of things, females must grapple with the issue of reproduction on a deeper level than males because women are the biological bearers of children and that directly interferes with one’s life. That biological burden comes with a social responsibility that has to be balanced against any other choices made in life. Websites, career sites, professional organization forums, and women’s magazines (not to mention the surfeit of smug celebrity mother examples) all cater to this reproductive issue. Yes, it is an important one because it affects women more than men. But, must it come at the cost of other issues that are equally important such as equal pay, education, development, and mentoring. In fact, the more women use reproduction in the same breath as career, the more detrimental it is to equality. Detrimental because women market themselves as ‘moms’ rather than peers. I thought women’s liberation was about narrowing the gap, if not closing it, by showcasing our abilities and successes. Yet, reproduction is increasingly inseparable from the definition of modern women. Why does this have to define us?

Women choosing not to reproduce (or marry, for that matter) are viewed suspiciously by society, and most probingly questioned other her peers, other females. Women who have not married “just haven’t met the right person yet.” Women who have not reproduced either “haven’t felt the biological clock yet“ or “just aren’t ready yet.” Why are these excuses made rather than acknowledging and accepting the value and personal nature of choice (reproduction or not, marriage or not).

Even in an recent Chronicle Careers column, the issue is inescapable despite the author starting with a powerful message about the under-representation of women in the sciences. She was one of 6 female judges out of 180 at a high school science fair. The high school teachers were all women. She very soon worked her way into having babies on the tenure clock. Her co-writers have addressed this issue very well in other columns. So, I was disappointed that a women without children allowed herself to be diverted from a meaningful contemplation on how to inspire young females to science careers. (I normally like these columns written by a group of likable and intelligent female biologists who write insightfully about being female (sometimes grappling reproduction issues) in a male-driven profession.)

Despite what I have written, I admire the courage and self-sacrifice required to have children–just as much as I admire other difficult choices that women make. But being a parent isn’t limited to women and men don’t define themselves as fathers. The offspring of men, their fathering ability, their “dadness” (is there a ‘dad’ culture?) is only mentioned incidentally, if at all. Powerful and fatherhood aren’t not coupled intricately together even though men are biological reproducers too, and even though it costs them (not hardly as much as women initially though).

Helen Reddy’s anthem, I am Woman inspired me from an early age. When I first really listened to it, I thought, yes, of course, women are powerful. I am powerful.There are wonderful examples of women with and without children who are inspirations and not defined by their reproduction. I wish more women celebrated their own power separate and apart from reproduction. Collectively, that example of personal celebration of strength and invincibility can only inspire ALL female children to work at making our global community a hospitable environment that allows women to follow any path in life without restraint.

Conflict

So much of life is filled with conflict: traffic, workplace encounters, listservs, jobs/promotions/advancement, governments, religions… I find it increasingly having a visceral affect on me.

Newness is greeted with hostility and suspicion. Mistakes are openings for destruction, rather than constructive critiques. The worse possible interpretation is taken from an ambiguous statement which then leads to offense. At the risk of sounding paranoid, everyone is out to get everyone else. The underlying assumption is that other people are doing the wrong thing and getting away with it.

I can’t think of a single conflict I have been in in recent history where one party admitted some wrong-doing. The more I see this, the more I try to contemplate what I have brought to each conflict I encounter. I don’t always see through myself but, when I do, I own up to how I may have contributed. More importantly, I made a resolve this year to avoid conflict, which I felt was a positive approach rather than a post-hoc band-aid.

Perhaps this is a characteristic of our increasingly urban lifestyle. Conflicts occur in rural communities but the stakes are higher. Privacy is rare and all conflicts are public and with someone personally known. In urban (and online for that matter) communities, privacy and anonymity give license for abuse.

There are always irreconcilable differences but agreement to disagree and respect the other person’s viewpoint goes a long way to making those differences bearable, even keep life interesting. But, the urban and online worlds create a responsibility free environment. The average person rarely has to own up to their behavior when faced by the other party at a later time. Life would be easier if we treated each other as if we were all people to whom we are held accountable. Since we have, as a global population, just crossed the line to urban from rural with most of the world’s population residing in urban environments, I wonder if conflict will increase exponentially.

