Does the narrative shape our behaviour?

From this excellent post by Chagnon, on Diary of a Sceptic: -

Narrative does not play a central role in affecting outcome. Narrative is developed instinctively to explain history, to usefully give names to events and movements, to aid us in categorizing what has happened and will happen next, but narrative is not the cause of events. The coexistence of narrative and outcome misleads us into assuming a certain causal relationship. In reality, we act in certain ways because it is basic to our nature. We commit violent acts in vastly different cultures at different times in history, against widely differing narrative frameworks. The narrative changes, the historical context changes, but the actions, in their basic nature, remain extraordinarily similar.

I think the concept that the narrative is not a direct cause for violence is essentially nihilistic and fatalistic. In that, Chagnon suggests we have an innate tendency towards violence, and that the narrative merely facilitates its justification.

I completely accept there is something in the scientific premise, that we are naturally aggressive animals, always one step from violence (Hobbes?), but I can’t accept that this primal urge is any more potent than the natural urge for procreation, and the need to create a safe environment for our progeny. In effect the narrative, of which Chagnon is right to suggest is entirely subjective, produces an environment where the conflict between primal emotions are shaped.

Take the Middle East. Israel is torn between aggressive responses to attacks and the necessity to create some semblance of peace for its people. The battle between the political right and left, in times of discord, is rarely about bloodlust, but about territorial integrity and safety – both prerequisites for creating an environment for ones offspring. The right suggest that safety can be attained by pre-emptive aggression, and the left argue that causes must be addressed. Both sides want stability.

There are, of course, agendas that distort my argument. Racism, religion, ambition, arms dealing, and economic reality, all queer the relationship between stability and aggression. As Chagnon, rather insightfully suggests, we engineer our reality, and those with an agenda will skew the message – prior to our interpretation – in order to pander to one particular emotion.

I have no doubt that our Asian British are not, as we speak, all strapped into suicide backpacks, just waiting for justification to blow us to smithereens. No, the anger and resentment that the 7/7 bombers felt was created very much by the narrative – their interpretation of the reality. The anger and feeling of isolation would have been wrought by the message, and their interpretation of it. Therefore the narrative does, directly, instigate human action.

I don’t accept that the narrative is merely a postscript after the event. The narrative has always created feelings of anger and resentment, and affects the future in many ways, especially with our modern access to rolling news.

The differences between peoples are overwhelmingly manifested by their differing interpretations of the reality, this is true; hence Chagnon’s presumption, the narrative is not the cause but a consequence. But this consequential account of reality begins to, itself, influence action and therefore becomes, not a reflection but a cause.