Although many social scientists often refer vaguely to “society,” such as in invoking its beneficial or oppressive aspects, few have taken as much trouble as Moffett (this issue) to ponder carefully what are a society's defining characteristics. Fewer still have his biological, interspecies perspective. We appreciate his effort and offer some suggestions for extending his analysis and collecting data. Regarding the definition itself, we tend to think of a human society as a cultural system plus the people living within it, and so we respectfully suggest that Moffett's definition could give more emphasis to the organizing system aspect. There are perhaps animal societies that have no organization at all, but many have one, from ant colonies to mammal dominance hierarchies.
Moffett asserts that societies are the “most salient level” of social life (see his sect. 3 title). Families are obviously important in human (and many animals') social life, but they are insufficient to ensure enough survival and reproduction to sustain the species. This is particularly true of humankind, given the long dependency of human children. Cultural animal theory (Baumeister, Reference Baumeister2005) suggests some reasons for the life-sustaining benefits of large human societies. This theory proposes that culture is humankind's biological strategy, so that the distinctively human traits are mostly the result of evolutionary adaptations to make culture possible. By advanced cooperation, facilitated by communication and group planning, and by building a collectively validated stock of shared information, cultural societies can master the environment and thereby amass more resources to sustain life than simpler systems.
Moffett emphasizes that human societies have grown to be much larger than other kinds of mammal societies. We suggest three main advantages of larger populations for cultural societies (as a means to increase population flourishing). First, cultures rely on shared information, and larger groups can obviously acquire and share more information than small groups, thereby facilitating the collective mastery of the environment. Second, economic trade, which dates back far into prehistory (Ridley, Reference Ridley2020), is facilitated by larger groups, improving what economists call the efficiency of the social system. Larger marketplaces work better, thereby increasing overall benefits. (Hence the modern globalization of the economy.) Third, when intergroup conflict and competition took the form of primitive warfare, battles were generally won by the side having more guys with spears.
The first two of those directly invoke the system aspect of society. The third does indirectly: Even in recent centuries, wars are usually won by the side with the larger economy, which enables it to put more warriors and weapons on the battlefield (Bernstein, Reference Bernstein2004).
Moffett's carefully crafted definition opens new avenues for research into societies. In that context, we suggest more study of professional sports teams. They fit most aspects of Moffett's definition. They are clearly more than families (though sometimes fond of “we are family” rhetoric). They endure for multiple generations. Everyone knows who is on the team and who is not. Like other instances of what Moffett calls “anonymous societies” they rely on strong identity markers, starting with matching team uniforms. They maintain control over territory, identified with their home playing field, which during the game is apportioned between them and their opponent du jour. The jewel of their territory is the goal they defend, often with elaborately planned cooperative strategies and intense collective exertion. (To be sure, they do not usually dwell in the stadium.) Most teams are part of a larger organization such as a league, but we strongly suspect that players identify much more with their team than with the league. Players do move among teams, sometimes not by their own choice, and the team roster is entirely replaced much more rapidly than in other kinds of societies – which offers advantages for empirical study of societal continuity amid membership turnover. The importance of the team identity was made especially salient during America's professional football strikes. In 1982, the players asserted that “we are the game” and arranged pickup games among themselves, so that fans might come and pay to watch the athletic display, but these were a flop. In contrast, in 1987, when the owners hired replacement athletes to play the officially scheduled games, fans did pay to attend, indicating that they cared more about the abstract society-team as an official entity than about the individuals belonging to it (e.g., Chicago Tribune, 1987). Comedian Jerry Seinfeld quipped that fans root for the uniforms, regardless of the individuals who wear them.
We note further that the push toward larger group sizes is evident in sports teams, even despite strict rules limiting the number of players who can take part in the game at any given time. Like the efficiency of economic markets, the effectiveness of sports teams increases with specialization. To illustrate, football games allow 11 players on each side, and early teams had about that many in total. But teams have grown larger. By 1960, most professional teams had separate 11-man rosters for offense and defense, and soon after there were others for so-called special teams (e.g., punting plays). Further specialization brought players who only entered the game for particular situations, such as short-yardage plays. Coaching staffs likewise ballooned in size, to capitalize on the benefits of shared information as well as division of labor.
Social psychology has focused on individual mental processes and dyadic interactions, only occasionally moving even to larger (but still small) groups. A heightened understanding of how whole societies operate would strengthen the field. Moffett's analysis is a big step in the right direction. Further steps might elaborate the system aspect of societies, elucidate the advantages of ever larger sizes, and consider sports teams as a useful laboratory with which to test hypotheses.
