Social Instability

by William Silvert

Abstract

Societies are heterogeneous. There is usually division of labour, and a hierarchical political structure with powerful leaders. This paper addresses the reasons for this – does it occur because of natural differences between the members of the society or is an inevitable consequence of social dynamics? I suggest that these features would arise even if all members of the society were identical, and that societies are self-organising systems driven by infinitesimal instabilities.

Introduction

Virtually all societies – animal as well as human – exhibit a high degree of structure. Even the smallest social units, the family, are led by a single figure, such as a father or mother or elder. Larger units tend to have hierarchical structure. In human societies there are layers of government both civil and religious. There is also division of labour, characteristic of societies ranging from humans to insects such as ants and bees.

To what extent is this due to differences among the members of societies? Are there natural leaders who spontaneously come to power in all societies? Are there natural differences in inclination which lead different members to work on different tasks? If this is the reason for heterogeneous societies, then no such structure should emerge in the absence of natural leaders and specialists. In a hypothetical society where all members are identical, no social structure would appear. Is this reasonable? This is the issue addressed in this paper.

Mechanisms for Generating Social Structure

The hypothesis that structure arises solely from differences within populations is so statistically unlikely that it can be dismissed out of hand – there is almost always just one prime leader, and tasks are generally distributed as needed. There must be some other mechanism which determines who succeeds in becoming a leader and who assumes what tasks. The existence of such mechanisms in at least some cases is clear. The political process ensures that no matter how many people run for office, only one can become president or prime minister. However, this leaves the question of whether these mechanisms are sufficient to generate structure by themselves, or whether they simply regulate and organise the natural proclivities of members of the society. To put the question in its simplest form, would structure emerge in a society in which all members were identical?

In some cases the mechanisms for spontaneous generation of structure are evident. When a hereditary ruler has several heirs they often fight for succession, and often this is the way in which leaders are chosen (this kind of fratricide was common during the Caliphate). Animals often fight for dominance, and while this usually ensures that the toughest beast will become the leader of the pack, a fight to the death guarantees that there will be only one leader no matter how evenly matched the contestants may be (and of course there may be no survivors). Viviparous sharks even fight in the womb, and mortal combat among fledgling birds occurs with the loser being ejected from the nest.

Chance plays a major role in choosing leaders. Bitter conflicts among heirs can be avoided by primogeniture and rules of succession (which can be circumvented by someone with enough determination, as the 1949 film Kind Hearts and Coronets showed!). But certainly being born first is a random characteristic which does not insure leadership capabilities.

Bees also practice a type of primogeniture. Although it still isn’t clear how one larva becomes the queen bee, once she does she releases a pheromone which suppresses ovulation in other bees and thus ensures that there is only one queen in the hive.

There are also less formal ways in which leaders can emerge. In the military a sergeant may confront a group of raw recruits and need to select some for squad leaders. This is not done by rigorous testing – instead the sergeant may pick an unfortunate individual who sneezes at the wrong time or who is scratching a bedbug bite. The critical point is that the leadership role exists, and someone must be found to fill it, whether qualified or not.

Of course the military is a highly structured organisation to begin with, but the search for “volunteers” is common even in totally unstructured groups. If several people find that they share a common interest which they want to pursue together – bird watching for example – they immediately face the problem of finding someone to coordinate their activities. A leader must be found, and if no one volunteers, they may simply draw straws. No special talent is needed!

Other social tasks are assigned in the same way. If the bird watchers need someone to keep track of who sees what, they will designate a head twitcher somehow. But what about tasks that re not connected to fixed positions? How does a society end up with the right number of hairdressers for example? Is it a result of exactly the right number of individuals born with hairdressing as their inherent destiny? This seems unlikely. There are other social mechanisms which regulate the number of individuals who assume different tasks, consisting mainly of financial pressures but also including limited opportunities for training and licensing.

Of course these mechanisms do not work perfectly. Palm Beach has a ridiculous oversupply of plastic surgeons, but the citizens do their best to keep them profitably occupied. Societies have a degree of flexibility and can adapt.

Animal societies also involve division of labour, most notably among the social insects. Most aspects of bee organisation seem to be governed by pheromones, and presumably competition between the pheromones emitted by different castes ensures that there will be the right numbers of drones, warriors and workers.

Conclusion

Although there can be no question that there exist born leaders, this does not seem to be essential for the development of organised societies. Societies, whether human or animal, are self-organising structures in which the members become distributed among the various necessary tasks, including those of leadership, in a reasonably effective way through natural processes which do not depend on individual characteristics to any decisive degree.

Address all correspondence to the editor, william@silvert.org. As for copyright, who would steal a simple idea? Just be sure to acknowledge the source.