We have found that intra-special aggression generally is accompanied by
inhibition to hurt severely. Moreover according to Lorenz, personal recognition
and bonding is supposed to have evolved from the basic aggression. But there is
one simple logic that would say that there must be more to the story than mere
taming of aggression.
What would keep the group together if there were no positively, attracting
motivations?
This point has not been very much stressed by ethologists, probably because
overt aggression is much easier to observe than covert attraction.
When it was said that the pecking (or ranking) order makes living in groups
possible, that did not inform us why the animals want to live in groups to
begin with. Of course there always is the genetic argument: Under certain
conditions, living in groups improves survival. Yet ethology and comparative
psychology believe in uncovering endogenous motivators. Following that
philosophy one is compelled by logical necessity to assume an underlaying
attractor. I will call this the
similarity bond
. I think this basic communality already begins on the lowest levels of
cognitive skills and first includes parents and siblings. The lower the level,
the more uniform or similar are all reactions. Therefore, wherever learning
begins, among the most constant features to be learned of the external world
are the similar reactions of all the other animals of the family group, and
later of the extended group. All this causes "familiarity" with the
other animals. This activates one of the most ancient instincts: "stick to
the familiar", be it path habits, known territory, or familiar animals.
There is even a still lower level neurological argument for the existence of
the similarity bond. From the excited tweet and chirp of a flock of blackbirds
to the chatter of a group of squirrel monkeys, one can literally sense the
communality of emotion. Stronger even is this impression when diving through a
shoal of the already mentioned silversides, even though their common world is
not acoustic. Such phenomena certainly are associated with very similar neuron
firing patterns in the individual brains. Obviously there is communication. But
instead of looking at it through anthropomorphic eyes, namely that here is
sending and receiving of messages between individuals, on the most primitive
level one should simply say:
There are no real individuals here, excitation of the acoustic medium of
transmission is just an extension of internal axonal transmission
. Thus a primitive group can be seen to have, in certain respects, a communal
neural network, a communal brain. Every subsequent behavioral and cognitive
achievement would have to build on this communal foundation. Hence the
similarity bond may be so universal and so obvious that it tends to escape
attention.
One can see the bond in action when a flock of birds suddenly alights, when one
bird alights. The hasty flapping of the wings of the first bird is the signal.
But how do we interpret what follows? It cannot be a rational decision:
"the hasty departure indicates that this bird has seen danger, I better
follow suit". No, the danger reaction must have spread through a kind of
contagion. It seems natural to assume that certain movements or noises evoke
patterns of neural excitation in the other birds that are
similar
to the ones that have caused the movement (hence similarity bond). Is it a
"feeling" of danger (for lack of a better word), that spreads through
the flock? Whatever it is, it causes the flight reaction as if by imitation.
What humans call imitation may very well be a component here, but I think there
is much more to the equation.
It is as if one animal gets under the skin of the other.
Imitation produces a new phenomenon: Local culture. French and American crows
are the same species; they interbreed. Yet when sound records of American
crows' calls are played to French crows, they are not understood or
misinterpreted. An American alarm call causes French crows to gather instead of
to take flight [H.Frings, M.Frings(1959)]. French herring gulls do not react at
all to American herring gull calls. Local birdsong dialects within the
continent have been recorded on several occasions. Here is new emergence:
cultural transmission - the first beginnings of culture can be found in
animals! Similarity bond plus learning equals culture. The theme begun here
will give a foundation to the second part of this book, and it will find its
conclusion in the "Philosophical Insert 4".
On the level of birds, for us humans, it is rather difficult to develop a
meaningful understanding of this cohesion. But at least among primates the
basic attraction can be very well observed in their regular efforts at
consolation after an aggressive encounter [DeWaal,F.(1989)], and here it can be
meaningfully understood by us. With a number of studies on Chimpanzees,
Bonobos, Baboons and Rhesus Monkeys, Frans DeWaal and his co-workers have
uncovered a foundation of social cohesion underneath the aggressive encounters.
After the fight a tense period of stiff silence may follow, then the involved
individuals "make up" by hugging, hand holding, grooming and kissing,
whereupon a visible wave of relaxation spreads through the entire group. One of
the most pronounced features of Chimpanzee groups is communal emotionality, as
will be described in more detail in the next chapter.
On higher levels it seems to be proper to use the word
proto-compassionate bond
for the basic underlaying cohesion. In the human species this will turn into
compassion. Of course, even here the bond can be broken, and if broken by
humans, it might be a much more serious and lasting affair (See cultural
amplification in chapter 7).
The presented view has strong explanatory value in one hotly disputed area:
Altruism. In chapter 7, on cultural evolution, it will be explained that
standard selection theory cannot account for altruistic behavior in mammals.
If, however, the basic similarity bond and its further development into
compassion are accepted, the problem disappears.
The early evolution of a similarity bond would make this a very fundamental
mode of communication between individuals. Even though apes lack language,
there is no lack of communication of inner emotional states, leading to the
mentioned communal emotionality. More than that, intentions and wishes of many
kinds are immediately understood by all. We know the mode of such communication
very well: it is
body language
. To some extent such communication can even jump boundaries between species.
Every dog owner knows that, even though such exchange is a bit single-sided.
The dog understands our moods, but we understand very little of the dog.
Among ourselves we have lost the sophisticated use of body language. We can
achieve some improvement by attending an acting school, whereas apes remain
natural masters of that language. Any slightest cue lets one individual feel
what is "under the skin" of the other.
Where this emotional mode of communication completely fails, however, is in
cognitive insights related to the external physical world, such as
manipulations with tools and gadgets by apes. This will have to wait for the
invention of true language.
At the end of next chapter I will have to further elaborate on the distinction
between the two modes of communication.
In humans, art, poetry, literature, music and dance are rooted in the
similarity bond. Science and technology have to rely on cognition and language.
To continue the quest of understanding our own nature, we now have to turn to
the minds of our nearest relatives, the other primates.
