scholarly journals Comparing measures of social complexity: larger mountain gorilla groups do not have a greater diversity of relationships

2020 ◽  
Vol 287 (1931) ◽  
pp. 20201026
Author(s):  
Robin E. Morrison ◽  
Winnie Eckardt ◽  
Tara S. Stoinski ◽  
Lauren J. N. Brent
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Social Complexity ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Mountain Gorilla ◽  
Fine Scale ◽  
Unit Size ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Social Unit ◽  
The Social

Social complexity reflects the intricate patterns of social interactions in societies. Understanding social complexity is fundamental for studying the evolution of diverse social systems and the cognitive innovations used to cope with the demands of social life. Social complexity has been predominantly quantified by social unit size, but newer measures of social complexity reflect the diversity of relationships. However, the association between these two sets of measures remains unclear. We used 12 years of data on 13 gorilla groups to investigate how measures of social complexity relate to each other. We found that group size was a poor proxy for relationship diversity and that the social complexity individuals experienced within the same group varied greatly. Our findings demonstrate two fundamental takeaways: first, that the number of relationships and the diversity of those relationships represent separate components of social complexity, both of which should be accounted for; and second, that social complexity measured at the group level may not represent the social complexity experienced by individuals in those groups. These findings suggest that comprehensive studies of social complexity, particularly those relating to the social demands faced by individuals, may require fine-scale social data to allow accurate comparisons across populations and species.

New research frameworks in the study of chimpanzee and gorilla sociality and communication

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam G. B. Roberts ◽  
Anna Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Social Evolution ◽  
Social Complexity ◽  
Brain Size ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
The Social ◽  
Human Social Evolution ◽  
Research Frameworks ◽  
New Research ◽  
Large Groups

Group size in primates is strongly correlated with brain size, but exactly what makes larger groups more ‘socially complex’ than smaller groups is still poorly understood. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and gorillas (Gorilla gorilla) are among our closest living relatives and are excellent model species to investigate patterns of sociality and social complexity in primates, and to inform models of human social evolution. The aim of this paper is to propose new research frameworks, particularly the use of social network analysis, to examine how social structure differs in small, medium and large groups of chimpanzees and gorillas, to explore what makes larger groups more socially complex than smaller groups. Given a fission-fusion system is likely to have characterised hominins, a comparison of the social complexity involved in fission-fusion and more stable social systems is likely to provide important new insights into human social evolution

scholarly journals SAMFUND? Durkheim revisited i Amazonas og videre

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanne Veber
Keyword(s):  
Social Relations ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Cultural Representations ◽  
Talcott Parsons ◽  
Structured Systems ◽  
The Social ◽  
Functionalist Theory ◽  
Empirical Context ◽  
Objective Structures

“Society” appears a difficult notion. We use it all the time. But is it any good as an analytical concept? Sociologists seem to agree it is not. Few societies have the empirical characteristics of the bounded entity that structural-functionalist theory assumed. Constructivist notions of society as “imagined community” appear to be tied up with the existence of the State or with the spread of information technology. This leaves contemporary anthropology with “society” as a residue, the left-over from culture’s gluttonous theoretical supper. Still, social science aims to explain or understand social relations, interactions, and the processes by which structures and functions are worked into social systems as implied by the notion of society. The notion of society allows us to assume the existence of objective structures of order in the social life of people. Unlike the notion of culture, however, the notion of society has not been critically scrutinized by anthropologists. In contemporary Danish anthropology with its focus on culture and cultural representations, writers tend to simply take society for granted as the intrinsic empirical context of culture. From the perspective of Durkheimian notions of “the social”, the paper provides a brief review of interpretations that retrospectively have appeared analytical dead-ends. The author goes on to suggest that the notion of “symbolically generalized media of communication” may offer a productive opening that embraces both sides of the culture/society dichotomy in the search for structured systems of social existence whether subjectively or objectively conceived. The idea of “symbolically generalized media or communication” was originally formulated by Talcott Parsons and subsequently reworked by German sociologist Niklas Luhmann. Rather than an interrelated series of parts that make up a whole plus something else in the classic Durkheimian sense, society from this perspective appears in the form of structured sets of actions oriented by a horizon of possibilities and expectations, symbolically constituted, yet always provisional and emergent. Inspired by analyses of two different cases in Amazonian research the paper offers a brief hint at how the notion may be employed in anthropology.

