THE PHENOMENON OF STRESS II








A Study in Thought

sa099



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Stress is an inalienable part of living existence.
The range of stressful stimuli.
Adapting to various forms of stress.
Is it possible for people to dedicate themselves, convincingly, to the goals of large-scale social harmony and peace?
The art of making peace on a large scale has no genetically encoded instructions.
How to let our leaders experience a "sobering of the mind".
Hiding in a nuclear-proof bunker is a perversion of leadership.
Unnecessary sacrifices on the alter of the war-gods.
After a violent confrontation, there is always some sort of settlement.
The lure of combat and an opportunistic, predatorial attack.
Acts of treachery, and the inevitability of a retaliatory attack, sooner or later.
When leaderships lose contact with their own people.
The inhibitory influence of a balance of power between arch-rivals.
The relativity of a condition of "parity".
What is the value of the ability to kill your opponent more than once?
The solution of the social contract of essential equality.

The experience of stress is an inalienable part of life, and we are subjected to stress just as much as any other life-form. We have seen, that stress can range from mild and challenging stimuli to "get going", or to take hold of ourselves, to the more severe forms, which are definitely unpleasant and may become unbearable and life-threatening. We have seen, that the line between mild or "challenging" stress, and the unpleasant forms of stress, or "suffering", is vague, and, we know, that it depends, very much, on such factors as age, psychological make-up and past experiences, whether one will interpret a certain form of stress as challenging or unpleasant.

Most of us are reminded, from time to time, that it seems unavoidable to encounter significant stresses, and, that the endurance of severe stress, or suffering, is necessary to remain strong and viable; or, the endurance of severe stress may be necessary to remain humble and acceptable in the Eyes of Our Lord. In a religious interpretation of reality, we experience, sometimes, strong "evil" forces that seem bent upon our destruction, and, we know, that we have to muster the will, and the courage, to resist and fight. Even, if we seem to lose the ability to maintain our existence and our enemies are triumphing and destroying everything in sight, we still can find solace in the belief, that we have done what is right, and, that our God will comfort us, as we are about to give our lives for the Cause of Good.

Whatever religious imagery we use to sustain ourselves in moments of extreme stress, be it in a battle with our enemies or the overwhelming forces of nature, which are suddenly conspiring to snuff-out our existence in an accident or a natural disaster, we know, that we are called-upon, from time to time, to face severe forms of stress. Our courage to fight the hated enemy, and, our enthousiasm to fight for the Cause of Justice or the Will of our God, may reach such fanatic proportions, that we can accept the violent immolation of our own existence as the price to pay for the ability to inflict heavy losses on our enemies.

Indeed, it is remarkable, how dedicated man can be to acts of destruction and warfare, and, it is sobering, as well as frightening and depressing to reflect upon man's apparent inability to dedicate himself with the same fanaticism, to the goals of long-term social harmony and peace. However, after this initial anxiety has passed, (caused by the obervation that man is so much more adept at making war than peace), we see, clearly, the reasons, why this is the case. After all, the "art" of making war, or, the choice to look for security in an all-out fight for survival, is based on precisely instructed, strongly instinctive behavioural guidelines. These have been shaped, as well as genetically encoded, by the forces of natural selection, over a prolonged period of time, and, they are an important part of our commonly shared "biological heritage".

The art of making peace on a large scale, far beyond the scope of the small nomadic unit, has no genetically encoded instructions, and, such an activity is, therefore, dependent upon rational insight and conscious decision-making. We realise, now, better than ever before, how fragile the faculties of rational thought and deliberate compromise are, and, how strongly such attitudes go against our instinctive behaviour-patterns. In stead of finding a "ready-made", instinctively formulated behaviour-pattern, the acts of compromise and negotiation, of finding a peaceful solution to the problems of a conflict of interest, together with the promptings of a well-developed competitive drive, require a strong control over our emotions and instinctive behaviour-patterns. Therefore, the behaviour shown in the art of compromise and negotiation is far more difficult, and far more sophisticated, compared to making belligerent noises and engaging in violent combat.

As soon as we realise, how different the behaviour of compromise is, and, how much more difficult it is to talk peace than it is to talk war, we will be able to appreciate, better, the apparently futile, and, often, frustratingly slow process of the art of compromise and mutual understanding. We have often alluded to the tragic fact, that a willingness to recognise each other's point of view and adopt an attitude of mutual respect, only comes to the fore, after the energies of hatred and belligerence have spent themselves.

Since the attitudes of a social grouping are largely determined by its leadership, it seems logical to propose that the leaderships of antagonistic social entities engage themselves in acts of battle and warfare with each other, and spare the rest of society the ravages of war. Then, after they have spent most of their belligerent energies, they may experience a sufficient degree of "sobering of the mind" to let them talk more sensibly to each other, and, to let them reach a mutually acceptable compromise.

I am only partially introducing the idea of a combat between the leaderships themselves, as a somewhat facetious, or "tongue in cheek", approach to the problems of communal warfare, because in the small, nomadic societies of the past, which laid the foundation for our ability to form larger social units, the leaderships bore the brunt of all combat activities, as we have outlined on many occasions. The modern practice, where the top-leadership is excluded from the acts of warfare and hides in a well-protected bunker, is a perversion of leadership, and, I am convinced that the isolation of the top-leadership is an essential factor in the recurring instability, corruption and conditions of injustice that plague all large-scale social entities.

Besides, a look at history with modern insights, and, with the possibilities of compromise and negotiation in mind, shows, that, nearly all battles, and all this loss of life, are unnecessary acts of sacrifice on the altar of the war-gods, or, rather, on the altar of overheated emotions and a belligerent euphoria. A compromise, or some sort of peace, always occurs, after the battle has taken place. If people can survive the ravages of war and begin the process of rebuilding anew, again and again, why, then, is it so difficult to come to the conclusion, that we would save ourselves a lot of suffering and unnecessary rebuilding, if we could forego these acts of battle and start the process of reconciliation, before all this carnage and destruction has taken place?

Indeed, the crux of the matter seems to be, that we have to know more about those deep, instinctive drives that lead us into uncompromising attitudes and acts of warfare. Too often, we still jump to the conclusion, that all the avenues of negotiation and compromise have been exhausted and, that we have only one alternative left; to go to war. Too often, we do not really want to negotiate and compromise, because, like the true predators we are, we believe, that a quick, decisive battle will give us instant riches and advantages.

Indeed, the lure of violent combat, together with an opportunistic attack to take advantage of an opponent's weakness, is always there, and, most people in society do not mind "sacrificing" a few lives for this gain, as long as it is not theirs. Our instinctive behaviour-patterns are so used to a nearly constant competitive struggle, and, it is so natural to "move in for the kill", whenever we see a chance to get away with it!

We are not so sure, however, about the mechanisms of negotiation and compromise. We like to conclude some sort of a "treaty" or contract of compromise, of one sort or another, especially, if we fear, that our adversary is stronger, but, if the threat disappears, later, either because of a relaxation of vigilance on the part of the stronger adversary, or, because of a gain in strength on our part, we are likely to break this contract and become an aggressor, once again. These behaviour-patterns are strongly engraved in us all, and, we should not be surprised to see them emerge, time and again, but, we also have the capability to understand, why such acts will be interpreted as treachery by our adversaries, and, why retaliation will take place, sooner or later.

It is, therefore, a basic fact of life, as well as an undeniable truth, that a contract or agreement has to be "enforced". If there is an authority with the ability to impose such a "contract" in the form of a judicial settlement, and, if this authority has also the power to see that its decisions are adhered-to, we see, that the behaviour of the members within such a social grouping remains orderly; at least, it will remain orderly, as long as both parties can agree, to some extent, that justice has been done.

If there is no such over-riding authority, an atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust will remain between the parties, as each side knows, that, any contract may be broken, whenever one of the parties sees an advantage in doing so. The only way to minimise the chance, and the lure, of such opportunistic behaviour, is constant vigilance, as well as the maintenance of a "balance of power", which means, that, neither side can be sure to win a conflict and obtain a significant advantage.

Let us not forget, that an advantage, or "gain", may not be merely the conquest of industrial potentials or a territorial advantage. Even, if such an opportunistic act of warfare is associated with severe loss of life and property on both sides, the leadership of the "winner" may still consider the whole excercise "worthwhile", if it has defeated the other power and has been able to impose its will. We see, then, the ludicrous and hair-raising spectacle, that leaderships on either side of a conflict situation are willing to suffer horrendous losses, (born, of course, by the ordinary peoples and members of society), as long as the other side is "defeated", or has yielded to them. Whether or not such losses are acceptable to the ordinary citizens, is not being asked; certainly not, whenever tensions are mounting and a war can break-out at any time.

The lust for power is strong, indeed, and, the mutual suspicions of powerful rivals are so strong, that each leadership needs the deterrent of a strong counter-force, before it can subdue the temptation to take advantage of a predatory opportunity. The theory of the balance of power between the super-powers is valid, therefore, and, there is, indeed, some truth in the claim of both sides, that the deterrent of a powerful armed force has prevented a direct armed conflict between them. However, it is utter nonsense to try to compensate a superior conventional military force with a nuclear deterrent, because this places one in a position that one has to unleash a nuclear holocaust, if it is likely that one will be defeated in a conventional conflict.

It is true, that, for a "long time", forty years or more, no war has raged on European soil, and, that the two super-powers have managed to avoid a confrontation with armed force. However, it seems that the arms-race is always escalating, because the point of balance is always drawn to one side or the other. What one side considers "parity", is interpreted by the other party as a position of vulnerability or weakness, and, we may indeed be sure that the definition of "parity" on either side, includes a secret or hidden margin of safety and superiority.

Therefore, there can never be an end to the arms-race; at least, not on a voluntary basis, and the arms-race is only going to end, when one, or, perhaps, even, both parties have exhausted themselves economically. The result is an enormous surplus of doomsday weapons, and we have already reached the ludicrous situation, that all life can be destroyed on our planet, many times over. One would have thought that the presence of such a massive "over kill" would slow-down the desire to build new weapons. After all, what is the deterrent value of the ability to kill your opponent more than once?

The point is, that the mutual deterrent of a balance in power is based on the mechanisms of fear, and, it is not the outcome of a rational argument. Aggressive and opportunistic behaviour is only inhibited by the powerful stimulus of fear for reprisal, but, the fact, that a superiority in weapons is meaningless after one has been killed, does not seem to sink in.

However, as we have seen in the solution of the social contract, the mechanisms of a negotiated settlement, together with a balance of mutual fears and interests, can also be based on a conscious acceptance of the principles of essential equality. If we extend the principles of essential equality to each other, we also accept the fact, that it is a fundamental break of this contract of equality, if we give-in to the temptation to score an opportunistic gain. We still have to learn, that a treaty between adversaries is only meagningful, if there is the will, and the good intention, to abide by this treaty. In the absence of the desire to abide by a treaty, any contract is nul and void.

