As discussed in previous articles, hierarchies are necessary for the co-ordination of the activities of any group of people. They appear in all organisations from a small club, through a business, to a nation. Hierarchies can take one of two extreme forms, consensual or authoritarian, but most lie somewhere on a scale between the two.
Consensual hierarchies are those in which higher-status individuals display leadership qualities, compete positively for status, and are concerned for the welfare of subordinates and other stakeholders. Such higher status-individuals are voluntarily supported by the latter and able to direct the resources of the organisation with their co-operation.
Authoritarian hierarchies are those in which higher-status individuals display autocratic qualities, compete negatively for status, are self-interested rather than concerned for the welfare of subordinates and stakeholders, and if necessary use coercion to direct the use of the organisation’s resources.
Transition from a consensual to an authoritarian hierarchy
Authoritarian hierarchies can exist from day one if they are established by self-interested individuals who negotiate the support of self-interested followers. However, most hierarchies begin as consensual ones established to organise us in a common and worthwhile endeavour. For example, charities, essential services such as healthcare, food supply, water supply, and even some religions.
However, it is possible for consensual hierarchies to morph into authoritarian ones. This is not necessarily because the higher status members have a dark personality. Rather it is due to the fundamental human trait of trying to achieve our objectives efficiently, i.e., with a minimum use of personal resources. As the British historian, Lord Acton 1834 – 1902, said, “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Even in entirely altruistic organisations, higher status members generally enjoy greater benefits in the form of salaries, bonuses, and perks than lower status ones. They also have greater control over and access to the resources of the organisation. Once a degree of power is obtained, then, if an organisation’s institutions and culture permit, it can become easier to acquire personal resources by simply taking them rather than trading with others for them. However, the potential benefits do not end there. Once established as the leader of an organisation an individual can use the hierarchy they control, together with techniques such as rationalisation, to direct its resources towards the satisfaction of his, her, or their associates’ needs. Power can be misused in many ways depending on the needs of the individual who wields it. For example, in nations where there is little control over corruption, power held within an organisation can literally be sold for personal financial gain. It can also be used to trade for further advancement.
The transition from a consensual to an authoritarian hierarchy is caused by a vicious circle or feedback loop. Initially, higher status individuals may be supported voluntarily by lower status ones. However, the former can become dependent on the rewards that their status brings. Furthermore, they are in a stronger position to exploit the resources of the organisation for personal gain, and can become dependent on that too. This leads to a loss of voluntary support. In turn, this leads to the use of coercive power to maintain the hierarchy on which the leader depends. Also, if the culture and institutions of the organisation permit, it is easier to impose commands rather than negotiate the co-operation of subordinates. Thus, those in power begin to find themselves in a trap of their own making. They cannot give up power, initially because of their dependency on its rewards, but ultimately for fear of being held to account for their misdemeanors by those who replace them. So, to retain their power, they become ever more autocratic and corrupt, and thus, ever more trapped.
Once autocratic leadership is established, it becomes self-sustaining and difficult to rectify. This is because of the following:
The culture of an organisation is established by its leadership, and lower status individuals who wish to remain a part of it must comply. So, the organisation’s members become “trained” to accept autocracy as the norm.
Individuals are attracted to established organisations that appear to satisfy their needs, and so, those who pursue power, or any other benefits offered by autocracy, will be attracted to an authoritarian organisation.
Those who do give an autocratic leader their voluntary support are likely to be those who would gain similar benefits by doing so. For example, when leadership changes, they are in a position to assume the mantle.
The institutions established by an autocrat remain after their departure and can act as temptations even to a replacement with good intentions.
There is a feedback process in which authoritarian leaders alter culture and culture makes authoritarian leadership more acceptable. Russia, which has a history of authoritarian leadership including the Tsars, communism, and present day Putinism, is an example.
Strategies to disguise the transition to an authoritarian hierarchy
As the transition to autocracy takes place, those involved tend, at first, to disguise it using the following strategies.
Propaganda. This comprises lies, misinformation, and the denial of access to more reliable sources. Its purpose is to persuade followers that the leader is acting in the communal interest, when this is not necessarily the case.
Credible deniability. If pressure is applied to subordinates by, for example, suggesting potential promotion, setting targets, etc., then the more competitive among them will often “cheat” by breaking social norms or laws to achieve an outcome desired by the higher strata. Cheating can take the form of the manipulation of statistics, the misreporting of accounts, behaving unethically, etc. Often, those in the higher strata are aware that this will occur and use it as a way of achieving their ends whilst avoiding personal liability. If no records of the pressure exist, then they will be able to claim that they did not instruct their subordinates or know of their activities.
Secrecy can be used to keep the knowledge of any disproportionately high benefits from other stakeholders. Also, a strategy for acquiring and maintaining power in an organisation is to acquire valuable knowledge and keep it to oneself rather than share it. Data protection legislation and commercial sensitivity are examples of rationales used to justify this practice. Secrecy can hide many misdeeds, and a high level of secrecy by an individual or organisation is an indicator that this may be the case.
Our normal understanding of “denial” is of something practiced by an individual. In this context it was first proposed by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s. His daughter Anna Freud then went on to develop it and other related concepts in the 1930s. Personal denial is a psychological defence mechanism that protects us from suffering anxiety. People who practice denial will not accept the truth despite objective evidence and this can, for example, occur when we have a cheating partner, an addiction, or a mental health problem such as narcissism. Denial of this nature is not always a bad thing. It gives us time to psychologically adapt to a distressing situation. However, it can also cause us to fail to seek help when, for example, we are faced with a health or addiction problem.
What is less well known is that denial can also be practiced by a group of people who face a common threat that would otherwise cause them to suffer anxiety. For example, to talk about the holocaust, death or climate change is traumatic, therefore we can practice denial. Such denial by a group of people is commonly known as a “conspiracy of silence” or co-denial. However, because norms and beliefs are involved, I prefer to refer to it as “cultural denial”. The concept is explored in the excellent little book “The Elephant in the Room: Silence and Denial in Everyday Life” by the American sociologist, Eviatar Zerubavel. (Zerubavel, E. 2006)
Zerubavel argues that the reason cultural denial is not well known (and also, I would argue, his book) is that cultural denial is itself the subject of cultural denial. That is, we do not accept that cultural denial exists, do not wish to talk about it, and do not wish to hear about it, lest it cause us anxiety. There are also difficulties in identifying the existence of denial. As Zerubavel says “As one might expect, what we ignore or avoid socially is often also ignored academically, and conspiracies of silence are therefore still a somewhat under-theorised as well as under-studied phenomenon. Furthermore, they typically consist of non-occurrences, which, by definition, are rather difficult to observe. After all, it is much easier to study what people do than what they do not (not to mention the difficulty of telling the difference between simply not talking about something and specifically avoiding it.)”