scholarly journals Is There a “Right” Side of Communicating Friendship? Lateralization of Social Interactions in Zoo Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus)

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 3288
Author(s):  
Marzia Baldachini ◽  
Barbara Regaiolli ◽  
Miquel Llorente ◽  
David Riba ◽  
Caterina Spiezio
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Social Ranking ◽  
Macaca Sylvanus ◽  
Barbary Macaques ◽  
Focal Animal ◽  
The Social ◽  
Side Preference ◽  
The Right

Social laterality in non-human primates has started to attract attention in recent years. The positioning of individuals during social interactions could possibly suggest the nature of a relationship and the social ranking of the subjects involved. The subjects of the present study were 12 adult Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus) housed in a zoological garden. We carried out fourteen 210-min video-recorded sessions and we used a focal animal sampling method to collect the position of the subjects during different social interactions. Data on the position of each macaque during three types of social interactions were collected (approach, proximity and affiliative contacts). Moreover, we focused on the outcomes of dyadic agonistic encounters to build the hierarchy of the colony. For each social interaction, two conditions were considered: the side preference (being kept on the left or on the right) and the sagittal preference (being kept in front or on the rear). Bouts of preference of different positions were collected for different social interactions (approach, proximity and contacts). No group-level side preferences were found for any social interaction, suggesting that both hemispheres might be complemental and balance each other during intraspecific communication. For the sagittal preference, we found a group-level bias for proximity, with macaques being kept in front rather than on the rear by close conspecifics. This might be due to the need to detect emotions and intentions of conspecifics. Moreover, high-ranking individuals are kept more frontally than on the rear when in proximity with other macaques. More studies are needed to better investigate social laterality, possibly distinguishing more categories of social interaction, and detecting other variables that might influence the positioning preferences.

scholarly journals Social complexity as a proximate and ultimate factor in communicative complexity

2012 ◽  
Vol 367 (1597) ◽  
pp. 1785-1801 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd M. Freeberg ◽  
Robin I. M. Dunbar ◽  
Terry J. Ord
Keyword(s):  
Social Complexity ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Causal Factor ◽  
Human Language ◽  
The Social ◽  
Alternative Hypotheses ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Complexity Hypothesis ◽  
Complex Social Systems ◽  
Over Time

The ‘social complexity hypothesis’ for communication posits that groups with complex social systems require more complex communicative systems to regulate interactions and relations among group members. Complex social systems, compared with simple social systems, are those in which individuals frequently interact in many different contexts with many different individuals, and often repeatedly interact with many of the same individuals in networks over time. Complex communicative systems, compared with simple communicative systems, are those that contain a large number of structurally and functionally distinct elements or possess a high amount of bits of information. Here, we describe some of the historical arguments that led to the social complexity hypothesis, and review evidence in support of the hypothesis. We discuss social complexity as a driver of communication and possible causal factor in human language origins. Finally, we discuss some of the key current limitations to the social complexity hypothesis—the lack of tests against alternative hypotheses for communicative complexity and evidence corroborating the hypothesis from modalities other than the vocal signalling channel.

scholarly journals The Controversy between Niklas Luhmann and Jűrgen Habermas Related to Sociological Approach to Law

SEEU Review ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-13
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Jovanoski ◽  
Agron Rustemi
Keyword(s):  
Systems Theory ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Academic Career ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Niklas Luhmann ◽  
Talcott Parsons ◽  
Jürgen Habermas ◽  
Sociological Approach ◽  
Jurgen Habermas ◽  
The Social

