We teach children that being a tattletale is wrong. As adults, groups ostracize those who oust their own members. Law enforcement officers, prison guards, military members, and athletes operate on unspoken codes that shun those who tell on their fellow members. Organizations call their tattletales “whistleblowers,” and perhaps the most violent reactions to those who tell on their own or “snitch,” comes from the world of gang members who will do everything from cutting people’s faces 150 stitches wide from ear to mouth for telling on one of their own to killing them. From children to governments to organizations to criminals, tattletales are not accepted.
But why? Why is it unacceptable to call someone out for doing something wrong?
As a species, we are stronger as a group. In fact, some insightful research has led to the hypothesis that the reason why Neanderthals died out while Homo sapiens lived on was that Neanderthals had larger parts of their brains devoted to eyesight and coordination. Neanderthals were physically larger than Homo sapiens, hence their need for more coordination; and they lived in higher elevations such as mountains, where better eyesight would have been an evolutionary advantage. Homo sapiens had larger regions of their own brains focused on social interactions. In short, the hypothesis goes: Homo sapiens outlasted their Neanderthal counterparts because we realized that we need each other.
So perhaps “snitching” or being a “tattletale” is neurologically hard-wired into us as dangerous, with the biological threat of: “Don’t go against the group or we’ll abandon you, and good luck trying to survive on your own.” Is that far-fetched? Maybe. But it’s worth considering, because no matter the race, ethnicity, creed or socioeconomic status of any group of Homo sapiens, being a tattletale is universally viewed as unacceptable. And even here and now, with all the advances in modern technology and supposed consciousness of the twenty-first century, although the consensus might be that others should oust their own, our own groups seem to remain recalcitrant to doing the same.
But what if we redefined “tattletale”? What if we redefined “snitch”? What if, instead of persecuting others for shining light on the truth, we all collectively began to praise such behavior? I know, the concept of praising tattletales is foreign to us and might well go against our very nature, but I want to pose the question nonetheless. My suspicion is that many will jump on board for this redefinition—that is, as long as it begins with some other group that is different from their own. And the moment that people hear this idea and suggest that another group be the first to try this concept, it will highlight and exemplify the seeming impossibility of this whole task. Of course, the “do as I say, not as I do” principle of change is probably as ancient as any other psychological construct.
One reason redefining the tattletale is potentially ludicrous from a psychological standpoint is that perhaps the most basic human need is safety, and safety is amplified by power. Those in power are not likely to give up their power without a fight. When our power is threatened we respond, even if we are in the wrong. To truly change the concept of a “snitch” or “tattletale,” we will have to be willing to set our egos aside and be genuinely open to being corrected; we will have to learn to put our security aside and be truly responsible for absolutely everything we do; and quite honestly, that is probably all just a little too much for us to handle at this point in our evolution.
Now, my guess is that someone will likely tell on me for even suggesting this idea, but I’m okay with that. I accept full responsibly for having this idea.
