Tests of faith usually are tests of faith in oneself. Sometimes, though, tests of faith can become tests of the truth. How strongly are we willing to stand by the truth in trying times? Does standing by the truth include a constant examination of aspects of the self, so as to absolve oneself of all malcontent and wrong doing? Does it also include a constant questioning the other aspects of oneself so as to admit one’s foibles?
Where do the two intersect? Is there a grey area? There perhaps is.
It is common knowledge that there are aspects of intense events that are traumatizing, that are not well known to the person who is the victim of that incident. When the victim has to face a personal tragedy or an attack on his life, do these lost memories become fabricated memories? How much can we trust our own version of the events at, for example, a crime scene? How do people explain complex sequences of events to themselves? Do they consider the other party, that potentially brought them harm, as a reasonable actor? Does attributing such character to those that harm you bring you a level of comfort in their humanity, while making their actions seem trivial in comparison to the ways in which they could have acted? Is this transactional analysis the basis of Ahimsa and non-violent thought? When Mohandas Gandhi was struck down by an officer in South Africa even as he protested inequality in marriage rights for non-whites, was he comforted by this thought, that his non-violence rendered him superior, in some way? What was the basis of this thinking? Was it religious? Was it something less irrational? Were it religious, it could probably be considered as a case of irrational thinking being used to bolster one’s state of mental soundness. This state of mental fortitude is accomplished not by a basic physical security and strengthened by repeated exposure to pleasure, but by an affirmation inside one’s mind, that an idea can be responsible for one’s well being. Effectively, one’s hierarchy of needs stands reversed in this situation, with personal safety and security becoming less important than the affirmation inside oneself that one is at par with, or holds a higher ground morally than, the other party.
It is probably very interesting to examine how people can move from a traumatizing experience to relative calm. There are probably multiple phases in this – starting with the shock of the trauma, acting reflexively to the situation as it demands of him/her, building a sequence of events, building paths of reasoning from these event sequences, rationalizing one’s misdeeds/mishandling of the situation, and then determining a version of the truth. Subsequent to this comes the inordinate worry, perhaps of any fall out from the event. The human animal has to, in the course of the first three of these activities, have a sense of belief in itself that caters to its survival. This reason can be born of religion, science, deduction, strategy or any tool it has at its behest.
How does one reconcile uncertainties arising from the confusion that a grey area creates in one’s mind? Is irrationality a solution? Does faith in a higher power, a judge superior to the human judges, have its roots in the social infrastructure that inures in individuals a sense of right and wrong, or is faith born of a deeper, more philosophical view of an all-controlling force? Does the former merge into the latter after manifesting in our minds as multiple other ideas? Whatever the method, it seems apparent that traumatizing situations surely test the notions we have developed about religion and reason. Habits developed in the individual, sometimes by practicing a religion or a system of belief come to the fore, and reasoning that leads from one activity to another sometimes also follows the irrational route. Strange as it may seem, irrational thinking may actually help retain certain information that is specific and factual about a situation that caused trauma to the victim.
It is possible that the human brain has to depend on some form of self-centred survival strategy when in times of trouble, and that this could defy all rational thinking, because it is the result of a neural net which is self-aware.
If one’s behaviour in an emergency defies logic at times, it is possible also, that one’s worries fall far short of the possibilities one may see when using reason and probability, while also being biased towards a few types of worry. The incident that leads to the trauma tends to condition the mind so that certain possibilities seem more possible to the mind than certain others, and these distinct possibilities become a source of worry.
What is the solution to worry after a trauma? Reliving the event may be sufficient for events that have brought fear but not harm to the individual. However, in cases where the victim has acutely suffered, there are probably multiple ways to get them to reconcile the damage and come away with a positive frame of mind. It helps to think that justice will be done, or that a solution will be provided, but for many situations in life, there seem to be no way out for victims of trauma, unless they reason out the event and develop the fortitude to divert their minds to something positive in their immediate future. This may be the antidote to bring their confidence to a level where they can fend for themselves again.
4 Comments
April 13, 2009 at 1:33 am
the answer to that lies in psychology only.
it is the defence mechanism of the mind. to save the body and mind from adverse effects of the trauma.
we use the defence mechanisms all the time in life and these are like a few false beliefs which keep us going.
check out here.. http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech.htm
April 14, 2009 at 7:15 am
Oorja, thanks for your comment.
I have reservations about certain theories of psychology, especially Freudian ones. I remember hearing a TED talk by Vilayanur S Ramachandran where he likened the human love for animals to the inherent male baby’s love for his mother, as if there was a subliminal bestiality in action in human psychology
Jokes apart, I think psychology should become more of an exact science that considers legitimate brain chemistry theories to justify/validate claims made by practitioners.
It is undeniable that we indulge in defence mechanisms when in trauma – some of these rationalizations are surely examples of defence phenomena. It is true that many false beliefs are sometimes necessary for survival.
Thanks for the about.com link.
April 14, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I quite agree with your analysis… as usual very articulately put. This phenomenon of rationalization and explaining away inconsistencies has also been expressed by Dr. VS Ramachandran. You probably are already familiar with this, and his analysis of traumatic cases of epilepsy.
One half of the brain’s hemisphere (right, I think) is responsible for weaving together cohesive theories about the environment and self, based on the multitudes of information we perceive. The coherent theories that this part of the hemisphere concocts is internally consistent, but need not correspond to the truth/reality or the way the environment is. The other part of the brain’s hemisphere, is responsible for ensuring that the coherent theories/rationalizations don’t completely break in terms of their correspondence to the external world. And if it does happen, then the theories/faiths are trashed and reformulated from start.
In traumatic cases, this need to rationalize and struggle to come up with cohesive internal theories based on faith, and shutting off the module responsible for checking the theory’s correspondence to reality is shown to be high.
April 24, 2009 at 11:54 am
Thanks for your comment. It is true that there is a tendency to rationalize events that led to a traumatic situation. Having experienced something akin to a trauma, I can say that one of the immediate fallouts of the trauma itself is the fact that I found myself trying to find reasons to understand what happened, and assure myself that I was a victim, that I was in the right. This is probably a common characteristic of all trauma victims, and it is probably not possible to undergo such an intense existential reasoning (for me at least) outside of a trauma. It is amazing how deep the fabric of human nature runs – that it can help us examine ideas and opinions we have strongly held in the face of evidence against such ideas. It is probably best for people who intend to progress to not have traumatic experiences, as they will then have the strength to build on an idea, however arbitrary. Having said that, does fortitude gained from incidents that induce trauma contribute to reasoning that is more delicate, subtle and not opinionated as is the case with trauma victims? I found myself only limping back to normalcy, while if I had had such an unsettling experience before, I may have recovered faster. In any case, it is well worth examining this idea further.