Mind Self and Society
Section 30 The Basis of Human Society: Man and the Insects
Table of Contents | Next | Previous
In the earlier parts of our discussion we have followed out the development of the self in the experience of the human organism, and now we are to consider something of the social organism within which this self arises.
Human society as we know it could not exist without minds and selves, since all its most characteristic features presuppose the possession of minds and selves by its individual members; but its individual members would not possess minds and selves if these had not arisen within or emerged out of the human social process in its lower stages of development-those stages at which it was merely a resultant of, and wholly dependent upon, the physiological differentiations and demands of the individual organisms implicated in it. There must have been such lower stages of the human social process, not only for physiological reasons, but also (if our social theory of the origin and nature of minds and selves is correct) because minds and selves, consciousness and intelligence, could not otherwise have emerged; because, that is, some sort of an ongoing social process in which human beings were implicated must have been there in advance of the existence of minds and selves in human beings, in order to make possible the development, by human beings, of minds and selves within or in terms of that process.[1]
The behavior of all living organisms has a basically social aspect: the fundamental biological or physiological impulses
(228) and needs which lie at the basis of all such behavior-especially those of hunger and sex, those connected with nutrition and reproduction-are impulses and needs which, in the broadest sense, are social in character or have social implications, since they involve or require social situations and relations for their satisfaction by any given individual organism; and they thus constitute the foundation of all types or forms of social behavior, however simple or complex, crude or highly organized, rudimen tary or well developed. The experience and behavior of the individual organism are always components of a larger social whole or process of experience and behavior in which the individual organism-by virtue of the social character of the fundamental physiological impulses and needs which motivate and are expressed in its experience and behavior-is necessarily implicated, even at the lowest evolutionary levels. There is no living organism of any kind whose nature or constitution is such that it could exist or maintain itself in complete isolation from all other living organisms, or such that certain relations to other living organisms (whether of its own or of other species)-relations which in the strict sense are social-do not playa necessary and indispensable part in its life. All living organisms are bound up in a general social environment or situation, in a complex of social interrelations and interactions upon which their continued existence depends.
Among these fundamental socio-physiological impulses or needs (and consequent attitudes) which are basic to social behavior and social organization in all species of living organisms, the one which is most important in the case of human social behavior, and which most decisively or determinately expresses itself in the whole general form of human social organization (both primitive and civilized), is the sex or reproductive impulse; though hardly less important are the parental impulse or attitude, which is of course closely connected or associated with the sex impulse, and the impulse or attitude of neighborliness, which is a kind of generalization of the parental impulse or attitude and upon which all cooperative social behavior is more or
(229) less dependent. Thus the family is the fundamental unit of reproduction and of maintenance of the species: it is the unit of human social organization in terms of which these vital biological activities or functions are performed or carried on. And all such larger units or forms of human social organization as the clan or the state are ultimately based upon, and (whether directly or indirectly) are developments from or extensions of, the family. Clan or tribal organization is a direct generalization of family organization; and state or national organization is a direct generalization of clan or tribal organization-hence ultimately, though indirectly, of family organization also. In short, all organized human society-even in its most complex and highly developed forms-is in a sense merely an extension and ramification of those simple and basic socio-physiological relations among its individual members (relations between the sexes resulting from their physiological differentiation, and relations between parents and children) upon which it is founded, and from which it originates.
These socio-physiological impulses on which all social organizations are based constitute, moreover, one of the two poles in the general process of social differentiation and evolution, by, expressing themselves in all the complexities of social relations and interactions, social responses and activities. They are the essential physiological materials from which human nature is socially formed; so that human nature is something social through and through, and always presupposes the truly social individual. Indeed, any psychological or philosophical treatment of human nature involves the assumption that the human individual belongs to an organized social community, and derives his human nature from his social interactions and relations with that community as a whole and with the other individual members of it. The other pole of the general process of social differentiation and evolution is constituted by the responses of individuals to the identical responses of others, that is, to class or social responses, or to responses of whole organized social groups of other individuals with reference to given sets of social
(230) stimuli, these class or social responses being the sources and bases and stuff of social institutions. Thus we may call the former pole of the general process of social differentiation and evolution the Individual or physiological pole, and the latter pole of this process the institutional pole.[2]
I have pointed out that the social organism is used by individuals whose cooperative activity is essential to the life of the whole. Such social organisms exist outside of the human society. The insects reveal a very curious development. We are tempted to be anthropomorphic in our accounts of the life of bees and ants, since it seems comparatively easy to trace the organization of the human community in their organizations. There are different types of individuals with corresponding functions, and a life-process which seems to determine the life of the different individuals. It is tempting to refer to such a lifeprocess as analogous to a human society. We have not, however, any basis as yet for carrying out the analogy in this fashion because we are unable to identify any system of communication in insect societies, and also because the principle of organization in these communities is a different one from that found in the human community.
