|
The present was a penny saver in the form of a brilliant red ceramic figure with horns, a long tail and a mouth wide open in laughter. “My, that little devil is happy,” was my mother’s response to the present as she placed it on the table in my bedroom.
But it didn’t stay there for long. Within days it had found its way into a drawer: out of sight. Did I know why I had wanted it out of sight? In that undefined, almost brooding way of childhood I definitely did know. However, had I been asked why - why had I taken such a dislike to the little red ceramic, it would have been difficult to find the explanatory words. Only now, years later am I able to describe the reasons for those deeply felt negative feelings toward the little figurine – or rather what it had and continues to represent in my mind.
When recently the figurine reappeared during a move my feelings and understandings were the same as when I was a child. I threw the little devil into the garbage, although aware that throwing it into the garbage wouldn’t alter its ugly symbolism.
What was it that I had already understood as a child? Although I wasn’t familiar with the details of the Satan myth, I had grasped the core meaning that is the basis of the allegory. In mythology the devil is laughingly seductive as he promises huge enjoyment for following his dictates. It is the promise that evil will deliver enjoyment, which is the reason for his many followers. The most repugnant and ugliest of emotions are the raison d’être for Satan’s existence. His is genuine evil, which is not a function of mere carelessness or thoughtlessness. Lack of consideration, recklessness, imprudence, can reflect serious acts of omission or stupid acts of commission (undesirable aspects of human stupidity) but Satan’s evil is different. Its essential characteristic is that it takes pleasure in creating pain and misery. That is what makes acts of evil so vastly different from human stupidity or carelessness.
In mythology the devil is enjoying the pain and misery he is creating. That is why he is laughing, why he is so joyful, and that is why he is the icon of genuine evil. What I had understood as a child was that the laughing devil symbolizes delight in acts of evil. I had seen that enjoyment first hand. And even more convincing and frightening, I had seen it in myself.
Every child has on occasion been exposed to the pleasure that other children, even adults, have taken in hitting or hurling vicious insults. And alas, we have all participated in the pleasure of inflicting such pain on others. Is the pleasure derived by audiences of violent films and video games a form of vicarious indulgence in such acts of evil? Many violent films and video games hit the top of the charts in audience demand. What is it about graphic depictions of violence that makes them so popular? The myth of Satan would have it that indulgence in depictions of depravity gives pleasure to its indulgers.
What I had understood as a child was the turn-on quality that hurting an animal or other children can bring. And from the facial expressions of other children, and even more frightening from the facial expressions of adults, I could see that they too were experiencing the same turn-on effect. At the same time I had also heard the vehement denials expressed by most adults that acts of violence involve a turn-on component. With childlike certainly I had concluded that the denials represented just another way that adults lie to themselves, to other adults, and of course to us children.
Years later, as a psychologist, I realized that children in general are quite aware of the turn-on quality of acts of evil, although they frequently have not yet fully mastered the requirement of denial and lying to themselves. However, once we become decent adults we try to distance ourselves from such ugly truths, even if they do represent reality. After all, have we not become moral people?
So as adults we are shocked at the human possibility of the recent (again!) school shootings. And yet, there was Sam, a nine-year old, who summarized what had happened with: “That guy had so much fun seeing blood spurt that he even got a kick out of killing himself.” Children can be terrifyingly perceptive, something as decent adults we often try to avoid. This truth is just too ugly.
The surprising psychological sophistication with which some children responded to the 9/ll attacks was similar to the acumen with which nine-year old Sam had summarized the terrifying reality of the school shootings. The 9/11 understandings reminded me of my own childhood responses to seeing and even participating in the pleasures of violence. The memory of these childhood understandings was the reason for my suggested solution to what had come to be the Zabar dilemma.
The two Zabar siblings, Ted aged nine, and Ned aged 11 had, with their constant fights, turned the Zabar household into a battle zone. To the horror of the adult Zabars, these fights were downright vicious. As Mrs. Zabar described it: “Both boys seem to get this sick kick out of hurting each other in every possible way – both physically and verbally. And when they do, they have this pleased expression on their face, like they’re getting a kick out of hurting their brother. It’s creepy!”
Mr. Zabar added, “We’ve screamed at them, taken away TV and computer privileges, she’s pleaded with them, put them in time-out rooms: nothing has worked. They’re acting like a bunch of gangsters.”
My response went something like this. “Both your sons are modern youngsters who have been exposed to scientific reasoning in books, TV documentaries, and now even on the Internet. Even though they may not have followed most of these concepts, such ideas are not foreign to them. On the contrary, many of today’s youngsters feel surprisingly at home with scientific and psychological explanations; explanations that a generation ago would have seemed unfamiliar and beyond comprehension.”
“I would talk to both of your sons at the same time: telling them, informing them, about a disturbing psychological truth. And this truth deals with the myth of the devil, a mythological figure who gets his jollies by seducing people into hurting and harming each other. The way this mythical figure achieves his ends is that he promises great joy to those who inflict pain and harm on others. The curious thing about this myth is that it has its basis in neurological reality. Scientists recently found that there are parts of the brain that function as reward centers. These centers are involved in feeling good when something enjoyable has transpired. However, one unexpected finding has been that the reward centers can also be turned on by acts of aggression. Knowing this aspect of how your brain functions makes it possible for you to decide how your brain will respond. Which means that it’s within your power to take charge of what goes on in your brain.”
