"I think there's a natural goodness built into human beings. You know when you've stepped across the line into evil, and it's your life's challenge to try and stay on the right side of that line." Lucy Gray Baird, the female protagonist in The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, prequel to Hunger Games movies
Some version of this question pops up in parenting, in business management and motivation, in religion, in self-development, in politics, in all relationships, everywhere people are. And I’ve addressed it before.
It's the are-people-basically-good-or-bad question. Are we naturally lazy and mean? Nasty and brutish, out only for ourselves? Or naturally motivated to learn, to grow, to be kind and generous, helpful and concerned about others?
It’s a question which has old, old roots (and an old answer) with consequences for how we live our lives together today.
The are-we-good-or-bad question came up in my own mind yesterday as I was listening to a youngish business owner discuss how she and her partner differed in their ideas of how they should manage their employees - treat them “nicely” so they will naturally be more engaged, happy, and produce more OR be careful not to overindulge them lest they rest on their laurels, revert to an unmotivated state as humans are prone to do?
(It’s the classic Theory X and Theory Y theories of work motivation and management first proposed seven decades by Douglas McGregor; it’s standard stuff in business school.)
Then AGAIN the are-people-good-or-bad question popped up after church yesterday. A friend had just attended two church services. Both of the Christian services were about “grace” and “sin.” As she sat out our table talking about them, one of my granddaughters asked with clear disbelief in her voice, “Do YOU think people are born bad?”
“No, I don’t think people are born bad,” the woman said. “But that’s what I was taught in church as a girl and it harmed me. I never felt good enough. I thought everything I did was bad – that I was bad.” Excessive feelings of guilt seemed to be the consequence of this rather gloomy, life-negating view of humanity for not only this woman but many.
Original “sin” is a largely St. Augustine Christian doctrine (he’s the one to popularize the idea) that says that everyone is born sinful. We all have this in-born urge to do bad is the idea. And we are condemned because of that defect in human nature. Even a newborn baby who is damaged by original sin. Some say this explains war and cruelty.
Modern thinkers may not think the idea of original sin is literally true, but may think that it does contain some truth about humans...because we see a lot of people acting badly.
Other stories have popped up to explain the human condition and answer the are-we-good-or-bad question. There’s the well-known widely embraced story often told in yoga and self-development retreats, attributed (probably wrongly) to the Cherokee, of the Two Wolves.
An old Cherokee elder is teaching his grandson about life. “A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy. “It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.”
He continued, “The other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person, too.”
And then comes the big question from the grandson.
“Which wolf will win, Grandfather?”
The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”
The story implies that we can go either way – good or bad. We have both possibilities within us. The good news? We have a lot of control of how we turn out.
Modern researchers have ideas about the are-we-good-or-bad question too. Dr. Dacher Keltner recently (five years ago) wrote a book called, Born to Be Good. He proposes that early in human history prosocial behavior was the most effective survival strategy.
Early humans had to take care of their big-headed, vulnerable offspring. Also hunting required group cooperation and even consensus rather than force. Those prosocial behaviors Kelter writes about were kindness, compassion, and respect between people. These are fundamental human “instincts” honed over millions of years for our survival according to him.
Keltner coined the phrase survival of the kindest. “Fundamental human instincts” gets close to saying it is who we humans are at our very core. But of all the evidence bearing on the are-we-good-or-bad question, I like the baby research best. I’ve written about it before.
Researchers at Yale (2010) were the first to think about a creative way of figuring out what the nature of humans is by studying babies. Babies have had little influence from the outside world.
However working with babies presents an obvious problem. They cannot talk. It would be nice if we could ask them a few questions and get a few answers. Like... how do they distinguish good from evil? And which side, the good or bad, do they prefer? This might give us insight into who we are as human beings.
The scientists came up with a clever way of working with babies to answer these questions. A red circle (with eyes) is shown to babies. The red circle seems to be trying to go up a steep diagonal. But now the intrigue. A blue square (with eyes) seems to be trying to knock him backwards.
Then along comes yellow triangle (with eyes). Yellow triangle nudges red circle back up. There is no talking. However babies from seven to 12 months seem as captivated as babies get. Do the babies discern somehow that the blue square is being naughty? Do they think that yellow triangle is nice? Would they be making those decisions based on their baby beliefs that blue square hinders? Yellow triangle helps.
Then the test comes. After this little performance, which shape will the baby reach for? Over and over again, the babies choose the yellow triangle, the helper. This sort of study has been repeated with various switch-ups. Different shapes, different colors, no colors, no shapes, but the same general idea. One something or other helps, another something or other hinders. The helping thing (or person or animal) is preferred.
Researchers say the babies seem to know right from wrong. They make their decisions on who or what is helping or hurting/hindering. And they like the good guys. On that basis, researchers put forth the argument that we are naturally good.
And, the question, of course, follows, that if we aren't seeing people, including ourselves, acting good, we might ask ourselves how do we go wrong?
In terms of what goes wrong, according to Dr. Roy Baumeister, an expert on how good people do bad things, the most likely immediate cause of bad behavior is a problem with impulse, self-control... particularly to save face, get respect (see my previous blog on emotional hijacking and triggernometry). Random crimes are unusual, sadists are also rare.
Now on to the next question. IF we ARE naturally good, how can we get back to our naturally "good" self? Some religious folks, even certain psychologists, call this our True Self, our core. My husband, John, calls it his “love place.”
Before this baby research, and some experiences I have had with my own grandchildren, I thought it might take a lot of wisdom, or a committed religious practice, to make good choices. Now I question that. We may have access to a small still voice telling us what is the right thing to do very early in life.
For example, years ago I was driving with two of our granddaughters (when one was about 2 and the other about 4). The two-year-old pointed to a police car which had its lights on. She pointed to the police car and wondered what it was I told her it was the police. She didn’t know what the police were. I tried to describe them…as people who helped us when we were in trouble.
“Oh, like God,” she said. (How did she come to that image of God, the Supreme Good?)
Her sister replied, “No, not like God. God is inside your heart and tells you what is right and what is wrong.”
Now this fascinated me. I asked how she knew the voice speaking inside her was God.
She replied, “Because it tells me to pick up my books.”
I was perplexed. “How does that help you know that it is God talking?”
She looked at me bewildered and repeated a little louder with more passion, “Because the voice says 'pick up your books...help out.'''
Okay...
Turns out young kids, even babies are sorting things out as to who is good, what is good, characteristics of the Supreme Good, and already have moral foundations in place.
Maybe we can relax our worried, judgmental minds. Ease into the idea that despite all appearances, people ARE basically good. Including us. We CAN make good choices. Trust our guidance system, the inner voice of the True Self.
Sure, it might take some practice to get back to our basic baby goodness and it can be especially hard to stay there – unless we learn how to skillfully deal with our emotional triggers. I know personally of what I speak, again I refer to the previous blog on emotional hijacking and triggernometry.
But assuming that we humans are bad – born bad, naturally bad, essentially bad to the core kind of idea, may be grossly unhelpful - possibly deeply wounding to us personally and hurtful in how we relate to others, negatively affecting how we make parental, organizational, educational, religious, and even political decisions.
Don't misunderstand me, of course, we are not perfect and make mistakes as human beings. Could it be time to re-consider the whole idea of "badness" being who we are are our core (Christians might look at Matthew Fox's book, Original Blessing), accept that it is quite possibly largely wrong-headed? Perhaps we can experiment with the idea, maybe even boldly embrace our natural goodness and a life-giving story of who we are. See if that helps us live into our True (best) Selves.
How might we journey together to the Good Life differently if we believed that both we and others are naturally “good”?
Bình luận