A sociality plural. A note comparison of human social behavior are found

One of the advantages of abandoning the claim that human beings are apart from the rest of nature is that it allows you to then think of a completely natural comparative analysis. And with them it happens that, at the same time, some peculiarities of the species may be more embossed. At times it may seem that the attempt to think of human beings as beings among other hopelessly avoid a mark that, like all beings, have their own peculiarities.

If we examine the species which appear in complex societies with high division of labour, we find that in addition to our there are that to go to search in the societies of insects. Now, in those species that are called eusocial we found that the division of labour is something pre-established: Pre-set for the particular individual, pre-established for the society of that species as such. The process through which established roles is prior to (or is establishing) the species itself (even to the level of division of labour through which a particular colony’s move is part of a cycle of life that is characteristic of the species) and it is through the evolution of different species which it is generated. The case is that in humans the level of division of labor is something produced by one’s own story inside of the story of the Homo Sapiens, does not correspond to a permanent feature. There are many human groups that do not have it.

However, this is not the only thing nor is it what we seek to highlight now. Ultimately the above is an illustration of the potential of the culture. What interests us is to remember that in the species eusocial unit of effective reproduction is the colony, not the individual. In complex societies human, the reproduction unit remains the individual, and society (the colony) is not. In fact, this is a feature that can be defended is unique to the species-and again, let us remember that that is not something given, it is something produced by the history of the sociality of Homo Sapiens.

The above leads us to another point. The fact that the species that are eusocial the unit of reproduction is the colony is an illustration of the fact that, in principle, one should think of the colony as a unit, ignoring the fact that is composed by multiple individuals. And while this is not completely true (i.and there are differences for example in the level of connectivity between individuals, see Naug Social networks in insect colonies, p 162-163, in Animal Social Networks, 2015, Oxford University Press) is a simplification that makes sense. That is, it can treat the many as one (and if not at the level of the colony, at least at the level of the roles within the division of labour). But this is completely wrong in regard to human groupings, in which a basic fact is that each individual is a decision maker independent of high complexity, and this fact redounds to make plurality more relevant. Because it involves what Arendt emphasized in The Human Condition, that even if each agent can initiate an action, the string that starts is open to the action of others, to the novelty that is brought by the other, that makes it not own of the actor that initiates it. In this sense, the sociality of humans is radically plural, and this plurality has harnessed the ability of the new.

Thus, we go back to the starting point: The sociality of humans is plural, and that the condition is due to its characteristic as a species. Now, that character is plural as are other characteristics that we are given as a species, as a culture, are many times already in versions something more simple in the socialidades of other species. The sociality of humans is a more complex version of something that surpasses it.

But that sociality has created, and that perhaps told in a more basic way than in any other part of the importance of their ability to create a social structure that is unique: A sociality highly complex, with high division of labour, joined to that capacity for the plural (and the culture). That is something that is produced by our history, not part of what is common to the Homo Sapiens qua Homo Sapiens. What is the sociality of humans is something produced by that same sociality. Many years ago, Gordon Childe title of your quite influential text on the prehistory of human Man makes himself. And this text can be seen as a new way of saying that statement.

A statement that has to be understood with all its consequences. If some of the distinctive features of the sociality of human have been created as a part of the history of this sociality, then, no one assures us that these creations of new forms of sociality basic have been completed; in the same way that the baseline characteristics of the Homo Sapiens are not a terminus of story whatsoever, but simply what is now the state of a story.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Begin typing your search above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top