Moffett's thought-provoking article proposes that, among other things, societies should be considered the “primary” group among humans with respect to their social ramifications. Although plausible in some narrow sense, the rub lies in the details, with it unclear as to exactly which (and why) social ramifications elevate society to this lofty position. I instead suggest that – with respect to its capacity to motivate pro-group behavior, influence on other social groups, and centrality – perhaps the family should reign supreme.

First, it is worth considering whether societies are adept at eliciting the “ultimate” social ramification; a willingness to fight and die for the group. Here, the primacy of society is surprisingly lacking. When 2,438 people from 11 countries were asked which group they were most willing to die for, the resounding response was family (86.54%), not country (3.21%; Swann et al., Reference Swann, Buhrmester, Gómez, Jetten, Bastian, Vazquez and Zhang2014). Research on identity fusion – a powerful form of group alignment that promotes pro-group behavior (Swann & Buhrmester, Reference Swann and Buhrmester2015; Swann, Klein, & Gómez, Reference Swann, Klein, Gómez and Gawronski2024) – has proven particularly enlightening. For instance, soldiers actively fighting in a war overwhelmingly reported greater identity fusion with their family, as well as other frontline soldiers, than to the members of the society they were ostensibly fighting for (Whitehouse, McQuinn, Buhrmester, & Swann, Reference Whitehouse, McQuinn, Buhrmester and Swann2014). Although societies surely play a key role in coercing conflict at scale, such as in the context of war and policing, the family is a far more potent psychological motivator of violence.

Moffett also raises the primacy of society in terms of its propensity to influence “downstream” groups, such as clubs, bands, or gangs, which he suggests may have highjacked societal features. I contend that the family has been at least equally co-opted. Members of tightly bound groups routinely describe one another as part of a large family, adopting terms such as “brotherhood” (Gómez et al., Reference Gómez, Vázquez, Alba, Blanco, Chinchilla, Chiclana and Swann2024). Moffett's example of a Mafia family passing membership down through generations hints at this idea, reflecting the continuation of an imagined bloodline. These pseudo-familial groups act as a “secure base” for their members and resemble the role of a parent in infanthood (Klein & Bastian, Reference Klein and Bastian2023; Klein, Greenaway, & Bastian, Reference Klein, Greenaway and Bastian2024). Moreover, research suggests that the perception of “familial ties” mediates the relationship between identity fusion and acts of empathy toward other ingroup members (Buhrmester, Fraser, Lanman, Whitehouse, & Swann, Reference Buhrmester, Fraser, Lanman, Whitehouse and Swann2015). Ironically, familial ties also mediate the relationship between fusion with one's country and a willingness to fight and die for it (Swann et al., Reference Swann, Buhrmester, Gómez, Jetten, Bastian, Vazquez and Zhang2014), suggesting that people are willing to fight for societies insofar as they resemble families. Altogether, this implies that key aspects of the family flow “upstream” and shape the dynamics of other groups, even at the level of society.

Finally, Moffett argues that societies are high in “centrality.” This concept is borrowed from the social identity approach, describing an identity that is chronically salient and subjectively important to a person's self-concept (Leach et al., Reference Leach, Van Zomeren, Zebel, Vliek, Pennekamp, Doosje and Spears2008). However, the existing literature does not support this account. For instance, when people are asked for their most important group, they almost never offer their nation (Klein et al., Reference Klein, Greenaway and Bastian2024). Indeed, when 18,850 people from 17 countries were asked what most gives their life meaning the top answer in 14 countries was family, with the median percentage of answers mentioning family (38%) exceeding those mentioning society (14%; Pew Research Centre, 2021). Overall, this evidence suggests that societies are not particularly salient or subjectively important, undermining the case for its centrality. To be fair, Moffett does acknowledge that society is often missed as the “blue tint of the sky,” suggesting he may have adopted an idiosyncratic definition of centrality. Unfortunately, this makes it difficult to precisely understand, or test, what he is claiming.

To be clear, I certainly agree that societies are immensely important groups that play a crucial role in socialization, influencing everything from accent to dress. Moffett correctly notes that societies provide an abstraction to identify with, and that they can dictate the manner of our political expression. Nevertheless, it is not clear why this makes society the primary group, with the far-ranging social ramifications of the family similarly obvious. For instance, attachment theory – one of the most influential psychological theories of all time – demonstrates how family experiences influence everything from romantic relationships to psychopathology (Sutton, Reference Sutton2019). Cross-cultural research suggests that people value their family's well-being over their own (Krys et al., Reference Krys, Capaldi, Zelenski, Park, Nader, Kocimska-Zych and Uchida2021). Even in terms of identity needs, affiliative groups (e.g., friends and family) overshadow social categories (including, but not limited to, one's nationality; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Crawford, Sherman, Rutchick, Hamilton, Ferreira and Petrocelli2006). If Moffett believes that society is the primary group, then he must articulate how its accumulated effect trumps the well-documented impact of the family.

In sum, I emphatically agree that societies are powerful shapers of behavior and must remain on the radar of anyone interested in understanding human psychology. However, I am skeptical that, in the absence of compelling evidence, societies should occupy a privileged position above all other social groups. On the contrary, the weight of the present research suggests that perhaps the family – not society – could be the group of primary social importance.