Cultural denial can be extremely powerful because it is reinforced by the process of socialisation. Through this process, which can be exercised unconsciously, we learn social norms, that is, the rules of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. If we do not follow those norms, then we are punished by our peers, by for example shunning, expressions of disgust and so on. If we do follow them then we are rewarded, by inclusion, expressions of pleasure, etc. So, if one person raises an issue which the other prefers to deny, they will experience an adverse reaction and eventually learn not to raise the matter.
Cultural denial is also reinforced by the simple fact that others are practicing it. If everyone around us appears not to recognise a problem, then we can begin to doubt the evidence before our eyes and wonder whether it is our own perception, memory, or reasoning abilities that are at fault.
Cultural denial is also linked to cultural speciation. Zerubavel observes that cultural denial can lead to us becoming distrustful of one another and is morally corrosive. There will be those who acknowledge a situation even though it causes anxiety, and those who do not even though the evidence is clear. The two groups will socialise their members and divergent cultures will begin to form. These cultures can be regarded as threats to one another, and so, their relative power is important. If one group holds much greater power, then the tendency will be for the other to be silenced. However, if the two groups are relatively equal in power, then competition will occur. This competition can increase the threat felt by both groups and can steadily escalate through a process of positive feedback. The greater the threat perceived by a group, the more effort they will put into social cohesion, and thus, the greater the threat perceived by the other group. This is similar to the evolutionary arms race between a predator and its prey, known in biology as coevolution. In the social context, it can therefore be referred to as “cultural coevolution”.
Climate change exemplifies cultural denial. Four main “denials” are involved.
Denial that climate change is taking place. This has been the situation for over a century now and denial is caused by anxiety that climate change will end our standards of living and even our lives. The Selma Morning Times reported on the 15th October, 1902, that “A Swedish Professor, Svend Arrhenius, has evolved a new theory of the extinction of the human race. He holds that the combustion of coal by civilized man is gradually warming the atmosphere so that in the course of a few cycles of 10,000 years the earth will be baked in a temperature close to the boiling point. He bases his theory on the accumulation of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, which acts as a glass in concentrating and refracting the heat of the sun.” Sufficient evidence has now accumulated for most of us to accept that climate change exists but influential deniers remain. This denial has been extensively researched for the World Bank by the American Sociologist, Kari Marie Norgaard, and she concludes with several suggestions for tackling the problem. (Norgaard, K.M., 2010)
Denial that climate change has an economic cause. This denial also still persists. It is based on the anxiety that altering the economy will lower our standards of living. The economic causes are therefore largely ignored, and, where they are not, are the topic of heated debate. To date we have used fossil fuels to power our economy. This has resulted in exponential growth. However, we now have other technologies that can do a similar job. There are also social reasons for believing that perpetual growth is unsustainable. So, this anxiety can be reduced by focussing on the positives of alternative sources of energy and planning for a more socially and environmentally friendly economy; one that involves an attitude of custodianship rather than exploitation.
Denial that many of our norms, values, and beliefs are the consequence of cultural manipulation. Culture, like the biological genome, is subject to random mutation. However, an emergent property of human beings is the ability to manipulate the values, norms, and beliefs that comprise our culture, using advertising, propaganda, etc. This is referred to as cultural manipulation. To date, this ability has been used mainly by vested interests such as businesses, politicians, and religious leaders.
The denial of cultural manipulation exists because we value free will and it would cause us anxiety to believe that our values and beliefs are not necessarily our own. Although we may be aware of cultural manipulation, its denial takes the form of believing that it is only others and not ourselves who are subject to it. This is incorrect. To give an example from personal experience, a few years ago I took part in some marketing research and watched two adverts promoting gym equipment. To say that I am unenthusiastic about physical exercise is putting it mildly. However, I was astonished to find that, after watching the adverts, I quite strongly “wanted” the equipment. Fortunately, I recognised the source of this irrational want and was able to dismiss it. So, to test for these implanted “wants” and “objectives”, I now take a minute to examine them, ask myself if they are rational, and question their source.
Examples of cultural manipulation include:
the belief among some religious groups, i.e., creationists, that, contrary to all the evidence, evolution does not exist;
the belief that evolution is purely tooth and claw competition, a view thought to have been promoted in the early and mid-20th Century to justify commercial competition, political conservatism, imperialism, and racism; and
the shift towards a consumer society, largely brought about by TV, and now smartphone advertising.
Cultural manipulation can, however, be used in a positive way to establish values and norms that are consistent with the long-term wellbeing of humanity and the ecosystem in which we live. It is not necessary to specify these values in detail. Rather, we should choose sensible fundamental ones and allow society to work out the details by the usual evolutionary process of trial and error.
The more co-operative we are, the less we are prone to negative cultural manipulation by selfish sort term vested interests, and the more successful a society is. We should therefore make negative cultural manipulation socially and legally unacceptable and use positive cultural manipulation to instil values and norms conducive to our long-term survival. However, a better understanding of the processes involved is first needed.
Denial that many of our leaders have dark personality traits. I will discuss this problem in future articles, but it is an unfortunate fact that people with dark personality traits have less empathy and fewer ethical constraints. So, they are more likely to ascend to leadership positions than others. Once in such a position, they will act in their own interest rather than in the interest of society and the environment. They will also act in the interest of the organisation from which they derive their power, by for example, prioritising profitability above all else. The anxiety associated with this denial is fear of retribution if leaders with dark traits are challenged. Retribution can, for example, be loss of employment, status, reputation, and, in some countries, even the loss of life. So, almost unanimously, we dismiss this situation as normal.
Furthermore, people with dark personality traits can be good at impression management. So, it can be difficult to recognise them and, even when we do, we run the risk of being deemed a false accuser. For example, in the recent case of the nurse and serial baby killer, Lucy Letby, senior doctors were instructed to write a letter of apology to her for repeatedly raising concerns about her. (Halliday, J. 2023)
Only when a crisis occurs, such as the Russia/Ukraine war or the invasion of the Capitol Building, do we seem to recognise a leader with dark personality traits. However, despite a vast amount of objective evidence, there is barely any recognition of this as a more general problem.
There is, of course, a causal relationship between these three denials. The dark personality traits of many leaders are responsible for the nature of our economy, and that, in turn, is the cause of climate change. It is notable that we appear to be slowly overcoming these denials, starting with the effect, and working back towards the root cause.
Cultural speciation is the formation of separate and distinct cultures in human society and is a product of cultural evolution. Just like biological evolution, cultural evolution comprises two main features: random mutation and natural selection.
