Dominant behavior is the desire to promote one’s own initiative, guide and control the actions of others. Such behavior is characterized by high self-confidence and confidence in one’s decisions. But why do some animals or people behave in a more dominant manner than others? And what is the connection between dominance and aggression? The answers to these questions may be quite unexpected for some.
Let’s start with an interesting experiment. It involved observations of a group of people who interacted with each other for 28 days. With varying frequency, different participants in the experiment took either a placebo or tryptophan—a substance involved in the synthesis of serotonin. Earlier trials showed that taking tryptophan and increasing serotonin levels in general reduce aggressive behavior in animals and humans. However, it was also known that increasing serotonin levels in animals stimulates dominant behavior. This result was also reproduced in humans.
As part of the experiment, the participants’ behavior was divided into 4 categories. Dominant behavior, such as expressing one’s opinion, setting goals for other people, etc., was significantly strengthened when a person took tryptophan. At the same time, grouchy or quarrelsome behavior, characterized by deception, lack of restraint, raising one’s voice at others, etc., was significantly weakened. Submissive behavior (the tendency to avoid responsibility and follow others even when disagreeing with them) also weakened, but only slightly, while negotiating behavior remained unchanged.
Some may believe that a dominant individual must be aggressive by nature. But as we see, taking a substance known for its anti-aggressive effect led to an increase in dominant behavior. However, there is no contradiction here. Even the study of animal behavior, for example, wolves, shows that alpha males should not be aggressive toward their subordinates or coerce them in any way. Attacks by alpha males on subordinate individuals are extremely rare. And the leader of the pack is usually the oldest male, the father of the family; the myth that the hierarchy in a wolf pack is strictly vertical and headed by the most aggressive male who obtained his position through violence is actually based on the study of wolves kept in enclosures, rather than those in the wild. Also, consider which pack has a better chance of survival—one that is cohesive and cooperating, or one in which some forcibly subjugate others and everyone is at odds with one another?
Research also demonstrates that dominance in humans can be divided into two forms—social and aggressive. Both forms of dominance are characterized by self-confident and leading behavior. However, some dominant individuals choose strategies in which they rely on other people (for example, subordinates) and are prone to social learning (using solutions that proved successful for other people). At the same time, other individuals resort to aggressive and Machiavellian strategies. They are not inclined to rely on social information, even if it may be beneficial. Additionally, socially dominant individuals have better relationships with the people around them and receive greater recognition of their leadership qualities than aggressively dominant individuals.
As we can see, a true “alpha” is not the one who is most aggressive and ready to forcibly compel others to submit, but the one who treats others well, sets an example for them, and gains recognition for their leadership qualities without resorting to violent coercion. And judging by research, such healthy dominant behavior is governed by the serotonergic system (the link is bidirectional—increasing serotonin levels stimulates such behavior, and achieving a high social status leads to greater serotonin production), which is also responsible for the functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism that prevents violent behavior and causing harm to others.
The story of biologist Robert Sapolsky, who observed baboons for decades, is quite well known. The alpha males in the observed troop behaved quite brutally, exhibiting extremely high levels of violence toward their peers. But at one point, the troop discovered a human garbage dump, which only these alpha males could approach, as they had to fight alpha males from another troop for access to the dump. At some point, they contracted an infection at the dump and subsequently died, leaving the troop without its excessively aggressive individuals. And the most interesting part begins next: although a hierarchy continued to exist in the troop (replacements for the alpha males were found), the fighting and violence between peers ceased, and this result persisted for decades, long after the original males had already died of old age.
A question sometimes arises: isn’t a certain number of violent individuals in any collective or society a normal state of affairs? If the violent ones are removed, won’t someone else inevitably take their place? An affirmative answer to these questions, of course, has no real basis, nor does it align with the ethological observations demonstrated above. There is no such thing as a natural number of violent individuals; there are only pathological individuals, whose removal (or better yet, therapy for their violence) will lead to the elimination from society of a pathology consisting of a dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism.
Moreover, it would be foolish to assume that for non-violent individuals, the disappearance of current violent actors would suddenly suppress their violence inhibitor and that they, who previously felt a repulsion toward harming their peers, would stop feeling it. Only individuals who did not feel this initially but remained hidden might reveal themselves in such a situation. Of course, research demonstrates an increase in testosterone levels in male primates who are no longer under pressure from higher-ranking males. However, the inhibition of violence is a function of the serotonergic system, which testosterone does not contradict, increasing aggressiveness only within clear limits. In a healthy individual, the inhibitory function of serotonin and the pro-aggressive function of testosterone work in parallel, keeping aggression as a functional behavior.
