Groups

GROUPS, VALUES, AND BEHAVIOR

 

DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL HARMONY IN SMALL AND LARGE GROUPS

Humans evolved for millions of years in small groups of dozens up to a few hundred.  In these groups, individuals would have been personally familiar with all the other group members.  This would make the development of emotional connections with, and an identification with, the entire group quite natural.  Since group welfare and harmony would determine whether an individual's genes were continued, the individuals who survived in the groups that survived would have some natural, even instinctual, inhibition to harm other members of the group or the welfare of the group. 

Then came agricultural societies and the possibility of the development of groups far larger than those humans evolved in.  This resulted in the groups so large that members were not acquainted with most other members and anonymity became common.  This led to a lower level of emotional connection to other members of the group, which reduced inhibitions to acts that caused harm to other group members.  As individuals became emotionally capable of harming other group members and the downside of this became apparent, laws were created to regulate such behavior and promote greater harmony. 

However, laws alone are not capable of restoring the personal relations and the group cohesion in large groups that was easily achieved in small groups.  Feelings of trust of and identification with other group members are necessary to build the cohesion to keep the large group together, pursuing common goals for the benefit of all, and also to allow the individual members to pursue their own goals in harmony with each other, in light of the inevitability of significant conflict from so many people constantly interacting with each other.  To build that trust, social mores developed to minimize behavioral variability allowing individuals to know what to expect from others.  Also, common behavior patterns were established to allow the many different members of the group who were not personally familiar with each other to coexist and interact in harmony.  This required the development of shared belief systems and values. 

Diversity in beliefs, values, and behavior puts a strain on the cohesion and harmony of large groups.  Trivial diversity such as diversity in appearance could be ignored, and necessary diversity such as the inclusion of both sexes could be celebrated, while significant but nonthreatening diversity such as language diversity could be tolerated with small cost and possibly even a net gain.  However, the diversity in beliefs, values, and resultant diversity in behavior burdens the social system, leading not only to great conflicts but also to a loss of the dependability of their expectations of others' behavior that reduces the extent to which group members can work together for the common good or depend on each other for positive feedback, and thus a source of energy and motivation, as they pursue their own individual goals.  Sometimes tolerating a diversity of beliefs, values, or behaviors for the short-term is necessary to avoid immediate conflict, as such differences may be reduced over time as people interact, but celebrating such diversity is self-destructive and nonsensical, though it should be added that scientific inquiries into the validity of beliefs regarding the state of nature is healthy and necessary.

 

GROUPS AND SUBGROUPS; SELECTION AND DISCRIMINATION

Virtually every group can have subgroups, and whether a group is a subgroup of another group is dependent on context.  Generally, a subgroup is a subset of the group that is the subject of the discussion.

 

Every individual can belong to innumerable different groups or subgroups.  As the group is an abstraction, it can be constructed in an infinite variety of ways.  A subgroup of the human group can be determined according to race, ethnicity, language spoken, age, sex, religion or other belief system, certain intellectual or athletic talents or abilities, height or weight, attractiveness, health status, income or wealth, job or profession, level or type of education, interests or activities, behavior, nationality or place of domicile, or any of an unbounded number of other characteristics.

 

Individuals choose subgroups to identify with and belong to by whatever they perceive gives them a relative advantage in pursuing whatever goals they have in mind.  Sometimes they are just following convention and tradition and are avoiding social approbation by making the choice.  Other times they are trying to obtain what they perceive to be a special benefit from some subgroup membership.  

Most of the subgroups that the individual belongs to have little impact on or relevance to the individual's potential impact on the welfare of the entire human group.  However, subgroups based on behavior are an exception to this.  Legal systems discriminate against those who engage in behavior that those in power, be it the majority in a democratic system or a ruling class, deem to be inconsistent with the welfare of the group.

 

Note that since any individual may belong to any number of subgroups, the great majority of individuals belong to both subgroups that have historically had certain advantages or been favored and other subgroups that have been disfavored or discriminated against.  The individuals with the most ability and advantages can use this to continue gaining an advantage from being in traditionally favored subgroups while simultaneously attempting to gain some sort of compensation for membership in subgroups that have been unjustly disfavored (generally not including disfavored behavior subgroups, as there may be general acceptance of the justification for the different treatment).  Without examining the entire set of subgroups to which an individual belongs, simply favoring those who have been in some traditionally disfavored subgroups does not necessarily remedy the apparent unfairness.

