Unit 9- Discussion B Complete the Meaning Exercise p. 82 Discuss the following Do you see yourself as more communal or agentic, extrinsic or intrinsic?What characteristics speak to where you are at?I

DEATH: THE WORM AT THE CORE

In their book The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life (2015) , psychologists Sheldon

Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski make the case that the knowledge of our

inevitable demise has a profound effect on our behavior as individuals and as members of

society. What these authors have done in their research is show the interconnection among

fear of death, desire for self-esteem, and the need to proclaim the superiority of our own

cultural group over all others. The theory that they have developed is known as Terror

Management. 1

Note: There is another school of thought on this topic called the Meaning Maintenance Model,

which asserts that death is not the only thing that triggers anxiety sufficient to challenge our

self-esteem and worldviews--which they refer to as meaning frameworks (Beck, 2015; Webber,

Zhang, Schimel, & Blatter, 2015). That said, these theorists would be in substantial agreement

with the other points described below, based on The Worm at the Core .

WORLDVIEWS AND SELF-ESTEEM

Confronted with the reality of death, societies have developed a cultural response. “Our shared

cultural worldviews— the beliefs we create to explain the nature of reality to ourselves—give us

a sense of meaning, an account for the origin of the universe, a blueprint for valued conduct on

earth, and the promise of immortality” (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pysczynski, 2015, p. 8).

Within this context, the authors differentiate between literal and symbolic immortality, with

the former tied in with some form of afterlife and the latter with the idea that a piece of

ourselves lives on, whether through our family, our accomplishments, or just being part of a

society that has permanence.

Self-esteem, as discussed in an earlier section of the workbook, has to do with self-worth and

includes the tacit dynamic of self-evaluation. Previously we discussed the connection between

self-esteem and attachment theory, and saw the importance of developing trust during infancy

and childhood. In our early years our parents provide us with the understanding that we are

good and valued, but as we grow, society takes over this role.

1

Much of Terror Management Theory is grounded in the work of cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker,

whose book The Denial of Death was awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1974. And when this happens, the same benefits of safety and security that we felt in the presence of

our parents are subsequently provided by society. Stated another way, being a valued member

in an enduring society keeps our anxiety at bay. Our self-esteem and our society become

enmeshed, and with it a sense of permanence that enables us to cope with death and related

anxieties. The bottom line is that “psychological equanimity depends on maintaining the belief

that one is a valuable contributor to a meaningful world” (p. 8).

BUT BEWARE

Being invested in maintaining the conviction that we are valued persons and are part of a

meaningful culture can be comforting, but it can also lead to trouble—especially when those

beliefs about self and society are challenged by others who hold different beliefs. This can

happen at both individual and collective levels. If someone from a different religion or political

party challenges one of our personal beliefs, it causes anxiety. It taps into our emotions. We

can, literally, feel it in our gut. At the societal level, when another country challenges us, we

experience similar anxiety, and that can lead to potentially dangerous collective responses, as

the history of warfare has shown.

And how do we respond when we are so challenged? We typically turn against the person or

country that is challenging our beliefs and cultural worldview. We can’t let it stand that they

might be right, because if they are, we might be wrong—which, in turn, threatens our self-

esteem.

The most common ways we have of dealing with this threat is to dehumanize or derogate

(belittle) the source of the threat. At the national level we call our enemies immoral, savages

and evil doers. History is full of examples of countries dehumanizing their foes: the most

infamous being the Nazi portrayal of Jews as being like rats—less than human and therefore

fair game for extinction.

Exacerbating this tendency is the influence of “Heroic Nationalism.” Humans have a tendency

to see their country as being unique and exceptional. Nationalism, as so often happens,

“acquires a sacred dimension when group identity is strengthened by the sense of being

‘chosen people’ of distinctive character and origin who inhabit a hallowed homeland with a

heroic history and limitless future” (p. 116). Viewing themselves as such, it is no wonder that

countries are ever ready to march off to war against one another.

On the personal level, research shows that when death anxiety is provoked, “Christians

denigrate Jews, conservatives condemn liberals, Italians despise Germans…and people

everywhere ridicule immigrants” (p. 132). Related to this, the authors make the case that throughout history men have denigrated and dominated women as a means to bolster their

own sense of self-esteem. Likewise, this dynamic could be said to be present with racism,

where one racial group sees itself as superior to another, boosting its self-esteem in the

process.

BETWEEN THE ROCK AND THE HARD PLACE

The section of the workbook on morality and ethics addressed the topics of

Individualism/autonomy vs. community /conformity , as well as relativism, moral objectivism,

and absolutism . In the closing pages of The Worm at the Core, the authors address similar

themes as they suggest that there are two general types of worldviews, which they describe as

the rock and the hard place. They then weigh the benefits and pitfalls of each of these

worldviews as a means to help us find a way to deal with our own existential anxiety.

The rock is a black-and-white scheme of things, with explicit prescriptions for attaining literal

and symbolic immortality. Unfortunately, many people who subscribe to rock views fervently

proclaim their beliefs to be absolute truths, and they insist that they can unambiguously

differentiate between good and evil. …The rock-type worldview tends to foster an us vs. them

tribal mentality that, as we have seen, breeds hatred and inflames intergroup conflicts.

The alternative to rock worldviews is the hard place : conceptions of life that accept ambiguity

and acknowledge that all beliefs are held with some measure of uncertainty. Although

adherents to the hard place take their beliefs and values seriously, they are open to other sides

and refuse to claim the sole ownership of the truth. …

So we are caught. The rock provides psychological security but takes a terrible toll on those

victimized by angry and self-righteous crusades to rid the world of evil. The hard place yields

perhaps a more compassionate view of the world but is less effective at buffering death anxiety.

Somehow we need to fashion worldviews that yield psychological security, like the rock, but also

promote tolerance and acceptance of ambiguity, like the hard place. (pp. 222-224)