Filed under: Uncategorized
I am not sure – have I discussed Green Monkey Theory in these pages? Well, if I have, it will not hurt to recapitulate for those who may have come in late. The name comes from a conflation of two works of science fiction read back when men were men and sci fi was what it ought to be and dinosaurs contended with dragons for mastery of the land. Briefly put, the nub of the theory is as follows:
Given a troop of monkeys T, if you introduce a monkey G that you have painted green, they will mount an attack A, tear and rend. More formally,
T + G > A
This formula is a useful account of the treatment across space and time of minorities by the majority in human societies. Jews and Gypsies in Europe; brains and retards in American schools; those in the sciences who do not buy into the standard theory – all Green Monkeys. These are the ones who look different, act different, speak, walk, think, dress differently.
Having been a Green Monkey in almost every social group I have entered, I have come to recognize the validity of T + G > A. If you doubt, you try stopping after one drink at a party in Kenya, or bringing up intriguing developments in String Theory in a sports bar.
Of late, however, I have realized that the theory as stated is inadequate, and refinements are needed. We shall consider a few of the most important.
POSTULATE 1: A Green Monkey must be, or be perceived as being, the same species as the Troop. A chimpanzee entering a sports bar may be perceived as dangerous or undesirable, but will not be treated as a Green Monkey. If a humanoid alien from the planet Archon enters the bar, he will be treated as an alien. If a human dressed as an Archonite enters, he may well be Green Monkeyed.
So we amend our equation to reflect that all players must be monkeys:
Tm + Gm > A
POSTULATE 2: A Green Monkey must be, or be perceived to be, abnormal. In a stable and sustainable society, the weird person who moves into the neighbourhood, talking and dressing funny, has a high probability of being GreenMonkeyed. But a person who talks and acts just as weirdly may well be integrated rather than Green Monkeyed, if he and his peers and cousins grow up together. But if a normal member of the troop should leave, spend time elsewhere, and then return visibly different, that individual may well be Green Monkeyed – this is the classic case of the monkey taken out, painted green, and returned.
So the equation must again be amended to reflect that familiarity F limits the rejection and separation S enhances it:
Tm + Gm
—————- > A
F – S
POSTULATE 3: A Green Monkey must constitute or represent a minority whether in numbers or in power. A Hmong in an American town is a very probable Green Monkey. An American Marine entering a Hmong village has a low probability of being Green Monkeyed. For the Green Monkey phenomenon to occur, the threat associated with the weirdness must not be a clear and present danger.
The equation must now include the factors of power P and numbers N:
Tm + Gm
—————- > A
F(P + N) – S
POSTULATE 4: Attitude counts. A Green Monkey must be perceived as choosing or embracing difference. A Latvian American who adopts the grooming, topics of conversation, dress, food, social behavior of those around him may well be accepted despite his accent. A Latvian American with perfect English who wears funny ties and sits in the break room reading a Latvian newspaper and drinks Riga Black Balsam instead of brewskies – that one may well be Green Monkeyed if he is not the boss.
Even where difference exists, it may be taken as a mitigating factor if the weird one has humility. If the Latvian American is trying to make his English more colloquial, that is a plus. If he talks about how the Latvian paper is more reliable than the Times, that is a minus.
So we amend the formula with voluntary difference V and humility H:
Tm + (Gm – H)
—————- > A
F(P + N) – SV
I am sure further refinements are possible, and of course it would be desirable to include, for example, a viridity constant – the amount by which rejection increases for each point of difference, since a monkey painted green and perfumed with My Sin will stimulate a stronger rejection on the part of the troop.
But that must wait for future research. Here we have offered four amendments to the theory, which was the goal of this paper and constitutes, I would suggest, a significant advance in our understanding.