A state, which possesses undisputed power and a monopoly on violence, is typically regarded as a purely human social phenomenon. However, if we look at the very foundation of the state’s structure—namely, the fact of coercive force exerted on people by political power—it can boldly be called one of the forms of a violent hierarchy of dominance, much like the hierarchies that arise under certain conditions in many animal species. This prompts us to analyze the phenomenon of the violent hierarchy of dominance as a whole, the prerequisites and consequences of its emergence, including in the case of humans.
We will cover all points of this topic. We will examine the history of the emergence and development of states and compare it with how violent hierarchies of dominance arise in animals, including known experiments such as “Universe 25,” in which a mouse population went extinct despite an abundance of resources, or the experiment by Didier Dezos, where some rats forcibly compelled other rats to swim across a pool for food. As a result, we will draw certain conclusions regarding the influence of violence on society as a whole.
First, let us confirm the violent nature of the state. To do this, we must turn to the theory of the stationary bandit. According to this theory, the state is a settled (stationary) bandit who decided to establish themselves in a certain territory, control it exclusively, and rob the population in the long term [1]. We should look at what serves as a prerequisite for the independent emergence of states in different corners of the world. Consider the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, and Indus valleys in the Old World, and the Mexico Valley, as well as the mountain and coastal plains of Peru in the New World. All these places have one thing in common: lands suitable for agriculture that are limited by seas, mountains, or deserts. In such places, there is simply nowhere to flee from coercive force, which led to the appearance of the first states there. We should also add social boundaries to this. Communities located in the center of populated lands are far more likely to be subjugated than those located on the periphery [2].
Over time, the entire world came under the violent control of certain groups of people, and this continues today. Let us not forget that modern state borders were drawn as a result of wars and subjugations. Even if we assume that in the past some group of people truly volunteered to form a monopoly government, they were either forcibly subjugated by someone else, or they themselves engaged in the subjugation of others. The same happened with subsequent generations, who did not initially agree to such a contract. Current states also actively control your life and their borders, resorting to all possible means. If the state does not allow you to do something, your chances of hiding or escaping from it will be extremely slim.
Let us keep in mind what the stationary bandit theory tells us about the state and move on to considering the issue of violence in the animal world, which is very important for understanding the reasons behind the emergence of a violent hierarchy of dominance. It is worth starting with the research of ethologist Konrad Lorenz, which showed that species with strong innate weaponry have evolutionarily developed a strong innate intraspecific morality of non-violence—that is, a mechanism that inhibits the manifestation of violent behavior in intraspecific clashes [3]. The following example can effectively demonstrate this mechanism:
“During a territorial clash, venomous snakes exaggerate their size by stretching, competing to see who can stand higher; they sway and push each other, but they never bite, nor do they even display their weapons. Some species even threaten each other by turning their heads away. It is no wonder that not only ordinary people, but many zoologists, mistook the tournament battles of snakes for mating dances.” [4]
No one will dispute that venomous snakes are heavily armed species; with a venomous bite, they can instantly kill a member of their own species. But they do not bite their own. This is all due to the Lorenz mechanism (LM), for if its development had been impossible over the course of evolution, many species would simply have self-destructed. However, the development of this mechanism is a fairly obvious process, given that individuals without an innate inhibitor of violent behavior would very often face death due to repeated attacks on heavily armed conspecifics, and therefore their genetic material would not be passed on to future generations.
This mechanism can be observed to varying degrees in many species. The more heavily armed a species is, the more strongly the LM is expressed in its representatives, and conversely—in weak species, it is weakly expressed. Lorenz gave quite interesting examples regarding wolves, which do not bite their tribesmen in the neck, and ravens, which under no circumstances peck out the eyes of other ravens even during clashes. However, after leaving two turtle doves—seemingly peaceful birds of the pigeon family—in one cage for some time, Lorenz discovered that one of them nearly killed the other. Of course, a strong LM could not have developed in turtle doves because, in this case, its absence does not threaten their survival, as they have weak weaponry and can easily flee from an attacker in nature.
Based on this, we can link the development of the LM to two factors: the presence of strong innate weaponry and the impossibility of escaping from violent pursuit. Now it is time to move to the topic of the emergence of a violent hierarchy of dominance among animals, and we will take the famous experiment called “Universe 25” as an example. In this experiment, ethologist John Calhoun created an enclosure for mice in which he provided an abundance of resources. Initially, the mouse population grew rapidly up to 2,200 individuals, but after that, their numbers began to decline, and in less than 5 years, the population became completely extinct.