Is it possible to learn about the insights and mechanisms of the social contract by looking at the mechanisms of life, well before the origin of human existence? The crux of the matter seems to be, that the "social solution" only works in nature, if the members of the social unit become quickly dependent upon this unity of existence. Only, if a living entity has no other choice, will it be able to surbordinate its primary combative instincts for the sake of communal survival.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

Human socialisation patterns are still rarely "obligatory", or irreversible.
When there is a strong inhibition to tear a social organisation apart.
Inter-dependencies have a tendency to become parasitic.
The essential equality of members who contribute to a healthy and viable social entity.
Social integration in terms of stress and energy-expenditure.
The tendency towards small-scale socialisation is part of our biological heritage.
Large-scale socialisation has to be brought-about consciously, with the help of a viable cultural code.
Behavioural flexibility, parental care, and socially beneficial behaviour-patterns are linked together.
A review of viable parental behaviour.
Pathological aberrations in large-scale leadership behaviour.
Differences between parental care and the concerns of a small-scale social leadership.
The function of a cultural input in small-scale social units.
The need for a consciously designed framework for making deliberate decisions.
The stress of social constraints.
The stress of collapsing and disintegrating bonds of social cohesion.
A comparison between embryological defects, and, defects of the personality development caused by abnormal conditions during early childhood.
Relying on unequal relationships; parasitism, or a neurotic type of dependence.
The stress associated with a breach of trust.
It is wise not to expect too much from the people around us.
Respect and loyalty have to be earned, again and again.
A fickle loyalty.
When a leader has nowhere to go.

When we look at the tentative socialisation of the human being, we can appreciate, now, better, the reasons, why these attempts are so fragile and transient. The fact, that our social organisations are, in most instances, not obligatory, means, that there is always a strong and poorly inhibited drive to tear them apart, in particular, the larger social entities. Indeed, those social units where the members are strongly inter-depentent, are the most durable. As soon as the need to stay together disappears, or, as soon the awareness of this need fades, the social unit is in danger. Then, its existence depends, primarily, on coercion, or, the force which an ambitious leadership and its military arm can exert to impose a semblance of unity and allegiance.

As soon as the members of a socially integrated entity become fully dependent upon each other's activities and contributions to the unit as a whole, we see a strong inhibition of mutual hostilities. Just as individuals can become dependent upon each other, and form, thereby, a "social solution", so can societies, even super-powers, become dependent upon each other, and lessen, thereby, the tendency to engage each other in acts of suicidal warfare.

However, we need more than just the mechanisms of mutual inter-dependence, because these mechanisms alone do not guarantee a state of essential equality. We have seen in the examples of free-enterprise and early industrialisation, that, human beings tend to slide into relationships of dependence that are far removed from a mutually beneficial state of symbiosis. Unfortunately, inter-dependencies have a habit of becoming parasitic, where the advantages of the position of inter-dependence are heavily weighted towards one side.

Therefore, the requirements of individual well-being make it imperative, that the evolution of the bonds of inter-dependence occurs in such a way, that the advantages are, indeed, spread equally over all participating members, regardless of their individual powers, or the immediate importance of their contributions.

In the final analysis, all contributions are equally important, since an organism, including a society of human beings, needs its "brain", its leadership, just as it needs the organs that cleanse the blood or evacuate the body's waste-products. Therefore, the people who produce the food, the farmers and fishermen, the labourers in industry and mining, as well as the people in the departments of health and sanitation, are just as essential to the well-being of the social organism, compared to those who guide and govern society.

True, certain jobs or tasks are far more difficult, more spectacular, and more prestigious than others. Some require more talents, energy and fore-sight, and the jobs of leadership will experience a keener competition than the jobs of clean-up, but, this does not mean, that the people who occupy the more prestigious positions, should obtain more of the basic requirements of life, compared to those, who make their contributions in the anonymity of an inconspicuous occupation.

If we could combine the insights of multi-cellular existence with a gradually developing condition of essentially equal inter-dependence between the members of a socially integrated unit, we would have come a long way to replace the primitive threat of mutual annihilation with a conscious contract of mutual trust.

Let us now review the process of socialisation in terms of stress and the expenditure of energy. We see an extrapolation of mechanisms and trends that started, already, in that distant and nebulous past when man became human in the context of a small, nomadic grouping of flexible mammals. This means, that the beginnings of socialisation had been well-established in the genetic portrait of man's ancestors, long before the emergence of the human species itself, but, the recent evolution of human socialisation on a large scale, depended, and still depends, almost entirely, on cultural, rather than genetic guidelines.

The evolution of mankind towards a state of social interdependence or integration on a global scale is still tentative as a conscious awareness, while a factual state of inter-depedendence and integration is progressing rather rapidly. We still have to come to grips with the idea of global integration as an expectation or a conscious contract of social equality, in spite of the fact, that it is becoming a reality in the form of unequal and parasitic relationships.

This last phase of the socialisation of man, (so necessary, if we want to maintain collective and individual viability), depends, not only, on explicit and sophisticated "cultural guidelines", but, it depends, also, on conscious thought and deliberate decisions by the collective will of mankind. We, peoples of the world, we must collectively want this contract of social equality to happen, and, we must come to the conclusion, that there is no alternative to such a global contract of social equality, because the alternative choice of dominance and combat will be a dead-end road for us all.

The mechanisms of socialisation in the small nomadic grouping take place as a result of genetic coding or a biological heritage, because, as we have discussed, the evolution of the species of mankind took place in a context of socially integrated, behaviourally flexible anthropoids. We have also discussed the concept, that this type of socialisation was closely linked, and perhaps, identical to, the behavioural mechanisms that are responsible for the qualities of parental care. It seems logical to assume, that the small, nomadic and socially integrated groupings of the anthropoids and early human beings were based upon the strong bonds between parents and their offspring, as well as between all those, who were related to each other, and, who were, therefore, quite familiar with each other's behaviour-patterns and personal characteristics.

We have discussed the fact, that behavioural flexibility introduced the need for a prolonged period of shelter and learning for the offspring of such behaviourally flexible species', and, we have elaborated, in previous essays, how these evolutionary necessities led to the qualities of parental care and natural leadership. During childhood and adolescence, the offspring gains gradually a greater degree of independence, but, we see, clearly, how the behaviourally flexible offspring needs "guidance". The youngsters need to be shown, what is tolerated by the social environment, and, what is not. They have to be shown, (and, partially, they have to learn from experience), what is dangerous and what is highly valuable and viable. Normal, sensible parents will, therefore, set limits on the behavioural acitivities of their offspring. Too bold, inquisitive or rebellious a behaviour will be punished, but, behaviour that is too timid and fearful is not tolerated either.

If a serious fight breaks-out between siblings, the parents are likely to step-in and prevent them from hurting each other. We have argued, on previous occasions, how these bonds of instinctive trust and cooperation between family members, tend to persist in adult life and form, thereby, a basis for the cohesion of a small nomadic grouping.

It is, indeed, remarkable, that the guiding and corrective actions of good natural parents bear a strong resemblance to the qualities of good natural leadership. Here, too, the leader will guide and correct the behaviour of those who depend on his leadership, and, just like good natural parents, the leader will protect the small group against all dangers and is the first and foremost line of defense against predators and aggressors.

How different is it in the large-scale societies of mankind, where the leaders sit in nuclear-proof bunkers, while the members are left unprotected or are sent into the battle-fields to fight for their leaders who are watching from the sidelines. Perhaps, the leaders will even congratulate each other, after the war is over, on the "performance" of their armies, while the survivors of the carnage are left to mourn and bury their dead.

Indeed, the evolution of the larger society is one of the most difficult tasks facing the species of mankind, and, once again, we would like to discuss this need, because we need, so urgently, to get a grip on these mechanisms, before it is too late.

Let us return to the small nomadic grouping, together with the similarities in the function and behaviour between viable, natural parents and viable, natural leadership. We see, in essence, the same mechanisms at work, and the instincts of parental care and natural leadership are the same. The only difference is the fact, that, in a natural leadership position, the qualities of care and concern are extended beyond the boundaries of the physical offspring of the parents. In addition, the chores of care and concern are never-ending, because, in contrast with the behaviour of parental care, the behaviour of leadership extends to the adults of the group. The members of the small nomadic grouping do not "grow-up" and leave the sphere of this leadership, (unless there is a challenge to the leadership and a break-up of the social grouping). The sphere of parental care and influence lessens considerably, as soon as this offspring reaches maturity and becomes itself a parental generation.

We want to emphasise, here, the idea, that all the behavioural mechanisms, necessary to lead a small group of socially integrated members, are part of our biological heritage. These instinctive, genetically encoded instructions work, and they work well, without any conscious effort or input, in spite of the fact, that, numerous forms of stress are experienced by leaders and members alike. These behaviour-patterns are securely locked into the genetic code, because they are the result of many millions of years of natural selection and evolutionary change. We should not forget, that these social trends and mechanisms antedate, by far, the specifically human evolution of conscious thoughts and awarenesses.

In the contemporary social groupings of mankind, the primary biological patterns of social organisation are always coloured by "cultural influences". These cultural influences range from an act of recognition, (where the sharing of the ability to communicate with gestures and vocalisations starts to from a bond that is not present between members of different social groupings), to the most sophisticated and abstract principles for the design of a social contract of justice and equality.

The "cultural input" shows no evidence for any conscious manipulation or deliberate design in the early stages of its development, and, even the earlier formulation of notions and taboos, rules and regulations, or laws and principles, was primarily based on the recognition of pragmatic examples, rather than on philosophic generalisations.

It is so necessary to become aware of the fact, that the input of conscious decision-making into the organisation of the larger societies, is getting more important all the time. The mechanisms of stress, as well as the experience of stressful tensions and pressures associated with the many levels of modern socialisation, require, ever more clearly, a conscious solution of deliberate decisions, because, just like the rest of our behavioural responses, we can not rely, anymore, upon genetically encoded behaviour-patterns to solve the problems of viability.

In our discussions about the stress of social integration, we tend to emphasise the tensions that are generated between the existential requirements of individual existence, and the social constraints necessary to give each other a measure of dignity and essential equality. However, the stresses we experience are just as often due to the collapse of a social bond upon which we have come to rely. For example, the most traumatic stresses of early life are those caused by an inadequate shell of protection and care. We are so totally reliant upon this shell of protection and the social bonds of care, that, a severe defect would be incompatible with survival, but, relatively minor flaws may result in severe abnormalities in the development of a personality, and, these mechanisms may lead to a permanent handicap in the way an individual inter-acts with the social environment.

Just as our body can show a severe and, often, lethal developmental defect, if we are affected by a malfunction during the early embryological sequences, so can our personality show a severe developmental defect, if its unfolding malfunctions early in life.

