Culture, health & Iain McGilchrist's ideas about brain lateralization

[Hrafn]

This is a speculative idea about what Iain McGilchrist's ideas on brain lateralization might imply for individual health and personal development within western and/or global culture, broadly speaking.
In The Master and His Emissary, McGilchrist explains that the two hemispheres of the brain have broadly different agendas. While the right hemisphere is concerned with the contextual flow of reality as an unbroken whole, the left hemisphere focuses on grasping minute details. McGilchrist argues that the functions of the right hemisphere are fundamentally more important to how we construct our sense of reality: the right hemisphere properly functions as the “master,” understanding reality by gestalt, while the left is an “emissary” sent out to collect detailed information about the world.
The functions of each hemisphere, of course, are extremely complex, and many human activities involve both. But McGilchrist’s arguments rely more on their overall “personalities”—I.e. not what they do, but how they approach the things they do.
McGilchrist traces the history of western civilization as a back-and-forth between the two hemispheres’ personalities. He argues that during the past several centuries, western civilization has gradually placed greater & greater priority on the decontextualized & detail-oriented agenda of the left hemisphere. In other words, it has usurped the natural order of human societies, in which the right hemisphere should set the agenda. This can be seen, for instance, in the rise of industrial capitalism, and its view of people as interchangeable units of labor rather than irreplaceable individuals.
The gist of McGilchrist’s argument, then, is that western civilization has turned aside from the right hemisphere’s more holistic & integrative way of seeing reality, and that if this continues it will have ominous implications for the future.
To the extent this is true, it suggests that western culture, broadly speaking, is fundamentally unhealthy. To some, this might not be all that surprising, given the role genocidal conquest, slave labor, worker exploitation, cultural imperialism, ecocide, etc., have played in building industrial civilization. And in today’s hyper-globalized world, this left-brain prioritization has surely extended to “non-western” cultures.
Of course, culture shapes & influences all aspects of a person’s life as the totality of a person’s social environment, the set of meanings & symbols in which they’re awash from the time they’re in their mother’s womb. Even a person who disowns the cultural environment they grew up is still developing in reaction to it. And anyway, it’s impossible to disown basic cultural learning such as one’s native language or patterns of early childhood experience.
Culture does not deterministically shape someone's personality, however. A person who grows up in a toxic cultural environment is not automatically doomed to becoming unhealthy, themselves. But, they would likely be more predisposed to unhealthy patterns reflecting their cultural environment than would someone who grew up in a culture without those negative tendencies. Of course, the first step toward deliberately breaking free from unhealthy patterns is cultivating an awareness of them.
I would speculate that each of the eight functions has a healthier pattern of being—in which the right hemisphere’s agenda leads, and that of the left hemisphere follows—and that each function also has a less-healthy left > right hemisphere way of being. In the western cultures of today, I’m guessing that our acculturation usually pushes us on the direction of this latter tendency, as it reflects our our culture's priorities.
Becoming healthier would not mean disowning the left hemisphere. In McGilchrist's view, it is nearly as essential to human wellbeing as is right, so being healthy would require integrating both. In this way, weaknesses in one way of being could easily become strengths in another. According to McGilchrist, the R’s natural tendency is to integrate & modulate the L, whereas the L’s natural tendency is to suppress the R’s agenda.

Spoiler

In the past, Auburn has associated McGilchrist’s description of the right vs. left hemispheres with the perception and judgment functions, respectively. While I see the parallels here, my understanding is that McGilchrist views the right hemisphere’s greater importance as a broad trait of humanity—in other words, as something that would presumably transcend type differences. Otherwise it would imply that J-leads’ prioritization is somehow backwards from what’s natural to humanity as a whole. I would feel uncomfortable with this implication.
As well, it’s my understanding that there have been some pretty robust studies, which have found no evidence for the pop-psychology notion that people have more of a preference for one hemisphere over the other—and if I remember right, McGilchrist similarly dismisses this notion.
Perhaps there are other ways to interpret this, though. Perhaps the right hemisphere’s agenda is more basic to all humans, but J-leads naturally tend to confer the “emissary” more of a coequal seat at the table next to the master, whereas P-leads relegate the emissary to a more subservient role.
But anyway, this is a bit of a rabbit-trail.

[collapse]

Of course, this is all 100% speculative, and I haven’t yet thought through what these patterns would be for each function, let alone what personal development along this path might look like. But as an example, here’s how I could see Si looking in these two different orientations:
In the unhealthier L>R way, Si can be very pedantic, and can easily get hung up on minute details, while losing an understanding of the broader context those details are supposed to serve. Although narrative comes naturally to Si, for example, an Si scientist might struggle to narrate their research for a non-specialist audience without swamping the narrative in a tsunami of technical detail. This is closely connected to the hoarding & fetishistic tendencies that can lead these Si’s to end up with an entire yard full of junk cars. The L>R orientation can make an Si-user stuffy, dogmatic and unable to adapt to changing circumstances. One they have a particular storyline or mission in their head, it can be impossible to dislodge them from that trajectory. Inspector Javert (from Les Miserables) is an example of this mentality, fulfilling his duty with mechanical steadfastness, but unable to understand the broader ethical context of his actions. McGilchrist characterizes the left hemisphere as prone to paranoia, which can certainly plague these Si’s. Ne-Si’s pluralistic/modular orientation can also make these Si’s fall into doublethink.
In the healthier R>L way, Si is very grounded, deeply rooted in the places it inhabits (even if transiently), and in Mother Earth as a whole (Min). The cultural anthropologist Richard Nelson, for example (probably FeSi), wrote about an island of which he had a particular love. After years of hunting, fishing & gathering other food there, he felt the island had become both spiritually & literally part of him—even his own body contained many molecules from all the food & water he got from that island. In this R>L orientation, the left hemisphere’s detail orientation is not an end unto itself, but is used to provide greater definition & clarity to Ne-Si’s watercolor-like way of seeing the world. These Si’s experience the legacy of the past as something that echoes & resonates within the present moment, not as a separate place that one must leave the present to visit. In the same way, nostalgia is not a sentimental fancy for an idealized past, but a genuine, sober sadness about the fading echoes that embody the present moment’s awareness of loss. Ne-Si’s pluralism gives these Si’s the ability to hold many different versions of reality within them without feeling the need to “resolve” them or cling too steadfastly to any one version. This can give them a broad, multidimensional view of the world.