Many reasons for this can be cited; the conditions of Calhoun’s enclosure were actually far from paradise, and there is also an opinion that the problem lies in the abundance of resources itself—and humanity, by the way, with its current high level of prosperity, faces the same fate. However, the main factor that led to extinction, especially compared to vivariums in other laboratories where mouse populations lived peacefully for decades, was that the design of the enclosure promoted the emergence of a violent hierarchy of dominance:
“The enclosure built by Calhoun, unlike a standard vivarium or natural environments, had one characteristic feature: an extremely irrational and inconvenient systematization of space for the mice, as a result of which a situation arose where the 65 largest males were able to monopolize access to food sources and females, while the mice driven into the center of the enclosure were forced to lead a wretched existence.” [5]
Under such conditions, further reproduction became impossible. The stress level of the mice simply skyrocketed, and the males who occupied the top of the dominance hierarchy did not allow other males access to females even after losing their own ability to reproduce due to old age.
Let us recall another experiment conducted by French researcher Didier Dezos. Six rats were placed in a cage with only one exit—into a pool. At the end of the pool was a feeder with food, but the rat could not eat there—after swimming across, it would take the food and had to return to its companions in the cage. Under these conditions, a rigid hierarchy of dominance formed, in which some rats forced others to swim for food and took it from them. Here too, we can clearly link the emergence of a dominance hierarchy to the limitation of space and the impossibility of escaping from it.
Interesting cases can also be noted in the world of primates. Observation of three species of macaques showed that in two of them (the rhesus macaque and the crab-eating macaque), a strong hierarchy of dominance can be seen, whereas the social relationships of the third species (the Tonkin macaque) are non-violent in nature [6]. Different researchers explain this difference through both environmental factors and genetics. However, it is most likely that a combination of these factors is at play—the corresponding environment led to the development of corresponding innate tendencies, specifically a weaker LM in the first two species and a stronger LM in the third (this explanation is not provided in the macaque study, but it fits perfectly based on the explanation of the nature of violence in many other species).
Another interesting case was observed by biologists Robert Sapolsky and Lisa Sher regarding a troop of baboons—primates known for their aggressiveness. In 1982, the most aggressive males of this troop began feeding at a tourist dump and ate contaminated meat. Eventually, they all died, leaving behind less aggressive males. As a result, the level of violence in the troop decreased sharply [7]. It is also worth remembering the pygmy chimpanzees—bonobos, whose behavior is less violent than that of other chimpanzees. This fact is explained by the fact that they do not have to share their habitat with large and aggressive gorillas. The latter displace and limit the resources of other chimpanzees, which effectively leads them to the very situation where there is nowhere to flee from violence within society due to the limitation of available living space.
Let us now return to humans. Humans are naturally a weakly armed species, which is one of the prerequisites for the development of a weak version of the LM. Combining this with the fact of the limited space suitable for agriculture in the territory where the first states emerged, one can conclude that the state is the same form of violent hierarchy of dominance as in the case of other species when they also find themselves in similar living conditions. And over time, people most prone to violence, who occupied the top of this hierarchy, gained increasing opportunities to control and restrict the freedom of all other people. Thus we have arrived at the modern state of total control, in which, as we mentioned at the beginning, without permission from above, you have no right to anything, including the right to escape from the violence of the stationary bandit.
This state of affairs seriously threatens the survival of humanity. Let us recall Calhoun’s experiment. Many call it prophetic in view of the observed decline in birth rates in developed countries. But usually, incorrect reasons are given, related to the high level of prosperity. The only correct reason is the existence of a violent hierarchy of dominance. This also explains why birth rates do not decline as sharply in less developed countries—states there simply lack the technical means and resources to control their population, regardless of what level of control is written in their laws.
Another reason why violence is a major problem and must be fought is the multitude of negative externalities. These include the increase in stress levels in society and the slowing of economic development, but most importantly—the risk of the destruction of humanity due to the use of weapons of mass destruction. And such means are becoming more accessible every day, even for small organizations and individuals. For example, trends in the development of biotechnology tell us that creating artificial viruses will soon be a fairly easy task, which in turn will allow some violent individual to create and release a very dangerous infection, far more serious than the coronavirus we recently faced. You can learn more about these externalities and methods for fighting violence in another material titled “Violence: Problems and Solutions” [8].
There is an argument that fighting a phenomenon such as violence will in no way help eliminate our current hierarchy of dominance and the monopoly on power. Firstly, many doubt that methods against violence can be applied to the leaders of the dominance hierarchy—they work in closed office buildings, travel in armored cars, and their homes are cordoned off by security, meaning there is no way to approach or reach them. Secondly, they may be people who are not themselves prone to committing acts of violence. Perhaps some of them are intellectuals, incapable of even hitting someone lightly, and they have no need for it anyway, since an entire army of pawns, already prone to violence, does all the dirty work for them. Sometimes the second argument is even considered alleged proof that the problem of the dominance hierarchy and monopoly power does not stem from violence.
