There seems to be an evolutionary fitness advantage for males to be violent, or at least their used to be and it has probably not entirely dissipated in the last few hundred years. The evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar, of Dunbar's Number* fame, looks at both modern-day hunter-gatherer groups and medieval Icelandic records, which are quite detailed and concluded that violence is a net positive for the murderers, despite their increased likelihood of being murdered themselves in ongoing feuds and vendettas, but if they survive, their brothers benefit hugely compared to the brothers of non-murderers. To prevent things from spiraling completely out of control, small societies develop customs and spontaneous government to partially rein things in.
...what they do is introduce social institutions that allow them to manage violent behaviour, especially among the young males. These include marital arrangements that increase the number of people who can lean on badly behaved individuals, charismatic leaders (whose friendly advice we heed out of respect), communal feasts (where we bond) and, especially, men’s clubs (where boys who fall out are made to sit down together to make peace – without, by the way, actually talking about it, just by bonding).
But it doesn't fix it all, not by a long shot. The Perils of Group Living. So much for the myth of the peaceful savage.
*The number of people we supposedly handle as a group maximum, variously estimated at 75-150 individuals. It is one of those things that is generally agreed upon but poorly evidenced. It just seems right.
1 comment:
There is definitely an advantage to at least conveying that respect will be shown to you and yours or else. And yes, it mostly is enjoyed by those not personally involved in the violence; the ones who draw no vendetta themselves, but are protected by the relationship with a man too dangerous to cross.
I don’t know how anyone ever concluded otherwise.
Post a Comment