Bicameral mentality is a psychological hypothesis proposed by American psychologistJulian Jaynes. It suggests that earlymodern humans experienced thoughts and emotions not as originating within themselves but as commands from external "gods". According to the theory, the humanmind once functioned with a division in which one part generated verbal instructions while a second part obeyed, forming a "bicameral mind". The eventual collapse of this mental structure is proposed to have led to the development of self-reflectiveconsciousness in humans.
The term was coined by Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 bookThe Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind,[1] wherein he makes the case that a bicameral mentality was the "normal and ubiquitous state" of the human mind as recently as 3,000 years ago, at the end of theBronze Age.
Jaynes uses "bicameral" (two chambers) to describe a mental state in which the experiences and memories of the right hemisphere of the brain are transmitted to the left hemisphere via auditoryhallucinations. The metaphor is based on the idea oflateralization of brain function, although each half of a normal human brain is constantly communicating with the other through thecorpus callosum.[2] The metaphor is not meant to imply that the two halves of the bicameral brain were "cut off" from each other but that the bicameral mind was experienced as a different, nonconscious mental schema wherein volition in the face of novel stimuli was mediated through a linguistic control mechanism and experienced as auditory verbal hallucinations.
Bicameral mentality is nonconscious in its inability to reason and articulate about mental contents through meta-reflection, reacting without explicitly realizing and without the meta-reflective ability to give an account ofwhy one did so. The bicameral mind thus lacksmetaconsciousness, autobiographical memory, and the capacity for executive "ego functions" such as deliberate mind-wandering and conscious introspection of mental content. When bicameral mentality as a method ofsocial control was no longer adaptive in complexcivilizations, thismental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought, which, Jaynes argued, is grounded in the acquisition ofmetaphorical language[3]learned by exposure tonarrative practice.[4]
According to Jaynes, ancient people in the bicameral state of mind experienced the world in a manner that has some similarities to that of aperson with schizophrenia.[5] Rather than making conscious evaluations in novel or unexpected situations, the person hallucinated a voice or "god" giving admonitory advice or commands and obeyed without question: one was not at all conscious of one's own thought-processesper se. Jaynes's hypothesis is offered as a possible explanation of "command hallucinations" that often direct the behavior of those with first-rank symptoms of schizophrenia, as well as other voice-hearers.[6]
Eric Robertson Dodds wrote about how ancient Greek thought may have not included rationality as defined by modern culture. In fact, the Greeks may have known that an individual did things, but the reason they did things was attributed to divine externalities, such as gods ordaemons.[7]Bruno Snell in 1953 thought that inHomeric Greek psychology there was no sense of self in the modern sense.[8] Snell then describes how Greek culture "self-realized" the modern "intellect".[9]Arthur William Hope Adkins [de], building on Snell's work, wrote about how ancient Greek civilization developed ego-centered psychology as an adaptation to living in city-states, before which the living in Homericoikos did not require such integrated thought processes.[10]
The neurological model inThe Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is a radicalneuroscientific hypothesis that was based on research novel at the time, mainly onMichael Gazzaniga'ssplit-brain experiments[11][12] andleft-brain interpreter theory.[13][14] The more general idea of a "divided self" (contrasted with a "unitary self") has found support from psychological and neurological studies.[15]
Jaynes built a case for this hypothesis that human brains existed in a bicameral state until as recently as 3,000 years ago by citing evidence from many diverse sources, including historical literature. He took aninterdisciplinary approach, drawing data from many different fields.[16] Citing Dodds, Snell, and Adkins,[17] Jaynes proposed that until roughly the times written about inHomer'sIliad, humans did not generally have the self-awareness characteristic ofconsciousness as most people experience it today. Rather, the bicameral individual was guided by mental commands believed to be issued by external "gods"—commands that were recorded in ancientmyths, legends, and historical accounts. This is exemplified in not only the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the verymuses ofGreek mythology who "sang" the poems. According to Jaynes, the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of theirmusic andpoetry.
