The social hierarchy and Laurie Lassiter’s chapter in the Handbook of Bowen Family Systems Theory and Research Methods
I have been interested in the subject of the social hierarchy for a while. My reading of Sapolsky, deWaal, E. O. Wilson, and other scientists has helped me understand the adaptive value of groups organizing rank orders as well as the stresses incurred and the way those stresses are distributed. My study and observations have led me to think that humans are like many other species in that we instinctively respond to social threats by taking reciprocal dominant and subordinate positions.
In my recent study of hunter-gatherers, I learn that there is a general consensus among anthropologists that these were communities of kin and others who stayed together for life, were highly interdependent and had a strong ethic of sharing. They were egalitarian for the most part, and strongly discouraged anyone claiming more than his or her share or taking a superior position. This makes me wonder if they were lacking the basic dominant and subordinate instincts. I am thinking that no, they were not. These were as much a part of their nature as they are of modern humans, but their culture and way of making a living exerted strong constraints on the expression of dominance. That started to change with the advent of agriculture and forming of hierarchical states. In contrast with the h/g, our current socioeconomic world is highly stratified and social class is a key factor in one’s opportunities in life. Much research has shown the relationship between socioeconomic status, health and illness. Subjective SES can be as much a predictor of health effects as objective SES. It is not only about being poor; it is more about feeling poor. Status sensitivity is a component of most of our interactions from the interpersonal to the international.
All this is to preface my comment about Laurie Lassiter’s chapter in the Handbook. Titled “Human stress genomics and Bowen theory,” the chapter reviews a wide range of research, from the older work on rank and health, to the more recent areas of stress physiology and social genomics. Laurie’s clear explanation of many studies left me with a heightened appreciation for the deep roots of SES, all the way down to the molecular level. Especially interesting is the study of happiness, or, in scientific terms, “the genetic expression effects of different kinds of happiness.” Distinguishing between hedonic happiness (“well-being generated by the pursuit of positive emotional experiences and self-gratification”) and eudaimonic happiness (“well-being that stems from devoting one’s efforts to a noble cause or purpose beyond the self”), the research shows that people scoring high on hedonic and low on eudemonic happiness are vulnerable to a persistent stress response that is out of awareness. This particular finding strikes me as a clue to a puzzling aspect of human behavior: what drives people to pursue wealth beyond, and in many cases far beyond, their needs for material security or happiness? Is it all about competition for social status and power? Or is it better explained by the discovery of the connection between hedonic happiness and the persistent stress response?
This is just one example of many points in Laurie’s chapter that pushed me further in my thinking about the social hierarchy. Most important are the connections she makes along the way between the genomic stress research and Bowen theory. At the end of the chapter, she identifies specific areas of the research that correspond with concepts in Bowen theory. She states: “The finding that social groups are a regulating influence on individuals at the molecular level of genetic expression supports Bowen’s observations that individual development are determined in part by the larger systems in which we live and our position in family and other social groups.”
How exciting it is to see this field of research bringing forth solid evidence that undergirds the scientific foundation of Bowen theory and contributes to the quest for a science of human behavior. Thank you, Laurie, for this important chapter.