At this point the Zabar parents gave me a quizzical look. I responded with “Yes. I know these are advanced and scary concepts. But yours are modern children who have been exposed to scientific concepts and vocabulary. Such concepts not only make sense to them, but they also add weight to the ideas you’re presenting. You are signaling that you’re telling them something much bigger than just ‘be good boys.’ You’re giving them fundamental, if scary information about themselves and about the real world.”
“Then I would go on and tell the boys: ‘This linkage of aggression into the reward centers of our brain is the basis for our secret ugliness. It can make people do some truly horrendous acts of violence: the sort of stuff we hear about on the evening news. But even little ugly secrets like kids getting kicks out of hurting other kids are made possible because of that linkage into the reward centers of our brain. For this reason you must help each other overcome that secret ugliness. Which means you’ve got to help each other take responsibility for what goes on in your brains. Ned you must do that not only for yourself but also for Ted. And Ted, you in turn must do that for yourself as well as for Ned.”
Not too enthusiastically the Zabars indicated “Well, we’ve tried everything else, to no effect. We might as well give this a try. Who knows?”
I didn’t hear from the Zabars for a few days. Then by chance Mrs. Zabar saw me in the supermarket and waved eagerly as she came rapidly toward me. She had a much less harried look, which was very apparent as she came closer. “You know you were right about the boys finding the research about the brain and aggression interesting. Their interest was a big surprise to both my husband and me. The boys were really curious to find out more, and would you believe, they went on the Internet to check out which areas of the brain were involved. They even drew diagrams! All that interest in the brain changed the atmosphere. When we were kids I don’t think this sort of information would have had any meaning for us. I don’t know if this knowledge will help them in the long run. But right now it’s kept them busy and a lot quieter. They’re not beating each other up all the time. And that’s a relief!”
So what does psychology have to say about the myth of Satan, the laughing devil? Going back to Freud we find that in later life he phrased the devil myth in instinctual terms. He asserted that human history had demonstrated that there is indeed within us a death instinct. That it is this drive that is the basis for war and destruction, for people hurting and murdering each other and even harming and killing themselves.
Curiously, of all of Freud’s theories this one has been the most frequently discounted as the mere reflections of a disappointed old man who had to leave his home because of the rise of Hitler. That the rise of Hitler in itself might be a demonstration of the reality of the human destructive drive was just too awful a human attribute to face in others and above all in ourselves. And yet most of our children seem to know. And when we were children many of us knew this aspect about ourselves and others. But now as adults we feel the need to push the ugliness of this truth out of our minds.
Freud, who had been trained as a neurologist, suspected and suggested that his theories must have a neurological basis. For years many psychologists treated this assumption with considerable condescension. But recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), etc. studies have indicated that destructiveness can “turn on” the reward center in the limbic system of the brain. There also appear to be similarities of the “turn on” aspects of aggression and destructiveness with certain forms of addiction.
Although aggression and destruction have had a long human history, there probably is an equally long human history consisting of valiant attempts to counter the “death instinct.” All our major religions have sought to confront humankind’s aggressive and warlike nature: to resist our ugly but all too obvious secret. They have sought to emphasize the other side of Freud’s theory, Eros, the life giving, the constructive side. And yet when we regard the extent of our aggressive (Satan’s) enterprises, and the expenditure of exorbitant human capital that have and continue to be spent in creating and delivering weapons with which we can destroy one another and even our planet – how can we get control of this madness? And why have some of our truly beautiful religions not been able to counter the manifestations of the “death instinct” with the life force? Even more tragically, how often have our religions been used as an excuse to carry out the human “death wish”?
Today’s children are especially burdened with an onslaught of seeing manifestations of the “death instinct” every evening on the evening news. This is the time of day that should be quiet, soothing family time, not terrifying TV news scenes of slaughter. Evening time once had a soothing potential when there was a gathering of the family around the evening meal. But this eating together with its long biological history and family bonding has all but disappeared. And with its disappearance we have lost a powerful antidote to the tensions brought on by human ugliness.
So Ted and Ned required a different, a modern form of creating family bonding. In a surprising and unexpected way that is what the search for scientific information about brain function, and the findings about the neurological basis of aggression did for them. Perhaps the neurological information about brain function was especially intriguing because such scientific knowledge suggested how they could gain ascendancy over their own brains.
The hours the two boys spent with one another exploring various Internet sites about the latest research on aggression, addiction and pleasure created a powerful bond between them. The Zabar children are patently children of our technological age. We see similar manifestations of bonding occurring among some e-mail and text-message communicators. For myself, I still have a bias in favor of bonding with home cooked meals and relaxed conversation.
Not long ago came a special phone call from Mrs. Zabar. Her voice had the sound of choking back tears as she gulped; “I just had to tell you. I just saw Ted and Ned come up the driveway. They were arm in arm laughing and singing. They’ve finally become real brothers. I was so touched – and relieved. You know, it’s actually happened. They love each other!”
About the author:
Dr. Fuller received her M.A. in experimental psychology from Columbia University, and her Ph.D. in 1963 in physiological psychology from New York University.
In addition to developing the Ball-Stick-Bird reading system, and the story-as-the-engram theory of cognitive organization, Dr. Fuller has published widely in the field of clinical physiological psychology. At present she is continuing her work in developing learning programs and writing books and articles about how children learn. She is consultant to numerous school systems, universities, and departments of education, as well as to homeschoolers.
Visit her web site:
http://www.ballstickbird.com.
|
