Compared to other animals, humans are uniquely able to synchronize our actions with each other. In fact, one provocative theory about the origin of human dance and song is that they allowed our ancestors to look to predators like a very large animal. And there’s a plausible sociology
Where do you get that ancient elites had lower fertility. Polygamy is specifically so that elites could have more babies. And in fact, elite women had better access to wetnurses, so they could return to fertilty sooner. And had better nutrition. Low fertility being an elite thing is a modern notion, I think. You're right about infanticide being a way to reduce number of babies.
Synchronization is also quite common in religions, where fertility is generally higher than the general population. But then religion is now also seen as lower status, especially religions of the sort that promote fertility.
Interesting musing on Synchronization and acting in tandem with others.
Are you familiar with the idea of Collective Effervescence?
"According to Durkheim, a community or society may at times come together and simultaneously communicate the same thought and participate in the same action", pulled straight from the annals of Wikipedia(probably not the best source but eh we'll live another day)
Anyways, doing things in sync reminds me of this idea. Sorta like that weird feeling when you're at a concert and everyone's shouting the lyrics or the intensity experienced in a gospel church. This feeling of Collective Effervescence promotes a sense of awe, fraternity, celebration, etc. I think the big part there is awe. Makes you feel like there's something more. Something GREATER than you.
I feel like every conversation reverts back to Nietzsche and God is Dead - but perhaps true. The lack of plausible meaning with the "death of God" still is a question that haunts humanity.
Despite industrialization and consolidation of human population in cities, we've never felt lonelier. The lack of collective effervescence, synchronized activity, and all that may be a piece in the puzzle.
I agree that "fertility is falling because we all see ourselves as high class." See link to journal article on this at end of this comment. I agree that in societies that promise upwards mobility, people copy elities. In the modern world, people are striving to move upwards in social status. Elites were and are able to to that without the burden of childcare, since nannies were always available. I think this is what you are getting at. Elites could practice status-striving without worrying about the burden of children. For people with low or average income, raising chidren is a heevy financial burden, so to copy the upwards striving of elites, people must forego children. What I find unsupported in the literature is this comment: "Most ancient elites limited their fertility via infanticide or infant exposure." Just delete this statement. Elites had more chidren than anyone, especially when you throw in the ability of elite status to procure mating access. Y Chromosome studies of Genghis Khan's fertility. Reproductive fitness and all that. But: You can omit this claim, just say, as I said above: people want to copy elites and pursue high status, and paying for a caring for children competes with status striving in terms of time and money. Check out: https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2055/aop/article-10.1556-2055.2022.00028/article-10.1556-2055.2022.00028.xml
Synchronization means everybody is doing the same thing, nobody is unique. To have something unique to offer means to be specialized compared to other people, which is a valuable trait in a technological society. There's less synchronization because there's more specialization.
Sailors sang sea shanties to synchronize their muscular efforts pulling on ropes, a job that is now done with a mechanical winch. There's less need for synchronized muscle power, with everybody doing the same thing, when we have machines.
Would society be better off if people were more synchronized? To be creative, to be a critical thinker, to have something unique to offer - these are positive attributes, at odds with being synchronized. Large synchronized social movements, with nobody thinking or acting for themselves, are a social problem. Think Nazism. Society is less evil when people are willing and able to question and dissent.
I think this really cuts to the heart of postmodernism: the rejection of large-scale sources of identity. The postmodernist, post-WWII cultural trend in the west has been toward greater individuality and rejection of mass movements that subsume the individual (communism/fascism). Perhaps the long cultural shadow of the Cold War and the post-60s countercultural memes of "think for yourself, don't be a cog in the machine, man!" contribute. I don't think it's coincidence that two of the most synched areas in modern western society, military and religious observance, are widely considered "conservative" cultural spheres.
At the same time, we do see the emergence of subtler forms of synch, if we allow for the concept of "asynchronous synch" without it being an oxymoron: the mass emulation via Tiktok trends and social media memes is grounded in synching oneself into implicitly understood forms and symbols.
I think a more positive reading would see this as a sign of human capital and movement up Maslow's hierarchy of needs toward individual self-actualization. As Brian Moore comments, synchronized behaviors often compensate for individual weakness; perhaps individuals are less weak in the ways that synchronization used to ameliorate. Synchronization could be seen as a form of "training" for outmoded means of labor productivity: now that we no longer need to coordinate movements to bring in the harvest, raise barns, row galleys or march in lockstep, there is no practical outlet for synchronization.
