Why Did Some Societies Fail to Converge Into Larger Ones in the Face of War and Competition?

Turchin et al, (2013) provide a theoretical model of ultrasocial norms and institutions as causative of the evolvement of the society into large and complex systems. There are norms that ensure systems evolve and replace others within these social units. They facilitate collective actions within the group setting. The standards for behaviour only function on a larger scale, which makes the smaller institutions disappear with time. The ones that remain face intense competition through aspects such as warfare that in turn lead to the survival of larger societies that have to coordinate well with one another to survive intense conflict and war. An example is the evolution of Western Europe after warfare eroded the Roman Empire. Turchin et al, (2013) also empirically tested this theory using a geographical simulation that mimicked these societies. The test included deciphering imperial density as measured against the aspects of ultrasocial norms; most specifically warfare. The researchers found a 65% variance in how the smaller grids existing within larger institutions changed whenever warfare became a factor. They seemed to disappear into the larger geographical grids to formulate bigger societies.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Roccas & Brewer (2002) introduce the theoretical concept of social identity complexity. They assert that individuals are part of many groups in the society. The situation brings about conflicts of identities in how the individual perceives themselves as well as other people within the group dynamics. The membership of groups is crucial in how a person identifies who they are and their relationships with others. Being part of multiple groups thus brings about a conflict of identity because the self is confused with all these in-group attributes. When groups overlap in similar traits, social identity is clear. For instance, it is not difficult for a person to formulate their identity when they are part of a Catholic and Christian group because of shared traits. However, the situation is very different from those that do not overlap, such as being a female Muslim. The identity becomes hard to construct and leads to certain assumptions that can negatively impact how one relates to others. For example, a white Christian will begin assuming that all whites follow this religion when the truth is that many of them can be Muslim, atheists, Buddhists, and so on. Roccas & Brewer (2002) suggest aspects such as dominance, intersection, and compartmentalization as possible remedies to this complexity in identity.

Purzycki et al, (2016) discuss how prosociality increasingly changed in the course of agriculture. Societies moved from situations in which only a few strangers interacted in a community setting to ones that included interactions of people without any DNA connections. The scholars propose the rise of the gods as the facilitators social norms causing The belief in the gods makes individuals conform to interpersonal behaviour that makes them co-exist with strangers. Purzycki et al, (2016) performed research to this effect in which they used ethnographic interviews as the methodology. They used eight communities from different parts of the world. The results indicated strong adherence to a higher power among these communities. It emerged as the basis for their ability to co-exist with one another in spite of the lack of relation.

Crisp & Meleady (2012) use a cognitive-evolutionary approach to explain the increasingly multicultural world. In this case, race and nationality are no longer used interchangeably because the society has become increasingly multicultural. The people spent many decades wishing for a multicultural system. However, since it has come to pass with so much intensity, societies find themselves unable to institute policies that will support this diverse population. The society is currently witnessing a class of civilization in which the diverse differences among individuals threaten its very stability. People are against multiculturalism because they prefer the simplicity that emanates from different groups or homogeneity. Human beings construct their identity under the "them vs. us" mentality that requires policies to facilitate a more integrated society.

