The ability to easily form coalitions is critical to establishing peace, but the formations of coalitions create in-groups, and by necessity out-groups. But what holds the coalition together? Aside from simple self-interest, it would be difficult for so many individuals who did not know each other to trust each other. It would help greatly if the groups within the coalition had similar “background stories.” Although physical similarities would be helpful, the ability to communicate easily (language) would be even better, and similarities in beliefs (religion or customs; Dunbar, Reference Dunbar2016; Harari, Reference Harari2015) would be better yet. Certainly, a powerful feature of the human species is our flexibility in defining the characteristics of in-group and out-group. During the World War II, the Germans and Japanese were both hated out-groups, but consider their very rapid transformation shortly after the war to well-accepted members of our in-group. Importantly, this transformation was likely brought about by the emergence of, at least nominally, a once in-group member, Russia, which quickly became a common perceived threat.
For humans, the ability to create stories that define in-group and out-group is critical to both peace and war. These stories often appear to be fixed, yet they are remarkably flexible and can easily change. To create and propagate these stories requires, at a minimum, a well-developed language system.
Thus, what humans have that other animals have only minimally is language, a critical component of culture. Other animals may have precursors of culture, more aptly called traditions (Avital & Jablonka, Reference Avital and Jablonka2000), but language allows for complex stories to be spread throughout one's group and typically passed down for generations. A common language allows people who do not know each other not only to communicate but also to feel that strangers are still members of the in-group.
An important aspect of being human that is not well appreciated is that even if the language of one's group is different from that of another group, being human, one can generally assume that those others speak and understand some form of language, what has been called metalanguage. This is the idea that the sounds that come from the mouth of another person are symbolic representations that stand for objects and ideas that can be learned by pairing those sounds with gestures, pointing to objects, and iconic drawings. Thus, when humans meet, they can have the expectation of being able to communicate not only the emotions that other animals can communicate, but also words – parts of speech that together represent ideas. This ability to learn the language of others has allowed for the myths of one group to spread to many other groups whose languages may differ. The notion that a symbol in one language is likely to have corresponding symbol in another language allows ideas to spread widely. Consider the spread of religions such as Christianity and Islam across groups with quite different customs and languages. Thus, groups that differ widely in other respects can share cultural practices that make them become members of the same in-group. And being members of a common in-group gives them the potential to live peacefully. As Glowacki notes, however, the ability to communicate about one's stories and myths also allows us to disagree about details of those stories, and when other economic or political differences arise, the details of those story may become the focus of cultural disagreements that can turn violent. Consider the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland (variations of the same in-group, Christianity).
The norms that Glowacki considers important for large diverse groups to behave peacefully require language and the metalanguage that allows for the translation of stories from one language to another. Having a common story (peace is a good thing) allows diverse groups to agree on norms of behavior. And if peace is a goal, those norms will allow for the possibility of negotiation when there are disagreements (Pinker, Reference Pinker2011).
In the author's model of the development of the motivation for both peace and war, although the primary focus is on hunter–gatherers, it would be strengthened by a greater appreciation of the contribution agriculture has made in the way groups interact. When seminomadic hunter–gatherers were attacked, a ready option would have been to grab their meager belongings and move to a more hospitable location. The loss may have been the resources available in the place that they had been forced to abandon. But unless they had superior numbers, leaving would often have been more advisable than staying put and fighting. Furthermore, it was likely that adequate resources could be found elsewhere.
The advent of agriculture produced a different situation. Agriculture allowed humans to be less dependent on the vagaries of nature because they could plant and care for their resources. That allowed humans to stay in one place and build relatively permanent housing and more permanent tools. But that also meant they were now bound to the land, the leaving of which would entail much greater loss. For this reason, defending the land became a more important goal. The motivation to stand and fight became greater as did the likelihood of war, the results of which might be catastrophic. Under such conditions, obligatory coalitions among stable groups of agriculturalists became advantageous. Neighboring farms would be under similar threat and thus larger groups would become allied and organized with a hierarchical structure involving a strong leader (e.g., a king) who could provide protection in the form of an army. As the coalitions grew larger, their members would not likely know each other, and it would become important for the group to have a similar background story, a common culture based on similar myths or religions. Such a group would be more stable, and their common stories would allow members to trust each other. Thus, it is likely that agriculture was responsible for the need to organize into large groups for defense, while language provided the means for agreement on the norms and rules for resolving disputes.
