Armchair Zen

Hi Anne:

Thanks for dropping in.
In reply to your question, no, I don’t believe I’ve heard that particular postulation. I have, however, heard a lot of ideas that people have that are of similar bent. The revered trailblazer in psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, said himself “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” when speaking of symbolism and explanations for human behavior.

Before our species evolved to its current state, homo sapiens, an earlier iteration was known as homo habilis. Habilis meaning to “habitate”, defining us as communal animals. We share this trait with a number of other species, of which my favorite is wolves. (In the big chain of life on the planet, wolves are barely six degrees away from humans.)

When analyzing human behavior, I often use the phrase and approach of “Take it back to the cave”, meaning we try to understand the true nature and instinct of our species as it would be in a natural state, before our brains developed complex language, laws of community, and television. It would seem unlikely that natural humans would have an instinct to first respond negatively, particularly in survival situations, as the species understands and appreciates the benefits of teamwork. Just like wolves and whales, we have a nature to take care of one another. The phrase “It takes a whole village to raise a child” is not flowery prose, and in wolf packs, whale pods, elephant herds and human settlements, siblings and aunts help protect, nurture and raise the young. (Males serve slightly different roles, but also help protect and raise the whole group.) In some cases, these animals may be territorial, but it is primarily to protect their food supply, not their safety, per se.

Humans and our close relatives are also curious, and the aforementioned animals, along with other primates, also tend to have well-developed brains, more likely to understand the nature of strangers.
It seems likely that a natural human (think “back to the cave”) encountering an unknown member of its species is likely to be cautious and curious, but would tend to be welcoming if no threat is perceived. (“Fight or flight” would be the natural response if attacked, and doesn’t really constitute negativity.)

I’m just an Armchair Zen Master, not a psychologist, but I would venture to say that responding to others with negativity would primarily be a selfish act, intended to maintain whatever one imagined was in need of defense. In our modern world this is likely to be quite petty, such as defending an opinion (particularly a hard-line one); social territory, such as a job or other position in an organization; or perhaps a knee-jerk reaction based on bigotry or some superficial offense.

There is also the possibility that there may be some conditioned response, such as in the case of a person that has been raised in an atmosphere of harsh judgement and negativity to begin with. In the same way a feral cat will hiss and bite, not approach you for affection and treats like a housecat, people raised and developed under constant scrutiny, with fears of loss or abuse, may tend to build a wall of defense. Fear of loss is probably the mainstay of this emotional state, including somewhat irrational fears (in the case of adults) of loss of self, freedom, control or the comfort represented by “the known” or status quo. Change of any kind can be stressful, and fragile people fear change. This explains why someone would stay in an abusive or otherwise bad relationship rather than face the unknown prospect of changing the situation.

To sum up, it seems fear, discomfort or perceived threat of loss are more likely to be the reasons behind excess negativity. Regardless of size or outward appearances, these types of people are likely to be emotionally fragile and insecure. Emotionally healthy people are more likely to know that the thoughts or actions of others don’t threaten their own, and are more likely to attempt to respond with understanding and compassion.

Thanks for the question!

Take care and keep in touch,

Paz

LikeLike