Jaynes asserts that in theIliad and sections of theOld Testament, no mention is made of any kind ofcognitive processes such asintrospection, and there is no apparent indication that the writers were self-aware. Jaynes suggests that the older portions of the Old Testament (such as theBook of Amos) have few or none of the features of some later books of the Old Testament (such asEcclesiastes) as well as later works such as Homer'sOdyssey, which show indications of a profoundly different kind of mentality—an early form of consciousness.[16]
In ancient times, Jaynes noted, gods were generally much more numerous and much moreanthropomorphic than in modern times, and he speculates that this was because each bicameral person had their own "god" who reflected their own desires and experiences.[18]
He also noted that, in ancient societies, the corpses of the dead were often treated as though still alive (being seated, dressed, and even fed) as a form ofancestor worship, and Jaynes argued that the dead bodies were presumed to be still living and the source of auditory hallucinations.[16] This adaptation to the village communities of 100 individuals or more formed the core of religion.
Citing Gazzaniga, Jaynes inferred that these "voices" came from theright brain counterparts of theleft brain language centres, specifically, the counterparts toWernicke's area andBroca's area. These regions are somewhat dormant in the right brains of most modern humans, but Jaynes noted that some studies show that auditory hallucinations correspond to increased activity in these areas of the brain.[16]
Jaynes notes that even at the time of publication there is no consensus as to the cause or origins ofschizophrenia. Jaynes argues that schizophrenia is a vestige of humanity's earlier bicameral state.[16] Recent evidence shows that many people with schizophrenia do not just hear random voices but experience "command hallucinations" instructing their behavior or urging them to commit certain acts, such as walking into the ocean, which the listener feels they have no choice but to follow. Jaynes also argues that people with schizophrenia feel a loss of identity due to hallucinated voices taking the place of their internal monologue.[19]
As support for Jaynes's argument, these command hallucinations are little different from the commands from gods that feature prominently in ancient stories.[16] Indirect evidence supporting Jaynes's theory that hallucinations once played an important role in human mentality can be found in the 2007 bookMuses, Madmen, and Prophets: Rethinking the History, Science, and Meaning of Auditory Hallucination byDaniel Smith.[20]
Jaynes theorized that a shift from bicameral mentality marked the beginning of introspection and consciousness as we know it today. According to Jaynes, this bicameral mentality began malfunctioning or "breaking down" during the 2nd millennium BCE. He speculates that primitive ancient societies tended to collapse periodically—for example, Egypt'sIntermediate Periods, as well as the periodically vanishing cities of the Mayas—as changes in the environment strained the sociocultural equilibria sustained by this bicameral mindset.
TheLate Bronze Age collapse of the 2nd millennium BCE led to mass migrations and created a rash of unexpected situations and stresses that required ancient minds to become more flexible and creative. Self-awareness, or consciousness, was the culturally evolved solution to this problem. This necessity of communicating commonly observed phenomena among individuals who shared no common language or cultural upbringing encouraged those communities to become self-aware to survive in a new environment. Thus, consciousness, like bicameral mentality, emerged as a neurological adaptation to social complexity in a changing world.[21]
Jaynes further argues thatdivination,prayer, andoracles arose during this breakdown period in an attempt to summon instructions from the "gods" whose voices could no longer be heard.[16] The consultation of special bicamerally operative individuals, or of divination bycasting lots and so forth, was a response to this loss, a transitional era depicted, for example, in the book of1 Samuel. It was also evidenced in children who could communicate with the gods, but as their neurology was set by language and society, they gradually lost that ability. Those who continued prophesying, being bicameral, according to Jaynes, could be killed.[22]
Leftovers of the bicameral mind today, according to Jaynes, include mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. Jaynes says that there is no evidence of insanity existing prior to the breakdown of the bicameral mind and that this is indirect evidence for his theory. He considered that previous claims of insanity in Homeric literature are based on mistranslations.[23]