 

TYPES OF GROUPS

There are innumerable different possible groupings.  It can be useful to categorize them by general characteristics.

Group R1:  A large group that can reproduce itself and be self-sufficient and without making any modifications.  This would be a group that is consistent with human groups through evolution so that it may operate independently and will likely be successful if behaving in a manner consistent with propensities developed by the evolutionary pressures.  This group can develop its own culture.

An example would be an entire human society, including a nation, or possibly a large tribe that is not closely associated with any other group.

Group R2:  A smaller group that can reproduce itself and be self-sufficient and without making any modifications.   This group can develop its own culture.

An example would be a group such as a small tribe, which may be distinguished from the R1 groups in geographical proximity by race, ethnicity, or by language.

Group R3:   A group that that can reproduce itself and could be self-sufficient with minor modifications.  This group is similar to an R2 group except that it is not isolated though not extremely integrated with a larger society such as an R1 group.  This group may be able to continue its own unique culture that was developed when the group predecessors were separated from the larger society, though pressure over time will likely reduce the differences.

An example would be a group comprised of the members of a tribe, race, ethnicity, or language group, or even be composed of those with a particular religious or other belief, that live and interact with an R1 group but that could separate from that group and become readily self-sufficient. 

Group R4:  A group that can reproduce itself and could be self-sufficient with major modifications.  This group is comprised of members who are integrated with a larger society in such a way that group members do not represent a microcosm of the society.   The behavior of the members of this group with respect to the larger society is not necessarily consistent with the general behavioral propensities developed my evolutionary pressures over the millennia, though it is possible for the members to adapt to changing circumstances and adopt those behaviors.  This group may develop a unique culture only if it segregates itself and purposefully creates a unique culture, in part to increase separation from the larger society.

An example is a group composed of a social class.  For instance, a wealthy investor class if separated from a larger society could become self-sufficient, but it would require a significant amount of reassignment of roles and retraining and would result in a very different lifestyle.

Group N1:  A group that cannot reproduce itself but is made up of permanent or semi-permanent members .  Since the group cannot reproduce itself, it is not self-sufficient over the long term, though it is possible it could be able to survive as a separate group for a single lifetime.  There may be advanced technology that may allow this group to reproduce, but maintenance of a high level of technology over the long term is uncertain and cannot be depended on.  This is a group that is fundamentally different from the R groups because its members did not and could not have evolved as a separate group.  This group would only be able to develop its own culture if its members intentionally segregated themselves for that purpose.

An example of this type of group is one composed of people of a single gender.  The two gender groups evolved together and the members are interdependent as evolution developed within them interconnected needs and abilities.

Group N2:  A group that cannot reproduce itself because it is transient and limited in purpose.   The only unique culture this group would likely produce would be very limited in scope and effect.

Examples of this type of group include those based on similar interests or hobbies, belief systems such as political beliefs, or circumstances such as similar jobs or matriculating at the same school, or any of a wide variety of casual connections.

 

ELITE SUBGROUPS

Since the human mind only evolved to handle groups of a few dozen to possibly a couple of hundred members, humans generally feel comfortable with groups of that size and find it difficult to form strong and meaningful bonds with groups that are much larger, i.e., to create workable, stable, and strong positive feedback loops in the larger groups (members will not establish positive feedback loops with most of the other members, diminishing the solidarity of the group and the value of group membership).  This makes it natural for individuals to try to fit into subgroups, often what are described above as R4 groups, that are much smaller and that provide the opportunity to form bonds and trust with a large percentage of other members, with the level of the bonds and the trust much greater than that with other members of the larger group.

One particular subgroup of note is the one formed when the more powerful individuals join together to create an elite social class.  This elite group could then consolidate power and form a government that protected its members' interests within the group but that also represented the larger group to other large groups that might be encountered.

 With control of the government and with lawmaking and enforcement powers, the elite subgroup could shape the values and beliefs of the larger group, ensuring that they were consistent with the elite subgroup's  interests.  Though because of the potential competition and conflict with other larger groups and because the quality of life of the members of the elite subgroup was in part dependent on the wealth and welfare of the entire group, the elite subgroup would have an interest in creating rules, values, and beliefs that to some degree benefited the general welfare of the larger group.  

