Natural Being and a Coherent Society
Mae-Wan Ho
Bioelectrodynamics Laboratory,
Open University
Walton Hall,
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, U.K.
To appear in Evolution, Order and Complexity (E.L. Khalil and K.E. Boulding eds.), London: Routledge, 1996.
Abstract
The Conference of the Birds
The Darwinian Metaphor and the Darwinian Man
Mutual aid versus mutual struggle
The origins of love and hate
Nature from Within
The Coherence of Being
The Coherent Society
Acknowledgment
Notes
Abstract
Science is a system of concepts and tools for knowing and living with nature. As such, it
should be integral to any human society from the most primitive prehistoric culture to the
industrialized nations of to-day. But whereas the primitive lived within nature by her
knowledge which is the totality of her personal and tribal experience, the civilized man is
imprisoned outside nature, of which, therefore, he can have no real knowledge.
Cartesian mind-matter dualism and Newtonian mechanics began a process of the dissolution
of our natural being; which Darwin completed by reducing organisms (including humans) to
objects, isolated from the environment, and buffeted by blind selective forces. This deep
alienation from nature and from our own natural being is the human condition of the modern
man. It is his paradise lost. From then on, nature would be opaque to him, condemned as he
is, to a knowing from without, to a life alone and devoid of meaning.
In this paper, I wish to deconstruct the myth of the Darwinian man by re-examining the
biological roots of human nature to show how it is inextricably bound up with the social.
From studies on animal and plant communities to ‘primitive’ human socieities, we see that
sociality is at the basis of life: it is the direct consequence and expression of the fundamental
unity and interconnectedness of all nature. The unity of nature is itself a universal, intuitive
insight that contemporary western science is validating in every aspect, particularly in the
new biophysics of coherence in living systems. Authentic knowledge is premised on this
coherence and interconnectedness. Social and moral values arise explicitly and naturally in a
life coherent with authentic knowledge. From this perspective, culture is the creation of
meaning and knowledge in partnership with nature, in which every social being participates.
The coherent society is the society of natural beings living in harmony with nature’s creative
process.
Mutual aid versus mutual struggle
Kropotkin tells us that, under the influence of Darwin’s Origin of Species, he began to study
animal life in Siberia in order to find evidence of intraspecific competition. Two general
features emerged from his observations. First, that there was indeed extreme severity of
struggle for existence against inclement nature (as one would expect in Siberia); and second,
that even under the most abundant animal life, there was no struggle for existence against
one another [13]
.
He went on to document at length numerous examples of mutual aid and mutual support
among animals throughout the animal kingdom, from ants and termites to birds and
mammals, quoting widely from published sources as well as from his own experience.
Ants regularly regurgitate food to feed hungry comrades that they happen to meet.
‘If an ant which has its crop full has been selfish enough to refuse feeding a comrade, it will be
treated as an enemy. . . . And if an ant has not refused to feed another ant belonging to an enemy
species, it will be treated by the kinsfolk of the latter as a friend.’ [14]
Pelicans always fish together, typically forming a wide half-circle facing the shore, then
narrowing it by paddling towards the shore, catching all the fish that finally become enclosed
in a circle. In South America, they gather in flocks of 40-50,000, part of which enjoy sleep
while others keep watch and still others go fishing. Cooperation does not stop within species
boundaries. Species may combine together to repell attacks, as the gulls and terns, who
coooperate to drive away the sea-hen. The lapwings (Vanellus cristatus) attack the birds of
prey so bravely that they merit the name ‘good mother’, given to them by the Greeks. Cranes
live in excellent relationships not only with their congeners but with most aquatic birds.
Their sentries keep watch around a mixed flock which is feeding or resting together.
A considerable body of present-day sociobiological theory is devoted to explaining, or
explaining away cooperation in terms of the selective advantage that after all, must accrue to
the cooperating individuals (see Bateson [15]
, for example). But this is a misreading of nature.