Later in life, we still tend to experience the dissolution of a relied-upon social bond as a serious trauma. For example, we may rely heavily upon someone for help and advise, and the breakage of this bond of reliance will then be experienced as a severe stress. Certainly, if the reliance is strongly one-sided, we may consider such a bond to be highly egocentric and unhealthy, and, we may, then, sympathise with the desire of the relied-upon party to shrug-off such a burden of dependence.

However, the bond may not be all one-sided, and, we all know from personal experience, how the break-up of a strong friendship is a highly stressful experience. This experience is complex; in part, the stress may, indeed, be the severance of a line of support upon which we had come to rely, and, which fueled, thereby, a primarily egocentric need. However, the breakage of a bond of friendship may also be due to a breach of trust, and, then, the stressful experience and the tendency to break-off a friendly relationship is not so much the result of a neurotic dependence upon someone else, as well as the disappointment of an expectation.

If one party in a bond of friendship expects that the other will support him or her, even, if it is only by showing a measure of courage and allegiance, then, the failure of such an expectation will be experienced as a disappointment and a breach of loyalty. In other words, if your friends are not loyal and do not support you when you are in trouble, or, if they do not behave in a way you have come to expect from them, a bond of trust and friendship is going to be severed, and this process is painful for either side.

One has to ask the question, of course, whether or not the expectations were reasonable. If a level of courage was expected that could not be brought-up, or would, indeed, constitute a severe burden, or infringe upon the security of such an individual, one has to wonder, indeed, whether or not such expectations were realistic.

As we grow older, we learn with a measure of dismay, that it is much wiser not to expect too much from the people around us, be they friends or supporters, followers, or people for whom one has done a lot. Gratitude slips-away so easily, and, most friends and followers feel, intuitively, that the services rendered by a stronger party or a leadership are paid-for, in full, by the sense of loyalty and gratitude, as well as the measure of respect and prestige shown at the time this support was being given.

It is wrong for a leader to expect, that the feelings of gratitude will linger for any length of time, or, that the loyalty of one's followers can be called-upon, again and again, for acts of beneficial leadership that have been performed in the past. Respect and loyalty have to be earned, from moment to moment, and, it has to be proven, again and again, otherwise, the people get restless, and, they will be looking for someone else to lead them.

A leader may have devoted his entire life, with an unusual degree of intensity and self-sacrifice, to the well-being and the Cause of his people, but, if he suffers a defeat or a set-back, he is likely to be discarded without much thought given to all his services in the past. A leadership that is beginning to falter, is better of to recognise the impending change of fortune and to let someone else carry the burdens of leadership.

Yet, an exceptionally committed leadership has, often, nowhere to go. There is no mental or physical preparation for being a "retired" leader. Certainly, in societies, where there is a lawless struggle for dominance and survival going-on, there is little room for the graceful abdication of a position of power, and, the cycle of violence is perpetuated by a lack of conscious design for the orderly succession of a position of leadership and responsibility.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Stress, resulting from a failure of "social expectations".
The stress of a failed expectation and a failed performance.
A two-way street of expectations and obligations.
When we become a trusted and valued member of the community.
Competitive strife inhibits the mechanisms of social integration.
The many faces of "courage".
Facing a challenge that exceeds a routine level of stress.
Stress may be a challenge, as long as the element of choice has not been eliminated.
In an act of courage, we deliberately accept a challenge or risk, often, for the benefit of the society we belong to.
When the benefits are egocentric, we rarely consider a dangerous course of action to be courageous.
Every act of courageous behaviour can be commercialised.
Courage, and the willingness to engage in warfare.
The courage of negotiating carefully and persistently.
The courage to speak-out, whenever the community begins to behave erratically.
The balance of power; an inhibitory factor for hostilities, as well as a stalemate for rivalries.

Let us come back upon the thesis, that stressful relationships between people are just as often due to the failure of "social expectations", as the burdens, obligations and restraints imposed on individualistic and egocentric tendencies for the sake of social cohesion. Such restraints are necessary, because of the need to cooperate and get-along with the other members of a socially integrated grouping. Social stresses are, therefore, not exclusively a result of divergent egocentric desires and trends. They are caused, just as often, by the failure of the members of the social environment to behave in the expected manner.

In a way, the stress caused for an individual as the result of a disappointment about the expected behaviour of someone else, is the same as the stress experienced by an individual who fails to perform according to the expectations of his social environment. The point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that we all experience a mixture of contrasting, as well as somewhat contradictory forms of stress, which are related to the fact, that we exist in a social environment. We all feel, at times, that the expectations of our social environment are a burden and a stress, which we would like to do without, and, at the same time, we expect others to live-up to the expectations we have about them.

Healthy and common-sense people realise, at least, intuitively, that, this two-way street of expectations and obligations is always operative in every social inter-action, and, common-sense tells us, therefore, to accept and shoulder the burdens and obligations of our position in society, which are expressed as expectations by people who have to deal with us, either, from a position of leadership, or, as a dependent. At the same time, we impose certain burdens and constraints upon other people, and, we expect them to live-up to certain standards and expectations, which we have about them, even, if we do not realise, that we are imposing stressful standards of expectation upon other people.

It is a sign of a healthy social attitude, if we can accept these burdens, obligations and responsibilities, but, it is a sign of even greater health and wisdom, if we can accept these mechanisms with a measure of conscious insight. Only, if we have a clear perception of this inextricable web of rights and obligations, of benefits and burdens, only, then, can we scrutinise, carefully and persistently, whether or not every member is participating in a fair manner in this balance of benefits and burdens, which is such an inalienable part of belonging to a social grouping.

In other words; the willingness to accept, without hesitation, the tasks and responsibilities placed upon us by our social environment, makes us highly valued and trusted members of the community, but, only, if we have developed a keen eye for the principles of fairness and justice, can we become a valuable instrument of leadership in the never-ending search for continued viability on a large, or, even, global, scale.

The reason, why we have to become increasingly aware of these mechanisms, as well as all the possibilities of derailment and stagnation in a quagmire of polarised social relationships, lies in the fact, that the conditions of social justice and viability for the large and very large social entities, are a matter of conscious design, together with a clear awareness of the essential choices that have to be made. In this light, it is easy to see, why it is irrealistic to expect a large society to be in a state of good health, if the members of such a society behave with unbridled competitive strife and animosity towards each other.

Unless competitive strife is carefully regulated by rules and regulations, ensuring essential equality and fairness of the mechanisms and results of competitive strife, (including the mechanisms of free-enterprise), we will see, that competitive strife leads to belligerence and hatred, shattering the bonds of social cohesion, and annihilating the conditions of the social contract upon which each and every competitive game depends for its possibilities of existence and usefulness.

Let us review the background, mode of operation, as well as the meaning of a large variety of common attitudes and behaviour-patterns. Let us discuss the attitudes of courage and steadfastness, humility, as well as the willingness to accept hardship and sacrifice, loyalty and friendship, concern and care. But, let us also review the socially destructive attitudes of cowardice and treachery; of rebellion and terrorism; of deceit and competitive strife; of panic and despair. Let us discuss them with a view to elucidate the way these attitudes and behaviour-patterns arise, what psychological mechanisms play a role, and, what sort of stresses they reflect, or cause, for an individual and the social environment.

Courage has many faces, because the act or attitude of courageous behaviour applies to many situations. It is, therefore, very difficult to define courage with precision. If we couple a vague and variable judgement about an act or attitude of courage to the observation, that the same attitude and act can be judged by the same people as courageous one moment, and foolhardy the next, we know, that we are dealing with a vague entity, indeed. Yet, the experience of courage, either, in oneself, or, as an observer and admirer of someone else's behaviour, is so widespread, and, it is such a fundamental experience, that all the peoples in the world, even, the small and conceptually less sophisticated, "primitive" societies, have developed similar words and concepts.

Therefore, it seems worthwhile to make a serious attempt to clarify courage and its underlying mechanisms, because, only, if we know, what is happening, whenever we have to face a challenge and are prompted to adopt an attitude of socially responsible resistance, only, then, can we understand some of the mechanisms and effects of an attitude of "courage".

Perhaps, we may, indeed, say, that the essence of courage is the fact, that a human being faces a level of challenge that is somewhat more than the routine, everyday problems one encounters. We assume, that the challenge requires the entire personality to cope with it adequately. However, the challenge is not so severe, or overwhelming, that the element of choice has been eliminated. A desperate struggle to survive approaches more a situation of panic, where we react instinctively. While we may admire the tenacious vitality with wich an individual tries to overcome overwhelming odds, we tend to reserve the concept of "courage", more specifically, for a situation, where one accepts, deliberately, a challenge. In addition, we assume, that a courageous individual makes every possible effort to overcome or cope with this challenge.

Courage, means, that an individual, or a small grouping, deliberately adopts a stance of resistance, which will cause stress and may be harmful, while there is also a possibility to choose a path of behaviour that avoids stress and danger. The reasons, why an individual or group would adopt an attitude of confrontation may vary, but, the common denominator of these reasons can be found in the benefits that are obtained from a courageous attitude or act. These benefits may, however, only apply to the future, and, they may not apply to the individual or group, who is facing the choice of a courageous act.

For example, a small group that accomplishes a difficult mission gains benefits that are not limited to this group, but the benefits go, primarily, to the society as a whole. As a matter of fact, the mission may not have any special advantages for the people engaged in it, except, perhaps, as a source of admiration and respect from the other members of the social environment. In the complex societies, a dangerous mission is often carried-out because of a financial reward, and, the motivation is, then, not to benefit society, but to benefit personally. Then, the aura of courage is immediately tarnished, and we hesitate to call a particular activity "courageous".

Every act of courageous behaviour can be commercialised. If the observer of a difficult and daring act is a member of the community that benefits directly from such an act, we have no hesitation to call it courageous, but, if we belong to the community that may be harmed by such an act, we classify it as treachery or terrorism, depending upon the level of violence involved. As an impartial observer, we may see, how one act of courage provokes another act of courage, but, since these acts are almost always hostile towards each other, we call them also acts of warfare. In stead of admiring the daring and self-sacrificing aspects, we can only shake our heads, because we can see, only, the spiraling destruction resulting from such behaviour.

Is courage, then, always linked to belligerence? Not always, but certainly, very often, and, the benefits for society are far more easily seen and appreciated by a courageous act of hostility towards an enemy, compared to an equally courageous act of defusing tensions between enemies. However, it is far more difficult to appreciate the benefits of a negotiated settlement, than the euphoria of a victory. A negotiated settlement involves, frequently, a painful process of re-adjustment, where certain privileges and ambitious dreams have to be given-up. For the average members, this is not a very alluring prospect, in particular, if they do not have to do the fighting, or carry-out the acts of courage, themselves.

