"We now see that the process of rank allocation" (among primates) "especially dominance contests, encourage the upward movement of those group members most most able to withstand stress and best equipped to impose stress on others, while those with the most difficulty handling stress, or the least interested in stressing others, move downward. Thus there is a natural sorting that places individuals who are comfortable with stress near the top of the hierarchy and those who are "nervous" at the bottom".
-Allan Mazur. Biosociology of Dominance and Deference. Pg 87. 2005.
It is interesting that the relatively egalitarian Semai people of rainforest Malaysia have long viewed causing stress as a form of unacceptable violence (or at least they may be highly sensitive to stress). The violent effects of stress have much more recently been confirmed by modern science (Robert Dentan. Overwhelming Terror. Love, fear, peace and violence among Semai of Malaysia. Pg 138. 2008).
It may be this "taboo" on causing stress partly explains the relative equality found in Semai society, hierarchy may simply, and unintentionally, be prevented from developing in the process of avoiding stress (Robert Dentan & David Nicholls. Stress, equality and peaceability among east Semai. A preliminary account. Paper presented at Annual meeting of America Anthropological Association, Montreal, Nov 2011). Although multiple factors are probably involved in maintaining their equality, perhaps most notably they appear to "outsource" hierarchical roles such as "law and order" and "boss" to the supernatural (as reported in similar "egalitarian" societies by Kirk Endicott in Peaceful Foragers: The Significance of the Batek and Moriori for the question of Innate Human Violence. War, Peace and Human Nature. Ed D Fry. 2013.)
So if a group is trying to encourage equality, treating stress as acceptable or desirable will probably be counterproductive. If a group is seeking to establish hierarchy (to maximize efficiency in a division of labor perhaps) restrictions or "taboos" on stress are likely to interfere. Presumably the middle path between these extremes would have the widest appeal.
I suspect in "modern societies" the opposite of the Semai aversion to stress is common, addiction to stress is probably commonly acquired in stressful academic, sporting and economic competition (Semai do not have any of these (The Semai. A Non-violent People of Malaya. Dentan. 1968), or didn't until recently). It may be that people become addicted to fleeting euphoric or even ecstatic neurochemicals released when they "win" such as dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin. They may also become addicted to adrenaline, excitement, for instance, during the process of competing or fighting. There are even reports loosing, like pain, can be addictive.
These intense neurochemical rewards are ancient and pre-historic, designed to help "selfish genes" pass themselves on in the wild, not to help us be happy, part of a civilized community or even to help us survive as individuals. So I would argue "modern society" when based on such neurochemical addiction, is much less civilized than the Semai, despite obvious superior technological cleverness, clever is not necessarily civilized.
Mazer only discusses stress in terms of positioning in hierarchies, negative reinforcement, I'd say positive reinforcement, "eustress", manipulating or causing pleasure or excitement, is at least as significant and probably intertwined.
It is also interesting that the Semai and similar South East Asian societies (see Anarchic Solidarity. Gibson & Sillander Ed. 2011.) have not traditionally damaged the ecosystem they live in significantly. Addiction to stress may be a cause of environmental devastation among industrialized people due to disregard for consequences, in effect a hierarchical attitude that we are above and disconnected from the rest of the biosphere. It may seem counter-intuitive but increasing sensitivity to stress in the general population (however, and if, that may be done) may actually make us stronger, more resilient in terms of our relationship with the rest of nature in addition to making society fairer. It may even be sustainability cannot be achieved any other way.
I'd say in positive terms to hate stress is probably to love something like harmony, or unity in diversity.
No comments:
Post a Comment