Complementary Readings

Henrich (2011) addresses the issue of norms and their relationship to the evolution of societies into complex systems today. The author specifically focuses on religion and the norm of the gods as a causative factor for the rise of these societies. In this case, the gods came into the society as highly moralized beings. They knew everything and were the basis of behaviour in the society. The gods punished the members who failed to conform to the norms of in-groups, which necessitated the rise of disciplined societies that had systems, laws, punitive measures, and religious principles. They were only able to emerge as large groups because of this system of cooperation as facilitated by the gods. Therefore, Henrich (2011) complements the position of the core readings about how large societies came into existence. , Henrich (2011) provides a cognitive perspective that complements the arguments of Purzycki et al (2016) about the role of the gods in the formulation of these societies. The author asserts that human beings have a trait-complex system that can adapt to the evolutionary process of life. The approach explains why people can adapt to aspects such as religion quite easily. Moreover, Henrich (2011) complements the assertions about the role of religion by providing a different perspective to the evolutionary one. The core readings argue about how cultures evolve but fail to explain why they do so. For instance, reading the arguments by of Purzycki et al, (2016) leaves the reader with the question of why it was possible for the communities they interview to adapt to the rhetoric of the gods. There must be a reason for the continued belief in the gods to the extent of which it impacts the development of such complex societies. Henrich (2011) provides a complementary answer to this question by asserting that this adaptation is not merely about evolution, but also consists of the need to survive. The gods are a survivalist reaction that these cultures adopt. The position explains why it was easy for people to believe in the existence of a supernatural being. The people need to believe that a higher power was in charge of their wellbeing, which would make it easy to deal with the problems posed by their place on earth. Henrich (2011), therefore, complements these readings by providing a psychological approach that is more aligned with the nature of human beings. The author provides a cognitive and emotional response to the adaptive process that explains the efficacy of the gods as influencing the rise of complex societal systems. The explanation offered by Henrich (2011) also complements the inadequacies of the theoretical concept of the ultrasocial norms as hypothesized by Turchin et al (2013). The gods can be used as one of these norms that explains why smaller institutions formed under the psychological response of the survivalist nature of human beings to formulate large-scale societies. It can also explain the psychology behind wars and the role that the psychological responses of human beings played in how the society conceptualized conflict, competition, and so on.

Brewer & Pierce (2005) provide a study that complements the theoretical concepts behind social identity complexity and multiculturalism on overall. Brewer & Pierce (2005) provide low and high complexity dynamics that are lacking in the core readings. In this case, they opine that individuals with high complexity look at their in-groups as very different, which makes it more difficult for them to have an individual sense of identity. Those with low complexity look at the groups as highly intertwined and may also be unable to find their identity in the midst of all this convergence. The study they perform used interviews as the methodology. The interviews revealed that individuals with high complexity tend to be more receptive to the differences that exist among groups while those with a low level may not be as accepting. Therefore, Brewer & Pierce (2005) complement the research by Roccas & Brewer (2002) by discussing how the different levels of complexities relate to receptiveness towards differences and identities. For instance, the research can explain how a woman in the corporate world may be receptive towards the issues that come with working in a male-dominated industry. The research also complements the views of Crisp & Meleady (2012) by explaining why different people may not be open to diversity (out-group differences) and instead prefer homogeneity.

Core and Complementary and Previous Research

The readings provide an in-depth analysis of theories and empirical evidence that expounds on previous literature about societies and their complexities. For instance, previous literature uses the concept of cultural adaptation alone as basis of the development of large societies. The literature asserts that human beings learned from one another and developed their crafts as a result. They were able to adapt to life because of their interactions with different groups of people and later developed into one as a result of this cultural adaptation concept. The literature also uses aspects such as natural selection to explain the evolution into complex societies. The literature also looks at aspects such as marriage as the basis for the growth of the society into the complexities it highlights today. Hence, the core and complementary readings expound on the theory of cultural adaptations and provide more tangible explanation for this process of evolution. For instance, they use aspects such as ethnographic interviews to explain the role of the gods. They brought forth unity because individuals feared the aspect of sanctions. The readings explain the survivalist nature of human beings and their need to hold on to a higher power. They expound on the simplicity of cultural adaptation and use the psychology, emotions, and the complexity of human relationships to explain how aspects of religion, war, and competition influenced the development of large societies.

Moreover, the readings provide a foundation for understanding diversity and identities complexities today. There is vast literature on identity and how it relates to the culture in the societies. Most literature opines that multiculturalism is about culture as it relates to groups of people. For instance, Christians, women, whites, blacks, and Muslims may identify with themselves as blocks of populations of people. They look at the group characteristics that inform their uniqueness when compared to the rest and this becomes part of their identity. However, the core and complementary readings provide different paradigms and argue on basis of how individual identities interact within these groups. Ideally, one cannot belong to just one group. They cannot only be a woman or Christian. They have to be a black or white woman, which explains how individual identities become part of the group dynamics. Therefore, the core and complementary readings expound on simplistic notions of group identities and showcase how individual attitudes formulate in the face of these different attributes. They provide a more complex way of looking at diversity that could inform policy formation.

Discussion Questions

• Why did some societies fail to converge into larger ones in the face of war and competition?
• What factors of war and competition formulated the dynamics of how these societies became big and others simply disappeared?
• Can people possess unique characteristics or are the traits of everyone intricately...