Dominance Hierarchy as Conflict Management

The most basic attentional skills are (passively) rest/receptivity and (actively) play/creativity. We could consider the ability and willingness to rest in a situation to be "unguardedness" or some better word for that. If you think about the tension you feel when you can't trust someone, that is the opposite of rest/receptivity. Just as these abilities are influenced by individual history and temperament, they are also influenced by the social environment.

Threat reduces one's ability to think creatively or rest. So how does one know that a stranger is not a threat? We do know that if you expect threat and the other does as well, going into any communication with the expectation of conflict closes down most folks' creativity and openness. When that happens on both sides, it's quite likely that there will be some sort of conflict or challenge. If that challenge does not result in death or expulsion from the scene, some degree of dominance and submission is likely. When we deal with this on a purely physical level, there are chemical effects in hormones and thinking--with the "victor" feeling more amped, proud, happy, etc. The "loser" will likely have decreased testosterone, maybe sadness or shame (as the flipside of grandiosity). (In this sort of conflictual situation, we can see that "learned helplessness" and "depression" may result from chronic or extreme prompting of the physical-instinctual one-down response. Both, then, can actually be socially beneficial by discouraging potential competitors from continuing conflict or repeating conflictual encounters.) Socially, we'll also see a status hierarchy along with the classic bodily responses. Together, these shape a crude social identity and social placement.

When people do not choose to mature much beyond this sort of interacting, agentic individuals who are feeling their oats will tend to compete with others who are similar, and competition for the one-up position ensues. These heroic champions will tend to treat anyone not competing as less than they are. It's part of the worldview of this way of interacting and may not have as much to do with personality flaws as it does with lack of vision and experience. But when these folks don't look to move beyond that method of interacting, they are essentially choosing a reductionist, aggressive standpoint or role. Because everything relates in a somewhat personal way at this level (me as center of the universe--appropriate for toddlers), it is fitting that their motivation to mature will come from moving away from frustration or causes of suffering and also idealization. If the ideal is magical or special enough, then it doesn't need to be felt as directly competing with ego, so ego is not signaled to feel the one-down response (in comparison to a wonderful ideal) in a personal, immediate way. In essence, ego has some room to maneuver, so it is safe to consider the ideals without needing to embody them. Because of this distance, contradictions between stated values/ideals and actions are not only likely but are inevitable.

Conscience, in my usage of the word, is socially constructed. We become increasingly self-aware of ourselves as social selves by receiving feedback from others. If we only idealize the one-up response, we will try to see ourselves as superheros, like Nietzsche's uberman. Or, I should say, like Hitler's interpretation of Nietzsche's uberman. Social feedback allows us to construct a self-image that contradicts the toddler tyrant impulses. If we face those contradictions, we look to understand not only ourselves as something other than "magical uberman", but we also consider others as something different than just less than ourselves. And of course, our social emotion-responses are a big part of this process. Because emotion is part of this process, we actually cannot understand ourselves without emotion and communication. There is a "logical" side to this as well as a neurophysiological side.

What this means is that, to become mature adults working and living with other mature adults, we must consider moving beyond the one-up reaction as well as the one-down reaction. We shape the ideal of equality and socially try to support this ideal while still dealing with our instinctual one-up and one-down reactions.

As far as tracking or common purpose is concerned, then, when dealing with the Purpose level ego and its hierarchically-appropriate reactions, cohesion is built around being appropriately one-up or one-down (leading, following, or getting out of the way). Equality at this point is possible with those who are part of one's in-group, but then that in-group will take on the mythical specialness that individuals feel when they engage the one-up reaction in themselves. In other words, the group ends up being the uberman, and so it is nonsensical to consider dehumanization or exclusivity as wrong. They simply do not really register with feelings of wrongness to the same extent. In fact, contempt may be added to winning any sort of competition if the victor feels that they did not want to compete, but that the loser forced the competition (which they, then, so rightly lost).

Pride meets pride in competition or conflict, and in this mindset, the only option besides winning is losing. Hello, Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates. Yes, I am talking to you.

We can see, then, that with little social awareness and customs that support equality, the ability to concentrate that helps shape a competent or "able self" may add to and shape conflict. Without sufficient awareness of social context (Cambridge in the 21st century), being a great professor or cop sets up two inflated roles for a boxing match. If the actual PEOPLE in those roles were not looking for a boxing match, both end up feeling unfairly punched in the face. I say that if you did the training, put on the gloves, marched to the ring, and you like the cheers from the crowd, you deserve what you get. If one or the other was simply allowed to pummel their opponent, that opponent would likely learn--after enough beatings--to stop stepping into the ring. The ideals of righteousness in the fight between professor and cop, to the extent that they are allowed to be present/activated without being held mindfully, actually impel or exaggerate the competitive energies of both fighters. Let's get ready to rumble!

You can't create the competition by competing and then complain that it is difficult, or about the outcome, without being both a momma's boy and a poor sport. You cannot take someone else's cake, eat it too, and also feel disappointed if they do not thank you for eating their cake. (Well, I suppose you can but it is ridiculous--here's your social feedback for creating a more reasonable self-image.) Luckily, we have laws in America for handling this sort of situation. Surprising that the President would choose to take on the role of referee, but it is a good example of referring to someone higher up the status ladder to keep the ego-competition from becoming more of a conflict.

While a judge and jury must consider citizens innocent until proven guilty, police must consider suspects dangerous and escalating until shown to be not so. Once an American shows that they are not dangerous but merely acting like a prick, we all need to step back and say--that's your right up to a certain extent defined by law more than opinion. Even if Sgt. Crowley got it wrong, the justice system as a whole got it right (including both parties' remaining right to stupidly sue one another for conjointly making mountains out of molehills; it will take lawyers to put that into legal language, I'm sure). America wins even if Crowley and Gates come out looking like puffed-up pricks. I will try to give them the benefit of the doubt 2 out of every 3 times, and if we look at their public records as a whole, they both look like contributors to society even if they both end up eating a little humble pie over this episode. Enjoy, gentlemen. You are a match made in a magical heaven, angels come to earth for our entertainment...I mean, benefit. No, thank you.