Political Animal
We love to hate politics. Those idolizing some bygone golden era believe that an age of innocence prevailed before the cunning minds introduced it to the earth. Others think that it is a remnant of our less-evolved past which progressive world will eliminate some day. The Greek origin of the word politics―“affairs of the cities” also hints that politics was born when human began to live in large society. The roots of politics, however, are much deeper and harder to get rid of.
In 1982, based on his study of a chimpanzee colony in Burgers’ Zoo in Arnhem, primatologist Frans de Waal published “Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes”. The chimpanzee colony in Arnhem was established in 1971. The habitat in the form of a two-acre outdoor island area provided chimpanzees the opportunity to behave as naturally as possible with the minimum of interference by humans.
Chimpanzees live in communities and within the community they organize themselves in a loose hierarchy. The alpha male chimpanzee is generally the leader but his dominance is not absolute. He needs support of beta males and adult females to maintain his position.
Frans de Waal observed two power take-overs among the three adult males―Yeroen, Luit and Nikkie in the Arnhem zoo. The twists and turns in these power struggles were no less dramatic than those from the past kingdoms and governments. More than that, owing to the proximity of chimpanzees to the humans on the evolutionary tree, their behaviour exposes our nature―veiled under the garb of civilization―starkly.
In human society the hierarchy of dominance is there but it is displayed more subtly. We have our titles, positions and dress-codes. In day-to-day interactions the hierarchy is manifested in body language, facial expressions and tone of the speech. Submissive greeting (deep bows with panting grunts while looking up at the dominant chimpanzee he is greeting) is the indicator of social order in chimpanzees. “Greeting” (submissive) is a kind of ritualized confirmation of the dominance relationships. Being a sign of the hierarchy, “greeting” is always one way, never mutual. When a person intends to challenge his superior, he omits to show due respect; similarly in chimpanzees, subordinate will cease to greet the dominant as a first step to question the hierarchy of the relation.
Position of dominance is not permanent. In our world, political parties, business corporations and sports teams gauge their rivals’ strength in routine confrontations. For chimpanzees, course of aggressive encounters constitutes the main source of information of dominant male’s waning power. Political parties, business corporations and sports teams have intense rivalries but they fight by set of rules. Male Chimpanzee, despite of being incredibly strong, fight by rules as well. In fights with female they do not use canine teeth, only hands and feet. Fights between males are tests of strength but they are controlled. They only bite extremities, usually finger or foot and less frequently shoulder or head. The crucial factor is their capacity to fight effectively within the rules. Struggle of dominance within group takes place without bloodshed. Fatal attacks are reserved for outgroup fights. Ingroup fights are to determine hierarchy. The same group members fight for one another when facing a neighbouring group.
An intense game of sports often ends with handshake and the chimpanzee world is no different. During the period of fight, after each conflict ended both contenders would reconcile and groom each other. Grooming is the act of cleaning or brushing. Males tend to groom each other during the period of tension. A grooming session takes place shortly after a reconciliation. Many times the reconciliation and truces are not automatic. Their “sense of honour” seemed to be at stake. Frequently a third party — one of the adult females helps them out of the impasse. The function of mediator indicates that it is in their interest that peace should be restored. It almost certainly plays a crucial role as a constructive counterbalance to forces that threaten to disrupt the life of the group.
If subordinate begins to win conflicts more often, or regularly produces fear and hesitation in dominant party, this will not escape him. Such signs prompts change in hierarchy. Why chimpanzees seek power? Obviously, higher status means better survival chances and more mating privileges. Humans are not different. A dutch social psychologist, Mauk Mulder, has conducted many experiments that have shown that men get satisfaction from wielding power and that they strive to increase their influence over others. At the same time, however, he points out that there is a taboo surrounding the word “power” so we avoid to mention it directly unless we are talking about others.
In democratic politics, being largest party is not enough because the smaller parties tend to form coalition. Support of females and children on it’s own is insufficient in chimpanzee groups as well. The tendency toward coalition among males is so strong that a leader must always guard against the possibility of other males ganging up on him, if his group contains two or more males other than himself.
As an individual, chimpanzees have their friends; in disputes they take sides of their friends. In the chimpanzee community of the Arnhem zoo, initially the reigning leader had the female support but challengers started attacking them to show that the leader who fails to defend his protégées might very well have problem defending himself. After persistent attacks females did realize the situation and switched their support. Remarkably, the same antagonist after turning leader begun acting differently. Among females when fight broke out now he acted neutrally and immediately tried to stop the quarrel. Also he started supporting the weaker side in the conflict when the conflict was obviously one sided. This was a dramatic change in the policy after becoming a leader. He as the alpha male took the role of champion of peace and security. An alpha male who fails to protect the females and children cannot expect help in repulsing potential rivals. This “control role” of the alpha male is not so much a favour as a duty: his position depends on it. Without the support of larger group, dominance achieved by mere coalition compromises leader’s power & influence.
Machiavelli wrote in The Prince:
He who attains the principality with the aid of the nobility maintains it with more difficulty than he who becomes prince with the assistance of the common people, for he finds himself a prince amidst many who feel themselves to be his equals, and because of this he can neither govern nor manage them as he might wish.
Here if nobility is replaced by males of the high rank, and common people are replaced by females and children, it fits the situation in the chimpanzee colony quite correctly.
It was a system based on the balance of power, feels Frans de Waal: the superiority of one party over another depends on the support of the third, so that each party affects the position of the others. The power was disproportionately divided, but it was nevertheless not in the hands of one individual. How could it be otherwise among animals with such a marked tendency to coalition formation?
“The alternative to the balance of power are either universal anarchy or universal dominion” — Martin Wight
Male chimpanzees stand alone among our closest relatives in their ability to overcome the basic competitive tendencies found among all male animals and to achieve high degree of cooperation. As human males engage in office rivalries while maintaining a unity against common corporate enemies, chimpanzee males contain and ritualize their competitiveness because of need to form a common front against their neighbours. Whatever the level of competition among them, males count on each other against the outsiders. This mixture of camaraderie and rivalry among males that makes chimpanzee society more recognizable to our society than the social structures of other great apes.
Nations tend to seek allies against nations perceived as a common threat. Mutual fear as the basis of a alliance formation makes nations weigh in on the lighter side of the balance. The result is a power equilibrium in which all nations hold influential positions. The same principle applies to social psychology and is known as the formation of “minimal winning coalition”. In a three player game (or conflict) the weakest of the three will rarely prefer to join the strongest one. The strongest one does not need him so much so his support and respect for him will be less. The coalition between the weakest and the weaker will create balance of power so the sum of the influence of all three is optimum.
The similarities between chimpanzee politics and human politics were so close that Newt Gingrich, when he was Speaker of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress, recommended de Waal’s book to all freshman members of the congress who might want to understand Washington politics.
References:
Frans de Waal, “Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes”
http://chimpansee.homestead.com/arnhemzoo.html