What evolves is not the subject itself but rather its design, i.e., the information that determines how it is formed. In the case of a living organism, this design is its genotype or genetic constitution. Together an organism’s genotype and its environment determine its phenotype, i.e., its observable characteristics. In the case of society, the equivalent of the genotype is its culture, that is, its values, norms, beliefs, and symbols, all of which are, of course, information. This culture together with its environment determine society and the latter is the equivalent of an organism’s phenotype.
Only living things and some of their artifacts can recognise and process information. Thus, evolution applies only to living things and potentially the artifacts that they create. Furthermore, for evolution to take place the entity must be capable of self-assembly from its design. Only living organisms are capable of this and not, for the present at least, their artifacts. In the latter case, an external agent is still needed to carry out the assembly.
Random mutation in living organisms is due to changes to the genome, caused for example by duplication errors, radiation, or viruses. Many of these changes are harmful, a few are neutral, and even fewer beneficial. Human society is a living thing, and it too is subject to random changes in its equivalent of the genome, that is, its culture. These random mutations take the form of new theories, opinions, attitudes, lies, etc. Before the advent of the internet they would propagate quite slowly and often die out. However, the internet has subjected society to a form of “radiation” that has accelerated the rate of random mutation enormously. New ideas proliferate and propagate at a rate never before seen. The effect of this has been to accelerate cultural evolution.
The environment in which these cultural mutations operate is the natural one, the social one and their prevailing states. Together these environments exercise the equivalent of natural biological selection. In principle, cultural mutations that are clearly true to reality and of benefit to society should be selected for by this environment; others that are neutral should persist perhaps to come to the fore if the environment changes; and those that are clearly harmful should expire. However, vested interests can influence the propagation of information. This occurred before the advent of the internet when, for example, the Catholic Church supressed scientific discoveries. More recently, commercial, and political interests have promoted information on the internet that supports their objectives and supressed that which does not. To some extent this alters the direction of cultural evolution by accelerating the rate of propagation in some directions, e.g., consumerism, whilst slowing it in others, e.g., environmentalism.
In living organisms, evolution leads to speciation. Successful mutations accumulate on different lines, and these lines become increasingly different. Initially, they form sub-species that can interbred but eventually, they become entirely separate species that cannot. The same is true of culture, initially cultural mutations lead to sub-cultures which operate largely within the main one. Interaction between the sub-culture and main culture slows the rate of divergence. However, as mutations accumulate, it becomes increasingly difficult for the sub-culture to operate within the main one, and a separation can occur. An example is the migration of religious groups from Europe to the USA.
Such speciation is thought to have occurred in early hominids. The Italian scientist, Fiorenzo Facchini suggests that “Culture probably played a double role in the process of human speciation: (1) in isolation and differentiation from other groups of hominids that did not have such behaviour; and (2) in adaptation to the environment and in communication between groups that had the same cultural behaviour, thus slowing down or preventing the conditions of isolation that lead to new species.” (Facchini, 2006)
When migration is impossible and a distance between the cultures cannot be achieved, then they will compete, often negatively, as for example in the case of political polarisation in the USA and the Russia/Ukraine war.
Finally, in humans, cultural evolution is thought to be a precursor to biological evolution. So, if geographical separation is possible in the long term, then biological speciation will eventually occur.
In this article I summarize previous ones on human interaction, explain that this is based on our perception of others, and introduce the topics of prejudice and discrimination. The latter topics are very emotive, particularly for those who have experienced them. However, I have endeavored to describe the social and psychological processes behind them objectively.
These processes are complex, and the discussion relatively long. So, to assist the reader, I have provided a diagram. Letters in the text, e.g., (A), refer to relevant parts of the diagram.
Although the discussion focusses on interactions between individuals, the same principles also apply to organisations of all types, including nations.
The nature of interaction
Interaction is a form of trade, and thus, reciprocal. We cannot interact with someone who ignores us. However, it is not merely the trade of material goods and services for money, but rather a more general trade of satisfiers and/or contra-satisfiers. That is, anything that satisfies our needs, e.g., food and shelter, or helps us to avoid contra-needs or harms such as social exclusion or illness. This can include intangible satisfiers such as friendship, inclusion, information, advice, emotional support, and so on. It can also include intangible contra-satisfiers such as threats, exclusion, violence, etc.
Priorities & the thresholds for interaction
There are three forms of interaction: co-operation, negative competition, i.e., attempting to harm the other party or prevent them from attaining their goals, and no interaction.
The Goldilocks Zone hypothesis for interaction has a part to play in our decision whether to interact with another party or not (H). It acts as a first filter. As a rule, although there are exceptions, we tend to favour co-operative interaction and to avoid negative competition. If the values and beliefs of someone with whom we might interact are thought to be the same as or like our own, then co-operation may be possible (J). If their values and beliefs are thought to differ greatly from ours, then it may not. However, rather than engaging in negative competition, we will usually try to avoid interaction (I).
All interaction consumes resources, particularly time. However, our resources are limited and so too, therefore, is the number of people with whom we can interact. The British anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, estimates that the number of stable relationships an individual can maintain is approximately 150. So, like any other activity, we prioritise our interactions using a subjective form of risk, benefit, cost analysis (M). This acts as a second filter.
Those with whom we choose to interact co-operatively, are those we perceive as being likely to provide the greatest benefit for the least effort. In this context, benefit is the satisfaction of our needs or the avoidance of our contra-needs. Because our resources are limited, there is a cutoff point in the risk, benefit, cost analysis below which we will not interact (I). For example, if someone offers low payment for a day’s work then we may not consider it worth the effort.
If we do wish to interact, then the benefits that the other party anticipates by reciprocating must also exceed their risk, benefit, cost threshold. If it does, then interaction and the trading of benefits can proceed (Q). Reciprocation does not always occur, of course, and this can lead to some frustration.
In some cases, the other party will be thought to pose a threat. Again, a form of risk cost benefit analysis is carried out (G). If the threat falls below our threshold, we will not interact (I).
In summary, therefore, we will not interact with others:
whose perceived values and beliefs are so different from ours that we believe co-operative interaction to be difficult or impossible, or
who are thought to offer insufficient benefit, or
who fail to reciprocate, or
who are thought to pose an insufficient threat.
The categorization of people and the nature of prejudice
All human beings lack the mental capacity to know everything in detail, including the vast majority of people in the world. So, we place everything, including people, organisations, and nations, into types or categories (C). In the case of people and groups of people, this is based on their physical appearance, and the culture, values, beliefs, and behaviours that they outwardly display (A).
We then associate certain characteristics and behaviours, including threats and opportunities, with these categories (F). We learn these associations not only from experience (B) but also from information provided by our community (D). Unfortunately, the latter can include errors, misinformation and propaganda.
