Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. They will bow down before you with their faces to the ground; they will lick the dust at your feet. Then you will know that I am the LORD; those who hope in me will not be disappointed.” (Isaiah 49:23)
Human hierarchies are a complicated thing. There are rarely clear ladders of ascension, with one individual per distinct rung. Chicken hierarchies: simple. Some primate hierarchical relations, simple as well.
You are exalted far above all gods. (Psalms 97:9)
In the above Bible verse, we see that one agent is first in line, no questions. But beneath that first rung, what? The truth: human beings often do not stand alone. Rather, their relationships to others will inform where they stand. A relationship with one on a higher rung can help elevate and maintain your own position. As the “those who hope in me” line from the opening verse illustrates.
In terms of primate behavior — and human beings are primates, their deities having the concerns and behaviors of primates — there is a notable difference between coalition and alliance: the terms for relationships advantageous to social functioning and position.
“Coalition is defined as two or more individuals joining forces against one or more individuals joining forces against one or more conspecific rivals. Now, there are many examples of coalitions in mammals and birds. However, coalitions among chimpanzees, adult males in particular, are exceptional in their frequency, complexity and flexibility. Some coalitions are so persistent that one may well call them alliances.” (1)
As for human beings, do we form coalitions or alliances? Both. Watch one episode of Survivor and you will see that our we are social opportunists. During one social event/interaction (on one issue?) we can side with and support person X. The next moment/issue, person Z. But then there certainly are those lasting relationships we remain relatively true to. We support and defend those individuals, almost without exception, we have crucial relationships with. Spouse, parent-child . . . ?
Chimpanzees, too, readily form coalitions and even lasting alliances. As Franz de Waal has noted, “A male chimpanzee’s position in the hierarchy often depends much more on his cooperative alliances with other males than is the case with male baboons.” (2)
Another noted primatologist, Allison Jolly, almost under-states the case with this conclusion: “People are not less likely to form alliances than chimpanzees.” (3)
Within a single pack of primates you will find a number of unwritten “pacts.” Sometimes blood is indeed thicker than water. But human alliances go much farther. To non-blood, close associates and more. How far to they extend? At minimum to group level. Other people are perceived as being “in group” or out. Psychological studies have found that something as basic as eye color can be used to identified cohorts.
In one study researchers found that in a rural Caribbean village adult males in two-men teams competing at a game of dominoes experienced higher testosterone and cortisol levels when competing against men from outside their village compared to when playing against village cohorts.(4)
Is it any wonder the Bible god of the Old Testament has different laws and sentiments for “one of mine” (the Israelites) and others? The commandment “do not kill” is a perfect example. For it is meant as “Do not kill a cohort – but thine enemies, have at it.”
In the following number of Alpha posts I will be exploring topics including these: the evolutionary origins of these types of social pacts, the social functions they serve, and how they are manifest in the Bible.
—
(1) Nishida, T., and Hosaka, K., “Coalition strategies among adult male chimpanzees of the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 114
(2) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, P. 23
(3) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 410
(4) Wagner, J. D., Flinn, M. V., & England, B. G., “Hormonal response to competition among male coalitions,” in Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 6, November 2002, Pages 437 442.
I recall a video clip featuring Paul Ekman that I regularly included in my general psychology class. It showed an elder man from a remote tribe in India being greeted by females. In the ritualistic greeting, he placed his bare foot atop their heads, one by one, as they knelt before him. Dominance/submissive gesture, anyone?
One of the most interesting questions concerning the evolution of Bible religions, if you ask me, is why the baldly despotic deity of the Old Testament became the more touchy-feely, Alan-Alda-like deity of the New: Jesus “I’m kinda-one-of-you” Christ.
To illustrate the significance of the transition consider this verse from the Old Testament:
“Who knows the power of your anger? For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you.” (Psalms 90:11, New International Version)
A quick online search of the New International Version of the Bible revealed that mention of “wrath” falls off 50% in the New Testament. As for the word “anger” that appears at roughly 5% of the rate in the New Testament as it does the old. Why?