In many cases, help is freely given to others from whom no return can ever be expected, and
with whom the individual shares no genetic relatedness. Among mammals, dolphins are
well-renowned for their intelligence and friendship towards humans. They will actually help
fishermen drive fish into their nets if, after a long day, the fishermen have netted nothing and
they call to the dolphins for help. However, if the fishermen are greedy and do it too often,
the dolphins will ignore their call [16]
.
Goethe was once told by Eckerman that two little wren-fledgelings, who had run away from
him, were found the next day in the nest of robin redbreasts who fed the littles ones together
with their own. Goethe saw in this a confirmation of his pantheistic views [17]
. It is surely this
universal neighbourly tendency of birds to look after other’s young that enables the cuckoos
to exploit their hosts [ 18 ] , and not because the latter are too stupid or mesmerized to
distinguish foundlings from their own offsprings. In my experience, female and even male
domestic cats, too, will readily adopt and look after kittens that are not their own. The love
of young is such among the Indian langur monkeys that as soon as a newborn arrives, the
troop’s females will cluster around the mother, all reaching out gently to try and touch and
lick the infant. During its first day of life, it will have passed through the loving arms of up
to eight females [19]
.
What appears much more fundamental than cooperativeness or helpfulness is that animals
tend to seek out and enjoy the society of others. The crane is in continual activity from morn
till night, of which only a few hours are devoted to finding food. All the remainder of the day
is given over to society life.
‘It picks up small pieces of wood or small stones, throws them in the air and tries to catch them; it
bends its neck, opens its wings, dances, jumps, runs about, and tries to manifest by all means its
good disposition of mind, and always it remains graceful and beautiful.’ [20]
Parrots, likewise, live in numerous societies or bands, the members of each of which remain
faithfully together for good or bad. They also enjoy the society of other birds. In India, the
jays and crows come together from many miles round to spend the night in company with
the parrots in the bamboo thickets.
Multispecies association of birds are so common that,
‘it would be much easier to describe the species which live isolated than to simply name those
species which join the autumnal societies of young birds -- not for hunting or nesting purposes,
but simply to enjoy life in society and to spend their time in plays and sports, after having given a
few hours every day to find their daily food.’
‘And finally, we have that immense display of mutual aid among birds -- their migrations . . .
birds which have lived for months in small bands scattered over a wide territory gather in
thousands; they come together at a given place, for several days in succession, before they start, .
. . Some species will indulge every afternoon in flights preparatory to the long passage. All wait
for their tardy congeners, and finally they start in a well-chosen direction . . . the strongest flying
at the head of the band, and relieving one another in that difficult task. They cross the seas in
large bands consisting of both big and small birds. And when they return next spring, they repair
to the same spot, and, in most cases, each of them take possession of the very same nest which it
had built or repaired the previous year.’ [21]
Similarly, social mammals are highly successful and associate in large numbers (until
decimated by man). The numbers of solitary carnivores are trifling in comparison with the
social herds of wild horses, donkeys, camels, and sheep that used to roam in central Asia;
and elephants, rhinoceroses, monkeys, reindeer, muskoxen and polar foxes in northern Asia
and Southern Africa.
‘And how false, therefore, is the view of those who speak of the animal world as if nothing were
to be seen in it but lions and hyenas plunging their bleeding teeth into the flesh of their victims!