Everyone, without exception, must categorise others in this way, and associate behaviours with those categories. This simplification is necessary because of our limited mental capacity. It is an evolved trait that enables us to make a first order approximation of the likely behaviour of someone or something. This includes any threats or opportunities that they may pose.
It is important to note, however, that it is not the external symbols used to create categories that are the cause of our reactions to their members, but rather the characteristics and behaviours that we associate with those categories. Unfortunately, those associations can be false, particularly when they have been acquired from others.
When our categorization of people would, if it influenced our behaviour, result in harm to them, then we refer to this as prejudice. This is particularly, but not exclusively, the case when we categorise less powerful minorities.
Power, hierarchies, & how relative position in a hierarchy affects interaction
Those who hold a particular set of values or beliefs form a group, and the power held by that group is the aggregate of the power held by its members. This power is based on the control of resources, for example wealth, influence, and the control of satisfiers such as jobs. It is also based on the ability to provide satisfiers such as food, housing, or education, and to inflict contra-satisfiers such as the denial of those things, threatening behaviour or acts of violence.
Hierarchies exist based on the magnitude of the benefits or disbenefits that individuals can offer to or inflict on one another. Furthermore, different hierarchies exist for different benefits. For example, there is a hierarchy of wealth, with an elite at its peak. There is one of knowledge, also with an elite at its peak. Finally, there is one of violence with the most violent, least restrained, and most well-armed people at its peak. Generally, because of the potential benefits, people will endeavour to interact, and so, trade benefits with those at a similar or higher level in a hierarchy, or at similar or higher levels in parallel ones. They will normally only interact with those below them to maintain the hierarchy.
Deciding how to interact, active discrimination and passive discrimination
The category into which we place people determines whether and how we interact with them. If someone is placed in a category associated with an opportunity to benefit, then, providing the risk, benefit, cost assessment exceeds our threshold (M), we will be predisposed to interact co-operatively with them (Q).
If, on the other hand, they are associated with a threat, then, depending on the circumstances, we will either not interact with them (I), or will engage in negative competition (O). We will not interact with someone perceived as posing a threat if this avoids the threat. Nor will we interact if the perceived threat is less than our threshold (I). If failure to interact results in harm to the other party, such as the denial of rights and opportunities afforded to others, then we refer to this as passive discrimination (L).
However, if the perceived threat exceeds our threshold, or if we are obliged to interact for any other reason, then the relative position of that person in the hierarchy, and thus, their relative power, becomes important (K). If they are lower in the hierarchy, then we will usually act aggressively, i.e., engage in negative competition (O). Harms such as social exclusion, financial harm, or violence, will almost certainly result, and we refer to this as active discrimination or persecution (R). On the other hand, if they are higher, then we will usually act defensively, i.e., behave in a manner that avoids the threat (N).
Finally, if two people or groups regard one another as a threat and have similar status in a hierarchy, then negative competition will be reciprocal. Both parties will attempt to gain higher status in order to prevail, and this can increase the perception of a threat (E). So, positive feedback can occur and can ultimately lead to violent conflict (S).
Passive discrimination can lead to active discrimination and social unrest in the following way. If people lower in a hierarchy experience passive discrimination (L) and are denied the opportunities of others, then they will feel resentment towards the perpetrators and experience anomie. That is, a breakdown of those values and beliefs that they previously shared with society. Thus, they may engage in criminality or other anti-social activities (P). This, in turn, can create apparent justification for the original categorization of those people and lead to active discrimination (R). So, the original prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. When active discrimination occurs, the victims may seek to retaliate via some other hierarchy in which they hold greater power (R). This can often take the form of aggression or violence (S).
Summary
Interaction is the reciprocal trade of satisfiers and/or contra-satisfiers.
There are three forms of interaction: co-operation (Q), negative competition (O), and no interaction (I).
As a first filter, we believe that we can interact with people whose values and beliefs (H) are thought to be like our own (J), but not with those whose values and beliefs differ significantly (I).
As a second filter, we prioritise possible interactions using risk, benefit, cost analysis (G & M), where “benefit” means the satisfaction of our needs and the avoidance of our contra-needs or harms.
Finite resources limit our ability to interact. So, if a perceived benefit or threat is below our risk, benefit, cost threshold, then we will not interact (I).
We interact with other people based on perceived opportunities to benefit and perceived threats (F).
Our perception of these opportunities and threats is based on the categorization of people (C) and the association of benefits or threats with that category (F). This association is gained from experience (B) or learnt from others (D). However, the latter can comprise misinformation or propaganda.
Prejudice is when categorisation, if it were to influence our behaviour, would lead to the other party being harmed.
Power is the aggregate of the power held by members of a group with a shared set of values. It is based on their control of the resources that can provide satisfiers or contra-satisfiers to others.
Hierarchies exist based on the magnitude of the satisfiers and contra-satisfiers that people can offer to one another (K).
We tend to interact with those higher in a hierarchy and only interact with others if this maintains a hierarchy to which we belong.
We will attempt to avoid interaction with others perceived as posing a threat if this avoids the threat (G & I).
Passive discrimination is an absence of interaction that leads to the other party being harmed (L).
If obliged to interact with someone thought to pose a threat and higher than us in a hierarchy, then we will behave defensively to avoid the threat (N). If they are below us in the hierarchy, then we will engage in negative competition, i.e., behave aggressively (O).
If we interact with someone of similar status in a hierarchy and thought to pose a threat, then both parties will engage in negative competition and attempt to raise their status (E). This causes a feedback loop which raises the apparent threat for both and can ultimately lead to conflict (S).
Active discrimination is negative competition that leads to the other party being harmed (R).
Passive discrimination leads to criminality and resentment (L&P). This appears to justify the initial categorization, and so, leads to active discrimination (R). People may respond to active discrimination by retaliating in a hierarchy where they have greater power. This can take the form of violence (S).
Tackling Discrimination
Tackling discrimination requires an understanding of its causes. Firstly, prejudice is inevitable. None of us can avoid it and it is futile to attempt to eliminate it. However, we should understand why it exists and how to prevent it from leading to discrimination. Education and our upbringing have a critical role to play in this.
We should also question our assumptions about the threats and opportunities associated with the categories into which we place people, especially if those assumptions have been received from others. Are the assumptions true? The best way to find out is to interact on common ground with people in that category. Generally, we will find the assumptions to be false, or to be a reaction to discrimination that they have already experienced. We should also ask ourselves “what is the source of these assumptions? Who benefits from them and how?”. Often, it will be found that they have been deliberately exaggerated to satisfy some political, financial, or economic need.