The principle of organization among these insects is that of physiological plasticity, giving rise to an actual development in the physiological process of a different type of form adjusted to certain functions. Thus, the whole process of reproduction is carried on for the entire community by a single queen bee or queen ant, a single form with an enormous development of the reproductive organs, with the corresponding degeneration of the
(231) reproductive organs in other insects in the community. There is the development of a single group of fighters, a differentiation carried so far that they cannot feed themselves. This process of physiological development that makes an individual an organ in the social whole is quite comparable to the development of different tissues in a physiological organism. In a sense, all of the functions which are to be found in a multicellular form may be found in a single cell. Unicellular forms may carry out the entire vital process; they move, get rid of their waste products, reproduce. But in a multicellular form there is a differentiation of tissue forming muscle cells for movement, cells which take in oxygen and pass out waste products, cells set aside for the process of reproduction. Thus, there results tissue made up of cells which are differentiated. Likewise there is in a community of ants, or of bees, a physiological differentiation among different forms which is comparable to the differentiation of different cells in the tissue of a multicellular form.
Now, such differentiation is not the principle of organization in human society. There is, of course, the fundamental distinction of sex which remains a physiological difference, and in the main the distinctions between the parent-forms and child-forms are physiological distinctions, but apart from these there is practically no physiological distinction between the different individuals that go to make up the human community. Hence, organization cannot take place, as it does in the community of ants or bees, through physiological differentiation of certain forms into social organs. On the contrary, all of the individuals have essentially the same physiological structures, and the process of organization among such forms has to be an entirely different process from that found among the insects.
The degree to which insect differentiation can be carried is astonishing. Many of the products of a high social organization are carried on by these communities. They capture other minute forms whose exudations they delight in, and keep them much as we keep milk cows. They have warrior classes and they seem to carry on raids, and carry off slaves, making later use of
(232) them. They can do what the human society cannot do: they can determine the sex of the next generation, pick out and determine who the parent in the next generation will be. We get astonishing developments which parallel our own undertakings that we try to carry on in society, but the manner in which they are carried on is essentially different. It is carried on through physiological differentiation, and we fail to find in the study of these animals any medium of communication like that through which human organization takes place. Although we are still very largely in the dark with reference to this social entity of the beehive or the ant's nest, and although we note an obvious likeness between them and human society, there is an entirely different system of organization in the two cases.
In both cases there is an organization within which the particular individuals arise and which is a condition for the appearance of the different individuals. There could not be the peculiar development found in the beehive except in a bee community. We can in some degree get a suggestion for understanding the evolution of such a social group. We can find solitary forms such as the bumble-bee, and can more or less profitably speculate as to other forms out of which the development of an insect society might take place. Presumably the finding of a surplus of food which these forms could carry over from one generation to another would be a determining factor. In the life of the solitary form the first generation disappears and the larvae are left behind, so that there is a complete disappearance of the adults with each appearance of the new generation. In such organizations as the beehive there arise the conditions under which, due to the abundance of food, the forms carry over from one generation to another. Under those conditions a complex social development is possible, but dependent still upon physiological differentiation. We have no evidence of the accruing of an experience which is passed on by means of communication from one generation to another. Nevertheless, under those conditions of surplus food this physiological development t flowers out in an astonishing fashion. Such a differentiation as this could
(233) only take place in a community. The queen bee and the fighter among the ants could only arise out of an insect society. One could not bring together these different individuals and constitute an insect society; there has to be an insect society first in order that these individuals might arise.
In the human community we might not seem to have such disparate intelligences of separate individuals and the development of the individuals out of the social matrix, such as is responsible for the development of the insects. The human individuals are to a large degree identical; there is no essential difference of intelligence from the point of view of physiological differentiation between the sexes. There are physiological organisms which are essentially identical, so we do not seem to have there a social matrix that is responsible for the appearance of the individual. It is because of such considerations that a theory has developed that human societies have arisen out of individuals, not individuals out of society. Thus, the contract theory of society assumes that the individuals are first all there as intelligent individuals, as selves, and that these individuals get together and form society. On this view societies have arisen like business corporations, by the deliberate coming-together of a group of investors, who elect their officers and constitute themselves a society. The individuals come first and the societies arise out of the mastery of certain individuals. The theory is an old one and in some of its phases is still current. If, however, the position to which I have been referring is a correct one, if the individual reaches his self only through communication with others, only through the elaboration of social processes by means of significant communication, then the self could not antedate the social organism. The latter would have to be there first.
