This is Part 2 to a series where I am exploring the relationships between language, culture, and individual identity. In Particular, I am pondering how the inherent violence contained in many of the words of our language is shaping how we interact with the world, and I am considering how to find another way…

To Read Part 1 Go Here

Our understanding of ourselves and our culture is often guided by the set of beliefs and perspectives we’ve inherited by that very same culture. It’s a feedback loop where we end up reinforcing the same ways of thinking we’ve inherited. The result is often that we are also blind to other perspectives and ways of thinking simply because we’ve not experienced anything outside of the system - what is normal is assumed to be natural. (This is like the metaphor contained in the movie: The Matrix.)

An interesting example is with our general interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution. From our combative, capitalist - winner vs. loser - mindset, the “survival of the fittest” is taken to mean that those who are “fit” in terms of force and brute strength will survive and thrive. Using the theory this way has led to the justification of some truly terrible, self-centered, racist, and destructive acts.

But if we take off those cultural blinders and widen our perspective we can see that what made humans fit for survival was not individual brute strength, but our capacity for cooperation. Only by working together to hunt, gather, build shelters, distribute labors, and care for others were we able to thrive in this world.

I listened to Stephen Porges, the author of Polyvagal Theory, speak in a lecture reframing the common notion that we are aggressive by nature and need to “get out” our aggression through sanctioned means such as sports. He made the assertion that all mammals, including humans,  tend to “play fight” especially when they’re young. The common interpretation of this behavior is that the young are mimicking adult behavior and training themselves to be better fighters/predators as they grow up. However, Dr. Porges pointed out the tendency to keep eye contact and display many submissive behaviors and the alternating roles each participant takes in being the aggressor and the victim (like playing chase where one pursues and the other flees).

Looking underneath this play fighting while noticing aspects of behavior in regards to the polyvagal theory, he suggests that mammals are not necessarily honing their fighting behavior but more importantly they are actually training themselves to regulate aggressive behavior and learn how to be more social! So the fighting may have a role, but it is for the opposite reason we think.

This is one reason I am looking more and more to define and identify with something other than “The Warrior” which, as I stated in the last post, seems so glorified in our culture.

But isn’t The Warrior an archetype? Isn’t it a fundamental part of the human psyche?

Yes, certainly.

However, there are many other archetypes as well, and although we may have the innate capacity to do battle, we might question whether we wish to solely emphasize and identify with that aspect of our nature. I think it is a matter of finding balance. A fundamental yogic teaching states the principle: whatever you place your attention on, expands.
If our attention is always on fighting - are we simply expanding our capacity and reasons for fighting?

A Native American story makes a similar point:

A Man tells a boy that there are two wolves inside him - one for the forces of good and one for the forces of evil.

The boy asks: Which will win?

The man replies: The one I feed.

I think, as a culture, we are overemphasizing (over feeding) the archetype of the Warrior and the Hunter and losing sight of the importance of so many other aspects of ourselves.

In primal fitness circles, we believe that our human bodies will become supple, strong, and function best if we return to the skills of our ancestors and regularly engage in activities that we evolved to do: walking, running, jumping, climbing, crawling, lifting, carrying, etc… Also, the more we do these things in the context of nature, the better our physical and psychological fitness will be.

However, the major trend is that most everyone only want to be the hunters and warriors!

If we were truly to emulate our ancestors, we’d remember there were many other important roles that people played:

• Gatherers

• Shamans

• Wise Elders

• Caretakers

• Farmers

• Builders… and more.

The wildest paradigm shift is to realize that the hunters and warriors were not the only “fit” people in the community. All the other roles, lived in accord with nature, also develop ample fitness.

We would do well to remember other archetypes as well. The classic list is as follows:

Sage, Innocent, Explorer, Ruler, Creator, Caregiver, Magician, Hero, Outlaw, Lover, Jester, and Regular Person

Each archetype has value and helps us clue into what it is we are “for” in life rather than what it is we are “against” which is what the Warrior seems to emphasize.
(A great book for some deeper understanding of the Archetypes is Caroline Myss’ book, Archetypes: Who Are You? )

But aren’t there warriors for good causes?

Of course. There are those who are holding and protecting strong, healthy boundaries, and standing up for worthy, good causes. And some tend to use the term warrior to describe themselves. But more often than not, the word “warrior” holds a contradiction in the term:

There’s the “spiritual warrior”, "Peaceful Warrior” (See Dan Milman’s book), or “Love Warrior” (See Glennon Doyle’s book). Each of them standing strong and fighting and forging a way forward in accord with their values often in opposition to the culture at large.

