Moffett's article opens with an interesting comparison between human societies and those of other animals, asserting that societies are often defined by control and access to specific territories, whether fixed or mobile, and their associated ownership. Although the author acknowledges that humans value the sense of collective continuity (Sani et al., Reference Sani, Bowe, Herrera, Manna, Cossa, Miao and Zhou2007), he reduces this complex socio-psychological concept (Smeekes & Verkuyten, Reference Smeekes and Verkuyten2016) to cycles of generating new offspring over generations within specific territories under human control.

Although history is rife with conflicts over territorial and resources’ control perpetuated for generations, we contend that Moffett's argument overlooks a crucial element allowing human societies to endure even in the absence of control over land or resources, namely, collective memories. Collective memory (Halbwachs, Reference Halbwachs1950) is a multidimensional concept addressed through different disciplines and perspectives, with various definitions. The working conceptualization we use here focuses on the four common aspects that different definitions agree upon, posing that collective memories are: (a) A shared understanding of the past based on belonging to a common group sharing a social identity (Licata & Klein, Reference Licata and Klein2010, p. 243); (b) serve different functions through which a group or society construct a collective narrative about its past, present, and future (Wang, Reference Wang2008); (c) can be strategically (re)constructed over time to meet the evolving needs and goals of a group or society (Liu & Hilton, Reference Liu and Hilton2005); and (d) are communicated and disseminated within a group or society through various means. These include informal practices, such as the intergenerational transmission of narratives, symbols, language, and cultural rituals and artifacts, as well as formal practices like education (Psaltis, Carretero, & Čehajić-Clancy, Reference Psaltis, Carretero and Čehajić-Clancy2017).

We acknowledge that other animal species can also engage in social learning, maintain traditions (such as bird migration patterns passed down through generations), and utilize complex forms of communication and collective knowledge (as seen in ants). However, we argue that collective memories create a multifaceted framework unique to humans. This framework enables human societies to transcend territorial ownership and resource control through a series of complex socio-psychological processes (Hannerz, Reference Hannerz1996). These processes include, but are not limited to, a sense of shared remembering that incorporates symbolic and narrative elements (Halbwachs, Reference Halbwachs1950); feelings of group belonging overriding individual-vested interests (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, Reference Ellemers, Spears and Doosje2002); and collective identities persisting over time and generations (Smeekes & Verkuyten, Reference Smeekes and Verkuyten2016).

Still today, in various contexts around the world, we observe different social groups that, in our opinion, should be fully recognized as human societies based on this multifaceted collective memory framework. These societies maintain complex connections with the places where they reside or wish to live but have no formal territorial ownership or control over resources. In our current historical context, one of the most poignant examples is Palestinian society. The “Nakba” in 1948, signifying “The Catastrophe” in Arabic, forcibly displaced around 50% of the Palestinian population, scattering them across the Middle East, North and South America, and beyond. Despite the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974) affirming their right to return, many Palestinians have never set foot on their ancestral lands or had control over them. Nevertheless, Palestinian society persisted, anchored by the transmission of collective memories, cultural practices, and a shared identity, irrespective of territorial control (Penić, Vollhardt, Donnay, Albzour, & Bhavnani, Reference Penić, Vollhardt, Donnay, Albzour and Bhavnani2024). This resilience, echoed in other cases like the Kurds (Coşkan & Şen, Reference Coşkan and Şen2024), starkly challenges Moffett's assertion that the conquered are eventually assimilated by the conqueror.

Even after centuries of conflicts, forced assimilation, cultural extermination, and interbreeding, populations with roots in ancient societies – such as indigenous communities in the Americas, Africa, or New Zealand and Australia – can preserve and transmit memories of their past. They continue to assert themselves as bearers of collective and cultural rights, beyond territorial control. For example, the Mapuche indigenous people in Chile have lost most access to and control over their ancestral land due to the forced occupation by colonizers of European descendance (Bengoa, Reference Bengoa2008). Still, they define themselves as a “people's nation” and identify as a societal group with a shared history and culture. This history is transmitted across generations, connecting their culture, past, present, and future to their ancestral land, despite having little to no control over the territory, and no hope of reclaiming it in the future (Di Giminiani, Reference Di Giminiani2015). Thus, they demonstrate resilience and maintain a strong identification as a cohesive society without land. Can we really deny the Mapuche's self-determination by claiming they are not a society but merely an ethnicity, just because they have extremely limited territorial ownership and resource control?

Therefore, we argue that the struggle for autonomy from occupying powers and the recognition of fundamental rights can transcend territorial disputes. Superordinate societal projects, derived from higher levels of identification (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kafaty, Reference Dovidio, Gaertner and Kafaty2000), such as Pan-Africanism (Young, Reference Young2010), with its unique history, hopes, and demands, exemplify how collective memories of past events – such as slavery, colonialism, and imperialism – can be mobilized to construct imagined communities, beyond specific geographical demarcations or national borders (Cabecinhas et al., Reference Cabecinhas, Liu, Licata, Klein, Mendes, Feijó and Niyubahwe2011; Gordon, Reference Gordon2023). This political project aims to foster collaboration across territories and countries in defense of collective human rights and cultural plurality, without necessarily having control over specific resources or claiming ownership of particular territories.

In conclusion, although Moffett's article offers thought-provoking ideas into reintroducing the concept of society into scientific inquiry, we contend that societies do not need control over resources and territory to be considered as such. Moffett's proposal may limit our understanding of how humans construct and use collective memories to interpret the past, navigate the present, and envision the future. We also emphasize that collective memories can be harnessed to foster more inclusive, fluid, and open societies. Limiting the concept of society to those that control territory and resources legitimizes a neocolonial power structure, reducing societies striving for self-determination to mere ethnic groups rather than recognizing them as full-fledged societies. Our framework underscores an enduring sense of societal belonging, which transcends geographical boundaries and even challenges the notion of territorial land ownership and resource control as a necessary condition for social groups to be considered as societies.