Additionally, the agent to be worshipped in the Old Testament tended to speak with select, elite intermediaries. Only Moses was allowed on the mountain top. Meanwhile, with Jesus we find a significantly different dynamic. In John 13:1 he washes his disciples feet, for crying out loud! He rubs elbows with prostitutes and outcastes of all sorts. As a leader, Jesus was one who did not rule by fear and intimidation (at least not nearly as much), but rather by messages of love and togetherness. Why?
Allow me to give my short, albeit speculative, answer. Jesus — a presumably human individual — lived and preached in a time when he faced two entrenched hierarchies: the Jewish priesthood and the ruling Roman empire that occupied the land. Facing those odds, Jesus chose the route of arguing for a reverse hierarchy (see previous posts in the “Alpha” series for more on this). He preached about egalitarianism. At least on earth. What does a reverse hierarchy do but level the playing field? It emphasizes the equality of individuals and in doing so it brings those in power down to earth. It dethrones them, so to speak.
Jesus was not a king nor a tribe leader. Why would then behave like a typical alpha? Instead, he became a charismatic leader. Which is an alpha of sorts. But you might say one that inspires others not to accept the subordinate position they occupy. Again, what this accomplishes, at least theoretically, is to knock the current leaders down a peg or two.
As many a biblical scholar has pointed out — look at the standing of Jesus’ followers. Basically, they were outsiders. Outcasts, you might say. What ladder was there to ascend? If there is one, they had many a missing rung before them.
Matthew 21:32 (New International Version) provides an apt example of the “reverse hierarchy” Jesus preached about:
“Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, the tax collectors [despised individuals] and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.’”
And of course there is this from Matthew 5:5:
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.”
The meek — gee, what social position do they occupy?
Yet, with all Jesus’ talk about raising up the lowly (and, consequently, lowering the lofty) he still left open a huge door to his own exalted nature. Though on earth he was elbow-to-elbow with the common man and woman, he had an alliance with the greatest of alphas. Or perhaps he was the greatest of alphas incarnate and disguised as an omega.
“Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate. “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus replied. (Mark 15:2)
“They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice, ‘Jesus, Master, have pity on us!’” (Luke 17: 12,13)
A master who rubs elbows with us? That is radical.
“Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ ” (Matthew 4:10)
Exclusivity, such as expressed above is certainly a hallmark of alpha-thinking.
Perhaps another element unique to Jesus was his use of a metaphysical carrot — the promise of a kingdom to come — as well as a stick. While the stick of the Old Testament consisted of such things as plagues and occupations by foreign people, in the New it consisted of a hell. Later. Did a relative hell on earth already exist for the meek, thus that threat carried little heft?
In the United States today a common refrain of one class of Christians is, “You have a friend in Jesus.” A friend? That word expresses relative equality. Similarly, in some churches you will witness forms of worship including singing and dancing. Any fearful subordinate would not draw attention to him/herself that way. Just what is going on?
As mentioned in previous “Alpha” posts, it is possible for one primate to gain an alliance with another, higher ranking individual. An alpha, even. Among chimpanzees, provided the lesser doesn’t directly challenge the greater, he or she does not have to show the same degree of social caution and deference.
So when, say, congregations of southern blacks stand up and sing, waving their arms, etc. — a no-no to fearful subordinates — rather than expressing insubordination, they are celebrating their perceived alliance with a revolutionary leader. Although they may have a socio-economically meek position (historically, at least), they have an ally in a deity who promises to elevate them.
On the other hand, Christian congregations that represent the other end of the socio-economic spectrum would naturally favor an alpha not so fond of potentially order-disrupting behavior. Bow your heads. Stay in line. Because things are good and we don’t want to rock the boat.
The cleverness and perhaps success of Christianity lies in a deity that viewed a number of ways, including the following two. First, Jesus is a god who judges and wields a gavel that can send a person to a heaven or a hell. He may even initiate the end of times and a cataclysm that comes with it. So watch out. Second is the messenger/intermediary hero, the “one of us,” who can feel compassion and who works to right the wrongs of those lacking the power to do it themselves. Naturally, the currently or historically downtrodden, the social outcasts, would be more interested in Jesus the friend. Those Christians in power, or on the cusp of it, are more likely to worship the Jesus Almighty. The one who brought the sword and will enforce the laws. At least the laws deemed important by the more liberal, educated believers of our century.