I think the story of why synch is low (individual) status is just mechanical: yes, it is advantageous for a group, but only because it makes up for individual (low-status) weakness. The tiger hunting humans is obviously higher status than the individual humans, who must work together to even have a chance. Definitely early humans would have assigned large, powerful predators a higher place in whatever religious/cultural hierarchy they had.
But that's individual status - societies do indeed gain status collectively from demonstrating that their members can act in synch - think armies marching by. And some of that devolves to the individuals in that society - "look how unified our citizens are!", but really only helps when societies struggle vs each other. At the social event, or restaurant, or sidewalk, we're talking individual (within-society) status.
Synchronization is a way for humans to fit into groups and achieve social status. In Jane Austen's era, elaborate group dancing was a signal of fitness and also membership in the higher social classes. In the modern era the forms of synchronization have changed but it is still everywhere in society: Speech patterns (accents, idioms, jargon), in-jokes, memes, fashion, musical taste, hobbies, conspiracy theories, political views, etc. I don't see any evidence that people are doing less of this today. In the political realm for example there is a lot more in-group/out-group signaling than there was 30 years ago.
Radically different people are increasingly (or more likely witnessed) to be reacting to competitive social forces in similar ways. For instance, what’s most obviously happening on what we used to call the “Left” is not at all unlike what’s we’ve most dramatically seen from the “Right” despite their continued, obviously visible, ideological, musical, clothing, or cultural differences. These themes have become more alike than different. It’s not surprising that superficial conflicting values and identity (such as social status, achievement, and charity) are causing groups to react in strategically confusing but fully understandable ways. For example, It’s no more surprising to me to see that the most “selflessly woke” bohemians still need to inhabit the most competitive schools, competing for the most competitive jobs, in the most desirable cities - no more confusing than it is to hear the most “god-fearing, liberty-loving, law-abiding” provincials celebrate 80s-style corporatism, political lawlessness, unabashed book bans, speech-curtailing, religious and cultural identitarianism, and a slew of generally backward, illiberal policy agenda. While the right seems to almost celebrate their own weakness now “before god and country” (common themes in country music) while the left curate, cherish, camouflage, and distain the disgust within their own identity before a growing, more self-aware mob of social condemnation and “forever judgement”. Anyone who thinks ephemeral wokeness is reserved for the sheepish manipulation on the Left has never spent much time truly watching, listening, to the opportunists who lead the Right.
'Back when peasants and other lower class workers were highly synchronized, their more elite superiors were less synchronized'
Jane Austen novels describe a lot of rich people engaged in highly synchronized dances. Thomas Hardy (writing a bit later) described peasant dances in terms that perhaps suggest they were a bit more free form.
I'm wondering if it isn't the fact that the peasants gained more cultural significance as their descendant (the working class) became richer that caused their more free form dancing styles to become more generally adopted.
he felt a pleasant sensation of chill on his hot, moist shoulders. He glanced at the sky in the interval for whetting the scythes. A heavy, lowering storm-cloud had blown up, and big raindrops were falling. Some of the peasants went to their coats and put them on; others—just like Levin himself—merely shrugged their shoulders, enjoying the pleasant coolness of it.
Another row, and yet another row, followed—long rows and short rows, with good grass and with poor grass. Levin lost all sense of time, and could not have told whether it was late or early now. A change began to come over his work, which gave him immense satisfaction. In the midst of his toil there were moments during which he forgot what he was doing, and it came all easy to him, and at those same moments his row was almost as smooth and well cut as Tit's. But so soon as he recollected what he was doing, and began trying to do better, he was at once conscious of all the difficulty of his task, and the row was badly mown.
On finishing yet another row he would have gone back to the top of the meadow again to begin the next, but Tit stopped, and going up to the old man said something in a low voice to him. They both looked at the sun. 'What are they talking about, and why doesn't he go back?' thought Levin, not guessing that the peasants had been mowing no less than four hours without stopping, and it was time for their lunch.
I think of this as a loss of valuing normalcy. Everyone needs to have a degree or earn a lot of money or be important. If you're not special you're a failure.
Also the songs of sailors - who coordinated work and kept spirits up by singing shanties.