Active discrimination is clearly unethical. It can lead to conflict, thereby causing harm to both parties and to bystanders. It is an utter waste of the effort and of the resources that might otherwise go into improving the lives of all affected. There is a strong case for legislation to make active discrimination illegal, therefore, and for calling it out whenever it is encountered. However, education on the subject is also important. This is now accepted by many nations, but a few do not treat it sufficiently seriously.
There is much evidence that passive discrimination can ultimately erupt into civil dissent, causing active discrimination, and thus, have the same impact on society. Initially, however, it can slip under the radar. It is less obvious, and so, we are less aware of it. If we do become aware of it, then it is more readily deniable. Finally, it is difficult not to behave in a passively discriminatory manner or even to be aware that we are. This is because to do otherwise may conflict with deeply and unconsciously held beliefs about people. So, recognising and questioning those beliefs is important. However, solutions tend to be cultural ones. This is because it is the aggregate of individual passive discrimination that results in harm. So, civic education and awareness have important roles to play.
Where discrimination exists, the damage can be repaired by: encouraging interaction on common ground, i.e., in an arena where values and beliefs do not conflict; by emphasising the benefits of co-operative interaction; and by encouraging this to take place at whatever pace permits the steady reconciliation of differences. However, any disbenefits of co-operative interaction should not be ignored, but rather mitigated.
Economic and social change and the reasons for it.
When we speak of economic growth, we normally refer to Gross Domestic Product or GDP. That is, the total value of goods produced and services traded in a country in a year. The UK Government website states that “Rising GDP means the economy is growing, and the resources available to people in the country – goods and services, wages and profits – are increasing.” Emphasis is often placed on the risks of falling income, lower consumption, and job cuts if GDP falls. However, there is little talk of the relationship between GDP and profit.
Capital is necessary for the establishment and provision of large-scale communal enterprises. The vast majority of us own insufficient capital to enable us to establish such enterprises independently. So, we must pool our capital to make large-scale services possible. Whether this pooling of capital is via private enterprise or via government is a matter of political debate. There are arguments for and against each. However, the reality in the West is that private enterprise plays a very large part.
Capital investment by private enterprise is itself a form of service. In return, investors expect payment, i.e., a profit. If GDP is rising, then this is an indicator that investors can, on average at least, make a profit on their investment. If it is falling, then this is an indicator that on average they can expect to make a loss. If the latter is the case, then they will be reticent to invest in a nation, and thus, a vicious circle leading to a depression can ensue.
However, entrepreneurs supported by private investors can be ingenious in their pursuit of profit. It is this, rather than GDP per se, that is steadily changing the nature of our economies, and thus, our societies. It could be said that GDP, in part at least, reflects this ingenuity. However, the changes wrought do not necessarily benefit the general population, and there is strong evidence that they are contributing to the rise in mental ill-health. These changes and their impact on society are described below.
We produce and consume three things:
material goods such as cars, food, housing, etc.;
services such as healthcare, education, plumbing work, electrical work, gardening, entertainment, accountancy, legal services, and so on; and finally,
goods and services hired in return for rent, such as apartments, vehicles, software, etc. I will refer to this as “hybrid consumption”.
Economies pass through stages dictated by the ability of investors to make a profit.
Firstly, material goods are produced and consumed. Investors provide the necessary capital to establish factories, finance initial operating costs, etc. In return they expect a profit in the form of dividend payments, a premium on the sale of their shareholding, etc. In essence, in return for providing the resources to organise production, they are taking a share of the value traded between the actual producers and consumers. To maintain this return, in the face of competition, production efficiencies are sought. Typically, this means driving down labour costs via offshoring, automation, the outsourcing of administrative tasks to customers via the internet, and putting obstacles in the way of post-sales customer contact. Growth in turnover is also sought via advertising and expansion to overseas markets. It can also be obtained in less ethical ways, for example by the encouragement of debt, the encouragement of unnecessary social competition, advertisements that create unnecessary wants, the excessive use of sugar in foods, and so on.
Nevertheless, there is an upper threshold to the quantity of material goods that we can consume. So, in pursuit of profit, investors move on to organizing the consumption of services and hybrid consumption.
In the case of hybrid consumption, material goods are offered for rent. The organisation of hybrid consumption has been triggered by improved long-distance communication over the internet. Originally, private individuals and small local enterprises offered hybrid services. However, investors have now begun establishing large organisations to offer them. They are, for example, moving into the private rental market, and even building apartments for rent rather than sale. Unless there is government regulation, the logical conclusion of this ongoing economic change is that individuals will ultimately rent everything and own nothing. Competitive pressures will, of course, still demand increasing efficiency, the driving down of labour costs, and automation.
In the case of service consumption, our individual physical and mental skills are offered to others in return for payment, e.g., gardening, plumbing, cooking, legal knowledge, accountancy, artistic skills and so on. However, investors are also moving into this area and establishing organisations to oversee the provision of these services, e.g., Uber, Deliveroo, and so on. Those who originally provided an interpersonal service are either becoming contract staff or are being replaced. Again, the logical conclusion is that all services will be provided by large organisations, all service providers will be employed by them, and labour costs will be driven down. New services will also need to be found and marketed. What will they be?
So, unless these economic changes are regulated by government, then, taken to their logical conclusion, all who do not own capital will :
own nothing and rent everything;
do nothing for themselves but employ large organisations to do everything for them;
be self-employed and working for the same large organisations;
have no employment rights;
earn a minimum wage; and
be unable to afford the goods and services they need without running up large debts.
Does this sound familiar? Clearly, this situation is free market driven, unsustainable in the longer term, and it is for governments to steer society towards a more equitable and sustainable model.
In the meantime, a growing number of people are finding themselves impacted by these changes. The resulting insecurity, uncertainty, and frustration are leading to the growing incidence of mental ill-health.
Toxic Workplace Cultures
This is compounded by the toxic culture to be found in many large organisations.
Claire Smith, Editor of New Civil Engineer magazine stated in August 2023, that “…people working in the construction sector are three times more likely to commit suicide than those in the general population…” and “…Those working in the trades are eight times more likely to take their own lives.” In the same magazine, the trade union Unite’s national officer for construction, Jason Poulter, estimates that “over 500 construction workers died as a result of suicide last year [2022] and rates are rising.” He goes on to say that “most workers feel unable to raise mental health concerns because of the toxic macho culture that pervades our industry. This is entwined with a fear that if you admit to a problem, you are likely to be given your cards [i.e., fired] and removed from site especially if you are officially self-employed”. Mr Poulter and Unite are, of course, lobbying for mandatory regular mental health work-related risk assessments, cultural change in the industry, and the powers and resources for government agencies to investigate all work related suicides.