A social process is involved in the relation of parents and children among the mammals. There we start off with the only physical differentiation (except sex) which exists among human individuals, and these physiological differences give a basis for the social process. Such families can exist among animals lower
(234) than man. Their organization is on a physiological basis, that is, one form acts in a certain way on account of its physiological structure and another responds on account of its own physiological structure. There must be in that process a gesture which calls out the response, but the conversation of gestures is not at this early stage significant. The beginning of communication is nevertheless there in the process of organization dependent upon the physiological differences; there 's also the conflict of individuals with each other, which is not based necessarily on physiological conditions.
A fight takes place between individuals. There may be a physiological background such as hunger, sex rivalry, rivalry in leadership. We can perhaps always find some physiological background, but the contest is between individuals that stand practically on the same level, and in such conflicts there is the same conversation of gestures which I have illustrated in the dog-fight. Thus, we get the beginnings of the process of communication in the cooperative process, whether of reproduction, caring for the young, or fighting. The gestures are not yet significant symbols, but they do allow of communication. Back of it lies a social process, and a certain part of it is dependent upon physiological differentiation, but the process is one which in addition involves gestures.
It is seemingly out of this process that there arises significant communication. It is in the process of communication that there appears another type of individual. This process is, of course, dependent upon a certain physiological structure: if the individual was not sensitive to his own stimuli which are essential to the carrying-out of the response to the other form, such communication could not take place. In fact we find that in the case of the deaf and dumb, if no care is given to the development of language, the child does not develop normal human intelligence, but remains on the level of lower animals. There is then a physiological background for language, but it is not one of physiological differentiation between the various forms. We all have vocal organs and auditory organs, and in so far as
(235) our development is a normal development, we are all capable of influencing ourselves as we influence others. It is out of this capacity for being influenced by our own gesture as we influence others that has arisen the peculiar form of the human social organism, made up out of beings that to that degree are physiologically identical. Certain of the social processes within which this communication takes place are dependent upon physiological differences, but the individual is not in the social process differentiated physiologically from other individuals. That, I am insisting, constitutes the fundamental difference between the societies of the insects and human society.[3] It is a distinction which still has to be made with reservations, because it may be that there will be some way of discovering in the future a language among the ants and bees. We do find, as I have said, a differentiation of physiological characters which so far explain the peculiar organization of these insect societies. Human society, then, is dependent upon the development of language for its own distinctive form of organization.
It is tempting to look at the physiology of the insect as over against the physiology of the human form and note its differences. But while it is tempting to speculate on such differences, there is as yet no adequate basis for generalization in that field. The human form is different from the insect form. Of course,
(236) the ants and bees have brains but they have not anything that answers to the cortex. We do recognize that just as we have a type of society built up on this principle of physiological differentiation, so we must have a different physiological organization. We get unity into the varied structures of the human form by means of an additional organ, the brain and the cortex. There is unity in the insect form by actual collaboration of physiological parts. There is some physiological basis back of this, obscure though the details are.[4] It is important to recognize that the intelligent form does attain the development of intelligence through such an organ as the central nervous system with its peculiar development of the brain and the cortex. The spinal column represents sets of more or less fixed responses. It is the development of the cortex that brings about all sorts of possible combinations of these numerous but relatively fixed responses. By means, then, of an organ which is superimposed on the central nervous system, connections can be set up between the different types of responses which arise through the lower system. There thus arises the almost indefinite multiplicity of the responses of the human organism.
While it is in the development of the brain as such that we get the possibility of the appearance of distinctively human conduct., human conduct, if put simply in terms of the stem of the brain and column, would be very restricted, and the human animal would be a feeble and unimportant animal. There would not be much he could do. He could run and climb, and eat what he could bring to his mouth with his hands, in virtue of those
(237) reflexes which go back to the original central nervous system. But a set of combinations of all the different processes found there gives an indefinite number of possible reactions in the activities of the human animal. It is because of the variety of combinations In the connections of the responses to stimuli, which take place in the paths that run into the cortex, that one can make any sort of combination of all the different ways in which a human being can use his arms, his legs, and the rest of his body.[5]
There is, as we have seen, another very important phase in the development of the human animal which is perhaps quite as essential as speech for the development of man's peculiar intelligence, and that is the use of the hand for the isolation of physical things. Speech and the hand go along together in the development of the social human being. There has to arise self-consciousness for the whole flowering-out of intelligence. But there has to be some phase of the act which stops short of consummation if that act is to develop intelligently, and language and the hand provide the necessary mechanisms. We all have hands and speech, and are all, as social beings, identical, intelligent beings. We all have what we term "consciousness" and we all live in a world of things. It is in such media that human society develops, media entirely different from those within which the insect society develops.
