magazine issue 7 2007 / Issue 4

Why We Are Still Social

• written by Linnda Caporael

Science is an interesting illustration. In both instances—in science and among hunter-gatherers—group-size numbers at these levels are fairly constant: dyads, groups of about 3-5 individuals, 30-50 individuals, and 100-500 individuals (Birdsell, 1972; Hull, 1988). In both cases, isolates have reduced viability (isolated scientists publish less), and must be part of a subgroup with sufficient "critical mass" to persist. Similarities of function also exist in the organizational structures of scientists and hunter-gatherers. Learning to fashion specialized tools, in stone or other materials, or to use specialized laboratory techniques, such as blowing a glass pipette, is typically a dyadic, hands-on, situated activity. Becoming skilled at these tasks requires learning and feedback from materials, equipment, and an experienced mentor. A specialty of both small research groups and small foraging parties appears to be interpreting ambiguous stimuli such as an animal track on a trail or a proton track on a photo. In hunter-gatherer task groups, food from the hunt is often brought back to the domestic base and shared in the band. Among scientists, research results and their interpretation are brought back to the “conceptual band” in the form of workshops and small intimate conferences. In hunter-gatherer macrobands and yearly scientific conferences, young people are exchanged, disgruntled people find new group membership, specialized languages are standardized, and myths, gossip and information about more distant areas and groups are exchanged. Macrodemes are also the prototypic forerunner of ethnic groups (Brewer & Caporael, 2006).

From a developmental perspective, obviously every human is born into a dyad of child and caregiver, which is itself a component of a group. Groups have rules and practicesthat affect the survival and potential reproduction of their members. Some cultures practice infanticide of strong, healthy babies; others practice state-of-the-art medicine to save premature newborns. As the newborn that survives birth develops, he or she participates in a widening scope of group activity, which also influences survival and reproduction and the beginning of a new cycle. We think of infants becoming increasingly independent as they develop. What happens in practice, however, is that they become increasingly interdependent. Very young infants interact with a single caregiver at a time; as they get older and they achieve better control over their bodies, they interact with families and small playgroups. The classroom is typically an even larger group, about the size of a band, and by high school and the beginning of work life students easily recognize themselves as part of a larger group contexts, say, of the Amsterdam High School student body macroband, which is itself part of a school district in a town in a county in a region in a country. Unlike many other mammals, the expansion of interdependency distinguishes the human adult from the juvenile.

Why We’re Still Social

If group-living is the mind’s natural environment, we should expect corresponding psychological adaptations that not only respond to structural features of groups and tasks, but also function to maintain them. Groups organize experience, manufacture knowledge, and assign value (Baumeister, 2005). Expert skiers recognize varieties of snow; they not only ski on it, they also talk and compare their experience of snow, preferring some kinds to other kinds. Nonskiers see just snow, sometimes wet snow, sometimes dry snow—and they prefer spring, anyway. The stream of experience must be organized, evaluated and explained. Parents describe a young child puttering in the kitchen “mixing stuff” as “practicing chemistry” if said child is male, “practicing cooking” if female. The actual behavior may be identical, but the description of the experience propels one child toward a future career, and the other toward a future meal. For humans, experience itself, from infancy through death, is transformed into preferences and knowledge through groups. For one group, the lights in the night sky are gaseous balls of flame; for another, the lights in the night sky are holes in the floor of heaven. Organizing and evaluating perceptions of things and people is a constant nonstop activity of face-to-face groups. All human interactions in the world take place in groups or through meanings and artifacts born in groups. On the one hand we are realists, having a physical world to negotiate; on the other, we are social constructivists, creating shared meaning and values.