• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    katiebird on We’re Royals and other…
    bernard jenkins on We’re Royals and other…
    churl on We’re Royals and other…
    r u reddy on We’re Royals and other…
    r u reddy on We’re Royals and other…
    mitzimuffin on We’re Royals and other…
    Sweet Sue on We’re Royals and other…
    Sweet Sue on We’re Royals and other…
    abc on We’re Royals and other…
    katiebird on We’re Royals and other…
    katiebird on We’re Royals and other…
    riverdaughter on We’re Royals and other…
    Monster from the Id on We’re Royals and other…
    cwaltz on Give Democrats a piece of your…
    Mr Mike on We’re Royals and other…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama big pharma Bill Clinton Chris Christie cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Joe Biden John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Keith Olbermann Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare occupy wall street OccupyWallStreet Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • The Attack In Ottawa will be used to justify losing more rights
      Prime Minister Harper pretty much confirmed it: ‘Our laws and police powers need to be strengthened’ Yup.  Never let a crisis go to waste. I’m very sad that MPs and their staff were scared, and I’m sadder that a soldier lost his life.  But one attack does not justify increasing the police state.  However, if [...]
  • Top Posts

A Glimpse into a World Where Females and Non-Alpha Males are the Socially Dominant Genders?

Note: the following is a repost of Part 5 of my prior essay on Social Dominance Theory.  I find Dr. Sapolsky’s research fascinating and worth a second look showcased on its own for those who may have missed it.
SAPOLSKY

Robert Sapolsky and an olive baboon share a quiet moment on the Talek River, July 2007 (Credit: John Heminway) - click for link to original picture

Standford University neurobiologist Dr. Robert Sapolsky has published some very interesting observations about his studies of baboons in Kenya [1]. His research was showcased in the PBS special and National Geographic video entitled “Stress.” (I highly recommend this video for many reasons, only some of which will be addressed herein). While his initial objective was to observe and document the commonalities of hierarchal structures and the effect of stress within those structures between humans and primates, he was presented with an unexpected outcome when cataclysmic disease transformed the baboon troop he was studying from one dominated by alpha males, to one dominated by females. His studies began over 30 years ago where he sought out to observe what similarities might exist between baboons and humans regarding hierarchical structures and the physical effects of stress related to social standing. He did so by visual observation and biological studies of the two stress hormones, adrenaline and glucocorticoids.

Sapolsky noted that the causes of stress in the baboon troop were similar to human cultures in that they stemmed from mostly social and psychological causes. He found that the baboon troop was ruled by dominant males who were aggressive bullies that attacked and bullied passive males and dominated and sexually controlled females. One video diary shows an alpha male torturing a subordinate male by holding his head under water at the river’s edge. Sapolsky admitted to not liking baboons for this reason, referring to these dominant baboon males as

“scheming, back-stabbing, Machiavellian, bastards who are awful”

noting that

“In a typical baboon troop, females experience considerable physical and psychological stress, being subject to particularly high rates of displacement aggression and domination by males.” [2]

He did admit however that their cultural structures were perfect for his scientific studies in that they revealed a common thread between humans and these primates: the biological effects of stress were very similar between humans and these baboons. He found that in both human and baboons, the negative effects of stress were greater for those lower in the social hierarchy. This may fly in the face of the “type-A” theories that present dominant males as type-A, high-driving, personalities but that would require an entirely different discussion about positive and negative stress which I won’t delve into here. The point is that the socially dominant alpha males in both baboon and human cultures are able to maintain better health through their social status. The fact that women outlive men in our culture must also be viewed through the prism of hierarchy, remembering that there are males who are not at the top of the heap, yet are driven by social norms to be there. They are experiencing great stress from their lower social standing, thus contributing to these negative stress effects.

As a result, Dr. Sapolsky, who was the recipient of the McArthur Foundation’s Genius Fellowship over 20 years ago, made two important discoveries about how a human’s and baboon’s social rank determined their levels of stress hormones: 1) dominant males had lower levels and less physical and psychological distress and 2) lower ranking humans and baboons (the “have nots”) had much higher levels of stress hormones and exhibited much more stress and deteriorated health. What was critical about this discovery was his conclusion that in both humans and baboons “It’s not just your rank, it’s what your rank means to society.” …and so the nexus to our current dilemma. Whoever is on top of the hierarchy remains in control of the resources and the health and well-being of the society’s members.

In addition to these sought after principles, fate presented Dr. Sapolsky with an unexpected glimpse of what might happen if the social stratification norm was turned on its head. Originally, the baboon troop included “males [who] were aggressive” and a “society highly stratified, [where] females took a lot of grief…” Then, in a tragic turn of events, the baboons came upon a tourist lodge garbage dump where they began to forage for food. Unfortunately, the food was tainted with tuberculosis. As a result, nearly one-half of the males in the troop died. Sapolsky was devastated; that is until he realized an important fact — it was only the aggressive males that died. In fact, every alpha male died. Now, you may wonder why this occurred since his prior observations led to the scientific conclusions that alpha males had the greater physical condition. However, as alpha males, they contributed to their own demise by gorging themselves on the tainted food, leaving only the leftover scraps for those lower in social status (females and passive males.)

Is this starting to sound relevant yet?

With the troop now composed of twice as many females than males, and the remaining males being the more passive, “socially affiliative males,” the culture of the baboons transformed into a more peaceful, egalitarian structure. Bullying and aggression were all but eliminated. What made this an important transformation is that in this primate culture, alpha males always come from outside of the troop – they are not born into the troop. Any alpha male born into a troop, eventually leaves to join a new troop. However, subsequent to this transformation, any alpha male that attempted to enter the transformed troop were quickly rebuked by the females and the passive males. The result? These aggressive males assimilated into the more egalitarian society, living and cooperating under the rules of the newly socially dominant group.

Do Sapolsky’s studies reveal important lessons for our human culture? I believe they do and his revelations give us a glimpse into the type of world we prefer to live in — one where cooperation replaces violent aggression in the name of maintaining social dominance. The current legitimizing myths about female leadership must be dispelled. There is nothing wrong and everything right about being feminine. We have allowed our social structures to paint us as weak, yet our nature of being good listeners who are diplomatic and nurturing are all positive attributes that would bode well for our future and the world we leave for our children. Hillary Clinton is leading the way and showing us how it is done. How can we follow and emulate her in a way that forges the necessary common bond which will erode the current social dominance of alpha males? Where do we go from here? That is the question and the challenge we face.

hillary-clinton

******************************************************

References:

[1] Sapolsky, R. M. (2004). Social Status and Health in Humans and Other Animals. Annual Review of Anthropology. 33: 393-418.

[2] Sapolsky, R. M. (August 2006). Social Cultures Among Nonhuman Primates : California Forum On Theory In Anthropology. Current Anthropology 47, 4

Another Lecture by Dr. Sapolsky: http://tinyurl.com/qn58nf on the effects of stress in the human and non-human condition (this is for those interested in learning more about the effects of stress on the body.)

Please DIGG and SHARE

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

About these ads

33 Responses

  1. Excellent series! Thank you.

  2. Did the dominant females tie up the submissive males?

  3. Watch the video and find out. :)

  4. Baboons are pretty far removed from humans on the primate tree. IMO, more relevant to the evolution of the foundations of human social structure are our closest relatives, Bonobos and Chimpanzees. Bonobos have a matrilocal, egalitarian, female dominated social structure while our closest relative, the chimps, have a patrilocal social structure. The only other great ape that is patrilocal are humans.

  5. That misogynist Barky strikes again:

    http://tinyurl.com/m3yn56

  6. Here’s an article about bonobos peaceful structures and Sapolsky’s studies are also referenced

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225801.900-why-bonobos-make-love-not-war.html?page=1

  7. he looks like a real weiner

  8. and this article is available for purchase unless you have access to academic journals:

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61382/robert-m-sapolsky/a-natural-history-of-peace

    This article was written by Sapolsky and references the various primate social structures including bonobos and baboons.

  9. Wonderful, SoD. I’m glad you decided to repost this. Thank you so much for sharing this fascinating research.

  10. Fascinating. This is what we’re supposed to be scared of when some nutball cries “nanny state!”

    There’s a man who wrote a book based on his research of communities where people with money move into an area where most people were at about the same income level, introducing a noticeable income disparity. Not only did the health of those with less money deteriorate, so did the health of those at the top of the heap. The breakdown of social cohesion causes worse health outcomes for everybody. I wish I could remember the name of the book or what university he worked for (sorry) but you see research like this coming to similar conclusions about what makes for a healthy society.

  11. LinkedIn interviews Dr. Robert Sapolsky about stress

    Tips
    #1 Commit to consistent Stress Management

    #2 Don’t displace stress on subordinates

    #3 Maintain perspective

    #4 Don’t get gored

    The best tip was that we thrive with mutual grooming ;-) and having friends. :-)

    • thanks for that!

    • ha, ha – I love that: “mutual grooming and having friends”

      Can I consider giving lots of hugs to my friends as part of healthy de-stress tactile grooming? :-)

  12. That’s some pretty interesting research. I might have to try to make something out of that for an Anthropology class–except specifically dealing in Humans, of course.

    Thank you for sharing. That was pretty interesting.

  13. This is really interesting research, SOD. Thanks for posting the thread!

    Ironically, while reading the article….

    I started having bad memories of FAUXfeminist Camille Paglia’s book, “Sexual Personae,” in which she claimed that the archetype of masculine agression is superior to the feminine archetype of cooperation and nurturing. Paglia felt (and probably still does) that masculine aggression energy is fundamentally responsible for the creative impulse of advanced civilization.
    (rolling my eyes)

    But this research that you present seems to prove Paglia wrong, as it shows how a more egalitarian (and I believe more healthy) interpersonal dynamic is possible with feminine archetype attitudes of support and equality.

    Noam Chompsky’s early linguistic research also posits that cooperation and altruism (NOT domination or aggression) in society are responsible for sustaining culture and creating language. Basically, that being “caring” is biologically healthier to create a neo-cortex environment better suited to language evolution.

    Anyhoo, thanks again for the research references!

    • Glad you found it interesting. Paglia is a shill for the oligarchy.

      • Did someone mention Camille Paglia?:

        There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity.

        Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, “Poor dear, it’s probably PMS.”

        Whereas, if a man behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, “What an asshole.”

        Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia, “Sheesh, what an asshole!”

        – Molly Ivins

      • and was an ObamaBooty-kisser extraordinaire during primary.

        (hold’s nose)

  14. SoD, I haven’t had a lot of time to be online but wanted to let you know that I’m loving this series. Thanks for sharing this fascinating and important information.

    • thanks gxm. I’m working on a follow-up regarding women and leadership building on these concepts.

  15. Sorry, but I don’t buy that women are less warlike or more peace-loving when they are running countries than men are. History shows the opposite. And I love Hillary Clinton as much as the next PUMA does, but I have zero approval for our foreign policy, which she supports in just as belligerent and bloodthirsty a way as McCain or Obama did.

    (I wanted her because I prefer her on domestic issues, and for a host of other reasons–all the candidates except Kucinich and Paul were shitty on foreign policy.)

  16. D.O.

    I have to wholly disagree with your entire assessment. First, your assessment that women are as warlike as men is not accompanied by any specifics. Yes, there were female leaders who were vicious but those leaders must be analyzed through their social condition as they were still in an alpha-male ruled culture. My post deals with the contrasts between alpha males, females, and the more passive “socially affiliative” males. There is clearly significant scientific evidence even beyond Sapolsky’s research to back up the concepts herein. Further, our biological make-up doesn’t erase the fact that we too are animals at our core.

    Second, I don’t believe Hillary “supports ["our" foreign policy"] in just as belligerent and bloodthirsty a way as McCain or Obama did.” That stark statement doesn’t have anything specific to back it up. If you’re referring to the authorization vote, that vote was to authorize war only if all diplomatic efforts including the UN team’s weapon search, were exhausted. Bush jumped straight to war violating the principles of that vote. As Bill Clinton said, the whole story is a “fairy tale.” Hillary has never embraced pre-emptive war and her position in Obama’s cabinet is more to our advantage than our detriment.

  17. Hillary has never embraced pre-emptive war and her position in Obama’s cabinet is more to our advantage than our detriment.

    Indeed. The difference between Hill being there or not there is huge. It’s like the difference between having your lawyer with you at the police station or somehow they can’t find a working phone so you can made your call. We are still in deep, deep trouble, but at least we have her on the scene.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 468 other followers

%d bloggers like this: