Insight Into Identity, Agency, and The Impact of Suppression

In previous posts, I have discussed the difference between direct and indirect identity, the impact it has on our understanding, sense of agency, and associated responsibilities. To sum up: the more directly I understand myself (as opposed to understanding through outside sources), the greater my overall sense of agency, control, and associated responsibility. This is one reason why socially or economically struggling peoples tend to have lower levels of perceived agency and responsibility. What I want to look at today is how the process of suppression (in particular, cultural suppression) contributes to the dissolution of agency, direct identity, and sense of responsibility. At IRI, we have found that this is very widespread (going far beyond even the more obvious manifestations of cultural or personal suppression), and the harm it has caused cannot be understated.

So, let's take a look at an example culture to see how this process works. I will refer to these fictional people as "Targetians" - please note that as far as I know, the Targetians have no direct real-world analogue, though you may see some substantial similarities between them and various cultures you may have encountered. I want to illustrate this phenomenon without getting to personal for anyone who is from such a culture - it can be rough to relive if you have experienced it.

We'll start the Targetians off as a fairly stable, solid, creative culture. They have a strong direct identity, with a strong sense of self-understanding, agency, and responsibility. They have a stable civilization that is comfortably advanced and are generally satisfied with how things are progressing in their society. This is a best-case scenario, as most cultures have some general level of internal dissatisfaction, but this is a fictional example, and the Targetians will serve their purpose by being one of those annoyingly ideal civilizations.

Now the Targetians encounter another civilization we will call the "Largeese." This civilization is substantially larger than the Targetians, with superior economic and military might. They come into the Targetians lands and proceed to set up shop. This, the Largeese decide, requires the Targetians to surrender their territory, resources, and general autonomy to the Largeese. Being bigger, richer, and stronger, it isn't hard for the Largeese to take over. The Targetians are now a second-class people in their own homeland.

In this situation, the Targetians agency is, to a large degree, damaged by the Largeese. This loss of agency is at odds with the Targetians direct identity and it's strong expectations of agency. There are a number of responses from the local population. First, there are those who resist the loss of agency. These are the rebels - whether violent insurgents or non-violent protesters, they attempt to regain their agency from the Largeese. Second, there are the traumatized. These Targetians are unable to reconcile their expectations with the imposed loss of agency, and this tension manifests itself in mental instabilities of various kinds (depression, anxiety, delusion, etc.). The third group Gives in and accepts the Largeesian rule. Real life is much more complex, of course, and there is a lot of overlatp between these groups, but this will suffice for our illustration. The main point here is that, over time, this situation changes the Targetian society.

The first group, who rebel, ultimately end up getting knocked down. The Largeese will have nothing to do with such opposition, and simply squashed this group to the best of its ability. Thus, those who have held on to their identity most strongly get removed from the society. The group that experiences cognitive tension will receive help to work through their problems (it turns out the Largeese, while not interested in accommodating rebels, will help those with mental trauma), but since the Largeese control the therapy, this group will ultimately be "helped" by being encouraged to conform to their new social situation. The last group will get by fairly well, but their cognitive habits will change dramatically, and that's where I want to focus here.

Without the rebels, the two remaining groups must adjust their cognitive system to adapt to the change in agency afforded by the Largeese. In this new system, independent thinking and reasoning (A), which might lead back to a direct identity is strongly discouraged. It either creates more rebels, or mental trauma, and so is seen as negative - at first by the Largeese, but eventually it may be seen negatively by the Targetians as well, since such people would be, as a rule, a disruptive force in an otherwise "normal" society.  It isn't that the Targetians that remain LIKE their second-class status, in fact, many strongly resent it, but why dwell on things you can't change? Instead, the focus becomes daily survival and social obedience (i.e. "not rocking the boat"), which emphasizes the B aspect of cognition. In addition, social cohesion and interdependence will probably increase (C) since "the only ones we can count on are each other. Thus, the Targetians move from an ABC cognitive pattern with an associated direct identity, to a BCA cognitive pattern, where their identity comes from their status as a second class people, given to them by the Largeese (an indirect identity).

Now two important things have happened. First, the Targetians have lost their direct identity. Since the Largeese are now the source of their identity, the Targetians will tend to see the Largeese as the ones responsible for the Targetians lives. Thus, responsibility gets shifted tot he Largeese, and the Targetians lose their sense of agency and responsibility, as well as their identity. Second, since A has been deprioritized, the tool which the Targetians would use to rediscover their identity, agency, and responsibility has atrophied significantly.

