![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Force and fear
Jun. 12th, 2012 12:01 pmIn my darker moments I wonder if bullying is an inevitable byproduct of sentience.
My thinking goes like this: people need to cooperate to survive; in order to cooperate, we model other peoples' minds inside our own minds, becoming self-aware in the process; but cooperation also requires rules - about sharing, about resolving conflict, and so on - which are built into our brains and/or enforced by the group. We police our own behaviour, and we police the behaviour of others.
So far, so good; this gives us not just efficient cooperation, but also conscience, and remorse, and justice. But, like pretty much every other kludge with which evolution has bestowed us, it can malfunction - and it can be taken advantage of.
I was thinking about this because of another New Scientist thing - this time, a review of Christopher Boehm's book Moral Origins: the evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame. I must stress that I haven't read Boehm's book; I don't know how accurately Kate Douglas' review reflects his arguments.
Anyway, the review opens by describing how "egalitarian" communities "restore social order". Rather than resorting to "fear and force", says Douglas, the Netsilik Inuit hold public "song duels": "Conflict is resolved amid much jeering, laughing, and public shaming". And the !Kung of the Kalahari use gossip: "The number one topic of censure is 'big-shot' behaviour, or bullying... If they continue to transgress, the moral majority will resort to more draconian measures including ostracism and even capital punishment." Boehm's research found that "bullies, not cheats as theorists have assumed, are the biggest threat to cooperative communities."
This left me jolly confused, and frustrated that I don't have access to Boehm's book (yet), so I can find out what he means by "bullying". Because what I mean by bullying is exactly the "collective action" Douglas describes: "jeering, laughing, and public shaming", "gossip", and "ostracism". In short, social aggression.
Certain parallels with online bullying jump out. The Netsilik are punishing individuals who fail to cooperate with each other and thus disrupt the group. Online forums like fandom_wank could potentially fulfil the same purpose, if they actually forced the squabblers to have it out, and thus resolved the conflict. But they're more like the !Kung's gossip; rather than confront the "big shot", these forums aim to generate embarrassment, shame, self-hate, and a terrifying sense of aloneness in their targets. Worse, they're not "collective action" - in a small hunter-gatherer group, everyone can have their say, and everyone knows who's who; in a vast online fandom that's impossible. Worse, the forums are used as weapons by the "big shots" themselves to further their destructive conflict from behind the snow fort of anonymity. With a permanent, public record of the squabble, the conflict is never resolved.
The whole point of these approaches is to resolve conflicts and restore cooperation. Social aggression, by contrast, is just more conflict. Interestingly, when it comes to school bullying, kids with a strong moral sense are more likely to be victimised; with more active consciences, they're more vulnerable to the feelings of shame, guilt, and worthlessness these tactics create. (No surprise, then, that people in the online social justice communities would be bullying targets.)
To come back to my original, dark thoughts... if cooperation is the necessary precondition for sentience, and cooperation requires policing, then I can't help thinking that if we go into space and meet idk, flying doughnuts, the doughnuts will be bullying each other too. Gah.
ETA: A little Googling turns up a very different picture of the !Kung and how they resolve conflicts. For one thing, "big shot" behaviour is not "bullying", as Douglas' review states, but showing off - for example, pointedly lavish gift-giving which the recipient can't hope to reciprocate. What's more, the !Kung recognise malicious gossip for the disruptive behaviour it is; the "gossip" Douglas refers to is group conversation, not talking behind peoples' backs.
My thinking goes like this: people need to cooperate to survive; in order to cooperate, we model other peoples' minds inside our own minds, becoming self-aware in the process; but cooperation also requires rules - about sharing, about resolving conflict, and so on - which are built into our brains and/or enforced by the group. We police our own behaviour, and we police the behaviour of others.
So far, so good; this gives us not just efficient cooperation, but also conscience, and remorse, and justice. But, like pretty much every other kludge with which evolution has bestowed us, it can malfunction - and it can be taken advantage of.
I was thinking about this because of another New Scientist thing - this time, a review of Christopher Boehm's book Moral Origins: the evolution of virtue, altruism, and shame. I must stress that I haven't read Boehm's book; I don't know how accurately Kate Douglas' review reflects his arguments.
Anyway, the review opens by describing how "egalitarian" communities "restore social order". Rather than resorting to "fear and force", says Douglas, the Netsilik Inuit hold public "song duels": "Conflict is resolved amid much jeering, laughing, and public shaming". And the !Kung of the Kalahari use gossip: "The number one topic of censure is 'big-shot' behaviour, or bullying... If they continue to transgress, the moral majority will resort to more draconian measures including ostracism and even capital punishment." Boehm's research found that "bullies, not cheats as theorists have assumed, are the biggest threat to cooperative communities."
This left me jolly confused, and frustrated that I don't have access to Boehm's book (yet), so I can find out what he means by "bullying". Because what I mean by bullying is exactly the "collective action" Douglas describes: "jeering, laughing, and public shaming", "gossip", and "ostracism". In short, social aggression.
Certain parallels with online bullying jump out. The Netsilik are punishing individuals who fail to cooperate with each other and thus disrupt the group. Online forums like fandom_wank could potentially fulfil the same purpose, if they actually forced the squabblers to have it out, and thus resolved the conflict. But they're more like the !Kung's gossip; rather than confront the "big shot", these forums aim to generate embarrassment, shame, self-hate, and a terrifying sense of aloneness in their targets. Worse, they're not "collective action" - in a small hunter-gatherer group, everyone can have their say, and everyone knows who's who; in a vast online fandom that's impossible. Worse, the forums are used as weapons by the "big shots" themselves to further their destructive conflict from behind the snow fort of anonymity. With a permanent, public record of the squabble, the conflict is never resolved.
The whole point of these approaches is to resolve conflicts and restore cooperation. Social aggression, by contrast, is just more conflict. Interestingly, when it comes to school bullying, kids with a strong moral sense are more likely to be victimised; with more active consciences, they're more vulnerable to the feelings of shame, guilt, and worthlessness these tactics create. (No surprise, then, that people in the online social justice communities would be bullying targets.)
To come back to my original, dark thoughts... if cooperation is the necessary precondition for sentience, and cooperation requires policing, then I can't help thinking that if we go into space and meet idk, flying doughnuts, the doughnuts will be bullying each other too. Gah.
ETA: A little Googling turns up a very different picture of the !Kung and how they resolve conflicts. For one thing, "big shot" behaviour is not "bullying", as Douglas' review states, but showing off - for example, pointedly lavish gift-giving which the recipient can't hope to reciprocate. What's more, the !Kung recognise malicious gossip for the disruptive behaviour it is; the "gossip" Douglas refers to is group conversation, not talking behind peoples' backs.
