We are “survival machines” (Dawkins Reference Dawkins1976). Survival increases our inclusive fitness because once we die, we lose the opportunity to propagate our genes or help our genetic kin (Dawkins Reference Dawkins1976; Lankford Reference Lankford2015). But although it is indisputable that we have many evolved tendencies that keep us alive, it is unclear whether we have any that drive us to intentionally die.
One of our primary survival strategies is to seek strength in numbers. The survival of many young mammals depends on staying close to adults, and the survival of many adult mammals depends on staying close to each other (Boesch Reference Boesch1991). Strength in numbers makes it possible for wolves to challenge a grizzly bear, for wildebeest to hold off lions, for chimpanzees to chase away leopards, and for one group of chimpanzees or humans to avoid being slaughtered by another intraspecies group.
I propose that this strength in numbers and survival strategy is a better explanation for all of the findings Whitehouse cites on social bonding and commitment (which he labels “identity fusion”) than purported tendencies for fatal self-sacrifice.
Humans often draw together when we become cognizant of an out-group threat, experience fear, or experience pain. This is when strength in numbers becomes salient and social bonds become strongest, because this is when our survival instincts kick in. As Whitehouse notes, after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, some people were suddenly more willing to give blood or donate money. After other attacks, some people were suddenly more eager to unite, join the military, and destroy the enemy before it could strike again. These responses are not driven by self-sacrifice, but by self-preservation. Deadly threats remind people of their dependence on the group to protect them, so they act to strengthen those bonds. When we feel safe, the group is less important.
Not surprisingly, this social bonding tendency can be elicited by current events, memories of suffering, or even contrived experiences like watching scary movies, which trigger a fear response and often result in people literally holding each other for protective reassurance. Military units, cults, college fraternities, and sports teams are among the many examples of groups that tap into these deep drives when they use painful initiation rituals or hazing to promote bonding.
In many scenarios, strength in numbers requires commitment, because the entire strategy fails if we are abandoned and left alone. This explains a paradox: We want the increased strength of joining with others, but often do not accept them without vows or proof of commitment. Before marrying, we make them endure courting rituals and declare “till death do us part”; before combat, we make them endure initiation rituals and declare they are not afraid to die.
These vows should not be taken as proof that most newlyweds would rather die than part with their spouses or that most soldiers would welcome death. But Whitehouse often makes such assumptions, misinterpreting commitment statements from survey research as respondents’ actual “willingness to lay down their lives for the sake of the group.” Of course, both human and nonhuman mammals will risk their lives to fight enemies, defend kin, and pursue other objectives, but that is very different from intentionally sacrificing their lives.
Even when a military commander (quoted by Whitehouse) allegedly told fighters “If you want to die, come with us. If not, go home and stay out of harm's way” (sect. 2, para. 9), that is not evidence that the fighters were volunteering for intentional self-sacrifice. It is evidence that they passed a basic screening test. Before combat, people often use scare tactics to identify potential abandoners in advance. They do this precisely because they want to survive.
As I have shown in other research, however, these social bonds and commitments typically have a breaking point (Lankford Reference Lankford2015). Nonhuman mammals do not intentionally sacrifice their lives to protect their offspring or group. Instead, they predictably flee to save themselves (Lankford Reference Lankford2015). Humans are prone to do the same, which is why for millennia, fighters had to be drafted, coerced, shamed, or bribed to appear on the battlefield if their likelihood of death was high, and then threatened with execution for desertion (Pinker Reference Pinker2012).
Perhaps we are so attracted to the notion of intentional self-sacrifice – and, so, likely to exaggerate it in religious texts, works of fiction, and journal articles – because our drive to seek strength in numbers is so powerful. Being protected by other people increases our sense of security, but it feels even better to believe that they care more about our survival than their own.
Whitehouse falls into this trap by citing suicide terrorists, Japanese kamikaze pilots, and the Jonestown cult members as examples of extreme self-sacrifice, despite not having studied these individuals in depth.
I have done that research. Most volunteer suicide terrorists decide they want to die before they join the group: they were community members who barely knew other terrorists, let alone “fused” with them (Lankford Reference Lankford2013; Reference Lankford2014a; Reference Lankford2015). Groups like the 9/11 hijackers are the exception, but even if some of them bonded closely with each other, the notion that they were dying for the group makes no sense, because they all perished, so none of them benefited.
Furthermore, many of Whitehouse's examples were actually responding to coercion (Lankford Reference Lankford2013; Reference Lankford2014a; Merari Reference Merari2010; Ohnuki-Tierney Reference Ohnuki-Tierney2007). The United Nations has reported that ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other terrorist groups have kidnapped, sexually assaulted, beaten, and threatened victims before forcing them to commit suicide bombings. Similarly, kamikaze survivors recall that anyone who dared to refuse “volunteering” for a suicide mission for Japan was told to go back and pick the “right answer.” And audio tapes reveal people crying and disagreeing with cult leader Jim Jones's orders to drink poison, but he surrounded them with armed guards and forced them to kill their children first.
If we indeed “fuse” with others, it is because strength in numbers increases our chances of survival, so it seems unlikely that these social bonds would make us want to intentionally die.
