How to survive in large crowds: Cultural techniques.

It is likely that you live surrounded by thousands of people in a big city, in a country of millions of people. And it is likely as well that you feel used to it, despite just meet a few. Have you ever noticed all they with you share your life whom you don't know?  They that you cross in the streets, on the bus, or they whom you buy. Some of them that you trust despite you don't even know their names as police officers (whom you trust your safety), banks cashiers (whom you trust your money) or restorant chefs (your food and health). It even seen pretty normal. But all these thinks aren't normal, were developed as "social technologies". Which are such techniques? What enables us to live in large crowds?

Models of Human organization evolution.

Let's check out a little about political evolution analysis to solve this questions. By the way, keep in mind that social evolution doesn't mean "better than" or superiority among societies, but changes across the time, new social adaptations or different complexity within a society. In the other hand, politics isn't just political parties and laws. Politics is the way that humans get organized, solve conflicts, and compete and distributed power

Adrian Bejan and Peder Zane have described evolution as a flow. They compare it with other flow models as rivers. Where flows diverge and converge according environment resistance. To left, satellital view of a river, to right full evolution chart.

There are many models that describe and combine several variables (such as knowledge, population, environment, conflict, culture, etc.) because most are synthetic and systemic. They appeal to multiple factors that reinforce each other, but giving priority to one factor or another. But Which one is the most correct? It will depend on every case. One model could be useful to explain the rise of the state in middle Andes, while another will explain segmentary tribes in High Nilo or corporations structure in USA.


To put it extremly simple we are going to use an "hypothetical group" to make these models work. Then this is a travel that will show us many options, not just one way, as a river flow to the present. So please, take a deep breath and try to forget all that things that you considered "obvious" or "normal", because we are going to places where such a things not even existed.

The hypothetical group.

Imagine a 200 people group, which is in an environment, where they get resources to survive (hunting and gathering). If they can't get enough food, they move. Then, they've had good health and nutricion (no- hygienic problems, a lot of exersice, rich diet), and don't need to work to much to survive. They distribute their products through reciprocity (favors exchange). There is neither specialization, nor bosses. Leadership is spontanious, temporary and depend on the task to be done.


But then, something changes: 1) An increase of population: several effects occur. Group's mobility decreases, getting less chances to get resources (Packing group hypothesis); there are more stomachs to feed (demographic pressure). Likewise, there is more people than we can naturally handle (Dunbar number). With too many unfamiliar faces, reciprocity doesn't work and conflict arises with people that we don't know so well. Further, scarce of resources increase competition and conflict.


2)It is time to make a decision. The group could reduce its numbers, could be divided and dispersed or the population pressure could lead to an innovation (Boserup's Theory), as looking for new food sources (Broad-spectrum theory) or agriculture development. Complementary strategies could be done to keep group cohesion: From a point of view that a group is a net of social relationships, someone - in the middle of that social network with access to many people - could articulate the group (weak ties hypothesis). Because more people is able to trust on him, he can managed it, but he must spend time on that. He becomes specialist, becomes leader/manager (Information theory). Other option is sub-divide the group into categories. Could be done by family names, linages or maybe by age groups. They'll try to reduce complexity of social reality into more simple categories. Also they'll set some norms and rules among those sub-groups. Finally they'll tied them by strong alliances (as marriages) between them.

Flowchart mixing different simplified models, the entire chart is fed back to the flow giving more complexity.

3) Dispersion is just a temporary solution if environment is restricted (as valleys among mountains or oasis on desert). Groups will rapidly found  limits to use such strategies, when they face other groups or the limits of productive areas. They'll divide them continuosly until they fulfill the habitat. Then, any group's expansion will mean reduction for another, that leads to conflict. Groups will avoid their full extintion, and losers will move to another place (competitive exclution). But if there is no more place, losers have to chose between go even further - to marginal territories and look for alternative food sources (Board-spectrum and marginal zone theory)- or submit to the other group (Environmental circunscription). In other hand, whether agriculture was developed, people is able to work more to produce a surplus (which is not possible with hunting/fishing system, where you could extinguish you food source working more hours). That surplus could be managed and redistributed by a  leader (Big man/woman), which gains prestige, that could transform into power (practice/agency theory). Or, the surplus could lead into trade among different groups, and traders become key members reaching high status that could transform into power (Communication media theory). Or agriculture may require to develop planner specialists to organize big irrigations works, and those specialist become leaders in the whole society (hidraulic theory). Or sedentarism makes the group vulnerable and a permanent defense has to be organized (external conflict). All of these specializations could lead to stratification. By itself stratification and inequality aren't stable (nobody wants to be beneath someone else) and tends to dispersion. 

4) In order to hold stratification or leadership some factor could suffer some feedback, like that leadership encourage surplus production and surplus strengthens leaders power. But leadership has to last enough to feedback could occurs. That could be achieved through coercive force (internal conflict) or that the whole group receives or perceives benefits from leadership (Management benefits theory), either by redistribution rol, technical knowledge, defensive, comunication management or ideology, as religion. Any kind of actions that bring legitimacy to leadership and even to the use of physical coercion. Whether this point is reached, it is possible that leadership sets some succesion mechanism, which make it more "permanent".