What we see, here, is the following, described in terms of psychological mechanisms; if a small community is faced with a certain challenge, such as the threat of a hostile, domineering and stronger neighbour, the way to defend against such a threat is based, in essence, on two different approaches. The small community may, of course, choose to resist valiantly, but, it can also "adjust". It can recognise the realities, and, it can even learn to see, that there may be some advantages to be obtained by "aligning" oneself with the far more powerful forces of a strong and dominant neighbour.

Especially, if the differences in power are significant, the futility of armed resistance is appreciated more easily, and, there will be a greater willingness to adapt through a process of alignment. In this way, a strong, growing and vital social nucleus gathers a momentum of expansion, because the beginning of a process of growth tends to accentuate the inequality in strength between it and its weaker neighbours, and, the subsequent alignment and incorporation of a strengthening social entity, makes the growing society even larger.

However, if the threat from a hostile neighbour is not perceived as an overwhelming threat, the chances of resisting the threat are much more realistic, and, there is, then, always the chance, that a military victory will lead to a position of dominance over the challenging neighbour, while becoming a larger and stronger unit oneself. We see, here, that a "balance of power", may, on the one hand, act as a deterrent to engage in actual combat, but, the equality, or near equality, of the antagonistic forces means, also, that the adversaries will become locked into an attitude of belligerence for some time to come. It is, of course, always possible, that such a war of words and nerves between rivals who can not accept a position of dominance by the other side, may flare into a situation of violent conflict.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Courage and the arms-race.
When courage becomes foolhardy and ignorant.
Varying interpretations, seen from different vantage-points.
We all are tempted to grab an unfair advantage, whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Beneficial international behaviour rests on common psychological mechanisms.
The meaning of "pacifism".
When courage is based on patriotic attitudes and a strong faith in one's social leadership.
Unusual acts of courage.
The courage of widespread military sabotage.
The most beneficial outcome of the arms-race; economic exhaustion and political disintegration of the super-powers.
Real courage is characterised by a strong resistance to any trend, that will be detrimental to the society of mankind.
When courageous acts of resistance lead to unnecessary bloodshed and suffering.
Courage may well mean, that we do everything we can to provide decent possibilities of existence for future generations.
Motivations behind an act of courage.
Are the rewards personal, communal, or both?
When courage, or "self-sacrifice" for the group, is associated with an instinctive assumption of leadership responsibilities.
Behavioural trends, selected by consistent existential pressures.
The factors of inspiration, admiration and guidance.

An attitude of courage leads, most often, to the intuitive conclusion, that it is necessary to put-up a strong resistance against the challenge of an opponent, but, the opponent comes to the conclusion, that this resistance is an act of aggression or defiance, which needs a "correction". Either party thinks, that it is engaging in a justified, courageous resistance to the actions of the other. We may be able to observe this spiral of causes and effects as an impartial outsider, but, if the players are super-powers, we all become involved in a process of polarisation, whether we want it or not. What, then, is the role of a concerned outsider, and, what acts of courage and wisdom can we contribute as mediators in a dispute?

For those, who believe that security can only be maintained by military superiority, there is no alternative to an attitude of tenacious resistance, and, they will be committed to a never-ending arms-race, while those, who know that such an arms-race leads, sooner or later, to a devastating war, consider the search for military security and superiority a sign of foolhardy ignorance, which must lead, eventually, to the demise of the belligerents, together with a large number of innocent bystanders.

If the same attitudes and actions can be judged as the highest form of courage and patriotism by some, and are condemned as immoral or criminal stupidities by others, we obviously face a difficult task, trying to reconcile such divergent interpretations. The only solution, then, is a patient re-examination of the many assumptions and premises that underlie the opinions on either side of a situation of conflict, and, in order to this successfully, we have to learn more about ourselves, as well as about the limitations of all-out combat.

However, let us come back to a more generalised discussion of the attitudes of courage, and, let us acknowledge, that, indeed, on many occasions, it is useful, and necessary, to offer resistance to existing pressures and tensions. No-one will argue, that we should flee at the slightest sign of danger, or hide, whenever a conflict is brewing. We all need to stand-up, once in a while, and resist the unfair pressures and opportunistic attitudes of a bully.

Not even the most ardent peace-campaigners can maintain, in all honesty, that a completely pacifistic stance is realistic. They may think, that all the problems can be solved by the destruction of all sorts of dangerous weapons, but, we are not dealing with the core of the problem, if we focus, only, on the activities of disarmament. We have to recognise the fact, that we all are tempted to grab an unfair advantage, whenever the opportunity presents itself, and, we should know, that we all defend a position of privilege with force, if we have a chance to get-away with it.

The problems of strife and warfare on an international scale can not be studied, and solved, without understanding and acknowledging the basic mechanisms of human behaviour. If pacifism means, that it is thought possible for everyone to live in peace and harmony without stringent rules of fairness and a scrupulously enforced adherence to such rules, then, I am afraid, pacifism will never evolve beyond the stage of a utopian dream, but, if pacifism means, that, almost all belligerent attitudes are counter-productive and can be defused by the imposition of a social contract of essential equality and openness, then, I believe, that the ideas of pacifism can merge with the process of a global socialisation of mankind.

Belligerent acts of courage may, indeed, be beneficial to a small social grouping that has found an enhanced level of strength and security by such acts of some of its more powerful members and leaders. The point is, that the acts of belligerence and courage between large nations are comparable to the deadly infighting between powerful rivals within a small social grouping. It is difficult for warring factions or fighting individuals to assess the damage they are doing to their society, as well as their own possibilities for survival. If we look at the requirements of the social units as a whole, we see, that the definition of courage shifts to an attitude, or act, that prevents such a damaging fight from taking place.

Certainly, this requires power, and, this power has to be greater than the power of the fighting rivals. Sometimes, such a power is not available, or, at least, it is not immediately visible, and, it may take a concerted, collective act of courage and insight by concerned onlookers to muster the unity, and the will-power, necessary to stop the belligerent parties from destroying themselves and their social surroundings, which may include a large part of the world.

Seen in this light, the ultimate acts of courage may well be the activities of small groupings, who study the possibilities of sabotage, where the nuclear and chemical arsenals are made unsafe and unpredictable for use in acts of warfare. Then, the super-powers will lose a great deal of their irresponsible powers, as well as their ability to hold the world to ransom. Certainly, such actions are only justified, if we fail to get the leaderships of these super-powers to destroy or dismantle their arsenals voluntarily. If we can not force the leaderships of the super-powers to come to a genuine agreement of nuclear disarmament, then, we have no choice, but to make plans, and take measures, that will make it impossible for the war-hawks to engage in acts of nuclear or chemical warfare.

I believe, strongly, in the democratic principle, and, I believe, that the peoples of the world would vote for the destruction of these weapons, if they would ever be given the chance to express their opinion in an open referendum. Therefore, I believe, that it is justified, on this occasion, to sabotage the military powers of the larger nations in order to give mankind another chance to come to its senses.

If none of the missiles could be relied upon to deliver their war-heads to the target they are programmed to hit, nobody would dare to launch these missiles, and, if it becomes, indeed, possible to devise a space-based, anti-ballistic missile defense system that can shoot-down missiles, before they hit their target, I believe, that the temptation will be irresistible to build such a defense system. Certainly, both super-powers will have to build such a system, and, eventually, the entire globe will have to be protected in this way.

It may be an excellent way to get rid of the nuclear threat, but, what a wasteful and expensive way to do it! However, if the super-powers can not bring-up the necessary trust to negotiate a meaningful reduction in their nuclear arsenals, they will have no choice, but to embark upon such a costly, exhausting, and, perhaps, final phase of the arms-race. If such an effort would leave both super-powers economically exhausted and socially weakened, we may see the break-up of the super-powers. This, ironically, would be the most beneficial outcome of the entire arms-race.

An act of real courage is, therefore, the strong resistance, often, at a considerable risk of hardship, to any trend that is going to be detrimental to the society as a whole. It depends on the size of the community, the location, as well as the nature of a problem, how a particular act of resistance to warfare is going to be judged. An act of intelligence-gathering or sabotage that is carried-out as a commercial transaction, is never courageous, because the perpetrator of such an act has, then, abrogated any responsibility for the question, who is going to benefit from, or, who will be hurt by, such an act.

The act of resisting a pressure is an inborn characteristic of life, and, it is also a necessary attitude for the human being and his social environment. An inability, or unwillingness, to withstand some stress, is nearly always motivated by strong egocentric anxieties, and, such an attitude is rightly called "cowardly". On the other hand, the act of courageous resistance can become self-defeating, especially, if it leads to unnecessary bloodshed and suffering.

If a gang of thiefs is caught in the act and fights a gun-battle with the police, the act of resistance by the robbers may give some of them a chance to escape. From the point of view of this small social grouping, such an act is courageous, and will be admired by its members. Yet, from a larger point of view, the entire act of robbing and trying to kill law-enforcement agents, is nothing more than a criminal act.

Similarly, a narrow patriotic act by a group of citizens on behalf of a small social grouping, may still be detrimental to the nation as a whole. The patriotic defense of the national interests of a super-power, or, the all-out fight for the success or dominance of a specific ideology, may still contstitute a criminal act of violence against mankind as a whole. It all depends on our point of view. Are we identifying with one or other side, or, do we identify with mankind as a whole, and, do we believe that no Cause can ever justify a global nuclear war? Perhaps, courage in our modern times means, the energy, and the willingness, to question the asumptions of our national leaders on both sides of the ideological divide.

Courage may well mean, that we do everything in our powers to provide a decent possibility of existence to the future generations. We all want to be remembered by future generations, and, it must mean something to us, if we run a real risk that future generations will despise us and curse us for the gigantic problems and the impoverished conditions we have left them. If we want future generations to think about us in a positive manner, and, perhaps, even, look back upon our times with a measure of kindness in their hearts, we have to give them the possibility to exist and live a decent life. We have to leave them a heritage they can build-upon.

Let us leave the future generations, at least, the beginnings of a trend towards global integration, as well as an attitude of global identification and responsibility, and, let us leave them the beginnings of an insight, where we have begun to curb the pernicious, territorial instincts of our leaders, as well as the exploitative attitudes of the more dominant members of our social environment.

Let us look a little more in detail at the mechanisms of an act of courage. We should concentrate on these mechanisms, as they take place in a small community, leaving the many variables in judgement about such an act outside our discussion. Why would anyone place him- or herself in a position of considerable risk to life and limb? What may induce us to sacrifice our well-being or, even, our lives for the sake of the community we belong to? Indeed, this is a strongly altruistic attitude, and, the rewards must be magnificent. These trends would certainly not have been developed by natural selection, without a significant return on the investment made by an individual or a community. Are the rewards personal, communal, or, a combination of both?

