Aggression and aggression
An interesting retelling of the book by ethologist and anthropologist Richard Wrangham is about where human militancy comes from. First of all, we are the most non-aggressive of the primates. Even loving bonobos are terrible abusers compared to us. Not to mention regular chimpanzees, where the males beat each other and the females about 24/7. How did it happen?
Wrangham here advocates the theory of "self-domestication". The fact is that our ancestors in early human societies had a habit of simply killing overly aggressive individuals. If the male beat everyone around, squeezed all the females and all the resources for himself, it ended with the fact that other males conspired against him and rid the group of the problem individual. The problem individual did not leave offspring, so the propensity for "dominant" behavior among representatives of the human species gradually decreased, but the importance of such skills as the ability to socialize, maintain mutually beneficial relationships, etc. on the contrary, it grew. Alas, this, apparently, also became a by-product of human conformity - from there, the craving "to keep a low profile" and "to be like everyone else" comes from.
Therefore, primitive societies are usually very egalitarian - issues are decided on the advice of adult men, and the leader is nothing more than "first among equals." Hence, apparently, the development of humor among people: making fun of each other is part of an egalitarian culture (I even made a video about this role of humor). In historical times, in egalitarian societies, this continued with the tradition of ostracizing too zealous and ambitious citizens (as Aristides was expelled from Athens with the wording "too fair"). By the way, it can be assumed that the current ostracism of too loud charismatic politicians (Trump, Johnson, etc.) is part of the same good tradition that tells us that too bright people in power are dangerous.
But where do wars, dictatorships come from, that's all? Here the fun begins: aggression is divided into two types - reactive and proactive. The first one is what is mentioned above. Dominant bull-calf with females and resources pressing. Or, as some fellow femies still say, "toxic masculinity." In terms of this reactive aggression, we are the most peaceful of all primates, plus its level continues to decline - aggressors, abusers and other bad people today are not only put in a cage, but also subjected to shaming, cancellation and other progressive punishments. But proactive aggression is the ability to use violence "with a cool head", thoughtfully and in an organized manner. And in this our species has no equal (chimpanzees, however, can wage intergroup wars, but not even close to being as effective as we are). Wars, genocides, repressions are all proactive aggression that is not so much "natural" as socially constructed through our ability to cooperate and act collectively.
It is easy to see what a paradox emerges: ancient people got rid of reactive aggressive individuals by collusion and murder, i.e. training your capacity for proactive aggression. As a result, this proactive aggression, which has grown to the format of armies and states, turns out to be more dangerous than any domestic violence. Moreover, in its desire to prevent the usurpation of power by dominant individuals, proactive aggression eventually bit its own tail, because it was the military social hierarchy that gave rise to divine emperors and the like.
What conclusions can be drawn? At the very least, the conclusion that the notorious "toxic masculinity" and everyday aggressive behavior hardly correlates with society's ability to organize proactive violence. So when the last remaining macho abuser is canceled on Twitter, it is unlikely that all wars and repressions will end. Perhaps even quite the opposite.
Mihail Pojarsky 06/09/2022
