But in an intact culture, everyone does the same things at the same time, periodically, and this feels good, for most. You celebrate the festivals, for example. In Mexico, they have many festivals, so they get regular dopamine releases, simply by existing and participating.
In America, hard work is what many of us were taught to feel right. This, logically, leads to more getting done, and greater prosperity. But how much is enough? Your effort relative to your capacity is known only to you, and until the point of exhaustion, more is always possible.
In one sense, it would be possible to view our culture’s freneticism (yes, it is a word, because I say so) as the logical spinning out of control of a basic impulse to validate oneself through effort and concrete accomplishment.
It would seem that you only get a solid dopamine hit when you are quite sure you have done the right thing. When your biological organism is relaxed and confident that this is a worthwhile behavior. But if it gets harder and harder to KNOW what is worth doing, in a highly diverse, fractionating, and largely–with internet-ing–solipsistic society, then logically you have to sort of create a culture of one, to find things which make YOU feel better. Addictions of all sorts would seem to be the obvious and inevitable consequence of cultural breakdown, and indeed that is what we are seeing. It is not just the availability of hard drugs and internet porn which cause so much addiction: it is the NEED for addiction as a sort of ritual inclusion, in a world where nothing can any longer be said with confidence, when indeed simply saying “Make America Great Again” gets you called all sorts of ridiculous names. And who is doing the name-calling? Those whose culture requires them to, with the rejection of genuine difference being the main glue holding them together, and allowing THEM to get their dopamine hits.
All this though leads back to an interesting question: is an intact, healthy culture inherently characterized by what could, on some level, be called an addiction, in the sense of profound behavioral rigidity and following compulsion? Think of any tribal group, with very clear behavioral norms. They were the opposite of tolerant. You either abided by the rules, or you were expelled. This was the sort of thing I realize, now, because of Alan Bloom, that Rousseau was referencing with his being “forced to be free”. (I would propose as one useful new American ritual requiring all clever schoolchildren to read “The Closing of the American Mind”: he was gay, so that should help).
But of course cultures evolve. They are not compelled. You cannot both be free and living in abject terror, and the Terror, and terrors which came about because of his ideas–the Khmer Rouge perhaps most obviously and directly, with their Year One idea–are a logical extension of what he did actually say.
As is obvious, I am a Spiritualist, broadly speaking. I recognize that our brains affect our behavior, but the overwhelming preponderance of evidence also indicates that our minds are not fully contained in our brains. This is all a mystery, which I hope one day scientists will study with the seriousness it warrants.
But much spiritual literature talks about being versus doing. The Tao Te Ching, for example, talks about the virtue of Not Doing. He obviously doesn’t mean to do nothing, but rather to act with a specific quality of energy, with a certain type of higher engagement.
And I can’t help but wonder if dopamine is related to a lower energy, and getting away from its relentless striving to confine us not a major part of spiritual growth, on a neurophysiological level.
Few thoughts for a Tuesday.