A Political Koan

Background

A koan is a phrase used in mystical and spiritual circles in an attempt to move the mind past its own self-imposed limitations.

For example, a common koan is: "If you find Buddha, kill him".

If this is the first time seeing that message, it could be quite shocking, but it can be interpreted such as follows: "if you think you know who Buddha was, then that is merely a projected image from your own imagination, and not the real Buddha".

Perhaps there are koans that exist within life itself - things that may at first sound offensive or paradoxical, but contain a deeper truth for those that can stomach it.

Let's start by trying to build a foundation upon which we can identify any deeper truths or potential contradictions in our own mindset and then we may see that life itself has presented us these paradoxes for our consideration.

To start, most of us abhor the smell of death. Perhaps there is a biological reason for abhoring it - being around death may result in one's own death.

In a similar way, there are also a finite set of innate fears included with our body-consciousness. Examples include snakes, falling, things associated with disease, and loud noises. While it can be argued whether it is innate or acquired, many of us are fearful, on some levels, of those who may be distinguished from ourselves on certain attributes, as perhaps singularly captured in the following excerpt from the Social Workers Code of Ethics

"(d) Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability." 

What follows will walk through some touchy subjects for more or less all of us.

It starts by asking the questions:

• Is rejection of people with attributes listed in the Social Workers Code of Ethics possibly a result of "evolutionary" biology?
• Is there such a thing as evolutionary psychology?

Evolutionary Biology

Consider - an ugly person may not gain as much acceptance as a person considered beautiful. Is it possible that there are mechanisms in our early development or even innate that are intended to limit the propagation of genes adapted to the world as it stands today. A free Psyc 101 course provided by stanford University (and Paul Blume todo: add cite) indicates that individuals considered beautiful basically have mathematically average faces. To borrow from Jung et al, perhaps these faces are merely as 'subconscious' symbolism of an averaging of the collective gene pool of humanity - a representation of the average traits of all of us, at least as it applies to bodily structure.

Consider the revulsion that some have described upon seeing:

• persons with extreme characteristics such as obese, anorexic; or
• public displays of affection.

While one could argue that such attitudes are learned in childhood, and perhaps they are, but there are other things that humans are reportedly afraid of from birth - true scientific understanding is hardly complete.

Perhaps the body has mechanisms, hard wired, to find certain things revolting and if you're still not convinced, I return to the smell of death, which is captured in a particular molecule, or the smell of sulfur seen in rotting eggs or gaseous admissions from people and animals alike. Consider that in the the selection of your mate there was some level of their appearance that was considered a factor in the selection criteria, whether you were consciously aware of it or not. If your mate had an extra 200 pounds on their body would you have accepted them? 1400lbs? Catwoman or catman?

Whether this revulsion function is biological or mental it's hard to say, and it may differ from person to person. What follows may touch some nerves, so please remember, everyone, we are talking about people, on all accounts. If the above attributes described in the Social Workers' Code of Ethics are truly not a choice, then perhaps being revulsed by them (or other attributes) is as well, not a choice? That shoe being on the other foot may cause shock, in some.

Case in point, the author, personally, has no idea what women find attractive about men. He finds them to be pretty gross and it literally turns his stomach to even think of kissing one, in the same way that he'd be repulsed by the notion of incest. But if he sees two guys being gay, there's not a second thought. Perhaps gay people find the thought of kissing a member of the opposite sex revolting? As revolting as kissing ... Trump? Perhaps there are even degrees depending upon the person.

If it is possible that these revulsion functions of the mind are a result of evolution, then perhaps they exist to prevent further propagation of some attributes which may not be self-perpetuating into the gene pool, or in some cases, are present to retain survivability against the environments in which certain genes expressions are more likely to thrive. On some levels, perhaps such a process would become self-reinforcing. Let's consider an example from nature. Maybe a polar bear is less apt to select a grizzly bear as a mate if a grizzly bear would make children that are easier to spot in the Arctic, and thus would reduce the chances of sneaking up on prey.

Of course, this form of evolutionary biology assumes that we are nothing more than advanced animals. Would you date,

the Unbeatable Squirrel Girl? Love takes all forms and shapes, right?

