User:Agnerf/sandbox: Difference between revisions
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
== History == |
== History == |
||
Regality theory has its origin in a theory of a [[Cultural selection theory|cultural]] analogy to biological [[r/K selection theory|r/K selection]], where an r-culture allocates many resources to spreading the same culture, while a k-culture has higher priority on satisfying the needs of its adherents. A r-culture was named ''regal'' while a k-culture was named ''kalyptic''. |
|||
cultural r/k selection |
|||
<ref name="Fog1999">{{cite book |last1=Fog |first1=Agner |title=Cultural Selection |date=1999 |publisher=Kluwer |isbn=978-94-015-9251-2 |url=https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780792355793}}</ref> |
|||
kalyptic kungic |
|||
<ref name="Fog1997">{{cite journal |last1=Fog |first1=Agner |title=Cultural r/k Selection |journal=Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission |date=1997 |volume=1 |issue=1 |url=http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1997/vol1/fog_a.html}}</ref> |
|||
others have independently suggested evolutionary function |
|||
The latter name has later been changed to ''kungic'' after the [[ǃKung people]]. |
|||
The original theory assumes that psychological reactions to collective threats are adaptive, but the coupling between biological and cultural selection is described only in general terms of gene/culture coevolution and vicarious selection, without proposing any detailed mechanism.<ref name="Fog1997" /> |
|||
Several other scientists have proposed independently that the preference for a strong leader in times of crisis has an adaptive function, without going into details about why this response would be adaptive. |
|||
The current version of regality theory has more focus on evolved psychological response patterns and less on cultural selection.<ref name=Fog2017> |
|||
== Individual psychology == |
== Individual psychology == |
||
Revision as of 12:43, 3 June 2018
| Part of a series on |
| Psychology |
|---|
 |
Regality theory describes how war and other collective dangers have a profound influence on the psychological disposition of people, and how this in turn influences the structure and cultural values of a society. People who experience war and people who perceive that their social group is in danger will develop a psychological response called regal. This includes authoritarianism, intolerance, xenophobia, and punitiveness. The opposite of the regal psychological response is called kungic. The kungic psychology typically includes tolerance and peacefulness.
The regal–kungic dimension is applied not only to individual psychology but also to the whole society. The psychological reactions of the members of a society are influencing the social structure and mentality of the whole society. Thus, a society marked by perceived collective danger will develop in the regal direction, while a society in safe and peaceful surroundings will develop in the kungic direction. Typical characteristics of regal and kungic societies can be summarized in the following table.
| Regal society | Kungic society |
|---|---|
| A hierarchical political system with a strong leader | A flat and egalitarian political system |
| Strong feelings of national or tribal identity | High individualism |
| Strict discipline and punishment of deviants | Lax discipline and high tolerance of deviants |
| Xenophobia | Tolerance of foreigners |
| The world is seen as full of dangers and enemies | The world is seen as peaceful and safe with little or no distinction between us and them |
| Belief that individuals exist for the benefit of society | Belief that society exists for the benefit of individuals |
| Strict religion | Religion has little or no disciplining power |
| Strict sexual morals | High sexual freedom |
| High birth rate | Low birth rate |
| Low parental investment, i.e. short childhood and low education | Long childhood and education |
| Art and music is perfectionist, highly embellished, and follows specific schemes | Art and music express individual fantasy with appreciation of individuality and innovativeness |
Societies can be placed on a continuous scale from the extremely regal to the extremely kungic, where most societies are found somewhere near the middle of this scale, according to regality theory. [1]
Theoretical background
Regality theory is based on evolutionary psychology and evolutionary game theory. A person perceiving that his or her social group is in danger will show a psychological preference for having a strong leader because this helps solve the collective action problem of fighting for the group.
Explaining why people are willing to sacrifice themselves for the benefit or their group in war is a long-standing problem in evolutionary theory. Many explanations have been proposed, including kin selection, group selection, sexual selection, altruistic punishment, reputation, benefitting from the spoils of war, wife capture, and cultural group selection.[2]
It has been argued that these effects are too weak to compensate for the severe risks that individual warriors are running, and that most of the benefits of war are going to whole group while the costs are carried mostly by the individual fighters. Considerable rewards and punishments are needed to compensate warriors for the costs and for making free riding less attractive than fighting. Regality theory assumes that significant rewards are needed for making warriors fight to the best of their abilities, while a system based only on the punishment of defectors will make warriors deliver modiocre performances.
A strong leader can solve the collective action problem by rewarding brave warriors and punishing cowards and defectors. The leader has the ressources to deliver the rewards and punishments, and he also has the motivation because he has more at stake than his followers. If enough members of the tribe or social group desire a strong leader then this will be what they get. The leader can coerce everybody to fight including any minority that do not support him. The individual member will benefit from the collective fighting and from the suppression of free riders by supporting a strong leader. Therefore, the psychological tendency to support a strong leader in times of collective danger is an evolutionarily stable strategy.
While having a strong leader is an advantage in situations of war and collective danger, it is a disadvantage in times of peace and security. A tyrannical leader can take advantage of everybody else and monopolize communal resources. Therefore, we will not expect people to support a strong leader when they experience collective security. Regality theory maintains that humans have a flexible psychology, showing preference for a strong leader when they perceive collective danger, while they prefer an egalitarian social structure under collective safety. The joined actions of many individuals showing preferences for a strong leader or for an egalitarian organization has emergent effects on the structure and organization of the whole society.[1]
History
Regality theory has its origin in a theory of a cultural analogy to biological r/K selection, where an r-culture allocates many resources to spreading the same culture, while a k-culture has higher priority on satisfying the needs of its adherents. A r-culture was named regal while a k-culture was named kalyptic. [3] [4] The latter name has later been changed to kungic after the ǃKung people.
The original theory assumes that psychological reactions to collective threats are adaptive, but the coupling between biological and cultural selection is described only in general terms of gene/culture coevolution and vicarious selection, without proposing any detailed mechanism.[4] Several other scientists have proposed independently that the preference for a strong leader in times of crisis has an adaptive function, without going into details about why this response would be adaptive. The current version of regality theory has more focus on evolved psychological response patterns and less on cultural selection.<ref name=Fog2017>
Individual psychology
Social structure
Applications
Criticism
See also
References
- ^ a b Fog, Agner (2017). Warlike and Peaceful Societies: The Interaction of Genes and Culture. Open Book Publishers. doi:10.11647/OBP.0128. ISBN 978-1-78374-403-9.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) - ^ Van der Dennen, Johan M. G. (1995). The Origin of War: The Evolution of a Male-Coalitional Reproductive Strategy. Origin Press.
- ^ Fog, Agner (1999). Cultural Selection. Kluwer. ISBN 978-94-015-9251-2.
- ^ a b Fog, Agner (1997). "Cultural r/k Selection". Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission. 1 (1).