Since
no one is comfortable with the negative feelings and awkwardness
associated with being self-conscious, why is this unwanted,
anti-productive attribute written into our DNA? The dread
and discomfort joined at the hip with self-consciousness predict
the reflex movement away from it towards the opposite state
of mind (lessness) -- a validation of Freud’s death
wish theory, we wonder out loud? What is the evolutionary
purpose of self-consciousness? What benefit, what advantage
did it confer, when, let us hypothesize, there were two competing
versions of man: one with it, the other without?
Concomitant
with the appearance of intelligent life on earth has been
the unrelenting, pitiless war man has been waging against
self-consciousness. The truces have been fragile, ephemeral,
and the victories costly in consideration of time and capital
man has invested in trying to free himself from the state’s
crippling imperatives and punishing protocols. It’s
hardly a coincidence that every society in the world encourages
the consumption of some sort of narcotizing agent in order
to temporarily decommission that part of the brain (neo-cortex)
responsible for the condition of self-consciousness in order
to facilitate the reversion to the pre-reflective state of
mind we associate with animal and vegetable life. Carrot envy
or carrot consciousness is not a choice as much as a preset
or vital interval, and is coeval with our very humanity. It
has been suggested that one of the primary functions of sleep
is to allow us to recover from the stresses and debilitations
associated with SC (self-consciousness). A cottage industry
of self-help literature has sprung up in response to the needs
of millions who are desperate to overcome their self-consciousness,
variously described as the enemy of performance, fun and life.
But
since our being-in-the-world is inextricably linked to SC
there must be a reason for it, assuming the gene sequence
responsible for the condition is not simply an adventitious
mutation that has managed to survive until the present. If
we grant that there are degrees of SC, often quantified as
epidermal designates, empirical evidence overwhelmingly suggests
that the thick-skinned among us are consistently more successful
than the thin-skinned. Why?
X
wishes to persuade an audience to undertake a particular course
of action, but he is too self-consciousness to stand before
their gaze: he fears their judgment, the power they hold over
him. At the podium, his voice cracks, tightens, he freezes,
he fails to speak. Someone else, Y, unaffected by SC, addresses
this same group and convinces them to buy into another course
of action to which X is opposed. His ideas survive, X’s
does not. In the performing arts, the singer who is comfortable
performing in public gets a hearing, the singer who is too
self-conscious does not.
When
early man lived nomadically in tribes, and optimal performance
meant the difference between life and death, the hunter or
hunters who fell prey to being negatively affected by SC returned
to their dependents empty handed. If the tribe succumbed to
starvation, the unfit genes would be eliminated. At least
that is what we expect should have happened, but it didn’t,
which begs the question: Is it possible to be human and not
be saddled with self-consciousness? Is it possible for someone
to know that he exists as separate from everyone and everything
else, is mortal, can conceptualize a past, present and future
without being conscious of who he is?
The
evolutionary counterpart of the Big Bang occurrs when man
first appears, when he utters for the first time in the history
of life on earth “I am,” which means he knows
that ‘he is’ and is conscious of the fact that
one day he will not be. At this critical evolutionary juncture,
he can now observe and judge others who are making decisions
that bear directly on survival: wise decisions that are partial
to well-being, unwise decisions that are not. Since he can
judge others, he himself can be judged, which means it is
impossible to be conscious of existing, of being sentient
and temporal, and not be self-conscious. With the first pronouncement
of “I am, or I exist,” man is banished forever
from the Garden of Eden, which was life on earth before intelligence,
before self-consciousness.
In
the prelapsarian world there is no SC. There is simply pure
and unmediated being: no past, no future, no anticipation
of death, no anxiety, which is why man looks back to this
state with a longing-cum-craving that left unfulfilled is
often experienced as sickness of being, and latches onto to
any activity (yoga, sports, computer games) or endorphin producing
substance that allows him, if only temporarily, to revert
back to pure being, to existing wholly in the present indicative.
In other words, even though performance is almost always negatively
affected by SC, the gene sequence survives because the evolutionary
advantages of being intelligent and self-aware by far and
away outweigh the downside of the condition, routinely experienced
as a kind of besiegement and constriction.
In
his essential makeup, the king of the beasts is manifestly
self-conscious; it is a condition over which he has very little
natural control, and as such, the degree to which he is afflicted
is mostly a matter of luck of the draw (inheritance) and early-in-life
role models. If, according to Spengler, mankind can be divided
into two types -- those who make history and those that don’t
-- those least affected by SC have been our history makers
and, until recently, our most prolific breeders. Those undeterred
by SC, who can rise to the occasion of sexual conquest in
especially the public domain, will spread their seed more
copiously than their self-conscious counterparts, who, it
must be said, are nonetheless still breeding in private. Throughout
history, among the rites of victory, rape of the enemy has
played a significant role in human breeding patterns, and
as mentioned in an earlier essay,
natural selection has always looked kindly upon rape and the
genes responsible for the behaviour. One of natural selection’s
toughest truths is that many of us are the sons and daughters
of rapists.
Many
aspects of our culture and ethos are determined by SC. All
of us seek out and have learned to create privileged, intimate
spaces or sanctuaries where we can let down our guard and
enjoy the freedom and bliss that unselfconscious allows, which
is why we dress one way in public, and less formally in the
privacy of our homes.
Not
long after the first “I am” was spoken, man, irreparably
self-conscious, discovered that he preferred to perform his
ablutions and excretory functions in private, and cover his
genitalia, and conduct his conjugal life away from big brother
and the captious public eye.
Our
moral universe and its imperatives are the living issue of
SC, which make us self-aware of what we owe our families,
our friends, our community. This kind of debt or social contract
doesn’t exist in the animal world. The man who unselfconsciously
chooses to spend his days in the tavern and is indifferent
to or unaffected by the censure of his community and refuses
to modify or correct his behaviour will be less likely to
attract a mate, and his seed to see the light of a new day.
So to the accusation that natural selection has been only
a bit player during the past century -- other than eliminating
those who can’t get their hands on food -- in point
of fact it has always been punishing those at the extreme
ends of SC who are much less likely to produce offspring than
those in the middle of the pack.
Being
self-conscious is simply the price you pay for being-in-the-world.
There is no circumventing, negotiating or finessing the state,
just as there is no way to prevent man from creating his quiet
corners and reverting to all manner of subterfuge to either
escape from or anesthetize himself against SC’s worst
effects. In biblical terms, every day after the fall is judgment
day since we are all subject to the never ending scrutiny
of the ubiquitous other.
On
our hands and knees, begging to be relieved of SC, we, in
perpetuity, ecstatically discover -- with a nodding off to
Dionysus -- that our most intense pleasure centers and pre-self-conscious
states of mind are one and the same, and that their euphoric
conjunction does not negate what the Buddha in his wisdom
was purported to have said: “wonderful are the things
of the world but terrible to be them.” For all of its
lacerations and suffocations, self-consciousness is nothing
less than becoming conscious of the gift that is the miracle
of life, and is the force that drives the green fuse and makes
meaningful life possible.
And
make that a double.