How competition drove social complexity: the role of war in the emergence of States, both ancient and modern

EDUARDO ALBERTO CRESPO,TIAGO NASSER APPEL

doi:10.1590/0101-31572020-3055

EDUARDO ALBERTO CRESPO, TIAGO NASSER APPEL

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572020-3055

Copy DOI

Abstract

ABSTRACT The origin of human ultrasociality - the ability to cooperate in huge groups of genetically unrelated individuals - has long interested evolutionary and social theorists. In this article, we use cultural group or multilevel selection theory to explain how cultural traits needed to sustain large-scale complex societies necessarily arose as a result of competition among cultural groups. We apply the theory at two key particular junctures: (i) the emergence of the first States and hierarchical societies, and (ii) the Rise of Modern Nation-States and the associated Great Divergence in incomes between the West and the “Rest” that began in the eighteenth century.

Highlights

One recent trend of social sciences is to integrate the great historical transitions into the broad perspective of Deep History, i.e., to situate them in a common narrative that incorporates contributions of archeology, biology, primatology, anthropology and evolutionary psychology (Shryock & Lord Smail, 2011; Henrich, 2015)
This work assumes a Deep History perspective to interpret two major transitions in human history. It offers first a brief synthesis of the multilevel cultural selection theory and the hypothesis of the “social brain”, both originating from biology and anthropology as theoretical bases to analyze how cooperation and conflict, as well as social cohesion and war, influence political organization and economic development in the long term
From the perspective of multilevel cultural selection, the main difference between Homo Sapiens and other animals is the ability of humans to accumulate culture and cooperate with strangers (Richerson and Boyd, 2005)

Summary

INTRODUCTION

One recent trend of social sciences is to integrate the great historical transitions into the broad perspective of Deep History, i.e.,, to situate them in a common narrative that incorporates contributions of archeology, biology, primatology, anthropology and evolutionary psychology (Shryock & Lord Smail, 2011; Henrich, 2015). In certain circumstances the persistent influence of armed conflicts, the incessant armed competition among human groups, demands social cohesion and institutional, organizational and technological readjustment It is not war as such but its organization that usually has spillover effects on political and economic development. We know that the economies of scale of extended cooperation are not a sufficient condition to explain the rise of complex societies (Carneiro, 1970, 2012) Were it not for the existence of strong selective forces, people would not have gone through the trouble of “intensive weeding, land leveling, augmenting the irrigation system, and other tasks that require a great deal of labor” (Athens, 1977: 375) because these efforts to maintain an artificial ecosystem – not to mention states, markets and militaries – normally require clear political and economic stratifications, what is in stark contrast with simple societies’ egalitarianism. The monetization of tribute was the main force driving the commodification of surplus, that is, it sponsored the development of markets (Mann, 1986; Fiori, 2010; Crespo & Cardoso, 2011)

MODERN STATE AND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

Findings

CONCLUSION