You have
Access
The ability to easily form coalitions is critical to establishing peace, but the formations of coalitions create in-groups, and by necessity out-groups. But what holds the coalition together? Aside from simple self-interest, it would be difficult for so many individuals who did not know each other to trust each other. It would help greatly if the groups within the coalition had similar “background stories.” Although physical similarities would be helpful, the ability to communicate easily (language) would be even better, and similarities in beliefs (religion or customs; Dunbar, Reference Dunbar2016; Harari, Reference Harari2015) would be better yet. Certainly, a powerful feature of the human species is our flexibility in defining the characteristics of in-group and out-group. During the World War II, the Germans and Japanese were both hated out-groups, but consider their very rapid transformation shortly after the war to well-accepted members of our in-group. Importantly, this transformation was likely brought about by the emergence of, at least nominally, a once in-group member, Russia, which quickly became a common perceived threat.
For humans, the ability to create stories that define in-group and out-group is critical to both peace and war. These stories often appear to be fixed, yet they are remarkably flexible and can easily change. To create and propagate these stories requires, at a minimum, a well-developed language system.
Thus, what humans have that other animals have only minimally is language, a critical component of culture. Other animals may have precursors of culture, more aptly called traditions (Avital & Jablonka, Reference Avital and Jablonka2000), but language allows for complex stories to be spread throughout one's group and typically passed down for generations. A common language allows people who do not know each other not only to communicate but also to feel that strangers are still members of the in-group.
An important aspect of being human that is not well appreciated is that even if the language of one's group is different from that of another group, being human, one can generally assume that those others speak and understand some form of language, what has been called metalanguage. This is the idea that the sounds that come from the mouth of another person are symbolic representations that stand for objects and ideas that can be learned by pairing those sounds with gestures, pointing to objects, and iconic drawings. Thus, when humans meet, they can have the expectation of being able to communicate not only the emotions that other animals can communicate, but also words – parts of speech that together represent ideas. This ability to learn the language of others has allowed for the myths of one group to spread to many other groups whose languages may differ. The notion that a symbol in one language is likely to have corresponding symbol in another language allows ideas to spread widely. Consider the spread of religions such as Christianity and Islam across groups with quite different customs and languages. Thus, groups that differ widely in other respects can share cultural practices that make them become members of the same in-group. And being members of a common in-group gives them the potential to live peacefully. As Glowacki notes, however, the ability to communicate about one's stories and myths also allows us to disagree about details of those stories, and when other economic or political differences arise, the details of those story may become the focus of cultural disagreements that can turn violent. Consider the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland (variations of the same in-group, Christianity).
The norms that Glowacki considers important for large diverse groups to behave peacefully require language and the metalanguage that allows for the translation of stories from one language to another. Having a common story (peace is a good thing) allows diverse groups to agree on norms of behavior. And if peace is a goal, those norms will allow for the possibility of negotiation when there are disagreements (Pinker, Reference Pinker2011).
In the author's model of the development of the motivation for both peace and war, although the primary focus is on hunter–gatherers, it would be strengthened by a greater appreciation of the contribution agriculture has made in the way groups interact. When seminomadic hunter–gatherers were attacked, a ready option would have been to grab their meager belongings and move to a more hospitable location. The loss may have been the resources available in the place that they had been forced to abandon. But unless they had superior numbers, leaving would often have been more advisable than staying put and fighting. Furthermore, it was likely that adequate resources could be found elsewhere.
The advent of agriculture produced a different situation. Agriculture allowed humans to be less dependent on the vagaries of nature because they could plant and care for their resources. That allowed humans to stay in one place and build relatively permanent housing and more permanent tools. But that also meant they were now bound to the land, the leaving of which would entail much greater loss. For this reason, defending the land became a more important goal. The motivation to stand and fight became greater as did the likelihood of war, the results of which might be catastrophic. Under such conditions, obligatory coalitions among stable groups of agriculturalists became advantageous. Neighboring farms would be under similar threat and thus larger groups would become allied and organized with a hierarchical structure involving a strong leader (e.g., a king) who could provide protection in the form of an army. As the coalitions grew larger, their members would not likely know each other, and it would become important for the group to have a similar background story, a common culture based on similar myths or religions. Such a group would be more stable, and their common stories would allow members to trust each other. Thus, it is likely that agriculture was responsible for the need to organize into large groups for defense, while language provided the means for agreement on the norms and rules for resolving disputes.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interest
None.