Evolutionary Psychology?

Perhaps human groups have similar structures, but it is not so much related to whether it is easier to sneak up on prey, but other as yet understood environmental or ... social conditions. It could be a remnant from hard wired functions designed to protect and propagate the genes. There is often safety in numbers, and thus there may be a tendency for groups of people to identify with external attributes, in order to preserve the integrity of the group of which they are a member, thus at a subconscious level helping to ensure their own individual survival.

Perhaps we have an animal side and another side that can also be evolved, a mental side.

Evolution of this mental side may include rising above our basal "evolutionary code" -- which may include revising or attempting to overcome the existing 'hardwiring' where it makes sense. For example, the author of this article will hang onto the fear of snakes, for now, but since humanity is no longer threatened by genes which could, in earlier times, perhaps endanger the propagation of humanity's own gene pool, there are now good reasons to override some of the other functions.

Humans certainly over ride their innate fears when going to the amusement park and confronting the fear of heights and falling - why not apply overcoming such fears or revulsion elsewhere and apply some compassion for folks who perhaps through no fault of their own have a heavier burden to carry with respect to the social acceptance of the attributes listed by the Social Workers' Code of Ethics. Unfortunately, the Social Workers' Code of Ethics does not currently include discrimination based on external aesthetics, so persons such as the author may just have to endure plastic surgery in order to have a better chance at surviving the social ladder and thus propagating his genes.

Further, we must ask - in the same way that fear could be the driver for the rejection mechanisms or biases include in some people's constitutions, is there perhaps another driver for mental development? For example, the Social Workers Code of Ethics could be turned against itself. Does it accept all political beliefs or is it saying that it only accepts political beliefs which are in agreement with its own political beliefs, thus introducing a contradiction which invalidates the Code of Ethics on at least some levels. If true, this would mean that the Social Workers' Code of Ethics sets a standard by which it judges the community that it interacts with and in so doing, it would mean that the community with which it interacts - legislatively and socially would have be driven to evolve in accordance with the Social Worker's Code of Ethics. Of course, the result of such efforts are a stamping out of alternate points of view, arguably a stamping out of mental diversity.

Perhaps there is some evolutionary or other unknown reason for differences in view - the interaction of different views may allow for growth of the collective, but if the groups are unable to preserve their identity, the result is homogenization of the diversity - everyone thinking exactly the same.

Perhaps one resolution to this seeming problem is that groups of differing political ideology could be allowed to exist in the same system, apart from the influences of force by other political beliefs. Perhaps, by extension, this would mean uniting on the basis of principles, rather than ... political beliefs.

In addition, the above list of traits no doubt originates from a place of acceptance and welcoming; however, it has perhaps reached some breaking point, in that, those who differ on the basis of the attributes described, may find themselves "dominated" by that very political belief of inclusion, by replacing words such as expectant mother, in favor of expectant parent - which some seem to feel is depriving them of their own identity by using a term which fails to recognize that people are, in fact, broadly male or female. If carried to the next logical step, such labels would mean removing male and female all together.

While the Code of Ethics seems noble, consider whether the use of force would be ethical in order to force someone to confront their fears by riding a rollercoaster against their will? Force seems to be the issue and in attempting to enact legislation, the Code of Ethics would need to factor whether it is forcing groups to interact against their own will, which may even create unnecessary conflict, backlash, and, dare I say, in addition to the prejudice the code seems to be trying to correct, resentment.

We can all at least agree that Social Workers' Code of Ethics is on point about NOT using force to allow one group to dominate another, the question is whether it will, through legislative and other actions attempt to violate its own contradictory code of ethics. Fortunately, the United States constitutional form of government did provide a framework for allowing division of different ideologies to exist; however, in some circles it has received a bad name due the the issue and wounds of slavery which resulted in many groups having force used against them based on the attributes described by the Code of Ethics. Through efforts of the progressive and religious mindsets, people of the United States have slowly learned that it is not OK to use force against groups with differing external attributes. Perhaps the time has come to apply the same for groups with differing mental attributes. There are a number of proposed solutions to the Dysfunction in American Politics.