Kinship Hierarchy: The Basis of Cooperation

Kinship Hierarchy: The= Basis of Cooperation?

Lyle Steadm= an

Department = of Anthropology

Arizona State University

Human Behav= ior and Evolution Society Meeting

University of Arizo= na

Tucson, Arizona<= /st1:place>

June 6, 199= 7

&nbs= p; The theme of this particular session is that, by looking at human kinship behav= ior all manner of activities can be understood: art, religion, morality, tradit= ion or culture, and rank.

&nbs= p; Today, I want to talk about rank, or hierarchy.&n= bsp; Robert Wright, in his Moral Animal, points out that hierarchy among humans appears universal, [and] then asks, “why is it in the genetic interest of the low men on the totem pole to treat their betters with deference?” (238). That is, how has subordinate behavior helped individuals reproduce and leave descendants?

&nbs= p; Ever since the American and French revolutions, egalitarianism has been the idea= l in the West. Egalite, liberte, [= and] fraternite symbolize freedom. Hierarchy always exploits. [In other words, hierarchy is seen= from this perspective as always exploitative].

&nbs= p; But rank has not always been seen as evil.&nbs= p; Shakespeare, through a speech of Ulysses during the Trojan War (in Troilus and Cressida), warns of th= e loss of rank:

“Take but degree away= , untune that string,

And hark, what discord follows! each thing meets

In mere oppugnancy . . .

And the rude son should str= ike his father dead . . .”

Likewise, the poet John Donne, bemoaning the loss of feudalism:

“Tis all in peeces, a= ll cohaerence gone . . .

Prince, Subject, Father, So= nne, are things forgot . . . “

&nbs= p; And even Darwin, speaking of the Indians of Tierra del Fuego, wrote in 1839 that the “per= fect equality [of the Fuegian Indians] . . . would for a long time retard their civilization . . . (U)ntil some chief shall arise with power . . ., it seems scarcely possible that the political state of the country can be improved” (from the Voyage of the Beagle, cited in Wri= ght, p. 236-7, my emphasis).

&nbs= p; Darwin also noted that Tahiti= , “by being governed by heredity kings, . . . (had) arrived at a far hi= gher grade than another branch of the same people, the New Zealanders, who . . . were republicans in the most absolute sense” (Voyage of the Beagle, cited in Wright, p. 236).

&nbs= p; Shakespeare, Donne, and Darwin see rank as the basis of civilization, and Shakespeare and Donne, at least, see that rank orders kinship relationships.

&nbs= p; Matt Ridley, in his latest book (Origins= of Virtue), citing Adam Smith and the biologist John Bonner, makes the poi= nt that the basis of wealth in a society is the division of labor. The division of labor, in turn, se= ems to depend directly on the size of the group (p. 43). I propose that the size of the gro= up (that is, the number of individuals regularly cooperating with one another)= is dependent directly on the degree of hierarchy or rank. What we might call “lateral&= #8221; cooperation is dependent on “vertical” cooperation. The size and wealth of a nation may depend on the degree of hierarchy.

&nbs= p; To see how hierarchy provides the basis of cooperation, let us examine how the behavior involved was selected for. My argument is simple: all hierarchies, all ranking systems, are a result of selection for the behavior involved in the parent-offspring relationship. Even the French egalitarian ideal of fraternite= , [or] brotherhood, implies a common parent. And parents everywhere outrank their offspring.

&nbs= p; Take mammals. Offspring being subordinate to their mother constitutes a ranked relationship. The mother’s guidance of offspring, and the offspring’s acceptance of that guidance, constitut= es a ranking system. The basis of kinship cooperation is the ranked relationship between parent and offspring= .

&nbs= p; Mammalian offspring are selected for immaturity.&nbs= p; This immaturity, or helplessness, enhances the mother’s abilit= y to influence her offspring and, conversely, the offspring’s ability to be influenced by the mother. Immaturity in offspring, which implies subordination, has helped both mothers and offspring leave descendants, or the genes involved would not ha= ve flourished.

&nbs= p; Mammalian kinship behavior is quite different from that of insects, fish, and reptiles. Mammalian kinship behavior, like all behavior, depends on particular genes, but it also depen= ds on the memory of uniquely identified individuals and their behavior. The mother comes to know her offsp= ring by her experiences with it shortly after its birth. And the offspring comes to identif= y its mother by her behavior toward it. Because of this dependence on experiences, they can each be fooled.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> A newborn can be accepted by a new mother, even of another species, and a mammalian baby will accept the influ= ence of anyone giving it motherly care. The genes involved have programmed both the mother and the offspring= to accept anyone exhibiting the appropriate triggers. All mammals are born with the abil= ity to be influenced by, and to influence, others based on their ability to individually recognize one another.