This suppression by the Largeese, however, can only last for so long, and eventually (after several generations), the Targetians rise up and push the Largeese out of their homeland. Now the Targetians must start the process of rebuilding. Unfortunately, for generations, the critical, analytic, conceptual part of their thinking has been suppressed by both the Largeese, but also by the Targetians themselves. Thus, the toolset needed to recover the Targetians identity and agency is extremely rusty - and rusty tools often break. As a result, the Targetians find, to their dismay, that they are unable to recover their civilization even to the level of their ancestors, and they can't figure out why. After all, they have preserved all the cultural traditions (B) they could, and they understand that they should stick together (C), so why can't they pull things together? Are they really as dumb and ineffective as the Largeese claimed? Are they really failures?

Well, no. The problem is that the Targetians have lost the conceptual/analytical aspect of their thinking to a large enough degree that they don't realize any more what they have lost. Other, more conceptual, outsiders look at them and see a "primitive" or "traditional" people, and assume that because they have been this way for generations, it is simply how their culture works. Not wanting to interfere with the Targetians any more, the outsiders refrain from interacting with them too much. While noble, this means that the aspect of the Targetian culture that is lacking and needs to be restored (A) will be long in coming, since rebuilding an entire history of philosophy, reason, and analysis is much harder than it sounds. Learning programs, by and large, focus on facts and specific operational training (B), not restoring conceptual/analytic faculties (A). In fact, education programs that assume A, but don't focus on teaching it (like many western teaching programs) will probably not only fail, but only serve to reinforce the existing thinking pattern of BCA, since the program assumes A, but uses B to teach. This means that any cultural recovery for the Targetians will be a long, uphill struggle, especially if critical thinking and reasoning (A) is seen as a Largeese cultural trait - in that case, critical thinking may even be demonized, as it is seen as a cultural artifact of the enemy.

So yeah, this is a terrible situation. Cultural recovery can only occur through internal development, which can only occur through conceptual redevelopment (A), but the tool needed for such redevelopment has been lost and perhaps even demonized because of prior misuse by the suppressing culture. This is what IRI has been working to remedy. Through our programs, we seek to reintroduce A elements of thinking with a minimum of cultural baggage (there cannot be no baggage - it simply isn't possible to think or act without any reference to your native culture). We focus on developing conceptual/analytical tools, and encouraging nationals to engage with and develop their own direct identity. We have found that with a recovery of direct identity, there is a corresponding recovery of agency and responsibility. We do not need to initiate social programs in the places we work - the nationals do that, once they start to recover their identity and the A-aspect of their thinking.

Once the nationals take back the initiative in their development, then we can come in and help - if they need our help (often, they need less help than they previously thought they did - frequently, they don't need any help at all, other than to have a level playing field to develop on). My co-worker Al frequently tells people that "I work for the nationals" - which is, in the case of the work we are now doing in Mozambique, literally true. It is amazing and wonderful to behold - seeing people groups we were told were "lazy" or "ignorant" accomplishing projects and programs themselves that outside organizations have failed to achieve for decades.

This is what I do, and I love doing it.

A Review of Reviewing Thinking

For the last year or so, I have been posting articles about some of the ideas and theories behind our work at IRI. I have recently had people point out that these articles are mixed in with many other articles and posts, and can be hard to find. I was asked to provide a way to review all the posts relating to our ideas, and so I went back to find all the posts. In the process I discovered two important things:

1) I'm terrible at keeping a consistent posting schedule

2) I am starting to repeat myself in my posts

These are things I will be working on. In the meantime, here are all the posts that are related to our theories, in order. You can click on the address of each to go to the relevant page. I hope this is helpful.

THINGS I HAVE SAID (Volume 1)

What Do the Seminars Do? 

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-do-seminars-do.html

Things We Have Learned: Terms & Concepts

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2012/08/things-we-have-learned-terms-concepts.html

Away Longer Than I Thought 

(includes a Discussion of Direct and Indirect Learning)

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/01/away-longer-than-i-thought.html

Incoming Insights: Direct and Indirect Identity

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/03/incoming-insights-direct-and-indirect.html

What Is ABC Thinking?