We are “survival machines” (Dawkins Reference Dawkins1976). Survival increases our inclusive fitness because once we die, we lose the opportunity to propagate our genes or help our genetic kin (Dawkins Reference Dawkins1976; Lankford Reference Lankford2015). But although it is indisputable that we have many evolved tendencies that keep us alive, it is unclear whether we have any that drive us to intentionally die.
One of our primary survival strategies is to seek strength in numbers. The survival of many young mammals depends on staying close to adults, and the survival of many adult mammals depends on staying close to each other (Boesch Reference Boesch1991). Strength in numbers makes it possible for wolves to challenge a grizzly bear, for wildebeest to hold off lions, for chimpanzees to chase away leopards, and for one group of chimpanzees or humans to avoid being slaughtered by another intraspecies group.
I propose that this strength in numbers and survival strategy is a better explanation for all of the findings Whitehouse cites on social bonding and commitment (which he labels “identity fusion”) than purported tendencies for fatal self-sacrifice.
Humans often draw together when we become cognizant of an out-group threat, experience fear, or experience pain. This is when strength in numbers becomes salient and social bonds become strongest, because this is when our survival instincts kick in. As Whitehouse notes, after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, some people were suddenly more willing to give blood or donate money. After other attacks, some people were suddenly more eager to unite, join the military, and destroy the enemy before it could strike again. These responses are not driven by self-sacrifice, but by self-preservation. Deadly threats remind people of their dependence on the group to protect them, so they act to strengthen those bonds. When we feel safe, the group is less important.
Not surprisingly, this social bonding tendency can be elicited by current events, memories of suffering, or even contrived experiences like watching scary movies, which trigger a fear response and often result in people literally holding each other for protective reassurance. Military units, cults, college fraternities, and sports teams are among the many examples of groups that tap into these deep drives when they use painful initiation rituals or hazing to promote bonding.
In many scenarios, strength in numbers requires commitment, because the entire strategy fails if we are abandoned and left alone. This explains a paradox: We want the increased strength of joining with others, but often do not accept them without vows or proof of commitment. Before marrying, we make them endure courting rituals and declare “till death do us part”; before combat, we make them endure initiation rituals and declare they are not afraid to die.
These vows should not be taken as proof that most newlyweds would rather die than part with their spouses or that most soldiers would welcome death. But Whitehouse often makes such assumptions, misinterpreting commitment statements from survey research as respondents’ actual “willingness to lay down their lives for the sake of the group.” Of course, both human and nonhuman mammals will risk their lives to fight enemies, defend kin, and pursue other objectives, but that is very different from intentionally sacrificing their lives.
Even when a military commander (quoted by Whitehouse) allegedly told fighters “If you want to die, come with us. If not, go home and stay out of harm's way” (sect. 2, para. 9), that is not evidence that the fighters were volunteering for intentional self-sacrifice. It is evidence that they passed a basic screening test. Before combat, people often use scare tactics to identify potential abandoners in advance. They do this precisely because they want to survive.
As I have shown in other research, however, these social bonds and commitments typically have a breaking point (Lankford Reference Lankford2015). Nonhuman mammals do not intentionally sacrifice their lives to protect their offspring or group. Instead, they predictably flee to save themselves (Lankford Reference Lankford2015). Humans are prone to do the same, which is why for millennia, fighters had to be drafted, coerced, shamed, or bribed to appear on the battlefield if their likelihood of death was high, and then threatened with execution for desertion (Pinker Reference Pinker2012).
Perhaps we are so attracted to the notion of intentional self-sacrifice – and, so, likely to exaggerate it in religious texts, works of fiction, and journal articles – because our drive to seek strength in numbers is so powerful. Being protected by other people increases our sense of security, but it feels even better to believe that they care more about our survival than their own.
Whitehouse falls into this trap by citing suicide terrorists, Japanese kamikaze pilots, and the Jonestown cult members as examples of extreme self-sacrifice, despite not having studied these individuals in depth.
I have done that research. Most volunteer suicide terrorists decide they want to die before they join the group: they were community members who barely knew other terrorists, let alone “fused” with them (Lankford Reference Lankford2013; Reference Lankford2014a; Reference Lankford2015). Groups like the 9/11 hijackers are the exception, but even if some of them bonded closely with each other, the notion that they were dying for the group makes no sense, because they all perished, so none of them benefited.
Furthermore, many of Whitehouse's examples were actually responding to coercion (Lankford Reference Lankford2013; Reference Lankford2014a; Merari Reference Merari2010; Ohnuki-Tierney Reference Ohnuki-Tierney2007). The United Nations has reported that ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other terrorist groups have kidnapped, sexually assaulted, beaten, and threatened victims before forcing them to commit suicide bombings. Similarly, kamikaze survivors recall that anyone who dared to refuse “volunteering” for a suicide mission for Japan was told to go back and pick the “right answer.” And audio tapes reveal people crying and disagreeing with cult leader Jim Jones's orders to drink poison, but he surrounded them with armed guards and forced them to kill their children first.
If we indeed “fuse” with others, it is because strength in numbers increases our chances of survival, so it seems unlikely that these social bonds would make us want to intentionally die.