&nbs= p; Its too bad that Hamilton discovered kin selection before mammalian kinship had been worked out. Once Hamilton’s discovery, based initi= ally on eusocial insects, had been accepted, biologists embraced the theory to account for kinship behavior in general.&n= bsp; But insect kinship behavior depends on impersonal criteria such as pheromones, while that of mammals and birds depends on the memory of unique individuals and their behavior. Mammalian mothers identify their offspring uniquely soon after beari= ng them, and offspring come to identify their mother primarily through her care for them. Through contact wit= h the mother, other kin, including siblings, may come to be identified uniquely by their appearance and behavior. Mammalian and bird kinship behavior leads to the creation of unique social relationships among the individuals involved.

&nbs= p; (Delete) Reciprocal altruism, or tit for tat, is the main explanation offered to acc= ount for the widespread cooperation beyond very close kin found among humans. But it too depends on the memory of unique individuals, and hence must also be rooted in kinship behavior.

&nbs= p; Humans, like all mammals, have been genetically programmed to accept and remember t= he influence of uniquely identified individuals who behave toward them like a parent. A child or puppy is programmed to accept our influence, and the relationship established throug= h the unique memory of one another can last a lifetime.

&nbs= p; In every human society the relatio= nship between a mother and child is extended to include fathers. It appears that marriage among hum= ans, which involves a ranked relationship between husband and wife, is ancient,[1] and its adaptive function is to provide offspring with a father. Everywhere males are encouraged to= care for their children (identified usually through marriage to the mother) and everywhere children are encouraged to accept the authority of their fathers. Human kinship involv= es ranked relationships not only between mothers and children but also between fathers and their children.

&nbs= p; In every human society kinship rank has come to be extended well beyond parent= s, offspring and siblings. And, = in general, age is the basis of this rank, as it is between mother and offspring. In probably every society, individuals are encouraged by their parents and ancestors to respe= ct and accept the influence of older kinsmen.= This age-based rank is facilitated by kin terms. For example, birth-order among sib= lings is often identified explicitly. Even in modern Latin speaking countries, offspring may be named by t= heir birth order—such as Segundo or Quinto in Spanish—which implicit= ly ranks the siblings. Sometimes= the birth-order among siblings is carried to their respective offspring, first cousins of one another. Cousi= ns may be ranked by the age of their “linking” parents, regardless of their own particular ages. Th= at is, the offspring of my father’s elder brother may be verbally distinguis= hed from the offspring of my father’s younger brother. And I must accept the authority of= my “senior” cousins, and the responsibilities to help my “junior” cousins (regardless of our actual ages). In some societies, this categoriza= tion of cousins is even more finely tuned. For example, I call the offspring of my father’s first born ol= der brother by a different term than those of my father’s second born old= er brother, and so on.

&nbs= p; Kinship terminological systems have long been both a fascination and a conundrum fo= r anthropologists. No one has yet explained them. In particular, no one has explaine= d why kin terms used for close kin are extended metaphorically to distant kin. In some systems (for example, those labeled “Crow”), some first cousins are called “father= 221; or “father’s sister,” and they reciprocate by calling you “sister’s child” or “child.” I propose that the purpose, the fu= nction of such labeling is to facilitate cooperative relationships by explicitly creating rank between these cousins.

&nbs= p; There are many such examples, but little time to cite them. However, one interesting feature o= f the New Guinean tribe I lived with for several years [the Hewa] is worth mentioning. Although no one k= new their age, everyone knew who was older and younger than them. Thus, the whole Hewa population co= uld be ranked by relative age. This = keen attention to relative age reflects an interest in rank. While everyone they encounter is a kinsman of some degree, everyone is encouraged from birth onwards to respect older kinsmen. This is true e= ven among siblings, who are encouraged from birth onwards to accept the authori= ty of older siblings and care for younger [ones]. Anthropologists have long emphasiz= ed that the basis of cooperation in the societies they study is kinship, and t= hat older kinsmen are highly respected.

&nbs= p; I propose that kinship relationships everywhere are ranked relationships, and kin terms facilitate this ranking. Kin terms (such as our “mother,” “uncle,” “nephew,” etc.), usu= ally imply rank. And everywhere te= rms for close kin are extended metaphorically to distant kin and in modern societies even to non-kin. The particular kin term chosen, such as “father,” “uncle,R= 21; or “child,” in this metaphorical extension, indicates rank. Calling the Pope, “father,&#= 8221; for example, communicates a willingness to accept his authority. While kin terms used for siblings, especially those of opposite sex, and sometimes cousins, do not always spec= ify rank, everywhere age differences are used to promote ranked cooperation amo= ng kin, and everywhere kin terms are used to help identify this rank.