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-abc-thinking.html

What is ABC Thinking (2): Three Components of Thought

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/what-is-abc-thinking-2-three-components.html

ABC Thinking (3): Putting Thoughts Together - How A, B, and C Relate

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/abc-thinking-3-putting-thoughts.html

ABC Thinking and Dr. Stuart Cook

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/abc-thinking-and-dr-stuart-cook.html

Examples of Cognitive Systems: BCA Thinking

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/examples-of-cognitive-systems-bca.html

BAC Thinking: A Theoretical Cognitive System

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/09/bac-thinking-theoretical-cognitive.html

Thinking About CAB: Conceptualized Mysticism

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/10/thinking-about-cab-conceptualized.html

Thinking about CBA: Mystical Materialism

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/10/thinking-about-cba-mystical-materialism.html

Thinking About ACB: Mystical Conceptualization

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/11/thinking-about-acb-mystical.html

Thinking About ABC

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/12/thinking-about-abc.html

Insight Into Cognitive Systems: Extra Thoughts

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2014/12/insight-into-cognitive-systems-extra.html

Insight Into Thinking: Comprehension 

(here is where I start repeating myself a bit - consider it a review)

http://incominginsight.blogspot.com/2015/02/insight-into-thinking-comprehension.html

Insight Into Cognitive Systems: Extra Thoughts

The last (major) post covered the last of the Cognitive systems. Before I go into more on the implications of how our cognitive systems impact our lives, I want to make a few more points that will be relevant to the discussion:

Cognitive Systems are Habits

First, these systems are not formal methods of thinking that people choose to implement. They are, rather, terms or references for a group of mental habits that, taken together, determine how we interact with reality. For most people, the ways of thinking that their cognitive systems entail are not thought of as philosophies, or world-views, or even beliefs. If they are thought of at all, they are usually thought of as common sense. You don't talk much about common sense...it is foundation on which you have other discussions. This is, I think, one reason why this level of cognition generally gets overlooked--it is too basic to be easily seen. You don't, after all, see the foundation of a house, and cognitive systems are the "foundation" for how we reason, believe, and react.

Cognitive Systems are Not the Whole of Cultures

I have been using a few cultures as examples when explaining cognitive systems. I want to make clear, however, that cognitive systems are not the whole of any culture. I tend to think of cognitive systems as a set of shared mental habits in a culture. They are certainly foundational, but there is more to a culture than just one particular cognitive system. This is (at least in part) because...

Generalizations are Generally True

When talking about cognitive systems, it is important to remember that we are talking in generalizations. Generalizations are, by nature, imperfectly reliable. While it may be true that most of group X has a certian characteristic, it is almost certianly untrue that all of a group has that characteristic, unless it is required to be in the group. For example, it is generally true that Americans are more emotionally disconnected than other cultures, but there are a LOT of exceptions to this. Any particular American may be very well balanced emotionally and socially - the generalization only applies to the group as a whole.

In addition, it is possible that a single person may evidence different cognitive styles in different contexts. A scientist, for example, may be very ABC in the lab, but as soon as she gets home, she is more BCA, because that is the home environment she was raised in. Her thinking style shifts from one to the other, and she may be completely unaware of the shift. When I talk about cognitive systems and culture or among, we are speaking generally. I do not believe that every person in a cultural group must be BCA or ABC or CAB, nor do I even think that a certain person who I note is an ABC thinker may consistently be ABC in all places at all times. The way we think can shift, because our minds are flexible. This is a good thing, especially if we take the time to identify what our habits are, and focus on improving them.

All People Have the Same Toolbox (But Not the Same Skills)

One of the implications of this cognitive theory is that, with the single possible exception of people with physical brain damage, everyone has the same basic cognitive tools. Too often in the West, we have equated conceptualization with intelligence (thus, the IQ tests). Do not misunderstand, conceptualization and analysis are critically important, but they are simply tools. Some people don't use them as much as others, or may not even understand why they are important, but the tools are still there. Not knowing that you have tools, or how to use them does not make you dumb, just ignorant. As a colleague of mine says, "Ignorance is fixable, but you can't fix stupid." This is a critical point, as throughout much of recent western history, we have assumed that if people do not utilize a high degree of analytic thinking, they must be less intelligent, which has, in the past, led to two unfortunate results.

First, many people have acquired an assumption that people who do not evidence sufficient levels of conceptual./analytic reasoning are "dumb" or otherwise mentally less than those who do. Thus, people will tell me that they are not smart enough to do this or that, when the reality is that they don't have the mental habits that make such actions easy. People will assume that because it is hard for them, but easy for me, I am "smarter" than they are, when in fact, I am just more used to thinking in a particular way. This is problematic, because it encourages stasis, because someone who is "too dumb" simply can't do a thing, so they don't bother trying. The reality is that there is no such thing as "too dumb" there are only habits that people have or have not acquired to make some tasks easier.

Second, there is a strange assumption I run into that reason, logic, and analysis are somehow Western ways of thinking - that is, that they are some kind of creation of the West. This means that people will often conflate teaching conceptual thinking with "Westernization." The truth is that conceptual thinking is a tool that all human beings can use, and the more it is used, the more people are able to "own" their personal and cultural beliefs, attitudes, and actions. Conceptual thinking isn't "Western" it is human. Unfortunately, this, combined with the first assumption (that conceptual/analytic thinking determines mental worth) has resulted in some terrible attitudes toward cultures that do not have a habit of strong conceptual/analytic thinking. This is especially true in Africa, where I have heard several westerners lament about how the Nationals are "too dumb" to handle certain tasks - tasks which require that kind of strong conceptual/analytic thinking that was suppressed in their culture during the colonial period (a period many of the African cultures have not recovered from yet). Sadly, this has caused many to give up on some groups in Africa - including members of said groups. It is both tragic and terrible, and a situation that IRI is trying to counteract.

--------

So this was a fairly long post, but I think it covers a few extra thoughts that I wanted to explicitly address before moving on. Enjoy the holidays, and check back next year for more Incoming Insights!

Examples of Cognitive Systems: BCA Thinking

Mathematically, there are only six ways that A, B, and C can be prioritized: ABC, ACB, BAC, BCA, CAB, and CBA. Each of these different systems of prioritization produce very different ways of thinking. They don't just determine what we think about, but also what we consider “normal” thinking. (Note that we do not necessarily always equate “normal” with “good,” but that is a discussion for later.) The point here is that, no matter what our prioritization, we tend to assume that everyone else thinks the same way we do, and we can be shocked or frustrated when we encounter thinkers of a different sort.

These cognitive systems both shape and are shaped by culture. As such, we can talk about “ABC culture,” or a specific person being an “ABC thinker.” It is important, however, to remember that generalizations are generally true. It is entirely possible to have BCA thinkers who come from an ABC culture, or ABC thinkers who come from a CBA culture. These system designations aren't intended to be a substitute for personality profiles or other psychological or anthropological models of human behavior – just a new perspective that may shed light on past and future observations and interactions.

I'll be looking at each of the six possible combinations separately. Some of these systems have been observed in specific cultural settings, while others remain largely theoretical. That is, we are pretty sure some people are BCA thinkers, but we have not encountered anyone we would really call a BAC thinker, yet. I will note how much real interaction we have had with each system.

Let's begin.

BCA – Materialistic Mysticism

We start with the BCA system because it is one of the most common cognitive systems we have encountered. It is found in many cultures around the world, and is, therefore, a rather common way of thinking. This system focuses on the particular, concrete aspects of reality, with a strong emphasis on emotional connections. Reflection and analysis are not emphasized, and, in some cases, are nearly absent. This system was dubbed “materialistic mysticism” by Dr. Cook. BCA thinking does not mean people cannot analyze or reflect on their experiences, only that such reflection is of secondary importance to the traditions and habits of their daily lives. In a BCA culture, the primary reason for doing is thing is simply because that is what you do.

We have encountered BCA thinking primarily in “survival” oriented contexts – situations in which, usually out of necessity, people need to focus primarily on day-to-day survival. Subsistence cultures, like many we have worked with in Mozambique, are a common example.^* I know of a westerner in Mozambique who asked one of the locals why they performed a certain task in a particular way. The response was: “because that is how we do it.” To the westerner, this sounded evasive – we typically expect an analysis of the reasons for undertaking an action, and failing to give those reasons when asked is seen as giving an incomplete or inadequate answer. For the Mozambican, however, this was a perfectly reasonable answer. You do what you do because you do it. Tradition and habit are the primary means of decision-making.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

* I am not claiming that all Mozambican tribal people think this way, just that we have frequently encountered this way of thinking among tribes in Mozambique. Generalizations are generally true.