Of course, all of the above may be a simple case of just-so, post-hoc reasoning. In a future series of posts I will explore ways in which my god-as-an-alpha idea could be tested.
There are many types and degrees of hierarchies. As there are types and degrees of egalitarian social structures. Consider marriage. Monogamous marriage. Does this qualify as egalitarian? In a sense, yes, but in another sense, maybe not. As Robin Wright has pointed out,
“The idea, rather, is that polygyny has tended to disappear in response to egalitarian values–not values of equality between the sexes, but of equality among men.” (26)
If women are possessions, property of men, then monogamy only serves to keep some men from collecting more women than others. A far cry from what we think of as egalitarian.
Yet even when males and females appear to have equal standing in a social organization, it certainly doesn’t guarantee the equality of all members. And, as mentioned, where we find the most egalitarian of social groups, it can be argued that rather than eliminating any hierarchical strivings in the members, these instead have been harnessed to assure that none rise above all others. And individual members, the all, are the one’s that behave in relative concert to assure that their own status is not diminished. In a sense the “rank and file” dominate these groups to assure their status is not diminished. (27)
Many human innovations, be they technical, philosophical, or even social, are the step-children of necessity. A necessity to do better in a new environment. Yet we look at many novel features as if they were somehow meant to be. But change the environment and . . . ? Primatologist Franz de Waal makes a point about primate evolution in general that pertains quite well to human social evolution.
“The irony is that we probably never would have reached this point, never would have evolved the necessary solidarity at the base, had we not been such a hierarchical animal to begin with.” (28)
What were the environmental pressures that led to more egalitarian social structures? Good question. In his earlier book, Peacemaking Among Primates, de Waal makes these salient points.
(more…)1. “Equity and unity are hard to combine within one social system.”
2. “Unification through subordination has shaped the world.” (29)
“Naturally, to an affluent Englishman, reared amid servants, a society never far from starvation will seem starkly egalitarian. There will be no opulent displays of status, no gross disparities. But social hierarchy can assume many forms, and in every human society it seems to find one.” Robin Wright (18)
In today’s democracies, while there is scant legal/explicit favoritism shown to individuals of upper status — no special laws on the books for billionaires only — informal favoritism continues. A man or woman need to wear no jeweled crown for special treatment. Fancy clothes and an automobile crowned with a Mercedes-Benz hood ornament might do it. Yes, you, to the front of the line. Here, sit at best table in the restaurant. You, you with the Ford sedan, just who do you think you are?
While status is largely informal and established through symbolic means today, it continues to represent access to resources. Why, for example, you a person want to make friends with the popular guy (high status)? Access to babes, access to parties, access to wealth and the lifestyle it brings. Good food, good drink. And a network of other individuals who may increase one’s access to desired resources.
Taking food as an example here: With equal access to resources, what value is there in status? Relevantly, when food is equally scarce or equally abundant, hierarchies don’t seem to thrive. Abundance, however, is rarely equally distributed. Many anthropological investigations have posited a historical relationship between abundant, non-perishable food stores and highly stratified societies.
“When further intensification of agriculture was needed to support a growing population that could not be supported by a social organization based on extended families such as the teri, chiefdoms evolved.” (19)
Only where there is something to control can big men or women become big, thanks to their ability to wrest control from others. Whatever the source of their power: muscle, advantageous relationships, persuasive talk and impressive behavior and ornamentation . . . .
(more…)Human beings do not chase one another around with hair raised and teeth bared. As other primates do. No, our means of persuasion are more subtle. And in addition to that — symbolic. But first, the subtlety. Margaret Powers has said this about the means of creation and maintenance of primate social organization:
“This infrastructure of social communication is revealed through posture, gesture, facial expression and vocal tone; and differently organized primate species should show differing patterns and social interaction.” (15)
Posture, gesture, facial expression and vocal tone . . . these are things human beings, too, can and do use to send signals to others. Sure beats having to chase and flee, but it is not as visible.
My suspicion is that coming from a large and informally stratified culture, we may perceive a hunter-gatherer culture to be more egalitarian than someone coming from a smaller, more egalitarian culture. In a sense, power relations can be like a poker game. There is so much more to it than the cards. But to someone unfamiliar with poker, little else seems significant. What’s in a mere glance? Sometimes a lot.