&nbs= p; All of this suggests that rank is fundamental to kinship cooperation. Rank depends not only on the genes involved in parent-like behavior and the propensity to accept it, but on the memory of uniquely identified individuals.= This leads to a testable prediction: rank based on personal recognit= ion should never be found in species that do not have kinship relationships bas= ed on personal recognition.

&nbs= p; The principle benefit of rank is that it reduces competition. By reducing competition, it enhanc= es the possibility of cooperation. Subordinates acquiesce to superiors. Cooperation enhances the possibili= ty of [those cooperating with one another] to compete with outsiders.

&nbs= p; But isn’t rank always more beneficial to the higher ranked than the lower? We’re back to Wright’s question: “why is it in the genetic interest of the low men on the to= tem pole to treat their betters with deference?” There seems to be two basic types = of subordinate behavior: subordination based on fear—resulting in a peck= ing order—and subordination based on respect, creating a hierarchy involv= ing the acceptance of authority.

&nbs= p; What has been described as a pecking order, among chickens for example is based = on fear of being pecked. Why doe= s the pecked chicken stay around? F= irst, she stays with siblings because she has been selected to stay and benefit f= rom contact with her mother. In addition, the particular strategy of a reproductive chicken to stay with a rooster of her choice allows her eggs to be continuously fertilized. And that leads to staying with oth= er females that choose the same rooster. A pecking order, which involves personal recognition, reduces the likelihood that the individuals will continue to fight over resources and, = at the same time, allows the subordinate to stay around.

&nbs= p; In contrast to a pecking order, a hierarchy is based not on fear but on respect—the acceptance of parent-like authority. Indeed, the meaning of hierarchy, from the Greek, is “sacred leader.” = An important difference between subordination by intimidation and subordination based on respect is that a pure pecking order does not create social relationships: there is no sacrifice on the part of the dominant individual. A hierarchy invol= ves sacrifice on the part of the senior for the junior, like the sacrifice a mother makes= for her offspring. Hierarchies are social relationships, implying mutual sacrifice. Hierarchy is a form of cooperation= where each party is vulnerable to the influence of the other. But it is asymmetrical, with the s= enior guiding and the junior following.

&nbs= p; Robert Wright spends some time discussing chimpanzee behavior involving rank, or staus, primarily using Franz de Waal’s work. In summary, he writes,

“Of the lavish attent= ion that chimpanzees pay to status, much is merely ritual; greetings humbly offered = to a social superior . . . But in the case of males, at least, the rankings so peacefully acknowledged are set by struggle . . . Male chimps seem more dramatically in the thrall of these sorts of forces than female chimps; they work harder for status. For t= hat reason, male hierarchies are unstable . . . Females settle into a hierarchy with less conflict (seniority often counts for a lot), and are thereafter l= ess preoccupied with their status . . . Female social coalitions . . . often la= st a lifetime, whereas male coalitions shift with strategic utility” (p. 245-6).

&nbs= p; All this suggests that female chimp hierarchies are based primarily on kinship, age, and respect, like those of humans, whereas male chimps, ot= her than a few sibling-like alliances between pairs (p. 250-3), form pecking orders, based primarily on aggression and fear. Human hierarchies, both male and female, like those of female chimps, tend to be stable, and based on kinship, age, and the acceptance of authority.

&nbs= p; In general, human male hierarchies are larger than female hierarchies, and the largest constitute political systems. The behavior involved in these larger hierarchies, of course, is hig= hly traditional, copied from ancestors, and is encouraged among males from birth onwards.

&nbs= p; Virtually every anthropologist writing on Australian Aborigines, the best examples ex= tant of (humans living in) the so-called EEA [era of evolutionary adaptation], h= as pointed out that all cooperation is based on kinship, age, and sex. The explicit hierarchies among men= in Australian tribes are small ritual groups, called bands or estate groups, w= ith the leaders always being the oldest in the band. And individuals typically belong to several of these bands, or hierarchies.&nb= sp; Initiation, often bloody, is the price young boys must pay to join t= hese male hierarchies.

&nbs= p; Contrast the scale of the Samoan hierarchy. The entire archipelago of the Samoan Islands seems to ha= ve been one overarching hierarchy based on kinship. Even the various kings were ranked= by the order in which their alleged common ancestor, the god Tagaloa, created = the particular human ancestor each king represented. All leaders, from households to kingdoms, were ranked according to the kinship rank of the particular ances= tor the leader represented. Frequ= ent rituals emphasizing the hierarchy among these leaders promoted cooperation.=

&nbs= p; In societies everywhere, the higher the person is in the hierarchy, the more r= espect he is shown, for such respect facilitates his ability to influence greater numbers of subordinates. While greater authority may be accompanied by greater benefits, it is also accompanied by greater responsibility.&nbs= p; In the Inca empire, for example, while the higher officials had more wives than lower ranking officials, they were punished more severely when t= hey were derelict in their duty.

