Cultural Cognition

As I was reading an article in the New York Times, something profound caught my attention:

"Humans are social animals.We have evolved to depend on our group, our tribe, for our health and safety. So we adopt views and positions that align with those of our group, in order to be accepted and supported   and protected   as a member in good standing. Agreeing with the group also helps protect us because social unity helps our tribe prevail in the competition with other tribes for control of society in general. So we see and interpret the facts about guns, or any issue, through these deep lenses." ("On Gun Policy, Both Sides Have Something to Fear" by David Ropeik)

Now, this idea of course is not new, (he establishes this by referring to it as "cultural cognition") but it introduces a viewpoint on the volatile subject of gun control that I haven't yet heard   at least not in such depth. According to Ropeik, how we view any particular matter   especially any deeply polarizing matter   is largely dictated, or at least influenced, by our social environment. We've all heard of this kind of influence of behavior as "peer pressure" which is generally viewed with negative connotation. But the natural principle is the same: we want to be like others, and we want others to be like us. Still, the primary basis of such social behavior which supposedly encourages "unity" has inspired sometimes fierce debate.

"We are creatures of habit" as some say, either tolerating change or standing in outright opposition to it. We strive to maintain a routine or atmosphere familiar to us as we feel secure when we know the result of our actions or the order around us. It is similar to our discomfort with darkness: one fears the dark because one cannot see what is there. Therefore, the reason we strive for familiarity is because we recognize the result and find security in knowing.

Being different is not advantageous   it invokes insecurity. If an individual   or group   is perceived as "different," that individual is unfamiliar to those around him or her and, therefore, others are less inclined to extend themselves to that individual out of fear how ever subtle. Such is the root of racism and other forms of unjustified intolerance. What is advantageous, however, within the context of security, is social conformity: eventually, the culture of the social environment becomes integrated into the individual's personal culture thereby invoking familiarity with and amid the social environment and instilling a renewed sense of security. Given such evaluation, it impossible to ignore the persistence of regional cultures and even stereotypes.

I find this notion fascinating yet not unfamiliar. It is almost an innate concept that I would assume each individual would also recognize. However, some, I would imagine, likely either ignore or outright reject it as a misguided and baseless examination of human social behavior which compromises the freedom of expression sought by all and ordained as one's personal "right." Others, on the other hand, likely accept such examination in order to identify rational behavior; rational behavior which is itself identified within the context of time and place.