Writing about chimpanzee hierarchies, Robin Wright pointed out the relative difficulty of spotting the mechanics of hierarchical behavior:
“In fact, the female hierarchy is so subdued that it takes an experienced eye to discern it, whereas spotting a pompous, imperious alpha male is something a schoolchild can do.” (16)
What is subdued in chimpanzee social groups can be downright subliminal in human. What complicates the matter is that in addition to such things as posture, gesture, facial expression and vocal tone, human beings excel at symbolism. If we want to belittle a person, we don’t need to physically tower over them, or some distillation of that dynamic, we can instead flash a thumbs-down to them. We can say and write things about them. Bad things, in that they are belittling, and thus bad.
One of the strengths of symbolic behavior is that it can be less personal and more general. We can communicate messages about our status without needing to interact with others. We can be less personal. The corporate alpha male need not make impressive physical displays at a meeting or even intimidate and threaten other males. He may, instead, “innocently” draw attention to symbols of his relatively greater power, whether they be possessions, relationships, or signs of accomplishment. This is relatively innocent behavior due to the indirectness of it. The message is broadly broadcast so no other need take it too personally. But is it personal? Yes. For the messages are still about social standing. Where I am; where you are.
So, are humans by nature a peace-and-love species? The bonobo, close cousin to the chimpanzee, has been portrayed that way. But primatologist Allison Jolly, for one, is skeptical.
“When I look at a male bonobo, however, I see immensely powerful arms, with veins like weight-lifters’ snaking under the skin–a very different build from the females. That, and their powerful canines, suggest they are equipped to fight something, whether leopards or one another. I fear that, in Sarah Hrdy’s phrase, –the other shoe hasn’t dropped yet about bonobos.” Meanwhile, they offer a model of an exuberantly affiliative species.” (17)
Meanwhile. And humans? Are we one or the other? Are we egalitarian by nature or hierarchical by nature? Are we both? My interim answer: while we are certainly exuberantly affiliative, our nature is essentially hierarchical. We must, however, keep in mind the impressively variety of forms hierarchies can take, including the previously mentioned “inverse hierarchy” elucidated by Christopher Boehm.
Why do some groups of humans take on more formally hierarchical structures, others more seemingly egalitarian? We need look little further to the environments a social group functions within.
What about the environments? Stay tuned to my “Alpha” series of posts.
—
(15) Power, M. The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1991, p.189
(16) Wright, R., The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Vintage, NY, 1995, p.246
(17) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.177
As nice as it would be to think egalitarian social structures represent human nature with the badness of hierarchical strivings stripped away. An innate goodness remains. However, human nature is likely quite plastic, and though we may wish that the more ideal state represents the more real, it is probably not the case. In his book on the subject, Christopher Boehm argues that the egalitarian social structure could be considered an inverse hierarchy.
“The argument here is that egalitarian societies constitute a very special type of hierarchy, one in which the rank and file avoid being subordinated by vigilantly keeping alpha-type group members under their collective thumbs.” (10)
Not only are there environments (social/economical) that tend to promote one type of social organization versus another, there are mechanisms that maintain each type. Consider the mechanisms to be tools. The interesting thing is that the tool kits used to build and maintain very different social structures can share quite a few elements. How they are used, of course, differs. For example, in a hierarchical social group, an alpha will keep his eye on who is treating whom in a favorable fashion. Alliances can pose a threat to his position as most dominant. In an egalitarian social group, allied members will keep on eye on how one individual is treating others, for domineering behavior poses a threat to their own non-subordinate positions. In more egalitarian human societies, there are tacit rules, in the least, that guide behaviors and the responses to them, so they do not threaten the group stability and harmony. There may also be more overt rules deliberately enacted to restrict the upward movement (accumulation of power) by individuals — usually males. (11) In a sense, equality is enforced. Which is a type of force, but a force wielded by many than by one or a scant few. While Christopher Boehm has done a lot of great work on the topic of egalitarian vs. hierarchical (more egalitarian vs. more hierarchical, in my book), I do disagree with the picture he paints in this quote:
