PLEASE, CONSIDER THE SOURCE!

Inherently we Americans are drawn to conflict. Conflict (and often violence) it seems is always at the fringe of our behavior waiting to push it self to the surface. A middle finger, one guy who cuts you in line, or even a dirty look can set us off. For some of us resorting to conflict and violence requires nothing more than some form of insult. Nothing more than a simple word or two directed in a negative way at our person. What is it about something like an insult that would require someone to physically attack another individual? How do words create such strong reactions and equally strong behaviors which are contrary to a civilized existence? The answer is rather complicated because there are numerous variables which play a role in how we behave in any given situation. Things like environment, past influences, past results, past experiences, our beliefs (i.e. in god), etc. all play a role. However, there is a very short answer and that very short answer is: “our biological programming causes us to either seek or avoid conflict”. We are programmed to either (a) instinctively react to a threatening situation by defending our positions (dominant programs) or (b) by submitting (submissive programs) to the threat by backing down. Yes, just like on animal kingdom. And that’s why even when it seems improbable that controversy should ensue, it does. Let’s take a quick look at some examples:

Should anyone really care what Tom Cruise has to say about psychology? Isn’t he sort of like a homeless guy who calls you a loser from the alley when he tells Brooke Shields that psychology is bunk? If he told me that my air conditioner was bunk would I get insulted? Isn’t he an actor? Yet his words created controversy. So much so that they required an apology. How could this be? Who the heck is Tom Cruise when he’s talking about anything but acting (or maybe tooth polish)? Of course, good old Tom apologized to she-is-still-in-therapy-Brooke in the face of public pressure and a disintegrating public image. He was motivated to do so for his own sake and the whole thing died down and off the pages of People Magazine. And while I’m on the subject of drunken conflict creators, how about Mel Gibson? Does he really feel that way about Jews and if he does should they really care? He’s in the public eye but why do Jews care if THE ACTOR Mel Gibson doesn’t like them? He was raised a Catholic and there are inherent prejudices in any religious teaching. He made a movie about Christ where Jews are portrayed like some group of Zombies who chase Jesus through a mall - wait that’s not the movie. In any event, I’m sure there are plenty of drunk Jews who speak badly about Catholics. And probably even more who had a few bad things to say about Mel Gibson. But I’ll tell you, if some drunk blonde haired girl said she didn’t like brown haired guys it would just make sense to me - and nothing else. I don’t think I would need an apology.

Of course, it’s not only a drunk actor who can get the conflict going. In 1998 Reggie White (a three hundred plus pound football payer) outraged homosexuals when he said homosexuality is a decision, not a race, and it should not be placed on par with the civil rights movement. Homosexuals were outraged! How come? When a guy who knocks off heads for a living makes a statement concerning atypical sexual behavior how can someone get outraged? If he said my wife was a lousy blocker I might have to agree. But when he’s talking about her sexual preference I think it matters little what he thinks. In any event, White stood his ground when he said, “I would rather God not be mad at me and let people be mad at me, so I have to speak the truth — no matter the consequences." Of course, White died of a heart attack at only 43 caused by poor health including what looked to me to be a severe overweight condition. I guess in his mind sloth is not as big a sin as sexual immorality. Still White never apologized for what he believed -- conflict or no conflict. Take that Tom Cruise.

After the actors, the drunk actors, and the football players we then get to the untouchables. And those instances where the source itself has a role in creating additional controversy and conflict. Take for example the soothing words of Pope Benedict XVI when he recently said "show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. Muslim leaders around the world to this day are continuing to demand a “full” apology (and not half of an apology). He’s the Pope - head of the Catholic Church. Why would Muslims care what he has to say about a religion he doesn’t believe in? It’s sort of like Darth Vadar making a speech in which he says all the Jedis are morons. Would the Jedis care? Why should they - he’s on the other side! And that’s why - because he is on the other side. There’s no rational reason to care what he says - it’s simply about defending a position. And it’s simply about a program which makes us want to do that.

So there you have it, absent any real explanation of why we get insulted, a desire to engage in conflict clearly emanates from some genetic programming stemming back to the times when you had to fight for your mate and for the top spot in the pack. That little thing inside that signals green when you get the finger. And for all of you who are insulted by any of this (or my Blog) - PLEASE, consider the source!