If the elite subgroup formed rules with only a focus on narrow self-interest at great expense to the larger group, not only would the larger group suffer a decline in welfare that could impact the welfare of the elite group, but the others in the larger group could be motivated to form alliances to challenge the elite subgroup's control over the larger group.  However, it would be very difficult for the non-elites to bond in any group of common people that would have sufficient cohesion or numbers to have sufficient political power to successfully challenge the elite subgroup.  Also, the elite subgroup could control and manipulate to some degree the subgroups that other non-elite members of the greater group were forming, in order to ensure that such other subgroups did not threaten the interests or the status of the elite subgroup.  This often takes the form of elite subgroups encouraging the formation and growth of other subgroups that are not threatening to the elite group's position, siphoning off the time and energy that may be devoted to, and taking the focus from, subgroups that are found to be threatening.  The elite subgroups especially favor the growth of other subgroups that have divergent interests and values from each other, making combinations of such groups all the more difficult.

 

GROUPS AND SURVIVAL

Every emotion and motivation was shaped by evolutionary pressures in a way consistent with furthering self or group survival or reproduction, with all three of these outcomes interrelated.  In those that survived, experiences of pleasure strengthened connections to behavior that achieved outcomes that were consistent with these goals.  Sometimes the goals could become intertwined at several levels, as with sexual relations that increase group connectedness and loyalty as they also lead to reproduction.   Genetic propensities toward certain patterns of behavior would likely have developed, though human adaptability to allow for survival in changing conditions would likely have prevented the development of absolute rules for behavior.  Also, the shaping of behavior for survival would always have been an imperfect process, as imperfect information about the environment, a lack of sufficient analysis, or other factors could, in some cases, lead to experiences of pleasure for behaviors and outcomes that were inconsistent with individual and group survival.  Of course, if this happened too frequently, then death of the individual or extinction of the species would result.

The experience of pleasure for behavior patterns that are not consistent with survival or reproduction creates a greater risk of loss or death for the individual or the group.  As such behavior becomes more common, the risk rises.  At some point, the disconnect between common behavior and group survival may become so large as to virtually ensure group extinction in the long term.   Also, as this problematic behavior does not serve group survival, it likely weakens the group and lowers overall group welfare, making many members of the group dissatisfied, which could lead to violent or other disruptive behavior that could create even more dissatisfaction, forming a sort of dangerous feedback loop, a type of downward spiral.  

When the individual acts inconsistently with individual and group survival, particularly when those goals have been to some degree programmed by evolution, it is akin to acting inconsistently with the welfare of an ecosystem, the ecosystem composed of the actor's mind in the context of the actor's social groups and physical environment, causing harm in innumerable, unforeseeable, and unimagined ways that will become more and more problematic over time.

 

GROUP DECISION-MAKING AND VALUES

Within groups, decision-making can be centralized or distributed.  It is common to label distributed decision-making as "freedom" and as the expression of "individualism," though this is misleading as every decision-maker is bound by context, as all are interconnected and must respond to all pressures, internal and external.  There has been a trend towards more distributed decision-making ("freedom"), based in part on experiences which suggest that there are short-term benefits in terms of maximizing some measure of production.  However, there are also hidden costs, as the distributed decision-making leads to inconsistent goals and over time even inconsistent values, upon which all goals are based.  This reduces internal harmony and eventually can lead to conflict and even disintegration. 

The costs of distributed decision-making, which have increased over time because of the erosion of the great internal value system structures that were mostly based on Christian beliefs and perspectives and built over centuries, have been ignored in the US and other Western societies in part because they have been masked by all the technological developments and accompanying societal changes following from such innovation (regrettable that the mystical and supercilious aspects of some belief systems have survived while the rules of behavior built by trial and error over centuries have been discarded).   This has produced an unsustainable social system that does not prioritize the creation of common goals for social harmony as it depends on conflicting decisions from a distributed decision-making process.

Many Westerners falsely assumed that common goals and values flowed naturally from human life or from established scientific principles and were not inherited by cultural traditions and maintained through a centralized decision-making process.  However, determining optimal goals and values through a scientific process is not practicable, as the social sciences cannot reduce or solve the unmanageable complexity presented  through the use of rigorous experimentation because of the unbounded number of variables involved.  Thus, maintaining traditional methods that have survived the test of time and that appear consistent with the operation of a healthy and harmonious society appears to be an attractive option.

