Evolutionary psychology
- From: "whitesickle@xxxxxxx" <whitesickle@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 01:08:21 -0500 (EST)
Note: Kent Bailey is an "evolutionary psychologist". This is a letter
to him. The more I read about evolutionary psychology the more doubts I
have.
MR
Dr. Bailey:
My name is Michael Ragland. I corresponded with you regarding the
article "Culture of Despair". I came across the following in Mens News
Daily. Apparently what you critique in your scholarly writings on
aggression you personally emulate as this filler for Mens News Daily
attests.
I recall you telling me you thought only domination and conquering led
to civilization and its advancement. Based on your study of aggression
and cultural evolution i.e. advancements in science and technology
don't you think that idea is becoming more untenable? In other words,
the chances of it leading to a nuclear holocaust or some other
catastrophe would be increased? Yes, there is a breakdown in society
but this is indicative of a transition which transcends the "Left
versus Right". It goes beyond traditionalism or modernism/post
modernism. It seems you want a return to the primordial or primitive
society which exults power, force, obedience, etc. In gist, you want to
return to what "our" brains were (and still are) evolutionary geared
for. I take issue with this. While many of our needs are based on that
model we are not cavemen today although we have the potential to behave
like them.
In the short term you may be right. I spoke with a psychiatrist who
told me he was personally pessimistic about the future of mankind. He
said people were desperate and it was international. He saw the outcome
as very poor with the world situation worsening. Although it is your
right I don't see you plugging for Men's News Daily as contributing
anything positive other than an attempt through simple propaganda to
violently polarize things.
Your statement, "The radical and destructive left has mounted one
devastating attack after another on the fundamental traditions of
America over the past 60 years. As I have argued in other commentaries,
the true Marxist revolutionaries are small in real numbers but they are
immensely powerful where it counts." This reminds me of the Jewish
canard. Only dummies believe such things Professor Bailey. No doubt,
there are individual cases..some high profile but that hardly makes up
the entire field. I attended Community College and I never encountered
such pronounced political opinions from my instructors. I think you are
manufacturing discord where none exists.
Your hyperbole and rhetoric couldn't be more intense. Very little
substance. Why don't you make a more refined argument to me?
Sincerely,
Michael Ragland
Kent G. Bailey, Ph.D.
Culture Wars in the 21st Century: Geeks of the Left Versus Warriors of
the Right
July 15, 2006
Vox Populi
By Kent G. Bailey, Ph.D.
The radical and destructive left has mounted one devastating attack
after another on the fundamental traditions of America over the past 60
years. As I have argued in other commentaries, the true Marxist
revolutionaries are small in real numbers but they are immensely
powerful where it counts- in the print, television, and movie media; in
the schools, colleges and universities; in the law schools, and local,
state and federal courts; in the popular culture of rap stars, rock
idols, movie gods and goddesses; and, in the mighty halls of commerce,
politics, and government. At their worst, they are nihilistic,
exhibitionistic and narcissistic champions of dysfunction that prey on
the young, the innocent, the weak, and the spiritually
uncertain.Conservative activist Tammy Bruce was once one of them and
she knows them all too well. In her revealing expose of the Left- The
Death of Right and Wrong- she deplores the spiritual vacuity, the
simplistic notions of "tolerance," and the moral relativism that
gnaws at the very soul of America. Moreover, she knows exactly who the
"termites" are that teem at our culture's foundation: "I can
say with full confidence that what I have seen driving and controlling
the actions and agenda of the Left Elite in all those venues-
culturally, politically, and socially- is malignant
narcissism...Malignant narcissism is the god of the Left Elite" (p.
27). As a clinical psychologist, I find the idea of modern liberalism
(a.k.a. radical Marxism) as a form of emotional damage and
psychopathology quite intriguing, to say the least!
The shadow powers of the Left have positioned their emotionally
fragile, nerdy, geeky, ex-hippy, Ivy League elitist, and Mensa wannabes
under every rock in the now morally muddy creek we call American
culture. The Left Elite and their geeky foot soldiers are engaged in an
undeclared "war" against the Christian majority but there is nary a
real warrior hawk among their effete ranks. Their war is one of
cultural attrition, fought under the cover of night, in the newsrooms
of major newspapers and TV conglomerates, in the classrooms of major
universities, in liberal religious circles, and, more recently, in the
radical leftist blogosphere.
Being "warrior poseurs," they are terrified of physical
confrontation, and they "fight" their battles with girlish personal
invective, whiny claims of victimization, and cowardly group attacks on
courageous single individuals (e. g., George Bush, James Dobson, or
Michelle Malkin). Theirs is a basically broad but passive offensive
designed to simply shame the culturally traditional, politically
conservative, and religiously Christian majority into submission. The
radical left's idea of a real John Wayne donnybrook with the enemy
forces of the right is a few genteel intellectual pirouettes, glib
repartee and some really down and dirty name calling and finger
wagging. When faced with a true warrior hawk of the right, their chins
quiver, they may tear up a bit, and then hastily retreat in search of
more sensitive and compliant opposition.
My favorite neocon columnist, David Brooks, opines that those of the
future radical left were the unpopular nerds, techies, drama types, and
gangstas in high school, whereas those on the future traditionalist
right were the popular jocks, cheerleaders, and preps who ruled the
social roost (NYT, April 30, 2006).. Brooks refers to Thomas Wolfe's
notion that a person's identity is capped off in high school in a
kind of ongoing morality play where Myself, the hero, is set against My
Adolescent Opposite, the enemy. If my natural enemy in the tribal
throes of adolescence is aggressive, brutish, and in love with power,
then he or she tends toward the "conservative." If, on the other
hand, my natural enemy is overly soft, sensitive, cerebral, and
incapable of action, then expect a liberal view of the universe.
In my warrior hawk versus peaceful dove terms, I translate all of this
to mean that the more conservative type is the natural warrior-
reckless, aggressive and full of action- whereas the liberal is the
natural pacifist who has historically relied on the warlike
"conservatives" to establish and guarantee his liberty and right to
speak his piece. Once the conservative warrior has fought and died on
one bloody battlefield after another to assure life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness for all, the liberal 90 pound weaklings, whiny
protestors, long-suffering "victims," and America haters emerge
from under their rocks with a fury. They feed on peace and prosperity
and, as Tammy Bruce says, they just love to entertain themselves by
imposing their malignant, narcissistic, and emotionally damaged selves
on the rest of us. The result of all of this is cultural disaster writ
large.
Now with all due respect, how in the world have the metaphorical
big-men-on-campus and warrior hawks of the right allowed the Leftist
elite and their nerdy and dovish minions to worm their way into every
nook and cranny of our culture? And, indeed, to allow them to re-define
and vulgarize our basic institutions of marriage, family, education,
morality, and the practice of religion? Great wars of history were
fought over far lesser matters, and we must ask ourselves, "How did
the opposing side essentially nullify the male warrior class of the
right over the past 60 years and thus win the culture wars by
default?"
-
Kent Bailey is professor emeritus of clinical psychology. His major
focus is on how ancient evolutionary processes affect current human
affairs. His major monograph is Human Paleopsychology: Applications to
Aggression and Pathological Processes. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1987.
.
- Prev by Date: The Darwinian Interlude
- Next by Date: Biology of genocide
- Previous by thread: The Darwinian Interlude
- Next by thread: Biology of genocide
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