Abstract The aim of the paper is to present a brief insight into the significant works and views of the German sociologists Niklas Luhmann and Jűrgen Habermas on the role of law in regulating human relations in society. Educated as a lawyer, Niklas Luhmann in the late academic career was under the influence of the American sociologist Talcott Parsons. Niklas Luhmann later, under the influence of the American sociologist Talcott Parsons, he built a sociological theoretical system called the systems theory. On the other side, Jűrgen Habermas was a philosopher and sociologist, highly influenced by the Frankfurt school of sociology. According to Luhmann‘s systems theory, the social reality and the separate aspects of the social life are part of a deeper system called society, and in relation to the same they are set as subsystems. Social systems are divided into allopoietic and autopoietic. One of the significant axioms of Luhmann’s theory is that the largest number of systems tends to simplify due to the pressure of the environment for greater efficiency. Law in Luhman’s systems theory enjoys the status of an autonomous system for regulating society, rather than an instrumental contribution to politics. This brief review exposed a big clash between two influential German thinkers. In this paper we are going to use historical method and analysing of the content of different materials and previous authors that are dealing with the work of Niklas Luhmann and Jűrgen Habermas.

scholarly journals How socio-ecological factors influence the differentiation of social relationships: an integrated conceptual framework

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. 20200384
Author(s):  
Liza R. Moscovice ◽  
Cédric Sueur ◽  
Filippo Aureli
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Social Relationships ◽  
Social Complexity ◽  
Ecological Factors ◽  
Contest Competition ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Interspecific Differences ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Group Contest

The extent of differentiation of social relationships within groups is a means to assess social complexity, with greater differentiation indicating greater social complexity. Socio-ecological factors are likely to influence social complexity, but no attempt has been made to explain the differentiation of social relationships using multiple socio-ecological factors. Here, we propose a conceptual framework based on four components underlying multiple socio-ecological factors that influence the differentiation of social relationships: the extent of within-group contest competition to access resources, the extent to which individuals differ in their ability to provide a variety of services, the need for group-level cooperation and the constraints on social interactions. We use the framework to make predictions about the degree of relationship differentiation that can be expected within a group according to the cumulative contribution of multiple socio-ecological factors to each of the four components. The framework has broad applicability, since the four components are likely to be relevant to a wide range of animal taxa and to additional socio-ecological factors not explicitly dealt with here. Hence, the framework can be used as the basis for the development of novel and testable hypotheses about intra- and interspecific differences in relationship differentiation and social complexity.

“NOVELTY” AS A COMMUNICATIVE CRITERION OF SOCIAL “AUTOPOIESIS” (ON THE EXAMPLES OF DIFFERENCES IN THE SOCIETY OF HOMERIC AND ARCHAIC GREECE)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 124-131
Author(s):  
MARIA LIUTAEVA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Life ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Integral Characteristic ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Niklas Luhmann ◽  
The Social ◽  
Archaic Greece ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Religion And Art

The study is devoted to the semantic study of the phenomenon of “novelty” in the context of social and philosophical theorizing by Niklas Luhmann. The factor of novelty is considered as a necessary aspect of communication, its obligation as an informational or demonstrative component, the semantic ambiguity of the word in the subsystems of religion and art is indicated. On the basis of an etymological analysis and study of the resource of the National Corpus of the Russian language, three “basic” attitudes towards the novelty were identified: negative, neutral and positive in the fields of religion and art. Within the framework of the study, the dependence of the noting of the “new” and social valuations of this phenomenon depending on the cultural and historical context, the study of which is possible using the methodology of N. Luhmann, is indicated. As an example of the practical application of the method of “distinguishing differences” and identifying semantic dynamics in self-descriptions of autopoietic social systems, the experience of understanding the novelty in the society of Homeric and archaic Greece, the degree and forms of its acceptability/unacceptability is analyzed. In terms of Luhmann’s philosophy, the society of our research refers to segmented, in which access to the forbidden, the unknown, of which the novelty is a part, is strictly regulated. On the basis of Homer’s poems, as well as texts of the archaic period, the main mechanisms of the emergence of a novelty are shown, interpreted as news from the world of the gods, received by people through poets, oracles, signs. As a result of the study, the difference between the lexeme «novelty» and the social phenomenon of the new was demonstrated. The phenomenon of novelty is an integral characteristic of communication, however, the historical forms of its access to social life change depending on the context, which can be traced in the textual forms of self-description of a society.