Given the recognition that some uniformity in social beliefs, values, and goals is necessary for a society to prosper, and given the virtual impossibility of establishing sound scientific theories on which to base such belief systems and to determine such values and goals, some may be motivated to attain a new uniformity in belief systems through conversion by dominant elite groups of weaker individuals or groups to the belief system of the dominant group.  The effort to provide uniformity would likely have utilitarian components, though it would also contain components that serve more the interests of the dominant group.  Note that general, virtually unassailable truths such as those represented by rigorously tested scientific theories would provide great resistance to efforts at conversion to belief systems that contradicted such truths, but the social sciences are not equipped to provide such truths and so beliefs about the optimal path for a given society will constantly be in a state of flux, subject to pressures from dominant elite groups pursuing their own interests.

Some attempts at conversion are arguably pure utilitarian, particularly with regard to certain interpretations of utilitarianism.  For example, spreading the belief that long-term benefits should be prioritized over short-term benefits would be purely utilitarian if utilitarianism is interpreted to mean "the greatest good for the greatest number over the long term."  So the conversion of others to this belief could be characterized as purely utilitarian.  However, this example illustrates how no conversion, or motive behind a conversion, can be critically reviewed except with regard to particular goals.  Those converting others to prioritize long-term benefits are more likely to create a sustainable group or society than those converting others to prioritize short-term benefits as the latter would likely vanish from the face of the earth in the long term.

 

CONCLUSION

Current trends will likely lead to catastrophic results as the technological accomplishments have created the means for interaction among all the world's peoples, but there is no currently accepted basis for developing common value systems or common goals for the large group comprising all of humanity so that human beings may live in harmony, and those who may have the means to create and implement a universal system appear to focus to such a degree on narrow and short-term interests that they would not likely create a healthy universal system.    So there may be the basis for the creation of one large super group of all humans, but no social glue formed from a cohesive value system or set of prescribed behaviors under which the group can operate smoothly and peacefully.  This will probably lead to widespread social chaos and continual disintegration amidst continual efforts at building group bonds among subgroups. 

Those who can step away from the vortex created by intense social forces are best suited to develop a universal value system that could establish common goals and social harmony, but those who gain power are virtually always in the middle of that vortex.

The New Left

THE NEW LEFT

The elites in the USA and elsewhere in the West determined that they could enfeeble the political left, those who would challenge their wealth and power for the benefit of the whole society, if the left were transformed from a movement organized around the struggle of labor vs. capital into a movement that would inevitably be divided against itself.  So these elites provided support to such a fundamentally divided version of the left, what is known as the "New Left," which focused on the formation of and empowerment of competing political identity groups, usually based on gender, race,  or ethnicity.  The support was in part direct, but mostly indirect, as the elites provided the New Left with access to mainstream media and the messages, ideas, and values of the New Left were broadly spread, widely promoted, and sometimes even celebrated.  This was all done at the expense of the Pro-Labor Left, which had posed a much greater threat to the political-economic power structure, and over time the New Left supplanted the Pro-Labor Left as the mainstream of the left.

This is problematic over the long term for any human society at a fundamental level.  It not only insulates the elites from any serious challenges to their power, allowing problems to fester and the rise of other abuses that follow from unchallenged power, but most importantly it sets women against men, which can only lead over the long term to social disintegration.  Men and women were designed by evolution to be different pieces of the same puzzle, so that they would fit together with different needs and different abilities to make a harmonious and healthy society that could survive over the long term.   When men and women are convinced that they are competing groups and even enemies, then the myriad of interdependencies between the sexes, some known and many unknown, that human societies have depended on for survival throughout their hundreds of thousands of years of evolution are severed, leading to  innumerable unpredictable ripple effects that could very easily cripple the society.

Humans evolved in small groups, and these small groups grew, by various means, to become larger and larger groups over the evolution of human civilization.  The path to the development of a large society with sufficient social harmony to be healthy and sustainable has been long and torturous and only was achieved after much experimentation with different rules of social behavior.  Of course the social rules were often crafted primarily for the benefit of elites, but often enough the elites crafting the rules recognized that they would benefit from improving the general welfare of the society, particularly in the societies that survived long term.  Sometimes the rules were found to be inconsistent with general welfare by later generations, or by those leading rebellions in the same generation, and were overturned or modified, but this was always best treated as a delicate process as over time human rules become entangled with the values, belief systems, expectations, and patterns of behavior that are common in the society and which members depend on as they build and maintain the web of human life.

However, in the modern era, in the pursuit of their own narrow short-term interests, elites in the West have promoted and empowered this New Left which is radically changing social rules that human societies have depended on to provide for the general welfare for millennia.  The genie is out of the bottle as the New Left movement may, soon if not already, become too powerful for those same elites to control, with the consequence that all humans will suffer, including the elites who enabled this process.