Incoming Insights: Direct and Indirect Identity

In the last article, I explained some of the discoveries we have made at IRI about learning. I want to expand a bit on that and talk about how the ideas of direct and indirect understanding impact self-identity. We have found this is important when helping others improve themselves.

As I covered in the previous post, people tend to learn things in one of two ways – directly, through personal comprehension of an idea, or indirectly, by learning someone else’s ideas. In general, we learn indirectly at first, but our ultimate goal should be direct understanding. This is especially true when we are learning about our own personal identity.

If someone points out that we learn about ourselves from others, many of us would understand what was meant. I learn about who I am initially from my parents, my siblings, my extended family, and my friends. They tell me my name, that I am a human, what ethnic group I belong to, and other interesting things about me. Eventually, however, I start to formulate my own ideas about things: blue is a prettier color than other colors, science is more interesting than art (or vice versa), cauliflower is yucky, and so on. Over time, I understand that I am myself, and other people are not me. In a healthy environment, I also understand that I am responsible for myself. Ideally, I develop a direct self-identity; I am me, and I know who I am.

In reality, however, the final parts of this are a bit easier said than done. Most of us constantly struggle with other people’s perceptions of us. Sometimes this is good, as others can help me see things about myself that are valuable or need developing that I had missed. All too often, however, this is a negative experience, as others see me as too short, too fat, too ugly, or otherwise inferior or deficient. We struggle between understanding ourselves directly (having a strong internal sense of who I am), and understanding ourselves indirectly (seeing ourselves as others see us) for most of our lives. We want to use what we learn from others (indirectly) to form a correct direct understanding of ourselves. We don’t always succeed, but we know understand our goal.

Unfortunately, the ideal sometimes gives way to the terrible. In some situations, our ability to develop our own direct understanding of ourselves is stifled or suppressed. There are many scenarios where this can happen: abusive families, overbearing teachers or supervisors who will only accept their understanding of things, and nearly every case of slavery or broad cultural oppression. In these cases, our ability to form a direct understanding of ourselves is squashed in favor of a second person’s understanding. We are told someone else already knows everything there is to know about us (or at least everything important). Our identity is forged by proxy, and we develop an indirect identity.

This indirect identity creates a sense of dependency—I now need this second person, because it is through that person that I understand myself. I suppose this could be acceptable if the other person understood me perfectly, but that’s not possible (other people are no more perfect than I am, after all). As a result, I become dependent on this second person for my identity, and the associated sense of well-being and security that goes along with having a sense of self.

This is a dangerous situation. We have discovered that this dependent sense of self seems tied to a displaced sense of responsibility. One of the issues we have encountered among suppressed people groups is a sense that they are not in charge of their lives. Not simply that they are being controlled, but that they really aren't responsible for what happens to them. Our theory is that since their identity is tied up in their suppressor, it causes them to identify their suppressor as the one responsible for their lives. Thus, I am not responsible for what happens to me—the person I depend is responsible. This displaced sense of responsibility makes it difficult for people to act on their own behalf in areas of importance. Even more tragically, since long-term changes are out of their control, their only sense of agency tends to come from self-gratification.

Ironically, as long as the suppressor remains, this situation is livable. I can get along in life, as long as I have this second person (who is responsible for me) telling me what to do. I may not like that they are in charge, but I am accustomed to it, and have learned to live within the arrangement to the best of my ability. Once the suppressor is removed, however (whether by an external liberator, or by my own rebellion), things get tough. Now I discover that I don’t know who I am. In addition, I am accustomed to having a suppressor, and all my habits are oriented around that end. It makes a tragic sense, then, that many people from abusive relationships return to their abuser or end up in similarly abusive situations later. On a large scale, it means that a suppressed culture will have a tendency to look for a new “substitute” for their old oppressor. This is not necessarily a conscious decision—it is a consequence of habit.

This is a tragic cycle--one that is self-reinforcing once started. Impressions and repeated behavior, over time, become habits. These habits, over time, spread throughout the culture. Habits repeated throughout the culture are eventually seen as normative. Thus, the culture itself can serve to reinforce this sense of helplessness and displaced identity. The people of such a culture may lament their position, or think it perfectly acceptable, but at the end of the day, it is just the way things are.

Fortunately, these issues can be addressed. I'll discuss how we have been working to break these cycles next month.