Event ethics and their elasticity: weddings in Botswana and the exploration of the tacit extraordinary

Africa ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 462-478
Author(s):  
Rijk van Dijk
Keyword(s):  
Social Interactions ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Special Events ◽  
Everyday Ethics ◽  
Local Practices ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Everyday ◽  
Opposite View ◽  
The Individual

AbstractWhereas Michael Lambek situates the exploration of the significance of ‘ordinary ethics’ in the everyday as the study of ‘the ethical in the conjunction or movement between explicit local pronouncements and implicit local practices and circumstances’, this article takes the opposite view by drawing attention to special events that appear to engage – or provide space for – extraordinary ethics. Special events and their extraordinary ethics bring into relief the implicitness of the ordinary in everyday ethics. Weddings in Botswana are moments in the social life of the individual, the family and the community that produce such event ethics. On one level, the event ethics relate to the execution of these highly stylized weddings in terms of concerns about their performance and marital arrangements. On another level, the event ethics can have tacit dimensions that belong to the special nature of the occasion. This article argues not only that ‘ordinary ethics’ may be privileged through the study of what is tacit in social interactions, but that ‘event ethics’ also demonstrate the importance of the tacit.

*The Study of Social Organizations

Behaviour ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 59 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 96-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen Mcbride
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Social Organization ◽  
Social Interactions ◽  
Animal Species ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Structural Features ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Animal Societies

AbstractThis paper presents a theoretical model of and a practical approach to the study of social systems. It was prepared after discussions at the XI and XII International Ethological Conferences, and each draft was presented to many ethologists for comment, and many responded. The paper looks at the social organization within animal species, and at the way animals build, maintain, and change it by their behaviour. The questions asked move always from the individual behaviours, through the social interactions, to the social reiationships and groups which are stable features of societies. The main societal subsystems discussed are: I. Social phases, or social structures which are maintained for periods of time; 2. Organic specialization by castes; 3. Social specialization in groups ; 4. The pattern of dispersal of individuals or groups; 5. The social organization of sexual and parent-offspring behaviour; 6. The organization of behaviour in relation to the environment; 7. The dynamic aspects of animal societies, particularly with changes in density. In each section, questions aim to draw out the pattern of behavioural organization, emphasising the structural features of the theoretical model presented.

scholarly journals On the reflexivity of crises

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 511-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Cordero ◽  
Aldo Mascareño ◽  
Daniel Chernilo
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Structural Feature ◽  
Systems Theory ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Social World ◽  
Rich Source ◽  
Internal Dynamics ◽  
The Social ◽  
Life Itself

The main aim of this article is to offer a sociological concept of crisis that, defined as the expected yet non-lineal outcome of the internal dynamics of modern societies, builds on the synergies between critical theory and systems theory. It contends that, notwithstanding important differences, both traditions concur in addressing crises as a form of self-reproduction of social systems as much as a form of engagement with the complexities and effects of such processes of reproduction. In order to make our comparison exhaustive, this article explores critical and systems theories’ notions of crisis at three levels: (1) their conceptual delimitation of crises; (2) their methodological proposals to empirically observe crises; and (3) their normative attempts to contribute to their resolution. As crises remain a distinctive structural feature of the social world and a rich source of knowledge about it, reflexivity must be seen as a crucial form of engagement with the negative expressions of social life itself.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document