Gabriel Ramos-Fernandez
[Opens in a new window]Gabriel Ramos-Fernandez
, 
You have
Access
Although many social scientists often refer vaguely to “society,” such as in invoking its beneficial or oppressive aspects, few have taken as much trouble as Moffett (this issue) to ponder carefully what are a society's defining characteristics. Fewer still have his biological, interspecies perspective. We appreciate his effort and offer some suggestions for extending his analysis and collecting data. Regarding the definition itself, we tend to think of a human society as a cultural system plus the people living within it, and so we respectfully suggest that Moffett's definition could give more emphasis to the organizing system aspect. There are perhaps animal societies that have no organization at all, but many have one, from ant colonies to mammal dominance hierarchies.
Moffett asserts that societies are the “most salient level” of social life (see his sect. 3 title). Families are obviously important in human (and many animals') social life, but they are insufficient to ensure enough survival and reproduction to sustain the species. This is particularly true of humankind, given the long dependency of human children. Cultural animal theory (Baumeister, Reference Baumeister2005) suggests some reasons for the life-sustaining benefits of large human societies. This theory proposes that culture is humankind's biological strategy, so that the distinctively human traits are mostly the result of evolutionary adaptations to make culture possible. By advanced cooperation, facilitated by communication and group planning, and by building a collectively validated stock of shared information, cultural societies can master the environment and thereby amass more resources to sustain life than simpler systems.
Moffett emphasizes that human societies have grown to be much larger than other kinds of mammal societies. We suggest three main advantages of larger populations for cultural societies (as a means to increase population flourishing). First, cultures rely on shared information, and larger groups can obviously acquire and share more information than small groups, thereby facilitating the collective mastery of the environment. Second, economic trade, which dates back far into prehistory (Ridley, Reference Ridley2020), is facilitated by larger groups, improving what economists call the efficiency of the social system. Larger marketplaces work better, thereby increasing overall benefits. (Hence the modern globalization of the economy.) Third, when intergroup conflict and competition took the form of primitive warfare, battles were generally won by the side having more guys with spears.
The first two of those directly invoke the system aspect of society. The third does indirectly: Even in recent centuries, wars are usually won by the side with the larger economy, which enables it to put more warriors and weapons on the battlefield (Bernstein, Reference Bernstein2004).
Moffett's carefully crafted definition opens new avenues for research into societies. In that context, we suggest more study of professional sports teams. They fit most aspects of Moffett's definition. They are clearly more than families (though sometimes fond of “we are family” rhetoric). They endure for multiple generations. Everyone knows who is on the team and who is not. Like other instances of what Moffett calls “anonymous societies” they rely on strong identity markers, starting with matching team uniforms. They maintain control over territory, identified with their home playing field, which during the game is apportioned between them and their opponent du jour. The jewel of their territory is the goal they defend, often with elaborately planned cooperative strategies and intense collective exertion. (To be sure, they do not usually dwell in the stadium.) Most teams are part of a larger organization such as a league, but we strongly suspect that players identify much more with their team than with the league. Players do move among teams, sometimes not by their own choice, and the team roster is entirely replaced much more rapidly than in other kinds of societies – which offers advantages for empirical study of societal continuity amid membership turnover. The importance of the team identity was made especially salient during America's professional football strikes. In 1982, the players asserted that “we are the game” and arranged pickup games among themselves, so that fans might come and pay to watch the athletic display, but these were a flop. In contrast, in 1987, when the owners hired replacement athletes to play the officially scheduled games, fans did pay to attend, indicating that they cared more about the abstract society-team as an official entity than about the individuals belonging to it (e.g., Chicago Tribune, 1987). Comedian Jerry Seinfeld quipped that fans root for the uniforms, regardless of the individuals who wear them.
We note further that the push toward larger group sizes is evident in sports teams, even despite strict rules limiting the number of players who can take part in the game at any given time. Like the efficiency of economic markets, the effectiveness of sports teams increases with specialization. To illustrate, football games allow 11 players on each side, and early teams had about that many in total. But teams have grown larger. By 1960, most professional teams had separate 11-man rosters for offense and defense, and soon after there were others for so-called special teams (e.g., punting plays). Further specialization brought players who only entered the game for particular situations, such as short-yardage plays. Coaching staffs likewise ballooned in size, to capitalize on the benefits of shared information as well as division of labor.
Social psychology has focused on individual mental processes and dyadic interactions, only occasionally moving even to larger (but still small) groups. A heightened understanding of how whole societies operate would strengthen the field. Moffett's analysis is a big step in the right direction. Further steps might elaborate the system aspect of societies, elucidate the advantages of ever larger sizes, and consider sports teams as a useful laboratory with which to test hypotheses.
Financial support
None.
Competing interest
None.