Where do you get that ancient elites had lower fertility. Polygamy is specifically so that elites could have more babies. And in fact, elite women had better access to wetnurses, so they could return to fertilty sooner. And had better nutrition. Low fertility being an elite thing is a modern notion, I think. You're right about infanticide being a way to reduce number of babies.
"Compared to other animals, humans are uniquely able to synchronize our actions with each other."
Tangential, but this seems trivially false? One example: shoals of fish can synchronize their movements far better than most humans ever could.
Synchronization is also quite common in religions, where fertility is generally higher than the general population. But then religion is now also seen as lower status, especially religions of the sort that promote fertility.
Interesting musing on Synchronization and acting in tandem with others.
Are you familiar with the idea of Collective Effervescence?
"According to Durkheim, a community or society may at times come together and simultaneously communicate the same thought and participate in the same action", pulled straight from the annals of Wikipedia(probably not the best source but eh we'll live another day)
Anyways, doing things in sync reminds me of this idea. Sorta like that weird feeling when you're at a concert and everyone's shouting the lyrics or the intensity experienced in a gospel church. This feeling of Collective Effervescence promotes a sense of awe, fraternity, celebration, etc. I think the big part there is awe. Makes you feel like there's something more. Something GREATER than you.
I feel like every conversation reverts back to Nietzsche and God is Dead - but perhaps true. The lack of plausible meaning with the "death of God" still is a question that haunts humanity.
Despite industrialization and consolidation of human population in cities, we've never felt lonelier. The lack of collective effervescence, synchronized activity, and all that may be a piece in the puzzle.
hmmm
I agree that "fertility is falling because we all see ourselves as high class." See link to journal article on this at end of this comment. I agree that in societies that promise upwards mobility, people copy elities. In the modern world, people are striving to move upwards in social status. Elites were and are able to to that without the burden of childcare, since nannies were always available. I think this is what you are getting at. Elites could practice status-striving without worrying about the burden of children. For people with low or average income, raising chidren is a heevy financial burden, so to copy the upwards striving of elites, people must forego children. What I find unsupported in the literature is this comment: "Most ancient elites limited their fertility via infanticide or infant exposure." Just delete this statement. Elites had more chidren than anyone, especially when you throw in the ability of elite status to procure mating access. Y Chromosome studies of Genghis Khan's fertility. Reproductive fitness and all that. But: You can omit this claim, just say, as I said above: people want to copy elites and pursue high status, and paying for a caring for children competes with status striving in terms of time and money. Check out: https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2055/aop/article-10.1556-2055.2022.00028/article-10.1556-2055.2022.00028.xml
Synchronization means everybody is doing the same thing, nobody is unique. To have something unique to offer means to be specialized compared to other people, which is a valuable trait in a technological society. There's less synchronization because there's more specialization.
Sailors sang sea shanties to synchronize their muscular efforts pulling on ropes, a job that is now done with a mechanical winch. There's less need for synchronized muscle power, with everybody doing the same thing, when we have machines.
Would society be better off if people were more synchronized? To be creative, to be a critical thinker, to have something unique to offer - these are positive attributes, at odds with being synchronized. Large synchronized social movements, with nobody thinking or acting for themselves, are a social problem. Think Nazism. Society is less evil when people are willing and able to question and dissent.
I think this really cuts to the heart of postmodernism: the rejection of large-scale sources of identity. The postmodernist, post-WWII cultural trend in the west has been toward greater individuality and rejection of mass movements that subsume the individual (communism/fascism). Perhaps the long cultural shadow of the Cold War and the post-60s countercultural memes of "think for yourself, don't be a cog in the machine, man!" contribute. I don't think it's coincidence that two of the most synched areas in modern western society, military and religious observance, are widely considered "conservative" cultural spheres.
At the same time, we do see the emergence of subtler forms of synch, if we allow for the concept of "asynchronous synch" without it being an oxymoron: the mass emulation via Tiktok trends and social media memes is grounded in synching oneself into implicitly understood forms and symbols.
I think a more positive reading would see this as a sign of human capital and movement up Maslow's hierarchy of needs toward individual self-actualization. As Brian Moore comments, synchronized behaviors often compensate for individual weakness; perhaps individuals are less weak in the ways that synchronization used to ameliorate. Synchronization could be seen as a form of "training" for outmoded means of labor productivity: now that we no longer need to coordinate movements to bring in the harvest, raise barns, row galleys or march in lockstep, there is no practical outlet for synchronization.