To refute this argument, we must always remember exactly this army of pawns. Behind political leaders stand the security structures in which many agents work. And it is these agents who enter into direct contact with us; it is through them that all orders given from above are carried out. The cause of our problems and the goal of our activity is the elimination of their violent nature. Looking at it realistically, we cannot stop the leader of the dominance hierarchy, liquidate him during self-defense during a direct attack, or even in the future, with the development of technology, inject him with a gene therapy needle. But this may be completely unnecessary and even useless given that he himself may be a person not prone to committing acts of violence. However, we will always be able to apply all these measures to his servants, since they, again, enter into direct contact with us when applying aggressive violence against us.
As soon as all the pawns are stopped or liquidated in the process of self-defense against their attack, their leader will simply lose his power; he will no longer be able to realize any aspirations toward us. That is precisely why it is sufficient to work only with the violence of the pawns who enter into direct contact with us; without them, the leader of the dominance hierarchy is absolutely worthless!
I am a good architect, a pro at my craft, but I don’t have a car, and at the office they consider me a loser. Among my acquaintances, I know examples of people who are talented but live modestly, or just barely make ends meet. Sometimes this traps them in a conditional framework of poverty. Can an ascetic lifestyle correlate with success, and vice versa? Is a conditional car or an iPhone bought on credit an indicator of success?
Gvidon
Hello, you are listening to the program “Status,” in the studio are Ekaterina Schulmann and I, Michael Naki… Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
The demonstration of status is a very ancient cultural quirk which, as far as one can judge, has accompanied humanity since pre-rational times. Its purpose is quite clear. The demonstration of status exists to save effort. Having once won in a competitive struggle, a person can continue to confirm their position as a winner through new clashes, but this is a rather burdensome strategy. However, if a tradition has developed in society that status is confirmed by some identifying mark, then it is convenient for both the person who has the status—they do not need to spend energy on confirming it every minute—and the person who does not have the status—they do not risk running into a strong opponent out of ignorance and simply will not get in their way.
Usually, status was confirmed through the possession of certain rare artifacts. Obviously, many were tempted to acquire these very rare artifacts without actually earning the status, which effectively means forging a certificate. Naturally, this led to such forgeries being strictly prosecuted: in some places commoners were forbidden from wearing lace, in others slaves were forbidden from wearing belts—who knows how many such rules the rich human imagination can invent!
As society transitioned from a class-based system to a model where a person’s status clearly correlated with their wealth, conspicuous consumption blossomed. Every society goes through this stage in its own way; the surge of such conspicuous consumption after the collapse of socialism in the USSR was quite curious. All those anecdotal gold chains as thick as a finger are exactly that.
However, egalitarian trends in society, as well as the multi-factored nature of the concept of status itself, have led to the fact that shoving demonstrative attributes of wealth in people’s faces is no longer fashionable. Why? Because a single scale of statuses has disappeared. You might be a billionaire, while your interlocutor is an FSB colonel, or the Pope, or a world tennis champion. Whose status is higher is determined by the context, which means this entire complex system of visual markers begins to work poorly—and gradually disappears due to lack of necessity. Kadyrov wears tracksuits, Zuckerberg wears a t-shirt, monarchs wear jeans, prime ministers ride bicycles—complete Sodom and Gomorrah, in short. People with means choose things based on their functionality, not on their status.
On the other hand, the status race still continues at the grassroots level. A vacation in Nice beats a vacation in Turkey, an iPhone beats a Huawei, and having a car beats not having one, even if the car owner has switched to instant noodles to afford it, while the one without it takes taxis and doesn’t give it a second thought. Also, in wealthy corporations, an employee may be required to engage in certain status consumption simply to demonstrate the company’s success.
It makes sense to obsess over conspicuous consumption where it actually allows for smoothing over edges and building informal hierarchies for everyone’s convenience. Moreover, the aforementioned multi-factored nature of statuses allows you to maneuver within fairly wide limits. Let’s say it is too costly for you to demonstrate status in the workplace by buying a car because you already have a mortgage and need to get a child ready for school—but you can be the life of the party, and at any corporate event, you are the one entrusted with the opening remarks. And, by the way, during one of those speeches, nothing stops you from selling your colleagues the line that the material demonstration of status is a sign of poverty, and that the “right” people have long since moved from collecting things to collecting experiences.
