D .C. Al Coda

B. Deric Morris

Anthropologists' analysis of 'shame' places the concept squarely in the context of tribal, that is, collective, behaviors. The function of shame is to discourage the individual from acting in ways considered antisocial within the tribal identity. Thus the classic control mechanism is the establishment and ritualism of taboos: shame is the individual's loss of self-respect in the face of real or imagined violations. Shame is therefore a social aspect of guilt; and usually an effective deterrent for aberrant behaviors, often even when the taboo-breaker has never been found out. The societal aspect of shame is clearly evident in the Amish custom of shunning, by which a person considered to have behaved wrongly by his/her peers is punished by being designated a nonperson, hence treated as nonexistent. This treatment can often be so traumatic as to become a de facto death sentence.

Mind-body dualism has certainly been a powerful negative meme in the Western canon. It seems to be circumscribed by the mindset of duality per se, however. Notice how, even in the phrase itself, 'body' gets second billing to 'mind'. Available evidence plainly shows that m-b dualism is a relatively recent (even historical) development, and is not a factor in many cultures, particularly very old mythic oral traditions. That said, there is a plethora of cases of repression, persecution, and genocide in which the obvious rationale was based in just such a foundation of self-and-other hatred.

I would argue that the mythic roots of 'original sin' are not so much about 'which' sin was categorically the first such case to occur as what, from First Principles, was the actual cause of the Fall. And as we've been told, 'Pride goeth before a fall'.

The ORIGINAL 'original sin' to occur was the hubris of the archangel Lucifer, whose name meant 'light-bearer' and was also read as 'morningstar', in reference to the planet Venus. As Swinton pointed out, Lucifer's heavenly crime was to become a pretender to the throne, for which the archangel was punished by the very first Fall from Grace.

After the Fall, of course, Lucifer became Satan, from the Hebrew for enemy; here there is a clear parallel to the Zoroastrian adversaries, the 'evil' personified in the form of Ahriman against the 'good' Ahura Mazda. But prior to Lucifer's failed coup, there had been no sin - all was Grace.

Then, when next we catch up with Satan, he's lurking in the Garden, impersonating a reptile. The humans had been living in Eden in a state of Grace, immortal innocence. As long as they observed the holy taboo against obtaining knowledge, they could exist as little less than angels.
But Satan again usurped divinity, and this time passed the sin along to the humans. And in a replay of episode I, another Fall.

It was the humans' folly, once they had tasted knowledge, to turn their backs on Grace. Their guilt lay in breaking the taboo, but their shame was getting caught. Much as Lucifer had aspired to the throne, the humans, from their newfound knowledge, imagined they could create a Garden of their own, in which, as 'creators' they might rule. But it's hard to hide from an omniscient, omnipotent being, especially one who had set them up to start with. (That's where 'free will' comes in).

With the humans' Fall, their punishment was perhaps more for the impertinence of imagining they could conceal their guilt than for the guilty act itself. This seems logical given that they were cast out of the Garden to plant and harvest, live through sweat and labor, age and die. Lost innocence meant Grace withheld; good and evil were lessons too well learned.

The connection between the Eden myth and the transition from forager to farmer, nomad to villager, family to polity, as I have noted elsewhere, is difficult to ignore.

The widespread diffusion of agriculture began the long process of ecological attrition whose effects are becoming all too apparent today; likewise, the human and biosphere impact of organized warfare in all its ramifications has developed concurrently with that cultural paradigm. Because agriculture has increased global populations while causing massive reduction of habitat, wars and genocide have resulted. Fighting over water and/or land has become the norm in many parts of the world now...like passengers arguing over deck chairs on the Titanic!  

                               CODA

...[I]f you want to maintain absolute control over the tribe, the best method is to: a) legislate sex, with especial control over women's reproductive rights, men's reproductive freedom, and the personhood (legitimacy) of offspring; b) appropriate and selectively allocate resources, which provides both carrot and stick; and c) contrive 'causes' requiring 'defense' in order to eliminate the most fit, hence competitive, cohort of adolescent males in each subsequent generation. The survivors, of course, become more useful later in their lives.

When I wrote this bit of analysis, in an email reply to Swinton (Re: Out of the Garden) my intent was actually to establish a connection between the observed facts cited above and the uses of ideology to constrain behavior.
The 'absolute control over the tribe' notion is by way of showing that with all ideologies, however pathological or benign, there is some version, to more or less an extent, of just such control mechanisms, which are in fact a human memetic application of ancient, innate primate behavior patterns. Anyone who has gone through Army Basic Training will understand precisely what I mean.

Given that there is an implicit control aspect to the uses of ideology, it is easy to see how conservative religious fundamentalists (in any faith) are 'wrapping themselves in scripture² as it were, to justify their thinly disguised political agendas. (with some, such as Taliban and Iran's Ayatollahs, there's simply naked power lust).

There's a problem though; they've painted themselves into a corner. It's difficult (not to mention potentially lethal) to take a moderate position on anything when you're a card-carrying religious fanatic! As more than one has learned by firing squad. It seems that one thing the faith-based movements all have in common is a lack of originality. And zero sense of humor.

Because it's in the interest of their exercise of power, fundamentalists tend to insist on strict interpretation of scriptures as well as enforcement of ritual modes of behavior. The concept of myth as metaphor is outside the box as far as they're concerned. And any worldview other than blind faith (hence unquestioning obedience) is seen as anathema.

I find fatuous hypocrites like Pat Robertson and his ilk to be reptiles in disguise; just as I find supermarket tabloids to be beneath contempt. But the disturbing thing to me is that a huge unawakened demographic takes them both for gospel truth.                      -bdm 02.21.01

--"TRUTH is a five-letter word" - bdm