I think the story of why synch is low (individual) status is just mechanical: yes, it is advantageous for a group, but only because it makes up for individual (low-status) weakness. The tiger hunting humans is obviously higher status than the individual humans, who must work together to even have a chance. Definitely early humans would have assigned large, powerful predators a higher place in whatever religious/cultural hierarchy they had.
But that's individual status - societies do indeed gain status collectively from demonstrating that their members can act in synch - think armies marching by. And some of that devolves to the individuals in that society - "look how unified our citizens are!", but really only helps when societies struggle vs each other. At the social event, or restaurant, or sidewalk, we're talking individual (within-society) status.
Synchronization is a way for humans to fit into groups and achieve social status. In Jane Austen's era, elaborate group dancing was a signal of fitness and also membership in the higher social classes. In the modern era the forms of synchronization have changed but it is still everywhere in society: Speech patterns (accents, idioms, jargon), in-jokes, memes, fashion, musical taste, hobbies, conspiracy theories, political views, etc. I don't see any evidence that people are doing less of this today. In the political realm for example there is a lot more in-group/out-group signaling than there was 30 years ago.
Radically different people are increasingly (or more likely witnessed) to be reacting to competitive social forces in similar ways. For instance, what’s most obviously happening on what we used to call the “Left” is not at all unlike what’s we’ve most dramatically seen from the “Right” despite their continued, obviously visible, ideological, musical, clothing, or cultural differences. These themes have become more alike than different. It’s not surprising that superficial conflicting values and identity (such as social status, achievement, and charity) are causing groups to react in strategically confusing but fully understandable ways. For example, It’s no more surprising to me to see that the most “selflessly woke” bohemians still need to inhabit the most competitive schools, competing for the most competitive jobs, in the most desirable cities - no more confusing than it is to hear the most “god-fearing, liberty-loving, law-abiding” provincials celebrate 80s-style corporatism, political lawlessness, unabashed book bans, speech-curtailing, religious and cultural identitarianism, and a slew of generally backward, illiberal policy agenda. While the right seems to almost celebrate their own weakness now “before god and country” (common themes in country music) while the left curate, cherish, camouflage, and distain the disgust within their own identity before a growing, more self-aware mob of social condemnation and “forever judgement”. Anyone who thinks ephemeral wokeness is reserved for the sheepish manipulation on the Left has never spent much time truly watching, listening, to the opportunists who lead the Right.
'Back when peasants and other lower class workers were highly synchronized, their more elite superiors were less synchronized'
Jane Austen novels describe a lot of rich people engaged in highly synchronized dances. Thomas Hardy (writing a bit later) described peasant dances in terms that perhaps suggest they were a bit more free form.
I'm wondering if it isn't the fact that the peasants gained more cultural significance as their descendant (the working class) became richer that caused their more free form dancing styles to become more generally adopted.
Re your point on dress: why is suit the highest-status outfit for men?
Tolstoy:
he felt a pleasant sensation of chill on his hot, moist shoulders. He glanced at the sky in the interval for whetting the scythes. A heavy, lowering storm-cloud had blown up, and big raindrops were falling. Some of the peasants went to their coats and put them on; others—just like Levin himself—merely shrugged their shoulders, enjoying the pleasant coolness of it.
Another row, and yet another row, followed—long rows and short rows, with good grass and with poor grass. Levin lost all sense of time, and could not have told whether it was late or early now. A change began to come over his work, which gave him immense satisfaction. In the midst of his toil there were moments during which he forgot what he was doing, and it came all easy to him, and at those same moments his row was almost as smooth and well cut as Tit's. But so soon as he recollected what he was doing, and began trying to do better, he was at once conscious of all the difficulty of his task, and the row was badly mown.
On finishing yet another row he would have gone back to the top of the meadow again to begin the next, but Tit stopped, and going up to the old man said something in a low voice to him. They both looked at the sun. 'What are they talking about, and why doesn't he go back?' thought Levin, not guessing that the peasants had been mowing no less than four hours without stopping, and it was time for their lunch.
What an idea - I love this!
I think of this as a loss of valuing normalcy. Everyone needs to have a degree or earn a lot of money or be important. If you're not special you're a failure.