Human Social Life and Negativity Spirals

As primates, humans have a strong evolutionary selection for social groupings. Facial expressions in others, for human and nonhuman primates, evoke a rapid emotive response quite separate from the pre-existing emotional state of the organism. So, emotional states, for better or worse, can be transmitted like infectious disease during human contact.

When you are in a bad mood, how often have you noticed that others seem to be in a bad mood too? Or, when you feel perfectly fine then suddenly find your mood altered after talking with someone who is feeling sad. We are empathetic without intention. Of course, euphoria can be catching too. But, with conflict at every turn and increasing numbers of individual taking anti-depression drugs in our society, the negative emotions seem more prevalent and affective…and, perhaps even reaching epidemic proportions.

The negativity spiral may start small, even with one seemingly unrelated incident or piece of information. One day you may be neutral about your career then see an opportunity that looks perfect for you. When that opportunity then falls through, it leads to questioning self worth, self perception, value in other non-career areas of life, and can even spiral into areas such as body image and hopelessness about the future. One little thing can be a real Pandora’s box.

These spirals are dangerous. They induce vertigo. Lack of clear thinking. And, we transmit them so rapidly and thoughtlessly. Jung’s hope and belief in a collective consciousness, were it true, would be in serious need of major psychoanalysis right now.

I see so much conflict and negativity in our communities right now and it is saddening. I say these, even though I know I must contribute to some amount of conflict and negativity myself.

Staying immune to these spirals is hard. Inoculating oneself with good cheer and intention constantly throughout the day may be well nigh impossible. We elect to wallow, sometimes for far too long, and then it becomes a bad habit like eating junk food or watching television.

Finding some fixed point in memory or dreams that brings joy and is easily returned to is the best start. At some point, we do have control over how much we want these spirals to take over.

Time Affluence and Ragged Trousers

Marshall Sahlins described hunter-gatherers as the original affluent human societies. They worked very little (less than 20 hours a week) getting the necessities of life and had tons of leisure time left in the week. No matter how much I try to reinvent the view of the contemporary college student on hunter-gatherers, I fail. They still see them as working all day everyday struggling to survive no matter how much we talk about the costs of modern life. The real cost is time. But students think that because our cultures are so complex that we have more time to devote to non food procurement activities.

In The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Tressell describes socialism in the 19th century through political forums held by craftsman in the building trade during their work breaks. Money is merely a symbol, and a useless one at that. Yet, we base so much of our lives on it as a real and valuable thing. Even if one wants to shift out of that perspective, it is almost impossible due to enculturation into a consumer capitalist lifestyle. I bring up Tressell because much focus in the modern study of happiness is placed on time and how it is spent.

A Harvard prof, Daniel Gilbert, has published a book that includes worksheets to help the reader realize where time is spent and how to change that spreadsheet if the figures don’t add up to meaningful life experiences. At the end of the day, those of us with time to spend doing the things that we find fulfilling and meaningful are going to be happier than those who don’t. I could get on a soapbox about some virtues of socialism here in defense of the people working double shifts to make ends meet but I won’t. Instead, I will say that perhaps affluence should be redefined since so many surveys indicate that money rarely brings the happiness that people expect. With money or without money, we are the same people because wherever you go and no matter how rich you are, there you are.

But time, well, that is a treasure beyond all else. The less time I have, the more miserable I am. I am generally very time affluent so maybe the temporary deficits hit me a bit harder but perhaps I have more to lose since I am accustomed to time affluence. In an increasingly American world where even France is upping the work week hours and reducing vacation, I wonder: if the key to happiness is time, where are the true affluent societies today?

Casual Eating

While sitting in my old neighborhood in a local coffee shop, I saw a little boy sit down on the sofa near me and wolf down a huge slice of chocolate cake as if he hadn’t eaten in days. He also downed a milky coffee drink in the same gulpy manner. Granted the kid had a crash helmet and skateboard that he charged off on after his cake (hopefully working off the milk in the coffee with his flight) but I couldn’t help but worry.