One might as well imagine that the whole of human life is nothing but a succession of war
massacres.’ [22]
Most of all, animals derive pleasure and satisfaction from life in society. Society was not
created by ‘man’ as our anthropocentric view would lead us to believe, but is antecedent to
our own species. Sociability -- the love of society for society’s sake -- is at the very basis of
animal life. Not only do numerous species of birds assemble together habitually to indulge in
antics and dancing performances, but according to Hudson, nearly all mammals and birds
(probably there are really no exceptions) indulge frequently in more or less regular or set
performances with or without sound, or composed of sound exclusively. One has only to
listen to the chorus of birdsongs mornings and evenings that happen regularly as clockwork
during the warm seasons. The habit of singing in concert is most strikingly developed with
the chakar (Chauna chavarria). Hudson described how he experienced this:
‘Presently, one flock near me began singing and continued their powerful chant for three to four
minutes, when they ceased the next flock took up the strains, and after it the next, and so on, until
once more the notes of the flocks on the opposite shore came floating strong and clear across the
water -- then passed away, growing fainter and fainter, until once more the sound approached me
travelling round to my side again.’ [23]
Many years later, Allee [ 24 ] was stimulated to re-examine Kropotkin’s thesis when, by
chance, he discovered that even such lowly animals as isopods aggreagate most eagerly to
form social clusters. From this, he was led to review abundant evidence of swarm formation
in the living world, starting with the single-celled photosynthetic organism Euglena, through
to insects, birds and mammals. He concluded that sociality is indeed universal:
‘The growing weight of evidence indicates that animals are rarely solitary; that they are almost
necessarily members of loosely integrated racial and inter-racial communities, in part woven
together by environmental factors, and in part by mutual attraction between the individual
membrers of different communities, no one of which can be affected without changing all the
rest, at least to some slight extent.’ [25]
As an example, he referred to the grassland bison community of the Great Plains in North
America. The bison herds kept the grasslands closely cropped, preventing the invasion of
herbs and shrubs. This provided a rich habitat for grasshoppers, crickets, mice and prarie
dogs, all of whom converted the grass into meat, on which the plain Indians, buffalo wolves,
hawks, owls and prarie chickens fed. The plants of the community,therefore, cannot be
considered in isolation from the animals. This is but the age-old wisdom of ecological
connectedness and interdependence of all living things that is universal to indigenous
cultures all over the world [26]
. The dominant modernist culture of the industrialized west is
unique in its persistent denial of the unity of nature.
Allee and his colleagues also carried out numerous experiments demonstrating that society
per se has important effects on the behaviour and physiology of individuals in it, not all of
which can be interpreted as contributing to an increase in survival value. The ill-effects of
crowding are well-known and clearly documented for animals such as fruitflies and
laboratory mice. What is not so well-known is that under-crowding is also deleterious for the
survival of individuals. Goldfish and planarians, when isolated, succumbs to poisoning more
readily than when grouped [ 27 ] . Embryonic development in sea urchins is significantly
accelerated when the eggs are massed together [28]
. And ciliate protozoa reproduce faster in
groups than when isolated, the reproductive rate being also dependent on the density of
bacteria on which they feed [29]
.
Of especial interest is Allee’s demonstration that goldfish learn faster in groups than as
individuals, through a combination of imitation and group cohesion [30]
. From this arises the
concept of ‘social facilitation’ of behaviour which may have important implications for our
own species that are as yet unexplored.
Having demonstrated that cooperativeness and sociality is for animals the most natural state
of being, Kropotkin went on to cite abundant evidence of mutual aid, compassion and moral
feelings among so-called primitive human societies. The relative lack of competition and
strife in most traditional cultures have long impressed anthropologists. The point is not that
competition or rivalry never occurs. Competition, like cooperation, is a social phenomenon;
it does not follow that corresponding preformed human qualities of competitiveness and
cooperativeness actually exist. There is, at bottom, a feeling of connectedness with other
beings, a desire for society -- sociality, or love. According to Kropotkin, sociality not only
offers the greatest advantage in the struggle for life under any circumstances (as opposed to
competition, which is only advantageous under some circumstances), but it also favours the
growth of intelligence, language, social feelings and a ‘certain sense of collective justice’
akin to morality. Sociality, the desire, or propensity for society, is the regulating and
cohesive principle in both animal and human society. It exists prior to any consideration of
selective advantage. In a sense, Kropotkin, and also Bateson [ 31 ] (a strong advocate of
cooperation among contemporary neo-Darwinists), invert cause and effect in trying to
explain why cooperation or mutual aid could have evolved by natural selection. Qualities
such as compassion or empathy, based on the same experience of connectedness with other
beings, are also antecedent to life in organized society. Life in society may of course,
reinforce and enhance those qualities, but they would never have arisen through any
externally imposed social order were they not already heartfelt and integral to the natural
state of being.