The situation is somewhat similar to that of other socially desirable traits, like the care for weaker members, the ability to accept the dominance of a stronger individual, as well as a measure of control over strongly belligerent and destructive instincts. We have discussed, before, that such socially desirable attitudes will benefit the social grouping as a whole, and, these socially desirable traits are, therefore, perpetuated and enhanced. We should not forget, that the process of socialisation, means, in essence, that the criterium of viability shifts, at least, to some extent, from the individual to the community as a whole.

In such an overall view, we are able to see, that an attitude of courage or "self-scarifice" for the group as a whole, represents, indeed, an instinctive assumption of leadership by assuming the role of a defender of the territory and the social grouping. Such an attitude will be rewarded with increased viability for the group, and, it represent the essence of a successful mechanism of socialisation. Courage is, therefore, an essential part of the instinctive behaviour of natural, small-scale, social leadership, but, later, when the defense becomes an organised activity, we see, that the task of fighting in a group, often against intimidating threats, falls also to those, who are ordinary members of society.

Then, a great deal of guidance, leadership and persuasion is necessary to entice able-bodied members, who are not really leaders, to fight as a unit under the guidance of their leaders. The pressures to fight in such an organised way have been increasing throughout history, because the social groupings became larger and more numerous all the time. The increased density of population groupings led, inevitably, to more frequents contacts and violent clashes, while an increase in the size of the population groupings, meant, that pressures could be exerted upon ordinary members to obey the command to fight.

These trends are, now, becoming a liability because of the increasing level of damage caused by fighting. However, a successful fight, even, on an all-out scale, prior to the era of nuclear warfare, had, often, attractive prospects. It would increase confidence and the sphere of dominance, and, together with the ability to handle a conflict-situation in a controled or rational manner, (because of an increasing experience in handling conflict-situations), we see, that the personal reward of courageous behaviour is a feeling of strength and confidence. These behavioural attitudes induce, at the same time, a sense of admiration in those, who like to align themselves with a powerful personality, and, we see, here, a combination of factors at work, which make aggressive, courageous and admired behaviour, an irresistible lure for most people.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The lure of power.
The rewards, and the pre-requisites, of aggressive behaviour.
Adopting an aggressive attitude towards one's own weaknesses.
When one can only fight.
The stress of selecting a responsible course of action.
A low hierarchical position corresponds with a low level of identification with the social unit.
Being captured in a separate sub-culture.
A dependence on the career-environment.
When we have to fight "on orders", without the ability to scrutinise or question the reasons for a violent confrontation.
When trustful bonds are only formed with the closest members of one's own sub-grouping.
When ordinary citizens fear the society at large.
Courageous behaviour in a battle with the elements.
A brief look at martyrdom.
When suffering and death are a necessary price for communal survival.
Every belief-structure needs its rewards, before it can become truly successful and widely accepted.
Rationalising the experience of suffering and death.
Courage, and the mental adjustments necessary to accept stress and hardship.
When life was short and precarious.
Coping with stress.

Power, or strength, is a strong lure, and, in essence, it is the reward, as well as the prerequisite, of aggressive behaviour. If aggressiveness has been rewarded, there is, usually, an increase in power or strength, and there is, then, a strong tendency to use the solution of force, again and again. We see, indeed, that people, as well as entire communities, become so dependent on their fighting habits, that they will reach for their arms at the slightest provocation, unable to find less destructive ways to settle a dispute. However, let us remind ourselves, that aggressive behaviour is not always associated with armed combat. To take hold of oneself, to adopt an attitude of self-discipline, and, to be firm and tenacious in one's goal-patterns, requires, in essence, an "aggressive attitude" towards one's weaknesses, and, it is clear that such attitudes may be highly beneficial to the individual, as well as for the social environment.

If law and order breaks-down in a large society, we see, that the people fall-apart, quickly, into small, hostile groupings that are constantly fighting and feuding with each other, because the organisation of the larger social unit has disappeared, together with its rules and regulations. Even people or groupings, which could communicate with each other before the break-down of social guidelines and law enforcement, can now only fight.

However, if a social environment is functioning well, we see many factors at work, which put a pressure of one sort or another upon the more prominent members of society. There are pressures from the leadership; the notions of right and wrong; obligations and duties that come with the occupation of a prominent position, religious dictates, the expectations of followers and subordinates, etc., and, all these factors put a strong pressure on the established members to act in a way that is considered acceptable and courageous. Yet, everyone knows, that such behaviour may have to be paid-for dearly. The stress of responsible behaviour may be taking its toll; one is not as young and agile as in the past, and, the stress of responsibility may wear a personality down, or, it may lead to a variety of stress-related illnesses.

It is clear, that the pressures of courageous behaviour, including the responsibility of doing battle with the enemy, fall, primarily, upon the hierarchically higher positions in society, and, it is, therefore, somewhat strange, as well as a perversion of the code of courageous conduct, to see leaders hide in shelters, while their soldiers and civilians are exposed to the ravages of modern warfare.

Someone, who is "low" on the hierarcical ladder, is also poorly integrated, and, it is logical, that this individual identifies only partially with the society at large. We can not expect such people to exhibit courageous and patriotic behviour. In our affluent societies, the overall society has become such a large, incomprehensible and somewhat chaotic conglomerate, that it becomes difficult to identify with this society as a whole, even, for a majority of ordinary citizens. Then, there is a tendency for the leadership to make a profession out of defensive duties, and, we are back to the problems associated with a "hired army". People are, then, captured in a separate sub-culture, where unswerving loyalty to the country, but, especially, its leadership, can be promoted through a process of continuous, but, essentially artificial, indoctrination, as long as the soldiers get their pay in time.

In addition, the professional soldier becomes completey dependent upon a "career environment", because it is not easy to find the same sheltered environment outside this military sub-culture. Then, we see, in essence, a commercial transaction. The soldier is attracted to the military job because of financial incentives, and not, because of a sense of loyalty to his country. In addition, we see a variety of somewhat primitive psychological mechanisms at work. There is the lure of power; the fascination with lethal weapons, and the powers over life and death that come with the possession and operation of these weapons.

Indeed, most affluent nations depend, to a large extent, upon a professional army to secure their interests, but, this means, that, loyalty and conviction in the defense of a loved fatherland are replaced by a commercial contract, where the mercenary soldier sells his body and, perhaps, his life, to his pay-master, for the sake of a steady income. He will fight "on orders", without considering, for one moment, the righteousness of the Cause he is fighting for.

There are major draw-backs, if a country has to rely on a mercenary military force, and, it seems justified to consider such a development as a sign of a growing social weakness and decay. The average citizens of these large, chaotic, affluent societies, have no inclination to even consider the possibility that they may have to serve their society with military duties. Who still identifies with these large societies? Perhaps, the only people, who still care, are those, who make huge profits in the ruthless games of free-enterprise. They have to "buy" their security with a hired army, but, at the same time, the orientation of loyalty of such an army shifts from the nation as a whole, to the elite that has the power to pay.

People who are low on the hierarchical ladder, will only grudgingly belong to this social conglomerate, and, they are barely tolerated by the other members. These mechanisms apply, regardless of the size of a social environment. This means, that an atmosphere of hostility is always present, whenever we look at the relationships between those at the fringes of society and the more established segments, but, because of the inability to leave this social grouping all-together, we see, that, lowly placed individuals are in danger of being exploited and treated roughly. As soon as the contrasts between classes of people are widened by diverging living standards or positions of wealth and privilege, we see, that an ever larger segment of society becomes alienated, because it is forced to serve a powerful and wealthy elite.

Here, we see a social parallel of the same mechanisms that show us, how a neglected individual will grow-up with a sharpened sense of hostility towards his social environment, and, how such an depraved position leads to socially disruptive and destructive behaviour. The lack of shelter and stimulation leads to a dull and defensive mentality, which remains suspicious, or, rather, it tends to lose too many of its natural trustful bonds with the other members of the community. At the most, a few trustful bonds are formed with the closest members of their own sub-grouping, and, if these members adhere to a behavioural code that is different from the rest of the community, we see, that the process of identification with the society as a whole, is strongly inhibited.

This leads easily to a form of behaviour that is considered "criminal" by the society at large, while the code of the social sub-grouping considers such activities against the society at large as a legitimate way of making a living. Most criminals are loyal to the members of their own community, and, we see, that the totally ruthless individual, who does not respect any sort of communal bonds or restraints, becomes a complete outcast, feared because of his psychopathic tendencies.

The quality of courageous behaviour is, therefore, a hall-mark of social health and intelligent awareness. If a society is sick and diseased, we will see very few acts of courage of ordinary people towards their large-scale social environment. As a matter of fact, as soon as the ordinary citizens fear or mistrust the society at large, this society is doomed to die, soon. Nevertheless, the individual may still reveal a remarkably courageous and steadfast behaviour in a battle with the elements, e.g., in a mountain climb, or a solo sail across an ocean, or a battle against an illness or a physical handicap, but, the most important result of truly courageous behaviour is the acceptance of personal stress and hardship, or, even danger and death, for the good of the community one belongs to.

Let us have a look at the extreme forms of courage, leading to martyrdom, where someone sacrifices his or her life for the sake of someone else. We are dealing, primarily, with instinctive behaviour-patterns, where socially well-integrated people with a sense of responsibility or leadership qualities, step-in at a crucial moment to help defend the community, or, try to rescue people from a dangerous situation. Nevertheless, the loss of life is rarely deliberate, and, it is, most often, an unfortunate outcome of a dangerous situation, but, the fact, that an individual has sacrificed his or here life, makes a deep impression on the survivors.

The toll of death and suffering has been heavy for communities throughout history, because they had to battle one foe after another, and, it is, therefore, not unreasonable to expect, that people forged some sort of a link between the suffering and death of their most valued members, and the continued existence and security of the community. Is it, indeed, quite logical for man to come to the conclusion, that suffering and death are a necessary price to pay for survival; be it a survival on earth, or, a survival in the meta-physical realities of a rewarded after-life.

If we remind ourselves, that the reality perceptions of early man were strongly coloured by the experience of being subjugated to the will and the whims of many unseen gods and spirits, we can visualise how people came to the conclusion, that the sacrifice of human life and suffering, fulfilled, somehow, a need for the gods of war. Just as the herds of animals sustained man with their lives, so may the gods of war need the death of heroes in order to sustain their existence. Just as man would be inclined to value animals that were significant providers of food, so may man have come to the conclusion, that the gods of war favoured those human grouping, which offered them a large number of fallen heroes.

Every structure of beliefs needs its reward, before it can be fully accepted and gain the stature of an absolute truth. Probably, the occurrence of death and suffering were "rationalised" in the manner we described above. These experiences were given a meaning, because, only then, could the berieved survivors find some solace in the idea, that the death of a hero, a gifted leader, or a great warrior, would have some beneficial aspects, and, would not be interpreted, solely, as a demoralising loss.