An 8 year old boy with the independence to leave school (down the road half a block across the street), hit the coffee shop for a caffeine and sugar bomb and then head off to home or parts unknown. I think it is great to see a kid with independence in this day and age of overly coddled kids whose parents worry that someone will nab them if they leave them alone for a few seconds. Kids should have freedom to run wild outside and I love to see kids doing so. But, to consume that kind of meal (really, it was about 500 or more calories) as an after school snack? Where is this kid getting his nutrition information?Does he do this regularly? Will it take its toll on his body when he stops growing or will his habits have changed? What prompted him to do this and not even enjoy what he was eating (given the lightening speed at which he consumed the cake and coffee)?

Earlier in the week, I was stopped at the light at the start of my morning run. Another little boy about the same age was being hurried to the coffee shop by the crossing guard to get his latte before he was late for classes. At some point, alongside the boom of the adult coffee house industry, kids became users as well. They are safe havens after school to hang out with friends and not get in trouble. But, what about all the coffee that kids have started to drink. An article last fall in the local indie biweekly on the very subject reported that many grammar school aged kids have to charge up with a 32 oz drink they bring to homeroom to start the day.

Kids have changed. They wear shrunken versions of adult clothes (well, some of them do in the height department but lots of time not in the weight department), have busy schedules involving after work (oh, school) activities, and need java to start and get through the day. They act like adults but behave like children. They are stuck and it isn’t their fault. Parents who raise kids like this become PAs getting kids to their various appointments and organizing and maintaining the schedule. The term helicopter parent describes ones who take these responsibilities to an extreme and try to advocate better grades, negotiate salaries, follow through after interviews–hovering like a helicopter around the kids various endeavors in life and always ready to swoop in and make sure the kid succeeds at all costs.

I feel sorry for them–parents and kids locked in this strategy of growth and development. Yes, we have an extended childhood and adolescence as primates (more so as human primates) but if we use this extended period of growth and development being adult and never experiencing childhood, are we being efficient or missing out a crucial step in the process?

Sacred and Corporate

Settlement archaeologists take pains to reconstruct, among other things, how past populations used their space. One site may have a plethora of temples, another homogenized dwelling spaces, and yet another central courtyards where tools were made communally. We can learn so much from looking at how we organize ourselves and our activities in space.

There is a beautiful 19th century Anglican church on at the corner of 18th and Cuthbert. The urban context of the church is an architectural essay on the values of modernity. It is dwarfed by a skyscraper across the street. Right next to it, a huge skyscraper is being built and behind it, a foundation dug for yet another. You wouldn’t even see this church from most angles. And, soon, you won’t see it at all unless you go there for it. From a medieval theocracy to a modern corporatocracy…the profane has become the sacred.

When the largest modern urban monuments are towering steel mirrored icons of capitalism, what can we say about our values, our community?

Narcissism and Evil

A study by Jean Twenge (San Diego University associate professor of psychology and author of Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled–and More Miserable Than Ever Before) has shown a moderate increase in narcissism in the modern college student compared to previous generations. She recently garnered quite a bit of press for this study that tests 16,000 college students from a period of 25 years for narcissistic personality traits and values.

Twenge fears our society will experience increases in negative personal encounters because individuals with high self-esteem are disinterested in emotional intimacy with other humans. I imagine that the lack of intimate bonds with other humans prevents development of empathy and/or sympathy. Without the ability to relate to another person’s experience, the narcissistic individual may be harmful and abusive. Twenge has also studied social rejection throughout her years of work and finds that narcissistic individuals tend to strike out in response to rejection. This emotion-based reaction suggests, to me, a lack of reasoned evaluation of the situation and a considered response (even if after the heat of the emotional moment of rejection). If narcissism is increasing in the each generation, then we have more individuals without empathy, sympathy, or responsive interactions. The net result is an increase in reactive encounters that are interpersonally harmful, emotionally and physically.

Twenge argues that the roots to this increased narcissism may lie in self-esteem boosting programs in early childhood education. These me-first values are nurtured in burgeoning adults by internet services that enable self-promotion on a massive scale, websites such as YouTube and MySpace. Browsing the web pages of the Chronicle of Higher Education (or contemplating a few of the survey findings mentioned in the article linked earlier in this paragraph), one could add that alongside the narcissism, there is also growing trend toward increased laziness, or expecting to get something for nothing. I emphasize the word increased because I do not want to vilify any generation. In our society, we all have the same tendencies because we share cultural values. And, this generation did not accomplish their high scores on the narcissism survey without the help of the generation that reared, enculturated, and educated them.