Socialist Darwinism is the idea that natural selection promotes societies that cooperate as moral communities. This concept actually predates Social Darwinism, which later emphasized competition and individualism. Socialists throughout the 1860s-70s praised Darwin’s theory as promoting progressive social change.
As Eric Michael Johnson has documented in The Struggle for Coexistence (pdf here), the earliest consistent application of Darwin’s ideas for human society can be classified as Socialist Darwinism. For these authors, evolution demonstrated that the inequality maintained by institutions of God and State were not facts of nature but were imposed by power and privilege. It was therefore necessary for society to be redesigned from the bottom-up following scientific principles.
“I am a Socialist because I am a believer in Evolution,” wrote the women’s rights activist Annie Besant. She saw in Darwin’s work the clearest evidence yet that the status quo was not divinely ordained. Social species had evolved traits for cooperative behavior and humans, the most social of all animals, displayed the most elaborate moral instincts. Because evolution had shaped human physiology, behavior, and mind, Besant concluded, “it was not possible that Evolution should leave Sociology untouched.” Like Besant, many nineteenth-century socialist scholars, scientists, and activists quickly deployed Darwin to challenge the status quo.
The most prominent advocate for Socialist Darwinism was the Russian prince and naturalist Peter Kropotkin. His 1890 papers on “Mutual Aid Among Animals” (later published as the book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution in 1902) synthesized the argument promoted by the “Darwinian Left” over the previous thirty years. In the process, Kropotkin closely hewed to Darwin’s theory of natural selection and demonstrated how the feeling of sympathy could evolve to form the basis of human morality.
The one factor that united diverse Socialist Darwinists across England, Europe, and Russia was a commitment to building on Darwin’s “moral sense.” For group-living species, natural selection had promoted traits that emphasized sympathy and cooperation. They believed it was wrong to ignore what Darwin called “the noblest part of our nature” in our efforts to improve human society.
In contrast, those who would later be called Social Darwinists (the term did not become widely used until the 1940s) claimed that the state of nature was nothing but brutal competition. Thomas Henry Huxley called nature a “gladiator’s show” and denied that morality had evolved in humans. Huxley, Herbert Spencer, and Francis Galton differed in their views in important ways, but all believed that natural selection was purely competitive and that society should be organized to ensure that the best rose to the top so the privileged could be protected against the supposed “unfit.”
Modern evolutionary science shows that cooperation is just as important in nature as competition. In group-living species, those traits promoting mutual aid often succeeded over traits promoting individualism. The first advocates of Socialist Darwinism were correct about this aspect of Darwin’s science. Solidarity is a fact of life—even between species. We could not live without our microbiomes, for example.
The first Socialist Darwinists didn’t get everything right. Today we know much more about how cooperation and competition can be blended in the right way. However, the origin of Socialist Darwinism reveals that seeing society through a Darwinian lens does not mean an endorsement of brutal competition. By taking Darwin seriously about “the noblest part of our nature,” we can complete the Darwinian revolution and build upon that which is best in ourselves.
Read the full series “Darwinizing the Federalist Papers” below:
- Preamble
- On the Origin of Socialist Darwinism
- More Perfect UNIONS Must Regulate Their Parts
- The Human Social Organism and a Parliament of Genes
- Morality Regulates Our Social Physiology
- The Darwinian ‘Struggle for Existence’ is Really About Balance
Image: “AOC Reads Mutual Aid” by Julia Suits
