Emotion, Communication, and the Explosion of Liberty in the Middle East

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the basis of political legitimacy--the divine right of kings--was being challenged in Europe. Philosophers sought a new theoretical basis for government authority. It was found in the idea of a social contract established between individuals. The nature of this contract depended largely upon how the philosopher viewed the state of nature that existed prior to the social contract. In Leviathan (1650), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) argued that all humans are motivated by the instinct of self-preservation to dominate others while maintaining their own freedom. The result was a war of all against all that made life in the state of nature "nasty, brutish, and short." Homo homini lupus, proclaimed Hobbes: Man behaves like a wolf toward other men. Hobbes proposed that the social contract emerged out of fear as a kind of peace treaty to end universal war. He argued that the basic task of the state is to maintain law and order, and that the state is most efficient at this task when sovereignty is delegated to a central authority, preferably an absolute ruler.

Tahrir Square Feb 10, 2011

In contrast to Hobbes, John Locke (1632-1704) held that, in the state of nature, people lived together without leaders according to reason and natural law: a community of virtuous anarchists. For Locke, this natural law had a divine origin. This rather more positive view of human nature was the basis of the relatively equalitarian and democratic political philosophies of Locke and David Hume (1711-1776), and it contributed to both the French and American revolutions. The British philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed out that this concept of human nature survives in modern liberalism, although it has lost its theological basis and thus its logical foundation.

The counterpoint between the need for law and order versus liberty is echoed in today's political discourse, and it might be clarified by consideration of life in the actual "state of nature" that is observable in the social organization of animals, including baboons, chimpanzees, and, ironically, wolves. Individuals from these species are not born socialized, but they are born with the potential to become socialized. This potential is realized in the course of interaction with their fellow creatures in the process of development: first in contact comfort with mother, then in rough and tumble play with peers, then upon the maturation of sexuality with sexual partners. These three stages of emotional development were outlined in my June 15, 2010 blog post. The content of these interactions involves emotional communication. Contact comfort establishes basic attachment in infancy: the capacity to experience and express prosocial emotions that counter selfish tendencies that become manifest later. Tendencies to dominate others appear in the playful interactions of childhood: as noted in my August 24, 2010 post children are on the average most aggressive between the ages of 2½ - 3½ and typically learn to NOT be aggressive. These tendencies to dominate become serious with the maturation of sexuality, when dangerous and even deadly rivalries can become manifest. These are often moderated by social contacts: the most powerful wolf, for example, is typically not the most aggressive, but rather tends to be the best politician, who maintains active affectionate relationships with peers who become allies in struggles within the pack.

The social structure of wolves and other social animals emerges naturally from communicative interactions across the lifespan, beginning with the nurturing care of the mother and proceeding as emotions of fear, anger, delight, sadness, confidence, and desire are dealt with in communicative social context. For example, Woolpy and Ginsburg (1967) demonstrated that the pack structure emerges naturally in the communicative interactions of wolf pups raised together without adult tutors. The innate potential encoded genetically in motivational and emotional systems is expressed and responded to by others in a continuing process of communication. The genes are, in effect, nurtured in the course of communicative interaction: it is not nature versus nurture, rather nature IS nurtured and indeed MUST be nurtured. This is the functional equivalent of Locke's natural law: Darwinian rather than divine.

Emotional communication is necessary and sufficient for this process to occur. If normal communication is disrupted during early development, there can be long term and even lifelong consequences. But if normal communication opportunities are provided, this process unfolds automatically as a dynamic self-organizing system. And this is where the consideration of emotional development in social animals can illuminate the rapidly evolving situation in the Middle East. This revolution has emerged simultaneously in many nations-naturally, organically, and perhaps inevitably-from the largely suppressed passions of the young people in the region combined with the ecology of communication afforded by social media. The revolution has tended to be strongest in societies where repression has been the most powerful and effective, and where traditional paths of communication have been the most hierarchical and bound by tradition. When suddenly young people can communicate directly with one another, the release can be electric, dramatic, and spectacular. And, the content of this communication has been overwhelmingly emotional: expressing fear, resentment, indignation, hope, and triumph along with such a sense of emotional bonding and solidarity that these young people have faced and knowingly and willingly are facing the prospect of arrest, imprisonment, torture, and violent death. We support them and watch them with admiration and respect, wishing them the best of luck and success.

Portions adapted from discussion in Buck, R. (1988). Human Motivation and Emotion. (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Russell, B. (1945). A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Woolpy, J. H., & Ginsburg, B. E. (1967). Wolf socialization: A study of temperament in a wild social species. American Zoologist, 7, 357-363.