Twenge’s study has shown that there is a moderate increase in narcissism over the past generation and other sources point to an increase in laziness in the same group she studied. Is this a lazy narcissism that meets Pecks’ definition of evil? Above, I gave the example of large scale societal consequences of lazy narcissism through the creation of ranked hierarchies. On the small scale, we can use the modern college student from Twenge’s study. Specifically, I’ll use concerns widely expressed in the Chronicle (first persons, forums, articles) about the corporatization of academia as a consumer service provider, wherein students are consumers and professors are service professionals. An example of this phenomenon is certain students expecting and demanding top grades in the classroom without earning them. To students in this category, the A is earned by paying tuition, showing up, submitting work (but not necessarily on time), and taking tests (but not necessarily passing). While the service in this economy is transmission of knowledge through various forms, this category of students believe the service is a diploma supported by a high GPA. On the course-level, the service is a high grade. This is lazy narcissism because the demand assumes that student is the most valuable shareholder in the classroom and his/her need ranks higher than the professional ethics of the professor in student assessment, the needs of other students, and the value of the grade, GPA, and even degrees awarded at that university or college. The evil here lies in subverting the integrity of the system for individual assumptions and self-value which demeans the professor and the other students. If the professor capitulates, that professor is corrupt and causes widespread damage to other students in the course and, ultimately, perhaps the value of the degree itself. System entropy ensues and many are harmed.

Of course, there is more than one student in that classroom with the same self-valued expectation for the highest grade. Each of those students is in conflict with one another because if the professor gives them all As, they may feel they received what they paid for but they will be no better than anyone else and they will not achieve their end goal, a high-paying job since everyone graduating will have the same GPA. If the professor equally gives As to students who earn them and students who demand them, everyone is cheated as well. The students who earn the As have the same credentials as those who demand them and, on the job market, encounter a glut of applicants , some of whom are not qualified but appear so and compete for the same limited resources. Those who don’t earn the grade or demand it, don’t get access to those resources. Those who demand the grade and get it, enter the market and a job unprepared and fail to perform the job damaging the employer, the clients, and the employee him/herself.

In a previous post, I talked about M. Scott Peck’s definition of evil. Is an act evil if the evil is not intentional? Even our court system has categories of charges reserved for unintentional criminal acts (accidentally killing someone gets you a charge of involuntary manslaughter). The value of Peck’s definition is that it holds an individual responsible for his/her actions. No individual can get away with arguing that a lack of intention equates innocence. If the student(s) from the above example says, I didn’t intend to devalue other students or compromise the integrity of the professor, or degrade the value of the degree, are they innocent. Their goal was to expend no energy and receive benefits from others who they deemed less valuable, at cost to others who are also deemed less valuable. By not examining the larger implications of this simplistic approach to higher education, those individuals are lazy. They choose to leave the unexamined, the larger implications of their motive (personal gain), unexamined.

To say that every person should strive to contemplate motives and outcome is unrealistic and a bit of an ethical high ground that is untenable. Perhaps, though, given the nature of the modern world and the imperfection of humanity, I can say that every human should strive to take responsibility for failure to examine the unexamined instead of the usual reaction: denials, cover-ups, finger-pointing, and scape-goating.

Whether large scale or small scale, a lack of desire to expend energy practiced regularly alongside promotion of self above all others, is modern secular evil. Many people may be unwilling to accept this as a definition of evil due to the long-standing religious associations of evil as inherently dark and supernatural (even if sometimes manifest in humans). Why is there such a reluctance to label negligence, ignorance, self-love as secular evil (or just evil) and promote personal responsibility as a societal obligation. Because it would mean a lot less personal gain and a lot more equity. Sadly, even the marginalized may be reluctant because they have internalized the hegemonic value of the meritocracy (which actually has now become the hegemonic value of the capital corporatocracy–money talks and people obey) and believe they can achieve a higher rank (and, look down on those in their previous rank as being lazy to not have achieved like them).

Even though it may come at a cost to self and require effort, reducing credulity by examining the unexamined is necessary to take the powerful concept of evil out of the realm of the supernatural and place it every human, for better and worse.