Elisabeth Oberzaucher
In group living species such as Homo sapiens, there are basically two options for making decisions that affect more than one individual: Either one comes to an agreement within the framework of a more or less democratic process or there is an alpha animal who sets the tone. When an individual finds a decision, it is usually faster than a democratic process. The cost of such a hierarchically organized system is that the decisions do not necessarily produce the solution that fairly distributes costs and benefits. Ideally, everyone involved shares goals and opinions, so there is no potential for conflict, and everyone can work together to achieve these goals. It is rare that there are no conflicts of any kind between the goals of the individual, and that is why the scenario just described borders on utopia.
Shadow side harmony
If we are too harmonious, swimming too much with the flow, we are not creative. New ideas are usually created by the fact that someone is not adapted, new tried and creative. As a result, the notion of a perfectly harmonious world may seem attractive, but in the long run it may be a malfunctioning utopia, with no innovation or progress due to lack of friction and incentives. However, stagnation is dangerous not only in biology but also on a cultural level. While innovations (in the sense of genetic mutations) are constantly taking place in evolution, their establishment, which leads to the emergence of new properties and new species, depends on selection conditions that promote a departure from the traditional. As unforeseen changes are an integral part of our world, the flexibility we gain through variation and innovation is the only recipe for the sustainable survival of a social system. So it is the uncomfortable, the unadjusted, the revolutionaries who are keeping a society alive that keeps them from getting fat and comfortable, requiring them to keep evolving. So a minimum of conflict is needed, as blockages on the way to achieving our goals inspire creativity and innovation. The task of a humanistic society is to cultivate these conflicts as breeding grounds for creativity while preventing antagonistic escalation.
The ideas and wishes of individuals are not necessarily compatible. So the highest wish of one may be the other's biggest nightmare. If the ideas of the participants diverge widely, this can cause difficulties, so that an agreement does not seem possible. The consequence of such disagreements can be twofold. Either one manages to get out of the way completely, thus reducing the potential for conflict, or, if that is not possible, it can lead to conflicts. But there is also a third option: negotiating a compromise that leaves both parties slightly behind their goals but still approaches them a bit.
Compromise on conflict prevention
Disputes are for all parties of disadvantage. Escalation to physical combat in particular is avoided as long as possible in the animal kingdom and is used only as a last resort when all other resources are exhausted. The massive costs of physical aggression make compromises a much more attractive alternative in most cases. A compromise means that one's goal is not achieved in full, but at least partially, whereas in a confrontation one not only risks not reaching one's goal at all, but also the consequences of the confrontation (physically in the form of Injuries, economically in terms of material costs).
Finding compromise solutions can be a tedious and cumbersome process, but social structures help us optimize those processes: implicit rules help to minimize conflicts by regulating social interaction.
Rank and space
Hierarchies and territories predominantly exist to establish a set of rules for our social relations, thus reducing disputes. Both have a rather negative connotation in everyday understanding, and are usually not associated with harmonization. This is not surprising, as we are constantly seeing nature documentaries fighting for supremacy or territories. In reality, these battles are extremely rare. Aggressive arguments about rank and space only take place if the claims are not respected. In most cases, however, it is also advantageous for lower-ranked people to respect them, since hierarchies, through their inherent social rules, regulate the rights and duties of individuals so that disagreements are seldom found. So while the Rangherher benefit more, it is for everyone beneficial not to disturb the peace. The same applies to territories: this is location-dependent dominance. The owner of a territory is the one who sets the rules. However, if the claims of the highest ranking member or the owner are so exaggerated that the other group members are completely disenfranchised, it can happen that they question the claims and bring about a dispute.
Justice therefore plays an important role in determining whether a compromise solution works or not. If we feel unfairly treated, we resist. This sense of what is acceptable, and what is not, seems to be unique to group-living animals. It has been known for some time that nonhuman primates are very irritated when treated unfairly. Recent studies show similar behaviors in dogs as well. The value of a reward does not matter until someone else gets more for the same action than you do.
Envy as a social indicator
So we are less concerned with whether our needs are covered, but rather whether others have more than ourselves. This sense of injustice brings with it, as a shadowy side, the envy in which we treat others no more than ourselves. At the same time but it is central to ensuring justice in a social system. In doing so, we ensure that compromises are not found at the expense of less but just. A good compromise is one in which all parties benefit and invest to a comparable degree. This works very well in groups whose size is manageable. Here, those who violate the rules can easily be identified and maximize their own profit at the expense of others. Such selfish behavior can lead to exclusion from support systems or explicit punishment.
Power & responsibility
In group-living species that are hierarchically organized, a high rank is always associated with more responsibility and risk. Although the Alpha Beast benefits from its superior status, for example through preferential access to resources, it is also responsible for the well-being of its group. This means that, for example, the highest ranked person is the first to face danger. A refusal or inability to take responsibility will inevitably result in a loss of rank. This direct link between social status and risk was preserved in our political systems right up to the medieval estates state - in the form of social contracts, the feudal lords were obliged to their feudal lords. In modern democracies this interlocking is dissolved. Political failure no longer automatically leads to rank loss. The direct control of fairness in compromises is hampered by the changed magnitudes and the identification of those responsible as well. On the other hand, we hope that democratic processes will lead to compromises that lead to a fair distribution. The need for regular government scrutiny of elections is the compromise solution, which ensures that democracy as the worst form of government remains better than any other - at least as long as the group members use their suffrage.
Education & ethics necessary
In today's anonymous societies, this mechanism can not really help us, and what is left is often just envy without achieving the original positive goals. Our control mechanisms are inadequate for today's social complexity and result in the cost of democratically found compromises not always being fairly distributed. Lacking individual accountability combined with the decoupling of power and risk, democracies run the risk of failing to meet our claims of justice. That's why we need informed, ethical citizens who constantly reflect on these basal mechanisms and illuminate the consequences of their actions to protect our humanitarian values.
Photo / Video: Shutterstock.
