Types of social behavior, or On the current stage of the evolution of Homo Sapiens.
© 2008, A.N. Lebedev and A.K. Vasiliev.
As you know, the process of speciation is continuous. However, it is possible to observe it in real time only in the case of rapidly breeding populations. Rats brought to the New World formed a separate species in about four hundred years. Changing environmental conditions in the Aral Sea have led to the emergence of new species of molluscs over several decades. We can observe the speciation of microorganisms all the time. It is also known that different species have quantitatively very little difference in DNA. And it is also known that the youngest structures of organisms are subject to the greatest variability.
Although the rate of human reproduction does not allow direct observation of the development of the species, indirect evidence of this process in the form of historical evidence can provide information about the ongoing process of speciation, which theoretically could lead to the splitting of the Homo sapiens species.
The most variable in the anatomical sense is the structure of the hands — one of the youngest devices that determined the evolutionary breakthrough of mankind. However, this is not the youngest structure that distinguishes man from other animals.
The main species-determining organ in humans is undoubtedly the brain, or more precisely, the features of higher nervous activity that determined the emergence of the mind.
Paleontology and archeology do not allow direct pathoanatomical comparative studies of the brain of modern man and his ancestors. However, psychological and social research, which studies precisely the higher functions of the brain (intelligent behavior), for the most part, does not need this. Conclusions about the functions of the mind are made on the basis of indirect observations — observations of human behavior.
Such evidence has been accumulated over several thousand years to try to trace the trends of evolutionary selection in relation to human behavior (including, ultimately, forming the gene code) on the basis of historical data.
Despite the fact that the emergence of man as a species was extremely rapid by the standards of paleohistory, for a better understanding of the direction of the process, it makes sense to start considering behavior from the moment in the development of the animal world, when the use of the term «behavior» in relation to the animal began to make sense. This roughly corresponds to that conditional moment when the actions of the animal cease to be unambiguously determined by reflexes. Of course, a clear boundary cannot be drawn, but this is enough to determine the primary preferred type of behavior — behavior aimed at the survival of the individual.
Such behavior is necessary for the survival of the population, despite the fact that an individual member of the population may not be interested in this and may even be hostile to other members of his species. In this case, the selection is based on physical strength, physical activity, the relevance of basic instincts.
The next factor that led to a sharp increase in survival is the family organization, the primary function of which is to protect the female during reproduction and protect the offspring during their early development and adaptation. The fundamental difference between the family is that not all members of the same species are recognized as hostile competitors, especially in the case of pride families, as in some cats, dogs and other mammals.
The expansion of the circle of individuals identified as «friends» leads to the formation of gregarious (herd) behavior, which is even more beneficial from the point of view of the survival of the species.
Despite the fact that the priority should have an older instinct, the higher the animal is, the more likely the behavior is determined by the suppression of an earlier instinct by a later one (risk and sacrificial forms of protecting a family or pack).
Among primates, social behavior develops to the point of mutual assistance in areas not directly related to survival.
The gene pool of a population must have sufficient diversity to ensure variability under the influence of a stress factor. Thus, despite the fact that in application to a person we can observe all the described dominants, their severity for each individual can vary widely.
Since the expression of these dominants is apparently determined not only by a limited, but also by a not very large number of genes, it is obvious that the structure of behavior within the framework of the described model can be reduced to several pronounced types. Moreover, with the development of mankind, different types can be relevant to varying degrees, preferable to varying degrees for different historical periods of different cultures.
Without setting ourselves the goal of exhaustive typing, we will try to formulate signs of the most preferred types of behavior for different periods of the development of civilization.
In critical circumstances — in poorly protected, low-income communities, the first type of behavior — «every man for himself» could prevail. Moreover, pronounced behavior of this type is observed in certain individuals in a developed society during favorable periods, although in this case it is not a survival factor. However, any behavioral type should take place even in irrelevant conditions due to the need for genetic diversity, which was discussed above. Behavioral variability can also be observed in an individual during the period of personality formation or under the influence of a stress factor.
The prevailing preferred type of behavior in the ancient period of history, when the question of personal survival for the most part was not a question, became family. A person’s suitability for family life was the main factor determining his ability to give offspring. The orientation of behavior towards the satisfaction of basic instincts not only ceased to be relevant, but also turned into a negative selection factor.
Despite the fact that social behavior was no longer a novelty at the time of the emergence of mankind and, apparently, manifested itself at the earliest stages of human development, the predominance of family priorities over social priorities in the norm seems obvious.
The generalization of the concept of «one’s own» from the family to the clan, community, tribe, and, in a later period, to the nation and state was a natural process due to population growth and the complication of social life. The generalization of this concept to the whole of humanity was somewhat prematurely proclaimed by Christians and found its embodiment in the humanistic philosophy of the Renaissance. The era of globalization has virtually eliminated the perceived and controllable risks of the destruction of humanity as a species. As the welfare of the country increases, the socially approved content of the concept of «one’s own» shifts from a lower level to a higher one, remaining capable of regression in the face of social and political cataclysms.
Thus, the oldest archetype, covered with romance, is an individualistic hero, strong and uncompromising. Due to the deactualization of the primary factors of survival, this hero in the modern view is forced to defend not life, but completely arbitrary values. Despite the social inappropriateness of such behavior in most cultures in art, this image remains unfailingly popular.
Another equally popular hero is an exemplary family man who protects and provides for his family. Despite the fact that the image of a lone hero is sexually attractive, the economic family man in modern conditions has a much greater chance of genetic reproduction.
In the era of globalization, the greatest contribution to the survival and well-being of mankind is made not by individualists and adherents of family values, but by altruists (patriots in less developed countries). It is altruism that is now the most popular value, just like patriotism used to be in the form of belonging to a nation or tribe. If we hope that the issues of survival as a result of progress will cease to be relevant for the entire population of the Earth, then the instinctive basis of altruism will also lose relevance as non-functional.
Further expansion of the concept of «one’s own», although it takes place in some forms (Buddhism, the struggle for animal rights, some forms of pantheism), apparently has little to do with the development of humanity itself and, in particular, the mind. Thus, this direction of the evolution of the mind is close to completion.
What form of behavior is updated next? Since previous forms of behavior evolved to a large extent in parallel, it can be assumed that the preferred behavior of the future can be observed now. It is clear that, on the one hand, it must not be connected with the line described above, and that, on the other hand, its progressive influence must be observed. The most striking influence on the well-being of mankind in recent centuries has not been exerted by strong aggressive personalities and not by social or spiritual leaders, but by intellectuals who have made the greatest contribution to the progress of science and technology.
In the animal world, their counterparts are individuals with a pronounced orienting reflex (the most inquisitive), which are never leaders. It is they who find shelter and resources, which are subsequently distributed not by them, but by leaders. The task of distribution in modern society is reduced to a sociological-mathematical one, and therefore the role of researchers cannot be overestimated. The actualization of this type of behavior is indirectly confirmed by the avalanche-like growth in the popularity of science, high technology and their products over the past century.
Naturally, the social role of a researcher can be widely demanded only in a sufficiently developed country that has solved the problems of lower levels. Temporary actualization of earlier types of preferred behavior (patriotism, religiosity) is typical for countries that are in periods of degradation or stagnation and at the same time is a manifestation of these processes.
The social function of the researcher is fundamentally not related to any of the described types of behavior along the “egoism-altruism” axis, since, firstly, it is determined by an independent instinct, and, secondly, the results of its function will be equally utilized by society in any case.
Thus, historically one can observe evolutionary selection occurring in human society from aggressive individualism through global altruism to asocial curiosity.