The ability to overcome a feeling of depression or helplessness is a great help in regaining a measure of confidence, after a severe set-back, and, the ability to give some sort of meaning to suffering and loss of life, is an important factor in the struggle for survival. Those, who can only mourn, and wonder why, are more vulnerable to attack and further loss of life, compared to those, who can accept, that it was necessary to suffer; that the gods of war will, now, be pacified by the death and suffering of their heroes.

To put these same mechanisms in a more modern religious language; if people can believe, that their heroes have gone to Heaven, to some sort of an eternal reward for their self-sacrificing services, or, if people can believe that their fallen comrades have fulfilled the Will of God, the survivors can accept the sorrow of death and berievement as a burden they carry for the sake of the Crucified Christ, or, as evidence for the inscrutable ways of the Lord. Such people regain their strength and composure earlier, compared to those reflective, introspective individuals, who can only see the senseless carnage of human warfare.

Indeed, the behaviour of courage is closely tied to the mental adjustments necessary to accept stress and hardship. It is probably safe to state, that the functions of a religious reality perception, (and reality perceptions were always religious in nature, until very recently), have always been twofold; on the one hand, it was an attempt to grasp reality in a satisfying intellectual framework of understanding, when the art of asking questions led to the need to explain the nature of existence and the happenings man was confronted with. On the other hand, we see the need to accept, and cope with, many forms of stress, including the phenomenon of suffering, as well as the many unfortunate and mysterious ways man could and would meet his death.

Life has always been short and precarious. The quick evolutionary spurts, including those of the human species, were always associated with rapidly changing conditions, a high mortality rate, a rapid genetic turn-over, a high level of stress, as well as a constant search for ways to adapt to these stresses. We have often advanced the idea, that the major religions, including Christianity, reflect an intuitive search for ways to cope with the many forms of stress people were exposed to, and, we have argued, before, that this attempt to cope with stress, also led to attempts to "overcome" the phenomena of death and suffering.

However, this is not something that arose only with the more sophisticated monotheistic religions. Probably, religious belief-structures have always been subconscious efforts to adopt an attitude, as well as a way of interpreting reality, which was, not only, intellectually satisfying, but, also, a great help in accepting the level of stress that was being experienced. After all, in our modern relativistic interpretation of reality, we have come to the conclusion, that beliefs are, in essence, behavioural tools.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Courageous resistance may reach horrifying proportions.
The power of a fanatic belief is immense.
When commitment becomes a trap from which an escape is impossible.
The courage of ordinary citizens.
Courageous attitudes of common-sense.
The courage of being steadfast and thoughtful.
The courage of dealing, swiftly and expertly, with violations of the accepted codes of conduct.
A review of the various force-fields man is subjected to.
The early socialisation of behaviourally flexible animals.
Dispersive tendencies resulting from a competitive instinct.
Excercising a measure of behavioural control.
The function of hierarchical ordening.
When the aspect of an all-out struggle has been removed from the mechanisms of competitive strife.
An "intuitive wisdom" of the forces of nature.
Does man share the protective mechanisms of a sense of "satiation"?
Man's manipulative skills have taken him out of the range of being a prey for other life-forms.
A grudging acceptance of the requirements of social integration.

If religious beliefs and attitudes make suffering, tragedy and death more bearable, these events lose some of their fearful and repulsive features, and, if death loses its horrifying mystery, and is replaced by the imagery of an Eternal Reward, we see, that courage may reach horrifying proportions. Only, if we understand, clearly, what a fanatic religious belief can do to the behaviour of its followers, can we comprehend some of the extreme consequences. We have to understand, how it is possible for people to enter death with a happy smile on their face, and, why so many Saints met a violent death with an apparently unshakeable Faith in the reality of their religious beliefs. How else can we explain the suicide missions of pilots in the Second World War, or the suicide truck-bomb missions of the Mujehadin in our own times?

The power of a fanatic belief is immense, and, the results can be disastrous. Obviously, many factors play a role. There is, first of all, a total commitment and unquestioned acceptance of a particular belief-structure, but, there must also be very strong social pressures to lead an individual, or a small group of people, to such suicidal acts of fanatic courage. The emotional investment in the righteousness and honour of such an act is immense, and, the psychological rewards must come before the suicidal act is carried-out.

Actually, the commitment becomes a trap from which no escape is possible, except by fulfilling the mission. Indeed, we see, often, that acts of courage depend upon a measure of despair and entrapment. If we leave people a measure of choice and flexibility, then, it is unlikely to see such fanatic behaviour. The more we feel, that life gives us, at least, some rewards as it is being lived now, the less likely we are to reach for this flash of instant happiness and salvation which comes with the martyrdom of a suicide mission.

It is time to return to more normal acts of courage, without the ultimate sacrifice of one's life. Let us discuss the courage of ordinary people, who are honest in their relationships with each other. These average citizens have to do the work society depends on, and, they are the primary contributors to the social environment and its government. The courage of average, ordinary citizens is manifested in their common-sense recognition, that, other people like, or dislike, essentially in the same way as they themselves.

Common-sense people know, that other people do not like to be cheated or exploited any more than they do. These citizens know, that they have to be honest and decent, and, that they have to obey the laws and regulations of society, if they want others to respect their rights and privileges. Courageous, common-sense people, know, that the same attitudes and practices that upset or disturb the peace in a family unit, are going to destroy the bonds of good-will and trust that must be present, before a society can function well.

Yet, our clever manufacturers and entrepreneurs in the free-enterprise societies seem to believe, that it is justified to deceive people, and to exploit, ruthlessly, the weaknesses and emotions of people, in order to "make money", while, they too, know, that such attitudes and practices within their own families would lead, quickly, to a break-down in healthy and productive relationships. As long as affluent members of society believe, that they can treat each other in a way that is clearly detrimental to the bonds of a family-unit, they are blind fools. What harms the bonds of trust and cooperation on a small scale, also causes harm on a large scale.

How can unions think, that it is allright to hold society to ransom with their demands, while they would, as ordinary members of a family, object, when a member of the family would hold them to ransom? How, is it possible to think, that we can get-away with being secretive and hostile towards each other in the larger society, while we know, that such attitudes would drive the members of a small community apart? There is no essential difference between a small and a large community, and, if we know, what sort of attitudes are helpful or detrimental to the atmosphere of good-will in a small community, we should not be surprised to learn, that the same attitudes will have the same effects upon the larger society as well.

Courage, then, is to be steadfast and thoughtful; to be logical, and, to see the need for a socially integrated unit on a global scale, because, if we close our eyes to injustices that are, still, we think, far enough away not to affect us, we make the same mistakes as those who neglect to do anything about a situation of injustice in their environment, as long as it does not affect their own family.

Healthy relationships between the members of a small community depend, not only, on the good intentions of their leaders, or, the good-will of the people, but, they depend, as much, on the ability of the leadership to deal, swiftly, accurately and justly, with violations of the accepted code of behaviour, as well as on the willingness of the membership to cooperate with the authorities and to report violations which they are aware of. Only, then, can a situation of justice be maintained. It takes courage and steadfastness to maintain such a fragile balance of just and open relationships. As soon as we neglect to correct short-comings and wrong-doings, we lose the essential basis upon which a contract of social justice has to be based, regardless of its precise nature.

Let us assume, that we have a good "feel" for the type of attitudes that are healthy and beneficial for a social unit, and, let us assume, that we have a good insight into the sort of attitudes and activities that tend to destroy social coherence. Here, we want to trace the forces and stresses of living in a social unit. We want to ask ourselves, what happens, when a social unit is being challenged; what sort of forces are necessary to maintain this unit, and, what sort of events will lead to chaos and decay?

Perhaps we should enumerate, once more, the various force-fields man is subjected to. First of all, man is a member of the animal kingdom, and, this means, that we have to acquire our basic energy and building-blocks by the "predatorial way of life". We have to obtain, in one way or another, pre-formed organic building-blocks, and, this means, that we have to kill other life-forms; plants, animals, or both. This method of obtaining food or energy has led to the capabilities of the hunt, as well as a variety of defenses against being hunted.

Man is, not only, an animal, but, he is also heir to the development of behavioural flexibility, and, this trend is responsible for the highly complex but variable behaviour-patterns man can adopt in search of survival. Behavioural flexibility is the primary reason for the development of stereoscopic vision and hearing, as well as the exquisite abilities of finely controled movements. The central nervous system is a legacy of our animal background, and, this legacy includes the highly sophisticated cerebral apparatus with its ability to store and categorise sensory information, as well as the ability to "perceive" the environment as a three-dimensional space.

However, the evolutionary route of behavioural fine-tuning also led to the requirements of a prolonged learning period for the youngsters of such behaviourally flexible species'. Since man represents the pinnacle of the possibilities given by the route of behavioural flexibilty, at least, so far as we know, it is not surprising to see, that the human youngsters require a very long period of shelter, care and guidance; up to fifteen years, or, even, longer, if we take into account the final phase of finding a specialised and skilled niche in a sophisticated, modern society. Then the period of guidance or "education" reaches beyond the early twenties.

The development of behavioural flexibility requires, not only, a long learning period for our youngsters, but, also, a strong, instinctive, genetically shaped behaviour-pattern of parental care and concern, and, we have argued, on previous occasions, why it is reasonable to assume, that this strong bond between protective parents and vulnerable youngsters provided the stimulus for this nearly universal pattern of early social integration in the behaviourally flexible animals.

We have to recall the fact, that the persistence of social bonds between parents and their offspring, is a force-field that contrasts, sharply, with the trend of dispersion and competitive strife, which is the primary behavioural characteristic of the adult population of a species. It is clear, that a population of similar organisms has to compete for the same resources, and, there is, therefore, a strong tendency for such a population of similar organisms to disperse itself as widely as possible over the available territory. Each idividual needs to "harvest" a certain amount of food from the surrounding territory, and, each individual needs, therefore, a minimum territory to sustain itself.

We have also discussed, how the requirements of sexual contact pose somewhat of a "problem" in those species', where there is a strong competitive strife between the adult members. A very strong instinct to engage in sexual behaviour is necessary to overcome the mutually repulsive forces of territoriality and competitive strife, and, this mutual antagonism has to be overcome with a "ritual courtship", in order to synchronise the behaviour of the partners sufficiently to allow mating to take place successfully.

We have also seen, that this strongly dispersive and competitive instinct of territoriality was muted, at least, to some extent, by the creation of a hierarchial order. A hierarchical order allows a much closer contact between the members of a species, compared to a behaviour of individualised territoriality. In a way, the territories of the members "fuse", whereby the weaker members gain the protection of the stronger members, but, the price they pay, is the ability, and the need, to concede dominance, or, "first pick", to the stronger individuals. The hierarchical ordening of a group of adults who shared, almost certainly, relations of kinship, was the most important preliminary step in the socialisation of the complex, behaviourally flexible animals.

