GROUP SIZING
. There are clear limits to the size of groups that can be formed and maintained in such a way. In order to function, all members of a group must know each other intimately. Two chimpanzees who have never met, never fought, and never engaged in mutual grooming will not know whether they can trust one another, whether it would be worthwhile to help one another, and which of them ranks higher. Under natural conditions, a typical chimpanzee troop consists of about twenty to fifty individuals. As the number of chimpanzees in a troop increases, the social order destabilises, eventually leading to a rupture and the formation of a new troop by some of the animals. Only in a handful of cases have zoologists observed groups larger than a hundred. Separate groups seldom cooperate, and tend to compete for territory and food. Researchers have documented prolonged warfare between groups, and even one case of ‘genocidal’ activity in which one troop systematically slaughtered most members of a neighbouring band.2 Similar patterns probably dominated the social lives of early humans, including archaic Homo sapiens.
Humans, like chimps, have social instincts that enabled our ancestors to form friendships and hierarchies, and to hunt or fight together. However, like the social instincts of chimps, those of humans were adapted only for small intimate groups.
When the group grew too large, its social order destabilised and the band split. Even if a particularly fertile valley could feed 500 archaic Sapiens, there was no way that so many strangers could live together. How could they agree who should be leader, who should hunt where, or who should mate with whom? In the wake of the Cognitive Revolution, gossip helped Homo sapiens to form larger and more stable bands. But even gossip has its limits. Sociological research has shown that the maximum ‘natural’ size of a group bonded by gossip is about 150 individuals.
Most people can neither intimately know, nor gossip effectively about, more than 150 human beings. Even today, a critical threshold in human organisations falls somewhere around this magic number. Below this threshold, communities, businesses, social networks and military units can maintain themselves based mainly on intimate acquaintance and rumour-mongering. But once the threshold of 150 individuals is crossed, things can no longer work that way. You cannot run a division with thousands of soldiers the same way you run a platoon. Successful family businesses usually face a crisis when they grow larger and hire more personnel. If they cannot reinvent themselves, they go bust.
How did Homo sapiens manage to cross this critical threshold, eventually founding cities comprising tens of thousands of inhabitants and empires ruling hundreds of millions? The secret was probably the appearance of "a binding Story " ( Harari) organized religon, cultural identies ,political Ideology and other binding thoughts , group histories Large numbers of strangers can cooperate successfully by believing IN COMMON MYTHS Group size was also a critical factor, with an upper limit of around 150 individuals - the "Dunbar number" - facilitating social cohesion. Our brains specialized in facial recognition, relationship tracking and deal-making within these tribe-like clusters. Modern family businesses tapping into this human-scale dynamic enjoy considerable success worldwide.However, as organizations expand beyond this manageable size, an "iron law of oligarchy" tends to emerge. The proposed "Iron Law of Oligarchy," by Robert Michels, further explains the inevitability of oligarchic tendencies in organizations:
Iron Law of Oligarchy
This theory points to the observstion that in any organization, power tends to become concentrated in the hands of a small elite, regardless of the organization's democratic structure or initial intentions. Implications: This suggests that even in democratic systems, power can become concentrated among a select few, undermining democratic principles.
Michels argued that the structural realities of organizing large groups, such as the need for leadership and delegation, inherently lead to the emergence of a small elite who control decision-making.The desire for power and influence is a common human trait. In organizations, this desire can lead individuals to compete for leadership positions and form alliances to secure their power.
They can form Bureaucratic Hierarchy: Bureaucratic structures, with their emphasis on hierarchy and control, provide a fertile ground for the development of oligarchies. Once established, oligarchies tend to resist changes that threaten their power. This can stifle innovation and prevent the organization from adapting to new circumstances.
Ways The Power of Oligarchy can be Manipulated to Control People:
Authoritarianism: This involves the suppression of political opposition, limitation of civil liberties, and manipulation of elections to maintain control. Implications: This undermines democracy, stifles dissent and innovation, and perpetuates inequality and injustice.
Propaganda and misinformation: Political actors may spread biased narratives, demonize opponents, and manipulate public opinion through false information and censorship. Implications: This can undermine individual autonomy, suppress critical thinking, and lead to the erosion of trust in institutions.
Repression of dissent: Governments may employ tactics such as censorship, surveillance, harassment, and imprisonment to silence dissenting voices and intimidate political opponents. Implications: This violates basic freedoms, stifles free speech, and creates a climate of fear.
Political patronage and Nepotism: Politicians may reward loyal supporters with government jobs, contracts, or other privileges, consolidating their power and creating a system of cronyism and corruption. Implications: This undermines public trust, erodes meritocracy, and perpetuates inequality.
Polarization and division: Political actors may exploit social, ethnic, religious, or ideological divisions to sow discord and consolidate power. Implications: This can lead to increased social tensions, discrimination, and the erosion of social cohesion. the postmoderm ideas- FOUCAULT-CRT( EVERYTHING IS OPPRESSOR vs VICTIM)-- politically cunning but disruptive to any socierty
Ordinary people can willingly accept their societal role – even when it contributes to genocide. Arendt called this phenomenon “the banality of evil,” and warned that it can emerge whenever society inhibits our ability to think; or more specifically, to question our beliefs and actions in a self-reflective internal dialogue. Arendt believed this kind of thinking is the only way to confront moral problems, and that our responsibility to self-reflect is especially important when independent thought is threatened. She acknowledged that critical thinking in oppressive spaces is a defiant act that requires personal courage. HANNA ARENDT
The discourse that precedes genocide in genocide all states and the enhancement of a sense of victimization on the part of one of the groups usually the group that's going to commit the genocide
first of all their sense as their sense of being victims is much heightened by the demagogues who are trying to stir up this sort of hatred so they basically say look you've been oppressed in a variety of ways and these are the people who did it and they're not going to stop doing it and this time we're going to get them before they get us
it's something like that and so there's something very pathological about the enhancement of victimization which is well see that the problem as far as Ike I'm concerned with it is it's not it's not thought through very well because there's there's a point that's being made and the point is that people have been oppressed and they suffer and that's true that point but that's but then the proper framework from within which to interpret that I believe is that that's characteristic of life
You can't take it personally in some sense and you can't divide the world neatly into perpetrators and victims and you certainly can't divide that world neatly into perpetrators and victims and then assume that you're only in the victim class and then assume that that gives you certain access to certain forms of redress
Let's say it gets dangerous very rapidly if you do that sort of thing so for example one of the things that characterized the Soviet Union and this was particularly true in the 1920s but but afterwards so
The Soviets were very much enamored of the idea of class guilt so for example although it was only about 40 years previously that the serfs had been emancipated they weren't much more than slaves and so that was the bulk of the Russian population they were bought and sold along with the land so they had been emancipated and some of them many of them had turned in independent farmers and some of them have become reasonably prosperous because at least in principle I presume a certain proportion of them from being crooked but I presume a larger proportion from actually being able to raise food