So far, complexity has taken many forms. The more complex societies with the biggest number of people often take shape as Chiefdoms and States. But there is much more complexity  and diversity to understand. Todays world is looking toward more politic integration, mainly because the same factors that we saw here (economics, demographics, conflict, environment, ideology, etc.).  Like many little changes that become bigger across the time, human organization evolves. Are we able to predict the future of human organization? Would you? Write your bet.

Sources:

T. Lewellen , 1994, Introdución a la antropología política

D. Kurtz, 2001 Political Anthropology: Power and paradigms
Lewis and Jurmain, 2012, Understanding Humans: An Introduction to physical anthropology and archeology
B. Trigger, 2003, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study
M. Fried, 1960. On the evolution of social stratificiation and the state
Ferraro, 2009, Cultural anthropology: An Applied Perspective.

Culture and environment: the myth of environmentalist ancestor III

As we saw on a previous article, big civilizations and populations put a lot of pressure on environment, that could lead to practice some brutal activities in order to survive, as war and cannibalism. But How some people make their life with minimum impact on environment?

The tribe and infanticide

Well, we already checked that no-impact is imposible, even for our ancestors with limited technology. So, some people decide to keep population control to minimize their impact and get some kind of "ecological balance", as actual hunter-gathers do. By the way, is likely to belief that actual hunter-gathering tribes live like stone age times, but isn't true. Actual tribes live very often in marginal landscapes (as desert and jungles) with few resources basicly because they were running away from "modern civilizations" or "colonialists" looking for enslave them. In such a context "ecological balance" should be sharp.

Their strategy is keep population below environment feed capacity. Among Bushmen, Richard Lee has documented their strategies to keep their numbers low, added to other physiological effects resumed by M. Cohen. Their strategies are:

• Long breastfeeding period that prolongs prolactin secretion on mothers to delay ovulation (18 months up to 48).
• Abort by chemical o mechanics means (include drinking toxic beverages or beating belly)
• Mother's poor nutrition (lack of fat delays menarche and decrease fertility)
• Increase physical effort, as long walk to gather (increase prolactine production)
• Coitus control
• Infanticide.

Infanticide cover a wide range. From direct murder to simply negligence. The baby could be strangled, drowned, hit against a rock or abandoned outside. More often, the child will die for a mother's negligence. Maintain a demographic balance has a high cost.

Buschmen family: They are good parents but some sacrifice has to be done.

All these cases (Maori impact, Aztecs cannibalism and war and Bushmen infanticide) lead us to think about that myth of ancient people living with total harmony with their environment is an idealized and romantic situation, and false. But regardless of what we do, either in small groups or agricultural or industrial civilizations, all of us we have impact and must live thereby. Don't think that is going to relieve you from responsability, instead is realize of our impacts on environment. The sacrifices that had be done, we hope neither as the aztecs nor bushmen, but a change in our life style.

Furthermore, Ancient cultures has to be valued by itself (remembering  they faced similar problems as we do) and not for ethnocentric ideas that we put on them. Let's learn from they.

Sources:

http://envirohistorynz.com/2009/12/15/impacts-of-the-maori-on-the-environment/
http://frentepopulardejudea-nenya.blogspot.com/2011/11/haciendo-el-indio-la-falsa-carta-del.html
Cohen M.K. 1994. Demographics and human expansion.
Harris M. 1986 Cannibals and kings.

Crime and culture: Death penalty effects

In order to solve conflict, human beings used several means But there is one specially controversial, old and drastic: Death penalty. While crimen are an universal issue, punishment and law (or social norms) change from culture to culture.

Within small social groups social sanction and pressure is enough to solve conflicts, while violence is often more commonly used to solve conflict among groups than inside them. Usually conflicts between two groups will be solve by blood payment, where offences are collective rather than individual, and people try vengance death by death, leading to an escalation of violence. But in dense populations with formal organization, as a State, conflict between individuals are much more common. That is the main reason for conflicts where solve by some authority and formal codes (although it is not always the case). In these situations the most common penalty is death

Best explanation for that is in those societies there is little specialization, the possibility of organizing prison is not a real option. Hammurabi's code is great example (famous "eye for an eye") used to applied death penalty in any case of death. But an extreme case is Draconian code in ancient Atenas, where every crime was punished with death, even the little ones. Other examples are given by stoning for adultery (which is still in use) is a kind of collective death penalty. But in societies where specialization is more intensive is less likely its uses. However, is commonly practiced in many part of the world and even in modern societies.

Death penalty map: Red, country with death penalty; Organge: with but has not been used since a long time; yellow: with but just for special occations (as in war times); blue: fully abolished.

Social response and polemic

When a social system becomes more rational and specific, punishment becomes diverse and allows specifity of sentences (with aggravating and mitigating). Furthermore emergence of humanism (human enhancement) in some societies have contributed to decrease the use of death penalty. However death penalty remains as a popular method and is in the eye of storm if is possible abolish it or not.