Early coverage bySam Keen in the November 1977 issue ofPsychology Today considered Jaynes's hypothesis worthy and offered conditional support, arguing the notion deserves further study.[24][25]The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind was a successful work of popular science, selling out the first print run before a second could replace it.[17] It received dozens of positive book reviews, including those by well-known critics such asJohn Updike inThe New Yorker,Christopher Lehmann-Haupt in theNew York Times,[26] andMarshall McLuhan in the TorontoGlobe and Mail. Articles on Jaynes and his ideas appeared inTime in 1977,[27] and inQuest/78 in 1978.[28] The book was nominated for theNational Book Award in Contemporary Thought in 1978.[29]Philip K. Dick,Terence McKenna, andDavid Bowie have all cited the book as an influence.[30]
According to Jaynes, language is a necessary but not sufficient condition for consciousness: Language existed thousands of years earlier, but consciousness did not emerge as soon as language did.[31] The idea that language is a necessary component of subjective consciousness and more abstract forms of thinking has gained the support of proponents includingAndy Clark,Daniel Dennett,William H. Calvin,Merlin Donald, John Limber,Howard Margolis,Peter Carruthers, and José Luis Bermúdez.[32]
An early criticism byphilosopherNed Block argued that Jaynes had confused the emergence of consciousness with the emergence of the concept of consciousness. In other words, according to Block, humans were conscious all along but did not have the concept of consciousness and thus did not discuss it in their texts.Daniel Dennett countered that for some things, such asmoney,baseball, or consciousness, one cannot have the thing without also having theconcept of the thing.[33][34][35]
Gary Williams defends the Jaynesian definition of consciousness as a social–linguistic construct learned in childhood, structured in terms of lexical metaphors and narrative practice,[35] against Ned Block's criticism that it is "ridiculous" to suppose that consciousness is a cultural construction,[36] while the Dutch philosophy professor Jan Sleutels offers an additional critique of Block.[34]
H. Steven Moffic questioned why Jaynes's theory was left out of a discussion on auditory hallucinations byAsaad & Shapiro (1986).[37] The authors' published response was, "Jaynes' hypothesis makes for interesting reading and stimulates much thought in the receptive reader. It does not, however, adequately explain one of the central mysteries of madness: hallucination."[38]
The new evidence for Jaynes's model of auditory hallucinations arising in the right temporal-parietal lobe and being transmitted to the left temporal-parietal lobe that some neuroimaging studies suggest was discussed by various respondents.[39][40][41]
Jaynes described the range of responses to his book as "from people who feel [the ideas are] very important all the way to very strong hostility. ... When someone comes along and says consciousness is in history, it can't be accepted. If [psychologists] did accept it, they wouldn't have the motivation to go back into the laboratory ..."[28]
Marcel Kuijsten, founder of theJulian Jaynes Society, wrote that in the decades since the book's publication, "there have been few in-depth discussions, either positive or negative" about it, rejecting as too simplistic the criticism that "Jaynes was wrong".[42]
Sociologist W. T. Jones asked in 1979, "Why, despite its implausibility, is [Jaynes's] book taken seriously by thoughtful and intelligent people?"[43] Jones agreed with Jaynes that "the language in which talk about consciousness is conducted is metaphorical", but he contradicted the basis of Jaynes's argument – that metaphor creates consciousness – by asserting that "language (and specifically metaphor) does not create, it discovers, the similarities that language marks". Jones also argued that three "cosmological orientations" biased Jaynes's thinking: 1) "hostility to Darwin" and natural selection; 2) a "longing for 'lost bicamerality'" (Jones accused Jaynes of holding that "we would all be better off if 'everyone' were once again schizophrenic"); 3) a "desire for a sweeping, all-inclusive formula that explains everything that has happened". Jones concluded that "... those who share these biases ... are likely to find the book convincing; those who do not will reject [Jaynes's] arguments ..."[43]
Walter J. Ong noted that the Homeric Iliad is a structurally oral epic poem so, he asserted, the very different cultural approach of oral culture is sufficient justification for the apparent different mentalities in the poem.[44]
PhilosopherDaniel Dennett suggested that Jaynes may have been wrong about some of his supporting arguments – especially the importance he attached to hallucinations – but that these things are not essential to his main thesis:[45] "If we are going to use this top-down approach, we are going to have to be bold. We are going to have to be speculative, but there is good and bad speculation, and this is not an unparalleled activity in science. ... Those scientists who have no taste for this sort of speculative enterprise will just have to stay in the trenches and do without it, while the rest of us risk embarrassing mistakes and have a lot of fun."[46]
Danish science writerTor Nørretranders discusses and expands on Jaynes's theory in his 1991 bookThe User Illusion, dedicating an entire chapter to it.[47]
William P. Frost wrote that "this book threw oil on the fire of the New Age mentality and its courting of the paranormal and the occult".[48]
Historian of scienceMorris Berman writes: "[Jaynes's] description of this new consciousness is one of the best I have come across."[49]
Richard Dawkins inThe God Delusion (2006) wrote ofThe Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind: "It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius; Nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets."[50]
Gregory Cochran, a physicist and adjunct professor of anthropology at the University of Utah, wrote: "Genes affecting personality, reproductive strategies, cognition, are all able to change significantly over few-millennia time scales if the environment favors such change—and this includes the new environments we have made for ourselves, things like new ways of making a living and new social structures. ... There is evidence that such change has occurred. ... On first reading,Breakdown seemed one of the craziest books ever written, but Jaynes may have been on to something."[51]
In 2007, Cavanna, Trimble, Cinti and Monaco wrote inFunctional Neurology that "Even today, it has been argued that a multidisciplinary approach to the problem of consciousness and its development in the evolutionary process that shaped Homo sapiens cannot leave out an analysis of Jaynes' theory of the origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the preconscious bicameral mind",[15] citing Canadian psychologist, neuroanthropologist, and cognitive neuroscientistMerlin Donald[52] and American psychiatristStanley Greenspan.[53]
Brian J. McVeigh, a graduate student of Jaynes, maintains that many of the most frequent criticisms of Jaynes's theory are either incorrect or reflect serious misunderstandings of Jaynes's theory, especially Jaynes's more precise definition of consciousness. Jaynes defines consciousness—in the tradition ofLocke andDescartes—as "that which is introspectable". Jaynes draws a sharp distinction between consciousness ("introspectable mind-space") and other mental processes such as cognition, learning, sensation, and perception. McVeigh argues that this distinction is frequently not recognized by those offering critiques of Jaynes's theory.[54]
PsychiatristIain McGilchrist proposes that Jaynes's hypothesis was the opposite of what happened: "I believe he [Jaynes] got one important aspect of the story back to front. His contention that the phenomena he describes came about because of abreakdown of the 'bicameral mind' – so that the two hemispheres, previously separate, now merged – is the precise inverse of what happened."[55] Kuijsten maintained that McGilchrist mischaracterized Jaynes's theory.[56]
There have been a number of conferences and symposiums dedicated to Julian Jaynes's theory. These include:
A number of publications discuss and expand on Julian Jaynes's theory, including three books by Brian J. McVeigh (one of Jaynes' graduate students) which expand on Jaynes' theories:
NeuroscientistMichael Persinger, who co-invented the "God helmet" in the 1980s, believes that his invention may induce mystical experiences by having the separate right hemisphere consciousness intrude into the awareness of the normally-dominant left hemisphere.[62] Scientific reproductions have shown that the same results could be obtained even if the device was turned off, indicating the participants were likely experiencing placebo.[63]
V. S. Ramachandran, in his 2003 bookThe Emerging Mind, proposes a similar concept, referring to the left cortical hemisphere as an "apologist", and the right cortical hemisphere as a "revolutionary".[64]
Iain McGilchrist reviews scientific research into the role of the brain's hemispheres, and cultural evidence, in his 2009 bookThe Master and His Emissary. Similar to Jaynes, McGilchrist proposes that since the time of Plato, the left hemisphere of the brain (the "emissary" in the title) has increasingly taken over from the right hemisphere (the "master"), to our detriment. McGilchrist, while accepting Jaynes's intention, felt that Jaynes's hypothesis was "the precise inverse of what happened" and that rather than a shift from bicameral mentality there evolved a separation of the hemispheres to bicameral mentality.[55]
[...] Jaynes argues that metaphor is not just linguistic embellishment but that it facilitates thought processes that would not otherwise be possible. All of our terms for mental abstractions have their basis in metaphor, and metaphors are instrumental in our ability to introspect - our inner life or internal 'mind-space' being built up through metaphors of physical space.
Metaphors [...] play a substantial role in the narrative character of knowledge by generating imaginative associations that bring the unknown within the sphere of existing understanding. [...] Jaynes became known for his controversial theories of non-conscious ancestral humans, as presented inThe Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, but this provocative book also contains helpful reflections on the nature of ordinary waking consciousness and the comprehensive role that metaphor plays in the growth not only of language but of the most fundamental awareness and comprehension of a world.