[unknown]

In another words:

[Rua]

@hrafn -- this is a really excellent post, and it's inspired me to read The Master and His Emissary. I believe that the influence of culture is very difficult to overstate when it comes to human interactions; many large engines of modern culture feel grossly imbalanced/inhumane to me, and I'm interested to hear McGilchrist's perspective. I wonder about the criteria for cultural course correction, i.e. the emergence of significant cultural support for a balanced life, rather than disingenuity about individualism and finding peace through product.
This quote in particular stood out to me--

After years of hunting, fishing & gathering other food there, he felt the island had become both spiritually & literally part of him—even his own body contained many molecules from all the food & water he got from that island.

I recently made my way back to the Rockies to hike, and occasionally while hiking I reach a state in which I do not feel separated from anything around me. I could as well be the consciousness in this body as the dirt beneath or a shrub on the side of the trail. I can't recall if I've ever experienced this state outside of hiking in the mountains, and I wonder about its universality across individuals. My suspicion is that the feeling I'm describing is tied to something more fundamental to CT, although certainly it's reasonable to think that type is a factor that could influence the experience.

[Hrafn]

Thank you, @Rua

I believe that the influence of culture is very difficult to overstate when it comes to human interactions; many large engines of modern culture feel grossly imbalanced/inhumane to me, and I’m interested to hear McGilchrist’s perspective. I wonder about the criteria for cultural course correction, i.e. the emergence of significant cultural support for a balanced life, rather than disingenuity about individualism and finding peace through product.

Yeah, I guess the "criteria for cultural course correction" is the million-dollar question. I wish I knew the answer. But here are my thoughts on it, for what they're worth.
At the individual level or even group level, I think some of it comes from first becoming mindful of problematic cultural influences (i.e. coming to terms with one's cultural shadow), acknowledging their influence, and trying to imagine & live out a path that's more life-affirming. This sort of visioning plays a necessary role in helping to provide the inspiration & means toward building a more positive future, but by itself, it's not sufficient to bring about the kind of broader-scale change that's needed. (It will, however, make those who do it more able to engage in the work of broader-scale change-making).
At the broader, human-societal level, I see a need for large-scale, purposeful, disciplined social organizing & mobilizing. Social movements for things like better working conditions, racial justice, etc., have been very positive for the health of Northamerican culture. This isn't the sort of "right-brain solution" McGilchrist emphasizes as much, but it's a necessary step toward mollifying the problematic patterns of a rampantly capitalist cultural environment. (Which in his argument, is something that has grown out of allowing the left hemisphere's agenda & priorities to dominate).
By the way, most cultural anthropologists tend to avoid applying ethical judgments (e.g. healthy/unhealthy) to cultures as a whole, as it requires a dangerously large generalization and can easily lead to an ethnocentric mindset. (Unless, perhaps, if it's your own culture, or that of a society that has more power than your own. I would never label someone else's culture unhealthy). But when I think about unhealth in my own culture, a few things come to mind:

• Is the society in which I live environmentally sustainable? In its current form, is it a process that can perpetuate into the forseeable future?
• Does my culture value cultivating a continuity with humans' evolutionary heritage? (e.g. enabling us to recreate the ecological & somatic experiences of our ancestors)
• Are large swaths of the population drawn to magical-thinking, such as turning toward authoritarian leaders who promise easy fixes to extremely complex problems?
• Is there a widespread sense of nihilism, anomie & spiritual malaise?

Of course, there are folks like Stephen Pinker who point to a lot of quantitative metrics showing that life now is better than at any point in human history. I guess it's hard to argue with when it's framed that way. But are we humans really on a trajectory to be able to sustain our prosperity, longevity, political stability, etc., over the long haul?

I recently made my way back to the Rockies to hike, and occasionally while hiking I reach a state in which I do not feel separated from anything around me. I could as well be the consciousness in this body as the dirt beneath or a shrub on the side of the trail. I can’t recall if I’ve ever experienced this state outside of hiking in the mountains, and I wonder about its universality across individuals. My suspicion is that the feeling I’m describing is tied to something more fundamental to CT, although certainly it’s reasonable to think that type is a factor that could influence the experience.

Ooh cool. That does sound a lot like a flow-state, which as far as I know are universal. But something about it also sounds kinda Pe to me, and maybe even Ne more particularly, since you describe your awareness like something unbounded, ebbing across all objects in your perception at those moments. But who knows?  I've sometimes wondered if Pe has readier access to things like flow-states. I've had some experiences that have been similar to what you describe here, but also with some significant differences.

[Author]

Posts