The change from a strictly individual behaviour of territoriality, where contacts were invariable "fought-out", to the ordening of a number of individuals into a hierarchical order, is a monumental evolutionary step, and, we see, clearly, how this ability to subjugate oneself to a stronger and more dominant individual, is a process that requires a measure of "control". Certainly, in a natural hierarchical order, this measure of "control" is not conscious, and, it reflects, merely, a balance of powers. The stronger members dominate, because they are stronger, and, the weaker yield, because they are weaker. With "control", we do not mean any sort of consciously willed action, where the force generated in the hierarchical struggle is "contained", or regulated, but, we mean, here, that it requires a certain ability to control this powerful instinct to engage in an all-out fight.

True, even, in territorial encounters, we see, that, there is often no fight to the death, but, a skirmish, where the periphery or the territorial boundaries are being "defined", and tested. The weaker individual, then, yields some of his territory to the stronger members, and, we see in the fluidity with which territories are outlined or changed, a fore-runner of the fluidity with which, later, hierarchical relationships are determined.

Hierarchical ordening, means, that the animals have developed a behaviour-pattern where conflicts of interests are expressed in a contest of wills, or, in the determination of an "order of strength" between the competing individuals. This is accomplished without a serious fight, where the loser is severely injured or killed. By "control", we mean, that a certain "intuitive wisdom" has developed, where the weaker animal recognises, in time, "who is boss", and yields, before he has been seriously hurt.

This means, that the element of an all-out struggle has been removed from the mechanisms of competitive strife within a hierarchically ordened unit. The great natural wisdom, here, is the fact, that it has become possible for organisms to survive by yielding, because of the intuitive experience, that, too strong a resistance to the "stress" of the dominant force, is self-defeating. Of course, there has to be room to yield. This depends, not only, on the intuitive wisdom of the weaker party, but, also, on the intuitive wisdom of the stronger party, who must be willing to leave the weaker party "some room to move", as well as the ability to fulfill its existential requirements.

We have often recognised this "intuitive wisdom" of the forces of nature by the statement, that, an animal does not take more than it needs. Its mechanisms of satiation ensure, that the aggressive, predatorial behaviour-patterns cease, whenever the existential requirements have been fulfilled. After a successful hunt and a good meal the predator goes to sleep, or, at least, he rests contently, but, rarely, do we see in nature a "wild rampage", where an animal goes on a killing spree, without being driven by an existential need.

Yet, does man share such protective mechanisms of satiation? Does man stop killing, or consuming, whenever he has satisfied his basic needs? Unfortunately, man's drive to explore and compete in social standing seems to have led to behaviour-patterns that have become a severe burden to the environment. Certainly, it is, not only, the rather uninhibited drive to compete which led to such severe pressures on the environment, because man's evolutionary success, together with its abundant population, constitutes, perhaps, the greatest burden on the forces of a natural ecological balance.

Man's manipulative skills have taken him out of the range of being a prey for another life-form, except, a few of the unseen microbial and viral forms of life, and, for this reason, man has become a disruptive influence upon his environment. The level of disruption has never been equalled by any other life-form. We have argued, before, that man's inclination to kill each other is, probably, the only brake left on man's destructive pressures upon the environment, prior to the emergence of effective, collective measures to reduce the pressures we are exerting upon the natural environment, as well as upon each other.

However, we want to emphasise, here, the idea, that the elements of socialisation, as well as the ability to orden oneself into a hierachical order, often came-about rather "grudgingly" because of two contradictory force-fields. On the one hand, we experience the need to remain within a social order, in view of the many advantages and benefits associated with a socially integrated existence, but, on the other hand, the forces of dominance are often resisted, because they are going strongly against our instincts of freedom and territorialty; of being "our own boss".

Indeed, many of us prefer to yield and seek a living in an independent, "territorial" way of life, even, if it means that we have to go somewhere else and work very hard to bring a harsh or virgin territory into production. We can see, clearly, how difficult it is for the human being to form a social unit, even, on a small scale, and, we also know, now, that it will take a long process of patient discussion and standardised education to make people aware of the need to control their individualistic instincts and work together on a very large scale. Yet, this trend towards an ever larger scale of social integration is necessary, otherwise, we will lose the freedom to go-out and pioneer in the bush, in order to bring a small part of the earth into a state of fruitful production.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

A review of the reasons for the phenomena of social integration.
A balance between benefits and burdens of belonging to society.
Often, the stress of belonging to society is severe.
Mechanisms of entrapment.
The entire pre-cellular evolution of the living organisation is based on the advantages of forming a socially integrated unit.
Cellular components are "obligatory social".
A break-through in the range of tolerable conditions.
Varying levels of socialisation or social integration.
Behavioural flexibility, and the limits of genetic encoding.
Why social integration between the members of a flexible species is a reluctant and difficult process.
A specific balance of force-fields.
Natural selection had to shape an important discriminatory ability into the mechanisms of aggressive arousal.
The potential benefits of socialisation are enormous.
It is impossible to sustain life without the help of others.
We are already "obligatory socialised", but, we still have to learn to appreciate the vastly enlarging unit of social coherence we are becoming dependent upon.
The problem of complexity, and, the varying levels of social integration.
When the social unit of dependence exceeds, by far, the sphere of "the familiar".
What an innovative political leadership can do.

Let us discuss, once more, the reasons for the phenomenon of socialisation or social integration, and, let us review the reasons, why such of mode of existence can be so enormously successful, in spite of the fact, that socialisation seems to require always a fairly large amount of energy to maintain itself.

Indeed, socialisation must offer great benefits and advantages to make the burdens and stresses of belonging to a social grouping, worthwhile. Perhaps, we may measure the success and viability of a social grouping by looking at the crucial balance of forces at work in any process of social integration. Are the benefits of belonging to society greater or less than the disadvantages of belonging to a social grouping? Are the burdens of constraint and contribution greater or less than the benefits of belonging to society? This judgement has to be made by a large majority of ordinary members, even, if this is done mostly tacitly or subconsciously.

Often, the stress of belonging to society is quite severe, but, if there is nowhere to go; if there is no territory to move into, or, if one does not have the skill, and the means, to survive in a harsh, pioneering environment, or, if all territory has been taken, or, if the dominance of a privileged elite is so strong, that no freedom of movement exists at all, then, the stress of trying to break-away, or survive, in an extremely hostile environment, is even greater. Therefore, the balance is often determined, not so much, by the fact, that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of belonging to society, but, by the fact that the alternative to belonging to society has been taken away completely. This, of course, represents, in essence, an energy-balance of the social forces involved in a condition of slavery.

The possibilities opened-up with the processes of socialisation, are indeed gigantic, but, we see, throughout the evolution of life, that the social mode of existence is only successful, if, indeed, this process of socialisation has become irreversible, and the members have lost the choice, whether or not to belong to the social unit.

On previous occasions, we have argued, that the entire pre-cellular evolution of the living organisation is based on the principle of the social unit. Under the principle of the social unit, we understand the fact, that fragile and labile, but reactable, biochemical or proto-biochemical substances can find a much more stable possibility of existence, if they manage, by blind evolutionary trial and error, together with the principles of reproduction or the "guided event", (the fore-runner of the genetic code), to form conglomerates that exceed, by far, the existence possibilities of the individual substances making-up such a conglomerate.

These conglomerates are made-up of partially complementary, partially competitive forces and compounds. The members participating in such a conglomerate of inter-dependencies acquire a much greater range of existence possibilities on account of the fact, that they manage to channel a flow of energy through their system of inter-dependence or social integration. Quickly, the range of existence possibilities in which such a conglomerate exists, exceeds, by far, the possibilities of existence for the individual components of such a conglomerate. Then, the existence of the participating components is inextricably linked to the functional integrity of the conglomerate as a whole, and, we see the phenomenon of "obligatory social integration".

The biochemical complexes in the cell could not survive outside an intact, functioning or metabolising cellular unit, and, the further break-down of the fragile biochemical components is reflected in the processes of decay, which take place, after the functional integrity of the cells has ceased to exist; in other words; after the cell has died.

Indeed, the cellular components are "obligatory social", meaning, that they have no choice, but to exist as a social unit, and, if we look at the next level of socialisation, the development of a community of socially integrated cells, or, the emergence of the multi-cellular organism, we see, once again, a strong tendency for the processes of socialisation to progress to the point, that the individual components of the multi-cellular organism, (the individual cells), are "obligatory social". All the cells die, if the organism as a whole dies, and, therefore, the existential requirements of the individual cells are subordinated to those of the community as a whole.

However, we see, again, that the range of conditions under which such a multi-cellular organism can exist, far exceeds the range of conditions an individual cell can tolerate. These enlargements of the possibilities of existence through the processes of social integration are often so dramatic, that we may speak of a "break-through". On the other hand, a break-through favours a rapid evolutionary development towards a state of dependence on a particular mode of functioning, and, we see, that, quickly, the degree of dependence upon the newly developed organisational possibilities, becomes complete. Then, we are back to a situation of obligatory social integration.

We see many examples, where multi-cellular organisms form, once again, a complex social unit of obligatory inter-dependence, such as insect colonies. The degree of specialisation of individual insect members develops quickly to the point of an obligatory social integration. We remind ourselves, here, that these mechanisms are all genetically encoded.

However, with the introduction of behavioural flexibility, the reponsibility for formulating the most appropriate, and, thereby, the most viable behavioural response, has been shifted, to a large extent, from the genetic code to the function of individualised behavioural adaptation by an individual member of such a behaviourally flexible species. This makes the genetic encoding of the behaviourally flexible species' much more difficult, and we see, indeed, that the flexible species', including man, have only a "beginning", or rudimentary "anlage", pointing to the pathway of large-scale socially integrated behaviour.

As a result, we see a reluctance in the development of social integration between the members of the flexible species'. There is a reluctance to come to a high level of inter-dependence, especially if it tends to lead to a state of obligatory social integration. As a matter of fact, we can see in the small, natural, nomadic groupings of the flexible animals, such as the anthropoids, that there remains a smooth balance between the forces that favour socialisation, and those, that lead to the break-up, or splitting-away, of a part of this grouping, especially, if the grouping becomes too large to be managed comfortably by a single leader. The absence of precise behavioural instructions for socially beneficial conduct of the behaviourally flexible members of such a small nomadic grouping, seems to pose serious and biologically determined limitations upon the size of the successful social unit that can be formed with the help of genetically instructed guidelines.

We see the following balance of forces; the sharp instinct of parental care, together with the strong bonds between parents and offspring in the behaviourally flexible species', favour a process of socialisation with its many advantages. As we have discussed, the processes of socialisation had already been prepared by the change from strict, individual territoriality, to a hierarchical order with a behaviour of "group territoriality".