According to criminologist, social response to serious crimes awake emotional and punitive reactions on people. People often claim for maximum punishment or as a way to finished a problem it seen has no solution. The main argument is individualist and emotional: "if were your son, what would do you do?" or "There is no possible rehab for such a kind of people, just death left". But Can a penal system be based on emotional response?

Arguments pro and con are many, specially from a moral point of view as if is right takes someone's life in the name of justice or is just simply vendetta. However I am going to focus here on some practical issues.

1 -Punishment, Retribution, Treatment, Prevent.

According to penology science, the main funtion of a penalty is restitution of law, in order to accomplish it has to fill these 4 concepts:

Punishment: death penalty is pretty effective. There is less escape probabilities. Is easy too apply in many context.

Retribution: When a crime has victims, retribution can calm emotional frustration damage, but generaly speaking, death is not retribution (nothing is coming back) and further, it can increase damage. Death is not going to bring someone back to life. Instead people close to criminals are going to lose someone.

Treatment: No rehab to criminals through death. Unless, ofcourse, you have some esoteric-or-religious beliefs. Good karma.

Prevent: It is possible, but not conclusive data exist to prove it. But ofcourse, a dead criminal is a criminal with 0 probabilities to does it again (Unless, esoteric again, does it from the beyond). However data about it is confuse, because an alternative penalty is life imprisonment and has same effect. In the same scenario is about deterrence.

2 -Deterrence murder and other crimes

Most intituive pro death penalty argument is its deter effect in who commit  crimes. In USA the discution is specific on homicides (probably because USA has the highest murder rate in the developed world).

Following some studies (M. Summers, 2007; Paul H. Rubin, 2006; Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Joanna Shepherd, 2003) we can find a statistic correlation between executions and murders decrease (some even try to count how many lifes are safe by every execution). But in the other hand, articles as John J. Donahue ("Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate" in the Stanford Law Review, 2005) found that those kind of studies fail, making spurious statistic correlations and shows how other factors are more important in murder numbers than executions. Other studies confirm that (Jeffrey A. Fagan, 2006) and remark there is no conclusive data or possible correlation between rate murders and executions, with rigorous studies and bigger data samples (Tomislav Kovandzic, 2009; John Lamperti, 2010). Even there is no conclusive data that prove death penalty deter any criminal rate (Daniel S. and John V. Pepper, 2012).

This seems to be a widespread view among criminologists. Following the sociologist Michael L. Radelet (2009), 88,1% of specialists think that death penalty doesn't deter murders, or not more than life imprisonment. Even there is many that belief that produce contrary effect. Death penalty increase murders rate.

USA Murder rates by State. The average murder rate is lower in no-death penalty states.

An argument given by pro possitions - Based in rational choice theory- is that a criminal will avoid commit crimes when he calculates his Cost/benefit (and death penalty could be considered total loss). However, if we extend this argument based on data, we realize that murders aren't often calculated. On the contrary, runaway or elution does it, which can increase violence. A murderer will try to avoid his punishment, as it cannot be worst, nothing will stop him to commit other crimes (as other murders) to runaway from justice, meanwhile if the punishment is imprisonment, there is a chance to reduce sentence or at less not make it even longer, if he surrender to justice .

3 -Legitimacy of violence

Other possible explanation is "legitimization of violence". According to the anthropologists Carol and Melvin Embar, one culture could stimulate violent behavior among individuals following how the whole society performs. One society that goes to war frecuently, will have higher crime and violence rates. This could be the case for USA, as we said, has the highest murders and violence rates among developed countries. Analysts had said that personal ownership of firearms and american government foreing policy, that has been in constant wars since independence, have done this to the country. But How this effect works?

Basically, State is an importan legitimacy source and a reference to their citizens. When a State use death penalty is sending the message that kill is a legitimate way to solve conflicts. A State performs with the example given and claim for itself a right that forbids to its citizens. Such contradiction is even worst if the source of that legitimity are its own citizens (when they vote), as is the USA case.

4 -Economic cost: Death penalty vs life imprisonment.

A final consequence is the cost of having the application of the death penalty. In general the decision to take a life is increasingly controversial and therefore the trials in which this penalty is usually given are very long to avoid errors, as it is an irreversible sentence. It also encourages the parties to carry trials until the last stages of appeal. The result is an expensive trial.

A study by Judge A. Alarcon and Academic P. Mitchell (2011 ) in California showed trials that resulted in death sentences since 1978 have cost the state more than four billion dollars. According to the authors, the abolition of the death could save more than 170 million per year. While the Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008) determined that the actual cost of the system was 137 million annually, while the replacement of the sentences to life imprisonment would mean a cost of 11.5 million per year. Cheap, isn't it?

Sources:

Marchiori, Hilda, 2004, "Criminología: teorías y pensamientos"
Brown, Esbensen y Geis, 2013, "Criminology: Explain crime and its context"
Ember y Ember, 1994, "War, Socialization and interpensonal violence"
deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty