One prominent hypothesis within the framework of evolutionary psychology is that men are more combative because they possess a “coalitional psychology” and tend to engage in coalitional aggressive acts. This distinctive masculine psychology proved its evolutionary adaptive function because it gave men more chances for gaining alimentary resources and women, through fighting.
The composition of coalitions varied from dyad (a pair of hunters) to hundreds of individuals, brought together by the same purpose. The creation of coalitions was facilitated by natural selection, which favored united groups. The occurrence of certain brain structures predisposed hominids, then the human individuals, towards cohesion, relations, concerted actions and collective struggle. The creation of coalitions was a precondition for the emergence of major battles, including wars [Tooby, Cosmides, 1988, 2010].
In the same key, Lionel Tiger, a Canadian anthropologist, the author of the book “Men in Groups,” states that men have inherited from distant ancestors the irreducible propensity to form groups, and this propensity has become a kind of “backbone” of human communities. Initially, these groups were designed for hunting activities. Later, with the disappearance of the need to hunt, groups were formed based on other motivations. Through this ancestral group psychology one can explain why men from contemporary societies tend to join teams of fans, gangs, closed clubs, religious sects, militant coalitions, etc. [Tiger, 1969].
On the other hand, female coalitions are almost nonexistent. Of all the studied cultures, rarely were “gangs of women” identified, while “gangs of men” can be found everywhere [Potts, 2006]. What is the cause of this phenomenon? First of all, women didn’t have the aggressive and defensive motivation that men have, which would require the creation of militant groups. Their physical condition and mission of “future mothers” didn’t allow them to engage in acts of aggression and defense.
One of the explanations is that women, no matter how unexpected this sounds, show a greater degree of hierarchical discrimination than men. That is, women prefer to establish social relationships with other women of the same status, avoiding those with a lower status, according to the results of a Harvard study. Therefore, it is harder for women to form coalitions because women are more selective and less tolerant of each other in terms of hierarchical stratification. They are even less open to networking in large co-operations. It’s curious that, even from preschool age, boys demonstrate a desire for communication and group games, whereas girls usually prefer being friends with only one or two girls [Benenson et al., 2014].
At the same time, when women quarrell with each other, it takes more time for them to reconcile than it typically takes for men. They are less prepared to deal with an intrasexual conflict [Benenson et al., 2014(2)].
Men’s ability to cooperate with individuals of different ranks allows them to create coalitions without difficulty; this advantage considerably benefiting them on a social level. The psychology of coalition has allowed men to dominate on political, military and administrative levels. The lack of a native psychology of coalition in women could be a cause of their subordination on social and political levels, despite the high performance of each woman individually.
Sources:
(photo from Flickr)
• Benenson J.F., Markovits H., Wrangham R. Rank influences human sex differences in dyadic cooperation // Current Biology. Vol. 24, Issue 5. 3 March 2014. pR190–R191.
• Benenson J.F., Kuhn M.N., Ryan P.J., Ferranti A.J., Blondin R., Shea M., Charpentier C., Thompson M.E., Wrangham R.W. Human Males Appear More Prepared Than Females to Resolve Conflicts with Same-Sex Peers // Human Nature. Vol. 25, Issue 2. June 2014. P. 251-268.
• Potts M. Cruelty’s utility: The evolution of same-species killing // Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2006. Vol. 29. P. 238.
• Tiger L. Men in Groups. Nelson. 1969.
• Tooby J., Cosmides L. The evolution of war and its cognitive foundations // Proc. Inst. Evolutionary Studies, 88. 1988. P. 1-15.
• Tooby J., Cosmides L. Groups in Mind: The Coalitional Roots of War and Morality // from “Human Morality & Sociality: Evolutionary & Comparative Perspectives”, Henrik Høgh-Olesen (Ed.). Palgrave MacMillan, New York. 2010. P. 191-234.
One prominent hypothesis within the framework of evolutionary psychology is that men are more combative because they possess a “coalitional psychology” and tend to engage in coalitional aggressive acts. This distinctive masculine psychology proved its evolutionary adaptive function because it gave men more chances for gaining alimentary resources and women, through fighting.
The composition of coalitions varied from dyad (a pair of hunters) to hundreds of individuals, brought together by the same purpose. The creation of coalitions was facilitated by natural selection, which favored united groups. The occurrence of certain brain structures predisposed hominids, then the human individuals, towards cohesion, relations, concerted actions and collective struggle. The creation of coalitions was a precondition for the emergence of major battles, including wars [Tooby, Cosmides, 1988, 2010].
In the same key, Lionel Tiger, a Canadian anthropologist, the author of the book “Men in Groups,” states that men have inherited from distant ancestors the irreducible propensity to form groups, and this propensity has become a kind of “backbone” of human communities. Initially, these groups were designed for hunting activities. Later, with the disappearance of the need to hunt, groups were formed based on other motivations. Through this ancestral group psychology one can explain why men from contemporary societies tend to join teams of fans, gangs, closed clubs, religious sects, militant coalitions, etc. [Tiger, 1969].
On the other hand, female coalitions are almost nonexistent. Of all the studied cultures, rarely were “gangs of women” identified, while “gangs of men” can be found everywhere [Potts, 2006]. What is the cause of this phenomenon? First of all, women didn’t have the aggressive and defensive motivation that men have, which would require the creation of militant groups. Their physical condition and mission of “future mothers” didn’t allow them to engage in acts of aggression and defense.
One of the explanations is that women, no matter how unexpected this sounds, show a greater degree of hierarchical discrimination than men. That is, women prefer to establish social relationships with other women of the same status, avoiding those with a lower status, according to the results of a Harvard study. Therefore, it is harder for women to form coalitions because women are more selective and less tolerant of each other in terms of hierarchical stratification. They are even less open to networking in large co-operations. It’s curious that, even from preschool age, boys demonstrate a desire for communication and group games, whereas girls usually prefer being friends with only one or two girls [Benenson et al., 2014].
At the same time, when women quarrell with each other, it takes more time for them to reconcile than it typically takes for men. They are less prepared to deal with an intrasexual conflict [Benenson et al., 2014(2)].
Men’s ability to cooperate with individuals of different ranks allows them to create coalitions without difficulty; this advantage considerably benefiting them on a social level. The psychology of coalition has allowed men to dominate on political, military and administrative levels. The lack of a native psychology of coalition in women could be a cause of their subordination on social and political levels, despite the high performance of each woman individually.
Sources:
(photo from Flickr)
• Benenson J.F., Markovits H., Wrangham R. Rank influences human sex differences in dyadic cooperation // Current Biology. Vol. 24, Issue 5. 3 March 2014. pR190–R191.
• Benenson J.F., Kuhn M.N., Ryan P.J., Ferranti A.J., Blondin R., Shea M., Charpentier C., Thompson M.E., Wrangham R.W. Human Males Appear More Prepared Than Females to Resolve Conflicts with Same-Sex Peers // Human Nature. Vol. 25, Issue 2. June 2014. P. 251-268.
• Potts M. Cruelty’s utility: The evolution of same-species killing // Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2006. Vol. 29. P. 238.
• Tiger L. Men in Groups. Nelson. 1969.
• Tooby J., Cosmides L. The evolution of war and its cognitive foundations // Proc. Inst. Evolutionary Studies, 88. 1988. P. 1-15.
• Tooby J., Cosmides L. Groups in Mind: The Coalitional Roots of War and Morality // from “Human Morality & Sociality: Evolutionary & Comparative Perspectives”, Henrik Høgh-Olesen (Ed.). Palgrave MacMillan, New York. 2010. P. 191-234.