Oct 28 2009
Status, Small Talk, and Praising God
As mentioned in previous “Almighty Alpha” posts, small talk plays a huge role in human social behavior. On the most fundamental level, our vocalizations transmit basic emotional messages: I like you; I am fearful; I am angry, etc. Beyond the non-verbal elements of our seeming non-purposeful chit-chat, there is the exchange of information.
“Language has an additional benefit invaluable in these circumstances. It allows us to exchange information about other people, so short-circuiting the laborious process of finding out how they behave. For monkeys and apes, all this has to be done by direct observation.” (70)
A sizable portion of human small talk consist of overt or implied statements like, “So-and-so is really nice,” or, “So-and-so is a complete jerk.” The unspoken response might be, “Well thanks for the heads-up.”
Of course, we now live in outrageously large social circles, so any information exchanged, on, say, the behavior of Michael Jackson’s family post-MJ’s death will strike many as small talk to the tritest degree. Yet our current social world — of knowing about people who we will never encounter in real life — is a relatively new one. How odd. To exchange information about the behavior of individuals you don’t really need to know about. But you don’t need to be in-the-know simply because you will never encounter them. You will never need clues about how they might behave and relate to you. For individuals in your immediate social environment — that can be pretty handy information. And the cost of acquiring that information is very small, relative to the potential payoff. And so we habitually exchange it.
If, for example, I hear that Bob double-crossed someone, the next time I encounter Bob I will be on the lookout for deceit.
But here we are highlighting only one aspect of small-talk, or what I would call verbal grooming. As Christopher Boem, author of Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, has noted:
“Gossiping . . . . amounts to a covert exercise in information processing–as well as a satisfying and recurrent social activity.”(71)
It is my assertion that the attractively satisfying element of small talk is hugely important. Think of the good feelings generated by spending time with friends. Is the enjoyable chit-chat the result of strong pair-bonding, or do they give pair-bonding its strength? It seems to me that small talk serves the following three functions (at least):
1. It helps people form and maintain harmonious relations. Rather than physically grooming other individuals, we say pleasant things about them and/or respond agreeably to statements about third parties. It brings good feelings.
2. It allows for the potentially important exchange of information about others. Whether the subjects are inside your present social circle or outside it, you learn about the experiences and character of others. These are important as they may relate to what you can expect from that person, would you encounter them and/or consider entering into a relationship with them.
3. Small talk plays a role in determining the status of group members. When an individual gets complimented and “talked up” within a group, their status rises. When they are criticized and “talked down” within a group, their status falls.
It is this third element that is particularly essential to many religious behaviors and rituals. Via their talk about their god, about their most high alpha — lessers attempt to establish and maintain the position of their greatest.
Huh? Small talk such as high praise influencing perceived status? The activity seems so indirect. (In a sense, we might call it “civilized.”) Well yes, but. Consider this quote from research into human social behavior:
“Some contests for rank can be decided in isolation, that is, on the sole basis of the differences in strength, resolve, or skill at argument between the two persons directly involved. But in complex societies, and especially in adult life, such gladiatorial competition is the exception. It is much more common for dominance contests to depend on third parties, whether these are superiors with decision making authority, followers with the freedom to choose allegiances, peers forming coalitions, or simply people in comparable social positions.” (72)
What behavior is instrumental in this third-party influence on status? Talk. Robin Wright notes that although real muscles can be involved in human status conflicts, words provide symbolic muscle.
“Except in barrooms, junior-high schoolyards, and other venues of high testosterone, the support consists of information, not muscle. Backing a friend means verbally defending him when his interests are in dispute, and, more generally, saying good, status-raising things about him.” (73)
Similarly, it is human nature to speak poorly, to belittle, those we want to fall in stature. One woman, in a struggle to land the same man as woman #2, may call #2 “a whore.” Or one group of people battling another group over resources, territory or “mere” respect, may speak of the outgroup as less-than-human.(73) This talk is not so much aimed at conveying information as it is at diminishing an adversary in the eyes of others.
It is no great surprise that in dictatorships past and present, the high leader frequently squelches free speech. Why? That speech could be derogatory and erode their status. Likewise, the high leader will encourage public, positive talk about him/herself. Oh yes, Leader is great, and thus deserves to be leader.
Many have noted that the followers of monotheistic religions seem to be more easily pushed into conflict and warfare. One of the reasons for this is a people’s knee-jerk (innate?) concern over the status their god, their invisible leader. When another group does not acknowledge the greatness of one’s own, this can be perceived as a threat to the reputation of greatness of their cherished leader. And for a supernatural leader, what do you have besides reputation?
Yes, even gods and their followers respond strongly to threats to honor and status. So don’t even consider creating a work of art that depicts Jesus as a mere human. Etc.
In his enlightening book, Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict, Roger Gould wrote:
“[Honor] is entirely symbolic: its possession consists in the recognition by others of its possession. To have honor, to be honored, is to be thought honored by others. It makes no sense to say that someone possesses honor even though nobody realizes it.” (75)
Research into human psychology as it pertains to status has found that the amount attention an individual receives not only reflects their status, but serves to establish it. In any roundtable gathering of supposed equals, individual participants are rarely equal in the amount of attention they receive. The person who receives the most attention is almost invariable the highest ranking. Perhaps not formally, but at least in terms of the minds of those around the table. (76)
Want to dis-empower an individual? You don’t even need to speak poorly of them. Give them the cold shoulder, ignore them. The opposite is true when it comes to social empowerment.
Years ago, during my first days of post-secondary education, I attended a pep-rally for freshmen. During the event, any individual audience member among the hundreds was free (encouraged even) to stand up and shout “I want a standing ovation.” And he or she would receive one. Was this an attempt to get individual, “lowly” underclassmen to feel they mattered?
Making a somewhat hasty segue into religion now, what are songs of praise by a congregation to their invisible leader but the equivalent of a verbal standing ovation?
To him belongs eternal praise. (Psalms 111:10)
Why would a god need praise? Answer: So the people continually persuade themselves and others of that he indeed has and deserves high status. In humans, and other primates, by the way — species with complex social lives — status is never set once and then stable through the years. It must be won and then vigilantly maintained. In social groups.
The social element of praise-vocalizations is evident in this Bible verse:
I also assigned two large choirs to give thanks. (Nehemiah 12:31)
Again, to elevate the rank of an agent/entity, you can both speak highly of him/her and bad-talk the opposition. And so in the Bible there are numerous verses about how opposing gods and their prophets are not to be trusted. They do evil deeds; they deceive.
In fact, the word devil has its origins in the Greek term, diabolos, or slanderer.(77) To slander is to make harmful statements about someone. (Not harmful to the physical person, but to their reputation.) In this regards, all non-believers are devils to the degree that they speak of a people’s god as “less.” How is this harmful? It is belittling to the desired status of people’s god.
—
(70) Dunbar, R. Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996, p. 79
(71) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 73
(72) Gould, R. V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2003, p. 61
(73) Wright, R., The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Vintage, NY, 1995, p. 284
(74) Wright, R., 1995, p. 283
(75) Gould, R. V., 2003, p. 7
(76) Anderson, C., John, O., Keltner, D., & Kring, A., “Who Attains Social Status? Effects of Personality and Physical Attractiveness in Social Groups,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, July 1, 2001, Vol. 81 #1
(77) Asimov, I., Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments, Wing Books, New York, 1969, p. 159