&nbs= p; The modern military epitomized the principle that hierarchy is fundamental to cooperation. In military grou= ps of every size, everyone is precisely ranked.&= nbsp; If two individuals are of the same apparent rank, say captain, their= rank will be based on the day they were promoted to captain. And rituals constantly emphasize t= his rank: who salutes first, who sits or walks on the left of the other, who en= ters or leaves a vehicle first, and so on. Rank, at the heart of military structure, reduces competition and promotes the cooperation crucial to competing with outsiders.

&nbs= p; Governments constitute modern hierarchies based explicitly on the acceptance of authority. Although individua= ls, through intimidation, may create a pecking order, those who become tyrants invariably depend on a hierarchy of loyal followers, who accept their autho= rity. Papa Doc Duvalier of Haiti depende= d on his loyal machine-gun toting Tonton Macoutes. [In Haiti, like other nations, at Christmas, good children are visited by Santa Claus, known locally as Uncle Christmas. The bad children are visited by Uncle Gunnysack, or Uncle Knapsack. Translated literally from Creole: Tonton (Unc= le) Macoute (gunnysack). The term “Tonton Macoutes” is equivalent i= n Haiti t= o the “bogeyman.”]

&nbs= p; In religious rituals, one communicates subordination to the leader. Through such subordination, siblin= g-like relationships are formed among the followers. Interestingly, close kinship terms= are often used explicitly to facilitate these relationships—“father,” “brother,” “mother,” “sister,” [etc.].

&nbs= p; I wanted to argue that it is status, or rank, not wealth, that is the most desirable trait of a man sought by a woman. But I don’t have time. I will only say that this fact is = seen clearly in the 600 or so tribes of Australia, where age, not wea= lth, is the basis of status. There= , the best hunters, those who capture the most game—which is their wealth—are younger males who never have high status. The most desirable females choose = to marry the oldest males, those of the highest rank.

Conclusion

&nbs= p; The behavior involved in rank is kinship behavior involving personal recognition. When we study ki= nship behavior among humans, we find that widespread cooperation is a result of particular traditions. The transmission of traditions implies kinship cooperation between ancestor and descendant. Like genes, tradi= tions tend to increase in frequency only when they help individuals leave descendants. That must be the ultimate explanation to account for widespread traditions that have been ar= ound for a long time. Furthermore,= when a tradition promotes success in leaving descendants, and genetic mutation t= hat facilitates the expression of that tradition will tend to increase in frequ= ency along with that tradition. Ma= ssive influence on children through distinctive traditions, facilitated by select= ion for extreme immaturity in our young, is the feature most distinguishing hum= ans from other animals.

&nbs= p; The behavior that creates hierarchy is kinship behavior, involving both genes a= nd traditions. Hierarchy, which promotes cooperation and reduces competition, is not only the basis of a society’s wealth; it is also the basis of success in competition with outsiders.

&nbs= p; My argument is that the behavior and genes involved in the creation and maintenance of hierarchy have been selected for as kinship behavior between= a mother and her offspring. Traditions, beginning with marriage, have extended this behavior to include fathers and ever more distant kin.= When such behavior helped the individuals leave more descendants it tended to increase in frequency. The widespread occurrence in the modern world of hierarchy—in business, religion, the military, the state, even the United Nations—testifies to the past success of this behavior.

[Addendum]

&nbs= p; Darwin saw that t= he basis of his own ability to cooperate with others was the result of his father’s influence, and he himself felt compelled to encourage that behavior in his children.

Short Talk to Graduate Students [This was a special lu= nch presentation to graduate student members of HBES]

&nbs= p; From my perspective, as an anthropologist, the main problem with evolutionary psychology is the failure to appreciate the importance of ancestral influen= ce through traditions. We simply don’t operate on our own. We accept the influence of others, particularly ancestors.

&nbs= p; Traditions, which imply the transmission of learned, “successful” behavior = from ancestor to descendant, imply kinship relationships. And, because the identification and cooperation between human kinsmen is powerfully influenced by traditions, to understand human kinship we must understand the importance of traditions. Language is a tradition; marriage = is a tradition that creates fathers for offspring; the use of kinship terms is a tradition; and ancestor worship, which promotes cooperation between distant kinsmen, is a tradition.

&nbs= p; In a word, we must focus on traditions and explain how they have come to be widespread; that is, how they have contributed to the leaving of descendant= s.