I can confirm from personal experience, that toxic macho cultures do indeed exist in industry, and have considerable insight into how and why they form. Such cultures have always existed but for them to contribute to the growth in mental ill-health, they also need to be impacting on more employees or to be worsening. Research by Culture Shift, shows that 40% of interviewees from a sample of 1000, have witnessed problematic behaviour, such as bullying, harassment or discrimination at work, growing substantially from the 22% that their 2020 survey uncovered.
Unfortunately, there are no statistics providing longer-term evidence of an increase. However, as services are increasingly centralized and brought under the control of large organisations that experience the pressures of competition and profitability, the number of people exposed to such cultures, and thus, their impact on mental health is likely to grow.
From the results of a 2014 survey (McManus et al. 2016), the Mental Health charity MIND says that 1 in 6 people in England report experiencing a common mental health problem in any given week. These problems comprise:
mixed anxiety and depression, 8 in 100 people;
generalised anxiety disorder, 6 in 100 people;
post-traumatic stress disorder, 4 in 100 people; and
depression, 3 in 100 people.
However, these statistics include only those aged over 16, living in private housing, and living in England.
Suicidal thoughts and self-harm are not mental health diagnoses. But they are related to mental health. Over the course of someone’s lifetime (McManus et al. 2016):
1 in 5 people have suicidal thoughts,
1 in 14 people self-harm, and
1 in 15 people attempt suicide.
Women are more likely to have suicidal thoughts and make suicide attempts than men (McManus et al. 2016). But men are 3 times more likely to take their own life than women (Samaritans, 2019).
Unfortunately, these numbers have been increasing. MIND also report the following.
The number of people with common mental health problems went up by 20% between 1993 and 2014, in both men and women (McManus et al. 2016).
People reporting self-harm went up by 62% between the years 2000 and 2014 (McManus et al. 2016).
People reporting having had suicidal thoughts within the past year went up by 30% between the years 2000 and 2014 (McManus et al. 2016).
There is also evidence that some minority groups are more likely to suffer mental ill-health problems than others. For example:
LGBTQIA+ people are between 2 and 3 times more likely than heterosexual people to report having a mental health problem in England (Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2015).
23% of Black or Black British people will experience a common mental health problem in any given week. This compares to 17% of White British people (McManus et al. 2016).
26% of young women aged between 16 and 24 years old report having a common mental health problem in any given week. This compares to 17% of adults. And this number has been going up (McManus et al. 2016).
Around 40% of people in England who have overlapping problems including homelessness, substance misuse and contact with the criminal justice system in any given year also have a mental health problem. This is sometimes called facing ‘multiple disadvantage’. (Lankelly Chase Foundation, 2015). According to the BBC report at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49317060, police in the UK have been dealing with ever more mental health incidents.
This rise in mental ill-health seems to be occurring particularly among the young. US statistics on hospital emergency department visits at https://www.aau.edu/research-scholarship/featured-research-topics/teens-young-adults-drive-increase-mental-health-er show a clear link between age group and a rise in the proportion of discharges with a mental ill-health diagnosis. The rise has been most severe among those aged 10 to 44 and least severe among those under 10 or over 64.
The Causes
The question is, of course, “what is causing this rise?”. Clearly, the disruption of COVID has had a recent impact. However, the rise was apparent long before 2020. Economic shocks, such as the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, have also played a part. However, I would argue that the main factors are functional differentiation, progressive changes in our economy and toxic workplace cultures. I will discuss the former in this part and the latter two in the next article.
Functional Differentiation
Functional differentiation is a steady and persistent growth in specialisation, and thus, in the complexity of society. Many economic shocks can be attributed to this trend.
Complexity is itself a cause of stress and anxiety as we struggle to understand the society that we live in. However, functional differentiation leads to an increasing number of interactions between individuals and organisations. It has also led to globalisation and an increasing number of interactions between national cultures. Finally, it leads to increasing migration and interactions between the minority and majority cultures of a nation.
These increasing interactions have resulted in an increased risk of conflicting values or beliefs. If the parties to an interaction select the option of holding firm to their conflicting values or beliefs, then there is a risk of negative competition and conflict, both of which are major causes of anxiety and depression. Alternatively, for the two parties to interact effectively, one or the other must wear a mask, i.e., hide their true values and beliefs and create an appearance of holding the same ones as the other. As Karl Rogers has pointed out, the effort of maintaining such a mask can lead to mental ill-health. So, whichever alternative the parties choose, there will be an impact on the mental health of at least one of them.
The fact that minorities are at greater risk of mental ill-health supports this argument. In their interactions with the majority culture, there is a greater risk of conflicting values or beliefs, and thus, they either face the risk of social conflict or must wear a mask. The recent rise in minority rights groups has meant less pressure for minorities to do the latter. However, it has transferred the pressure to wear a mask to members of the majority. Where neither party is willing to hide their true values and beliefs, there is also a greater risk of conflict.
The rise in mental ill-health amongst the young is often attributed to smartphones and social media. However, these technologies are a product of functional differentiation, as well as probably also contributing to it. Smartphones and social media increase the number of interpersonal interactions, and thus, the potential for conflicting values or beliefs.
In summary therefore, functional differentiation leads to increasing social complexity and an increasing number and diversity of social interactions. The increasing number of social interactions leads to an increasing risk of conflicting values or beliefs. The increasing risk of conflicting values or beliefs, no matter how we deal with it, leads to an increasing risk of mental ill-health.
References
Journal of General Internal Medicine (2015), Sexual Minorities in England Have Poorer Health and Worse Health Care Experiences: A National Survey.
Lankelly Chase Foundation (2015) Hard Edges: Mapping severe and multiple disadvantage.
McManus S, Bebbington P, Jenkins R, Brugha T. (eds.) (2016). Mental health and wellbeing in England: Adult psychiatric morbidity survey 2014.
Social systems can be represented using causal diagrams. An example is given below. Most interactions are two-way. That is, satisfiers and contra-satisfiers are traded between the two interacting organisations or individuals. These satisfiers and contra-satisfiers can be:
absent;
latent, i.e., potential, promised, or threatened;
precarious, i.e., present now but not necessarily in the future; or
entrenched, i.e., present now and assured for the future.
In principle at least, the diagrams can then be translated into a series of causal equations that can be combined and manipulated according to the rules of logic.
Figure: A causal diagram showing a typical co-operative trading relationship between two organisations or individuals
Societal Laws
Each level of organisation in society has a discipline or field of study associated with it, and much work has already been done to identify laws and rules for the behaviour of those organisations. Although there is considerable overlap, each discipline tends to focus on a particular level or levels of organisation. For example:
international relations focus on nations within the global community;
political science focuses on sectors and the governance of nations;
management focuses on the interaction of individuals, teams and departments within organisations;
social psychology focuses on interactions between individuals; and so on.
