How humans became ultrasocial and what it means
Stephanie Ferrera
Economists John Gowdy and Lisi Krall published a paper, “The Economic Origins of Ultrasociality,” in the journal, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, in 2015. They take a broad look at human social and economic evolution, concluding that humans are on a trajectory toward expansion and dominance in the ecosystem that may be unstoppable and is dangerous.
Humans, ants, and termites are among the few rare species that have achieved “ultrasociality,” the highest level of social cohesion. The characteristics are: full time division of labor, specialists who do not produce food but are fed by others, sharing of information about the location of food and danger, and self-sacrifice in defense of the group.
Human evolution took a decisive turn in this direction with the advent of the agricultural revolution which brought the ability to produce one’s own food; extensive division of labor and profound interdependence; and a dynamic of expansion. These traits allow the species to become dominant in the ecosystem, while “individuals become tied to a very narrow productive role in society.” Specialization works well for ants and termites whose castes are based on different phenotypes, but is problematic for humans who seek autonomy and resist the subjugation of regimented, repetitive work.
As the group becomes the economic unit, individual autonomy is suppressed. The society grows more complex with elaborate division of labor, while the behavior of individuals becomes simpler. “Collective intelligence can increase while individual intelligence declines.” Along with loss of individual autonomy, the agricultural transformation brought rigid social hierarchies, patriarchy, slavery, poor health, and an overall decline in the well-being of the average person.
Much in Gowdy and Krall’s analysis resonates with Bowen theory. What they describe in economic terms is strikingly like what Bowen describes in terms of the emotional system. Bowen saw that the individuality-togetherness balance, when driven by chronic anxiety, would shift toward increasing togetherness and reciprocally constrained individuality. If chronic anxiety goes unabated, the process continues to an end point of chaos, violence and people leaving the group. Gowdy and Krall describe ultrasociality as a product of group-level competition in which the group places pressure on individuals to fit into a system of expanding markets and populations. They state: “The selective ‘pull’ of the group over the individual becomes greater with increasing complexity.” We are now seeing more clearly the endpoint of this process, described by Bowen in 1973 as “crises of unparalleled proportions.”
Especially thought-provoking in Gowdy and Krall’s analysis is the idea that long-term human evolution operates largely outside of human awareness or control. “Humans did not consciously choose agriculture.” It came about through incremental decisions made by innumerable individuals over thousands of years. Once the ability to produce a surplus was in place, a dynamic of growth became unstoppable. “A dynamic that started out modestly and benignly locked early agriculturists into a perhaps irreversible process that led to hierarchical state societies. …The system works as a mechanical process and will not self-correct until negative feedbacks begin to curtail surplus production.”
Stephanie, this is interesting. Bowen said he devised a natural systems theory of the family and a piece like this seems to be working towards a natural systems theory of society, particularly economics.
The conclusion of the authors that the system won’t self correct until surplus production is curtailed seems pessimistic, that somehow we cannot regulate ourselves towards a complexity in which individuality is not sacrificed by the many for the gain of the few.
I remember Bowen saying that the communist system was as necessary as the capitalist system. I think of them as counterbalancing aspects of a stable economic system given the tendency to gravitate to excessive gain at other’s expense in the capitalist system and the tendency to gravitate to excessive limits on individual productivity in the communist/socialist system.
When a society and it’s leadership is functioning at a high level (of DOS) I would hypothesize that it corrects in the needed direction for the benefit of the whole. I think you hit on the right underlying processes – the individuality togetherness balance – which in one of his society chapters Bowen describes as being optimally 50
to finish the last sentence above “…Bowen describes as being optimally 50-50.”
Laura, the idea from Gowdy and Krall that got my attention is that evolution, on the large scale, operates outside of human intentionality. Bowen was farsighted in seeing where we were headed with the overtaxing of earth’s resources: toward “crises of unparalleled proportions.” (1974) I had been thinking that the knowledge we now have and steps we are now taking would make it possible to avert the crises, at least in part. Considering the difficulty of bringing growth of population and of consumption under control through rational efforts, I am wondering if we are to a serious extent trapped in a growth dynamic that can only end crises. I want to read E. O. Wilson’s Half Earth. I found this quote from him: “Humanity is passing through a bottleneck of overpopulation and environmental destruction. At the other end, if we pass through safely and take most of Earth’s life forms with us, human existence could be a paradise compared to today.”
Yes, I’m interested in Wilson’s half earth hypothesis and book. I also hear you about the inevitability of crisis – I think that’s how Bowen saw it as well. I can believe it and yet I can’t, for instance, let go of democracy so far, which he saw as vanishing in the crisis. It’s not clear to me yet, what makes a constructive basis for the future? Is it different whether or not the crisis is inevitable? Any thoughts appreciated.
Laura,
I don’t think anyone knows how, when, and where crises will come, or how extensive it will be, but the consensus I hear from current serious thinkers is in accord with Bowen’s prediction that crises are inevitable. What we seen now in Syria, Yemen, and other places, plus the frequent, random terror attacks in many places, amounts to crises, possibly just forerunners of more global crises. I am finding some parallels between Noam Chomsky’s thinking and Bowen’s. In a recent article in The Nation, Chomsky talks about the two existential threats that were evident at the end of WWII: the possibility of nuclear war, and climate change/ beginning of the Anthropocene era. He sees the main political responses coming out of “neoliberalism” from both the right and the left and destroying the democratic institutions that we need to address the threats we face. What I like about Chomsky is that he is fact-based and has clear solutions to many of the issues. The problem is that his common sense solutions would take a very different way of thinking and politics than now prevails. I am encouraged by the indicators that Trump’s presidency is raising awareness and actions to override him. I liked what your Governor Brown had to say after Trump withdrew from the Paris Accords.