Although I understand the point of using the word- combining “warrior” with spirit, peace, and love grabs our attention and forces us to contend with the word’s meaning like a Zen Koan- I feel that the term, warrior, muddies the intent, like euphemisms mentioned earlier in the previous post, and diminishes the power of what is meant by conforming to the language of the old paradigm where war and fighting are the backdrop upon which all problems are settled.

Maybe another word, other than “warrior”, would create a more powerful message?

Let’s look at the practice of Yoga:

Many of the Asana, poses, of yoga have Sanskrit names associated with them which we, in the Western practice of yoga, have translated into English. Many of the names are simply physical descriptions such as Janu Sirsasana (Head to knee pose), but many have names associated with Vedic philosophy, deities, and mythic figures. A series of poses are names after a particular legendary warrior named Virabhadra - the poses add the suffix “asana” to become the Virabhadrasana series. These are translated as the “Warrior Poses”. Although Virabhadra was a warrior, his name actually translates closer to “Auspicious Hero.” Why do we not call these poses something akin to Hero Poses rather than Warrior Poses? (To be fair, there is a Hero’s pose called Virasana - but this is translated more verbatim from the word for hero and not after the name of a legendary figure)

As such, the warrior poses are energetic postures requiring stamina and strength, whereas what is known as Hero’s pose is actually a seated posture suggesting restfulness, readiness, and peace.

When we name something, what connotations and values are we embedding into our perception of it?

When people practice “Warrior” poses, aside from the physical exercise, they may also be attempting to cultivate the qualities they associate with that word. For some the word implies power, stamina, strength, discipline, resolve and the like. But as I mentioned before, the word also implies battle, fighting, destruction, willingness to commit violence, and even trauma.

“Power” has been so closely linked to violence and war in our culture. So much so, that those in power or striving for power are almost expected to be brutal, harsh, disconnected from emotions, and willing to do anything to achieve their goals no matter the consequences for others.

Fortunately, there are many who are teaching and demonstrating that the word “power” may actually come from a place of spirit, peace and connection to nature:

• Brene Brown often talks about shifting power from a patriarchal model of “power over” another person to a less hierarchical model of “power with” another person - suggesting an attunement and cooperative spirit with others.

• Terry Real, the Relational Life Therapist, speaks of “soft power” in relationships which are truly committed to healing and healthy boundaries. It is through “soft power” that we create effective change that works for both parties in a relationship.

• David Hawkins, the psychotherapist and spiritual teacher, wrote the book Power vs. Force in which he demonstrates how Force is associated with violence and is a lower vibrational and less effective approach to action, whereas true power arises from qualities of love, is aligned with nature, and is much more effective.

• Gary Zukav, in his book The Seat of the Soul, also makes the case for Authentic Power as being “when the personality comes fully to serve the energy of the soul.”

(I highly suggest checking out any of the books from the teachers mentioned above.)

I’m wondering if it would serve us well to intentionally infuse the qualities of strength, stamina, and power into the meanings of constructive and peace-intentioned words. Could this be a way to unplug from our culture’s glorification of violence while shifting towards a more inclusive, cooperative paradigm?

One step I am choosing to take is to use David Hawkins’ model to identify words with violent tones to them as words of “force”, and on the other hand those soft words with tones of love, I will identify as words of “power”.

This week, if it speaks to you, try identifying values you hold, and then explore what qualities and statements describe that value. For example, if you value strength, what makes someone strong? What does strength look like in terms of action?

Then look at what you come up with? Are they descriptions of violence? If so, how could this value be expressed in terms of love and peace?

Example

Value: Strength

Descriptions: someone who conquers all odds, beats back the competition, overpowers his enemies, defeats his weaker impulses, accomplishes more than anyone else…

Or could it be:

Value: Strength

Descriptions: someone who is fit enough to help others, holds space for those who are suffering, holds boundaries when not respected, brings conflicted sides together, holds a vision for a better future, stays optimistic despite failures, communicates needs, expresses true feelings and thoughts…

These are just a few possibilities. But if you come up with a few values and contrasting descriptive lists, which list makes you feel more connected with the value? Which list makes you feel more relaxed, calm, free?

Ponder that and let me know what you come up with!

(Next time, we’ll go deeper into some exercises on how to shift our paradigm for our thoughts, words, and attachments to them.)