Furthermore, economics studies the field of money and trade, and information theory the field of communication.
It is suggested, therefore, that these disciplines be compared for isomorphisms. That is, accepted rules or laws in each discipline that are like those in others, and which can be generalized to yield societal laws. It should be noted, however, that new properties emerge with increasing complexity. Thus, whilst a law applying at one level will probably also apply in the levels above, it will not necessarily apply in the levels below.
Money
Many interactions involve a flow in one direction of real satisfiers or contra-satisfiers, i.e., materials, energy, or information, and the flow of money in the other. Money is a virtual satisfier and allows more complex interactions than direct barter.
However, not all transactions involve the trade of real satisfiers or contra-satisfiers for money. The direct barter of satisfiers for satisfiers still exists, particularly at the level of interaction between individuals, and particularly when information is the satisfier. Thus, economics cannot fully explain society.
However, because the flow of money is in a reverse direction to the flow of materials, energy, and information, where there is an economic theory there may also be a theory of real satisfiers that can be generalized to situations in which barter still takes place. In other words, there may also be a more general theory of the trade of satisfiers which includes both financial transactions and barter. “Willingness to pay” surveys are, for example, often used to place a monetary value on satisfiers.
Care needs to be taken though. Economic theories not only partially explain society, but are often also based on a particular historical context. Any more general theory would need to be disconnected from any such context. Thus, a way forward may be the research of generally accepted economic theories to see if they can be converted into more general ones that also apply to barter and are independent of context.
Practical Modelling
Despite simplification, the volume of information needed to predict society is too great for the human mind to process. It is necessary, therefore, to build a mathematical or computer model. An outline of how we might do so is given below:
Identify the organisation of interest. That is, the organisation whose behaviour needs to be understood in order to predict or alter its future. Examples include humanity as a whole, a nation, or a business.
Identify the highest-level components or holons of that organisation. For example, if the organisation of interest is a nation, these will be its sectors.
Identify the external interactions taking place between the organisation of interest or its components and any external organisations.
Initially, assume that all horizontal internal interactions between components are ones of co-operation, and that all vertical internal interactions are in accordance with the prevailing social contract.
Initially, assume that all information held or transmitted is true.
Run several instances of the model with other forms of interaction randomly distributed and in proportion to their real-world prevalence. They should be distributed across both internal and external interactions. Modifications include positive or negative competition horizontally, and the personal, species, or environmental contract vertically. They can also include stored or transmitted misinformation.
Assess the outcomes and identify any patterns that may emerge.
Identify critical components whose interactions must be of a particular type for stability of the whole. Also, identify any critical information which must be true for the same reason.
For critical components, go into more detail, model components at the next level down and repeat the above process. For example, if a sector is critical, then consider its component organisations. Continue this process until it reaches individual roles, if necessary.
Establish control measures to prevent critical roles from being occupied by inappropriate individuals, and any critical information from being falsified, for example, national leaders should not engage in personal contract relationships. However, to permit cultural evolution and avoid stagnation, non-critical roles should not be controlled in this way.
Networks are a feature of living things and some of the artificial things that they create. Individual people, organisations, and the relationships between them form a network known as a “social network”. Unfortunately, however, this term is now popularly understood as referring to social media on the internet. The term also tends to imply interactions involving the exchange of information. Strictly however, a social network can be between not only individuals but also between organisations of any size. Furthermore, the relationships involve not only the exchange of information, but also the transfer of energy, materials, money or any other satisfier or contra-satisfier. This usually takes place in the form of a two-way trade.
It is worth mentioning at this point that not all social networks are desirable. They can, for example, be criminal or drugs networks. They can also comprise self-interested individuals or organisations with influence over politicians.
Historically, the factors that have governed whether there is a relationship between two people, or two organisations have been:
geographical, i.e., whether geographical proximity and other factors such as trade routes have enabled communication and the exchange of satisfiers or contra-satisfiers; and
whether the level of disagreement has permitted co-operation, has resulted in negative competition, or has resulted in an unwillingness to interact.
With the advent of the internet and globalization, geographical factors have become less of an obstacle.
The analysis of a social network is carried out using a diagram. Individuals or organisations are plotted as nodes, and the relationships between them are plotted as links. The latter are also sometimes referred to as edges. Software and statistical techniques are available to optimize such diagrams, but little is available to carry out further analysis and, for example, make predictions. For the present therefore, analysis is largely a process of visually inspecting the diagrams.
From them, it can be possible to identify the following.
Communities or clusters have a greater number of internal connections than external ones. People or organisations are attracted to one another if they can co-operate. In this way they form clusters. Examples are intra-organisational networks, that is, networks within an organisation. They can be formal or informal. Formal internal networks are often both functional and hierarchical because this aids our understanding of them. Informal networks are less so. From the diagrams it can be possible to identify both intra-organisational and inter-organisational informal networks that might otherwise be invisible. Such informal networks are organisations in their own right, and can act as holons in a simpler model. Communities or clusters tend to have a relatively homogenous culture, i.e., the same shared values and beliefs. Internal interactions reinforce their paradigms and worldviews and can cause them to become entrenched. External contact with conflicting worldviews, especially those that pose a threat, can lead to further reinforcement.
Structural holes occur when there are relatively few connections between two communities or clusters. They can be caused by geography or other difficulties in communication. Also, they are often a result of two communities or clusters having too great a difference in their values or beliefs. However, if two clusters can interact because their differences are not too great, then both may benefit.
Marissa King, professor of organizational management at Yale University, describes, in her 2021 book “Social Chemistry”, three different ways in which people approach social networking. Although these ways are particular to social media on the internet, they are also of more general application. They are as follows.
Expansionists have large networks with many connections. In more general networks, the node that they form is referred to as a hub. Managers and leaders form hubs in formal organisations. As is well known in the advertising industry, hubs are a useful tool for quickly disseminating information to a community. However, according to the anthropologist, Robin Dunbar, there is an upper limit of 150 on the number of social connections that an individual can maintain.
Brokers bring together people from different communities. They act as a bridge over structural holes and can act as intermediaries when there is disagreement. As mentioned in the previous article, if such disagreement is not too great, then the communities can achieve a consensus that may be of benefit to both. Thus, brokers can be creators of value.
Convenors build dense networks with many interconnections. For this to be possible common values and beliefs must be shared, and a convenor is instrumental in this. Shared values and beliefs enable greater co-operation. However, they also make a community more resistant to change, and so, structural holes are more likely to form around it.
Individuals or organisations who fulfil these roles can also be identified from a network diagram, as demonstrated below.
