Superstition and early indoctrination

The two articles that appeared in the Midweek Review of The Island, November 10, titled, ‘Nice Racism’, based on Robin DiAngelo’s book, Nice Racism, by Prof. C.P. Sarvan and ‘World Science Day: Appraise nations to dispel pseudoscience’ by Prof. Kirthi Tennakone are timely, stimulating and also complementary. They question racism and pseudoscience, both of which flourish in a climate of superstition and conformism that feed on each other.

COVID-19 has laid bare the latent superstitious character of our collective mindset. Looking at the people, thronged to secure a vial of concoction many moons ago, one would have wondered whether they were feeling the presence of the concerned goddess, hovering above them, to protect all of them against sure infection by physical proximity. The potion received state patronage through ministerial intervention that incorporated a ceremonial swallowing of the brew by some VIPs inside the House; and the dropping of pots of ‘blessed’ water into waterways. It was an embarrassing period of augmenting and celebration of superstition.

Usually, belief in superstition is blamed on lack of education. However, even the educated are not always resistant to superstition. From early days, children start forming ideas that are etched into their undeveloped minds, and they, as a rule, remain undisturbed by cognition, which is a later attribute of our brain development. Before formal education, children begin to imbibe many things as a result of being a member of a family, which forces them to prematurely ‘learn’ some of the most complicated concepts that are well beyond their limited grasp. This process of ‘learning’ is, among other things, the inculcation of religious teachings in the unformed minds that cannot resist this intrusion, which amounts to a violation of their right to learn complex concepts at the right time, when their cognitive faculties are ready for the task. Religion is not different from the first language, in terms of the child’s method of ‘learning’, the only method available to undeveloped minds, which is acquisition. No child can help acquiring the language and the religion in her or his immediate environment.

If an adult tried to formally teach a kid either language or religion, in all their complexity, it would drive the latter insane. The child, in her or his defenselessness against the well-meaning indoctrination of religion, is thus denied her right to learn any religion or religions she would wish to as an adult. Like her first language, the specific religion to which she is exposed from her babyhood, becomes an essential part of herself. However, while the acquisition of language is quite natural, uniquely human and essential for socialising, that of religion is not only artificial but also injurious; in that it lays a firm foundation for the child to simply acquire any notion on the strength of familiarisation through repetition, in other words, continuous exposure to stories, ‘truths’ and rituals unique to that religion.

Here, the important question is not regarding the content per se, but the method of indoctrination, which later makes him or her justify the acceptance of unverifiable ideas under a veil of fake ‘intellectuality’. As such, it is not surprising that even among the educated, one may find those who believe in the ‘truth’ of certain views and explanations that are not testable, but have a ‘solemnity’ attributed to them by tradition or authority. Thus many superstitions may have a surprisingly long shelf-life. In his article, Prof. Tennakone says, “pseudoscience is a social malady akin to superstitions and ideologies, which advocate untested claims, most of them illogical or fake, as science.” He goes on to say that there are those who are rational in their professional life but have no quarrel with pseudoscience “in private matters dearer to” them.

Of course, many of us are hardly aware of, let alone embarrassed by this ‘dual-personality’, an integral element in us, which helps us to navigate smoothly in a world where we have to cohabit with reason and ‘unreason’, with equal ease of grace and conviction.

Come to think of it, we have, in fact, ‘multiple personalities’ one of which is racial identity, a fake label that we carry in our entire lifetime to no useful purpose, other than maintaining an unreal and insidious division. What’s worse, prolonged habituation has made us believe that there is something in us that makes us uniquely Sinhala or Tamil. What is called racial identity can go even deeper than religious identity because, while people can change their faith and assume a new religious identity, the former is almost immovable due to a ‘learned’ feeling that we have in us a ‘racial gene’, which we cannot get rid of at will. Perhaps, ironically, every time we try to entertain high-minded thoughts about ‘racial harmony’ we unconsciously get all the more convinced of our ‘racial uniqueness’. What a mess!

Dr. E.W. Adikaram wrote, “In truth, there is only one human race: what goes as Sinhalese, Tamil, English and a thousand other nationalities are only designations born out of belief and having no intrinsic significance whatsoever.” (Isn’t the nationalist a mental patient?) In fact, he used to say that many people talked about ‘racial discrimination’ and ‘racial harmony’ without realising that ‘race’ is a myth. In his article, Prof. Sarvan says, “…there’s no race but racism flourishes. There are no scientific grounds for believing in race. Race is a human construct…”

What is clear is that we, humans, have a significant capacity for entertaining myths and the inescapable early indoctrination, no matter how sanctified and well-intentioned it may have been all these centuries, can contribute in no small measure towards making us accommodate myths without examining them rationally. Of course, there may be other influential factors.

SUSANTHA HEWA