However, social network diagrams do not describe the nature of the information, energy or material that is being transferred from one node to the other. Nor do they describe the effect of any changes to these transfers on the recipient. To fully represent a network of interacting organisations it is therefore necessary to describe the links in more detail. A way of doing so is described in the articles that follow. The result is a causal network diagram.
We understand the world in terms of holons and the relationships between them. A holon is any entity that can be recognised as a whole in itself. We recognise holons because they recur in different circumstances or environments, and so, we can draw a boundary around them that distinguishes them from their environment.
Holons exist in nested hierarchies. That is, every holon comprises several lesser holons and every holon is also part of a greater one. For example, particles are components of atoms, atoms components of molecules, molecules components of planets, and so on.
In the case of human society, the holons are individuals and organisations. Individuals are components of organisations, organisations are components of parent organisations, parent organisations are components of grandparent ones, and so on.
Figure – Family relationships between organisations in a hierarchy
As we progress downwards through this hierarchy of organisations, functional differentiation takes place. That is, the function or purpose of an organisation is broken down into the interacting component functions of child organisations. Alternatively, component functions can be carried out by other unrelated organisations through a process of trade.
Simplifying Social Complexity
In a stable society, functional differentiation naturally increases with time, and alongside it, social complexity. Up to a point, the efficiency with which any overall function is carried out also increases. However, there may be an optimum beyond which efficiency begins to decline.
If a system is complex and comprises too many components and relationships for the human mind to comprehend, then we attempt to simplify it. We do so by seeking fewer larger holons that bundle together components into recurring and recognisable patterns. Fortunately, society is structured in a way that makes it easy for us to find such holons. If we were, for example, to attempt to understand and predict the future of a nation by considering the relationships between individual citizens, then complexity would be so great that we would be unlikely to make progress. However, individual citizens form part of organisations such as sectors. If these sectors are taken as our holons and the relationships between them considered, then a far less complex model results.
In fact, this is what we do in practice. Furthermore, it is very likely that we structure society in this way to better enable us to understand it. For example, the field of international affairs uses nations as its holons, political science uses sectors, management theory organisations within parent organisations, and social psychology individuals. We do this intuitively, rather than as a consequence of any formal systems theory. However, the fact that social systems theory predicts what takes place in practice is strong support for the former’s validity.
In physics, the term “frustration” refers to an entity that is subject to conflicting forces and there is uncertainty about which option it will settle upon. Professor Giorgio Parisi has carried out Nobel Prize winning work on frustration in spin-glasses, i.e., materials in which the magnetic orientation of the components are random, can alter below a particular temperature, but are frozen above it. This results in an amorphous structure that is one example of a complex system. Professor Parisi’s work has shown that reliable predictions on the statistical properties of a complex system can be obtained by modelling it several times and comparing how the different models behave.
The concept of frustration can be applied to society. It occurs when we are faced with situations in which different cultures apply. Different values and beliefs, forming a part of those cultures, will dictate different behaviours. This leads to cultural or ethical dilemmas that we must manage. In such circumstances the behaviour of an individual or organisation is unpredictable. However, whatever choice we make propagates through society and this is the principal cause of social complexity.
If we were all to behave in the same manner according to the same values and beliefs then, like a crystalline material such as diamond, society would be simple and relatively predictable. However, differing values and beliefs mean that we do not, and so, society is more like an amorphous material such as glass. It is complex and unpredictable.
Individuals or organisations often agree with the values and beliefs that prevail in their environment, e.g., with those of the business in which they work or the nation in which they live or operate. If so, they will usually remain within that environment and support it. However, they also often disagree with the prevailing values and beliefs. For example, in a vertical interaction, the rights given up by an individual or organisation may be thought too great or too little. Thus, the culture of an individual may conflict with that of a business in which he or she works. Also, for example, the culture of a business organisation may conflict with that of a nation in which it operates. In these circumstances “frustration” exists and the individual and business must find ways of dealing with it. There are several ways of doing so, and this leads to the complexity and unpredictability of society.
The individual may, for example, attempt to leave the business or the business may attempt to move to a culturally more compatible nation. However, if they are unable to do so, then the following alternatives exist.
We have true values and beliefs that have become internalised over time. We are also capable of presenting apparent values and beliefs to those with whom we interact, i.e., we wear a mask. This is true not only of individuals but also of organisations of any size. Thus, we may wear a mask for one aspect of the dilemma but act in accordance with the other. For example, we may give an outward display of compliance but, if safe to do so, practice non-compliance. For example, when Stalin died many Russians put up blackout curtains but celebrated behind them.
Alternatively, we may rationalize in favour of the value and belief system in which we are obliged to operate, attempt to internalize those values and beliefs, and thus, remove the dilemma.
Alternatively again, we may attempt to alter the culture in which we are obliged to operate. For example, organisations that disagree with the values and beliefs of the nation in which they operate can propagandise in favour of their own values and beliefs, thus altering the nation’s culture over time and removing the dilemma.
It is worth noting that a dissenting organisation will, knowingly or not, attract members who agree with its values and beliefs, thereby reinforcing them.
Cultural Evolution
Frustration in society has an evolutionary basis, and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be totally eliminated. It serves an evolutionary function and so it may, in fact, be undesirable to do so. Utopias stagnate.
An important aspect of biological evolution is random mutation. This gives us a variable genome that causes individuals to differ. These differences, in combination with differences in our environment, cause our cultures, and hence our values and beliefs, to differ. As explained above, these differences in values cause social complexity, part of which comprises dissenting sub-cultures. These sub-cultures are random mutations of a social nature and form an important aspect of cultural evolution. However, just like random mutation in biological evolution, social mutations are most often harmful, often neutral, and only occasionally beneficial. They exist within a broader social environment and, if they are seen to be harmful, they will become extinct. If they are neutral they will probably persist and perhaps become beneficial if the environment changes. However, if they are seen to be successful in satisfying human needs, then, because culture is information, they will propagate, ultimately altering the parent culture. Thus, providing frustration exists, society evolves in a similar way to biological organisms. Just as isolation and random mutation account for the great biodiversity in the world, isolation and frustration account for its great cultural diversity.
Points to note, however, are:
Success and failure can be falsified.
Success for one organisation can be failure for another.
If new values are consistent with those we already hold they will propagate more readily (Bartlett). If they are inconsistent, they will propagate more slowly (Kuhn).
Frustration is inevitable therefore, and something that we must learn to live with if society is to progress. Idealists should note however, that an ideal global society is neither possible nor desirable. Pragmatists, on the other hand, should note that this is not an excuse for failing to strive for one. This is a difficult concept to come to terms with but nevertheless represents the reality of the human situation.
Rational-Understanding.com 