However, the route of behavioural flexibility blocked the possibility to encode precise genetic instructions for successful social behaviour, and, we see, therefore, that natural selection started to exert contradictory pressures upon the same behavioural features. For example, the behavioural characteristic of "courage", ferocity and aggressiveness, had been awarded in the past, but, if these same qualities were directed towards the members of the social grouping, the unit as a whole would suffer irreparable damage, and, in a way, the viability of such aggressive behaviour-patterns would be undermined by their own success.

Therefore, natural selection had to shape a distinction in the mechanisms of aggressive arousal. Aggressive arousal, when it occurred in response to an external treat to individual or communal existence, would be highly beneficial, but, aggressive arousal by internal disputes had to be muted, in order to avoid a decline in the level of viability of the socially integrated grouping and its members.

Indeed, to some extent, the forces of natural selection were able to mold such contrasting behavioural impulses, and, we have explained, on previous occasions, how, and why, such a way of perceiving reality gives us a good "feeling" for the reasons behind the curiously contradictory features of man's behaviour-patterns.

In spite of the limitations associated with socialisation for the behaviourally flexible species', we should review, what this incomplete "anlage" or propensity towards social behaviour has meant for the possibilities of human existence. The vague and incomplete instructions of the genetic code have to be supplemented by consciously designed guidelines, or, subconsciously grown, cultural regulators, (with all the draw-backs of fragility and exposure to damaging influences that are associated with such an extra-genetic vehicle for behavioural instructions), but, this genetic anlage, together with the capabilities of a consciously determined faculty of insight, foresight, or long-term reality perceptions, have opened-up possibilities to enhance viability, which are just as spectacular as the extended range of possibilities of existence given by the previously mentioned examples of genetically encoded, obligatory forms of social integration.

The benefits of socialisation are enormous for the human being. It starts, already, when man discovered, that lifting an object with two or more people would accomplish, easily, a task, that had proven to be impossible for a solitary individual. Similarly, cooperation during the hunt, the defense, or an act of aggression against an enemy, as well as the organisation and distribution of all sorts of chores, were made much easier, when man learned to organise a variety of tasks over a number of people.

If we look around us in our contemporary societies, we see, that we would find it impossible to sustain life without the help of others. Where are the resources of the earth still so aboundant, that we can keep ourselves alive by merely reaching for the fruits and the berries, the nuts and the roots, to find all the nourishment we need? Where is there still such a Garden of Eden? And, if there would still be such a place, it would surely be over-crowded.

The pressures of competitive strife, as well as the need to defend our privileged position and possessions against the envy of those, who have much less, would quickly drive us to cooperate and seek security in a social organisation. Now, life has become so complex, that all our food, shelter, clothing, utensils, transportation devices, etc., require the work and effort, knowledge and organisational skills of many different groups of people, and, it would be difficult to survive, if the contributions from these countless anonymous people and groups of people would not be there, anymore.

In the cities, many people have become nearly totally dependent upon the pipelines of water and food, of electricity and sewage disposal, and, without these functions, the conditions of life would deteriorate quickly. Even so, in many city-centres, the air has become dangerously polluted, the water tastes and smells of chlorine and other purification substances. All facilities are expensive, and, if we lack the cash-income to pay for an adequate level of housing, food, sanitation and transportation, clothing and other necessities, we would quickly suffer a measure of poverty and entrapment, wondering, how life can deteriorate so quickly, while our society is blessed with an apparent abundance of goods and services.

If we look at the human social organisations, we see, that, one of the reasons, why it seems so difficult to get a good theoretical grasp over these phenomena, is the fact, that we are dealing with various levels of social integration. The most natural, most stable, and, probably, the most important level in so far as the development of our personality is concerned, is the first level; nl., the family-unit. However, a number of family-units may form a small village or settlement; or, they form a neighbourhood in a larger social complex, such as a city. A city is already a third level of social integration, where the numbers of inhabitants are far beyond, what we can know or identify with. We only identify with each other because of the similar living conditions; the similar services we depend upon, as well as the similar risks we are exposed to, if those life-giving functions are interrupted for one reason or another.

We see other levels of social integration. First of all, there is the work-environment. The group we work with is not the same as the geographical group we live with, at least, not in the cities, and, even members of the same family-unit have, by and large, different work-environments. In the affluent societies, both parents are increasinly absorbed with the task of earning the necessary income to live and survive. This has become necessary because of the expenses involved in acquiring the basic necessities, and, there is, therefore, a constant demand upon the ability to pay.

Then, there are further administrative and political levels of social organisation. A region with a number of cities and villages may have a measure of autonomy or self-government, even, if it is integrated with other regions into larger units; counties, provinces, States, etc. Finally, there is the political unit of the Federated State. Some political units are so large, that they include many hundreds of millions of people, and, then, the population that has been brought together under one political roof will be comprised of many different ethnic groupings, each with heir own history and culture, as well as their own language and customs.

It is difficult for people to identify with this overall political unit, in particular, because, so often, it merely reflects a particular stage in a continuing battle for dominance and power between ethnic and social groupings, and, the larger political entity tends, therefore, to reflect, merely, the vagaries of bellicose fortunes, rather than the realities that have been found in the solution of voluntary social integration.

Nevertheless, if a political leadership is innovative and brings harmony and peace, increased cooperation, as well as a rising standard of living to peoples or ethnic groupings that were locked into sterile, antagonistic attitudes, then, it is certainly possible for a large majority of the people to come to the conclusion, that such an overall political leadership is beneficial. Besides, if one would have serious doubts about the wisdom or legality of the overall political leadership, one would find oneself quickly on the defensive, as the burden of the law, together with a variety of law-enforcement agencies, would be persecuting, or, at least, making life difficult for anyone, who would seriously question the right of a particular political leadership to be in power.

If we keep in mind, that our large societies are comprised of many different levels of social organisation, it becomes a little easier to sort-out the many contradictory forces at work. Just as in nature, a social unit behaves, again, as a hostile, competitive neighbour to a similar social unit. Therefore, social integration in one particular plane, does not mean, that the unit as a whole will behave in a civilised, socialised manner in regards to similar social units.

We have seen, that biochemical complexes become obligatory integrated within the unit of the cell, but, cells compete sharply, and, they develop the characteristics of predation, before we see the social integration on the next level; the multi-cellular organism. Again, multi-cellular organisms behave strongly competitively and predatorially in relation to each other, until a new plane of social integration mutes the forces of competitive strife. Now, it is our task to complete the process of social integration with the help of our conscious will, because the genetic anlage is not strong enough to bring-about a viable society of very large, or, even, global dimensions, without our faculties of conscious design and voluntary cooperation.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

We all resist, strenuously, to be completely bound to the dictates of a social organisation.
Yet, we let slip, so easily, our freedoms of movement and choice.
The present status of social integration.
Contradictory force-fields within national units.
We can analyse social events as variants in the processes of competitive strife and the solution of social integration.
The factors of "freedom of choice" and "individualised input".
The subjective experience of a "free choice".
Regulating human behaviour effectively with the guidelines of social justice and a contract of essential equality.
Making it worthwhile for everyone to belong to society.
The living nature of a social entity.
The need for "social maintenance activities".
We will never be free from stress.
The cleansing and purifying ability to acknowledge, publicly, that we have failed or made an error.
Mutual trust is the life-blood of social cohesion.
Regulating the forces of competitive strife.
The harmful effects of unbridled economic activities.
Equal rights, and the obligation to make proportional contributions to the well-being of the social environment.
Controling the mechanisms of social polarisation.

There is a tendency for human beings to become completely dependent upon a state of social integration, because we slide easily, and, often, unknowingly, into a state of obligatory dependence. We all resist strenuously to be bound, completely, to the dictates of a social organisation, and, yet, we let ourselves slip, so easily, into a situation, where we have lost the freedom of movement and choice. In addition, we are often bewildered by the observation, that social units of human beings behave strongly competitively, while the members have learned, at least, to some extent, to orden themselves into a socially integrated entity.

Man became a member of a small, but successful nomadic grouping, but, we do not realise, as yet, to what extent natural selection had to shape our behaviour-patterns in order to make these groupings a success, as well as a necessity for the individual human being. The existence of a small, nomadic social unit was so important, that it was rarely possible for a solitary family to bring-up its offspring efficiently. Yet, if we know something about the history of early man, we know, also, how strongly competitive these small nomadic groupings were, until we see the emergence of the larger tribes, which absorbed these small groupings and muted the competitive pressures between them. Tribal units fused, eventually, into even larger, ethnic and national entities, but, it is quite clear, how competitive strife always surfaces at the level of the largest integrated social groupings.

At the present stage of the evolution of mankind, we have progressed to the level of national entities. Some of the national entities or conglomerate political units are small and forlorn, and, they are "sovereign" in name only, while others are large federations. But, how strongly competitive can these large federations be! How devastating can be their rivalry and their warfare, especially, if we look at the weaponry they now have at their disposal!

Within national entities, we see the same contradictory force-fields at work. Each level of social organisation may show units that are fairly well integrated, while others are locked into a fierce competitive battle. Some families may provide a good example, how a small unit can function smoothly, with a measure of natural wisdom and justice, while others show a level of ignorance and stupidity, weakness and dishonesty, that wreaks havoc with the forces of trust and good-will, often, to the point of total disintegration.

We can see incidences, where villages and neighbourhoods are working well together, and, we see examples, where they are locked into attitudes of mutual distrust and hatred. We see work-environments, where people work smoothly and productively, and, there are examples, where egocentric strife, greed and an obsession with the order of dominance, paralyse all functions, and turn the-work environment into a quagmire of bungling and inertia.

At the level of national entities, we see, that smaller nations tend to work together, acknowledging their limited powers, the need to cooperate, as well as the wisdom of aligning themselves with the dominant forces within their environment. However, we see, also, fierce rivalries between nations and armed groupings, where the overall political unit has lost all meaning and power, and exists in name only, supported by outside allies who adhere to an idea or a concept that has ceased to exist.

I believe, that we have, now, the means to analyse all these happenings as variants of the processes of competitive strife and the mechanisms of the social solution. Eventually, we will be able to analyse the individual and collective behaviour-patterns of human beings with the same precision, and the same inexorable sequences of causes and their effects, as other interpretations in the sphere of our reality perceptions, but, we have to be patient, and, we have to learn to summarise the complexities adequately, before we can make sense out of the apparently chaotic events taking place between the members of mankind and their social units.

Yet, even so, we will always have to keep in mind, that the behaviour of the human being is not rigidly fixed, and, therefore, not easily predicted. Because the human being is already an example of various levels of social integration, (such as the biochemical and cellular levels), and, because of the fact, that the behavioural instructions of the genetic code have been loosened in order to give the factors of experience and parental imitation a chance to make themselves felt, we will always have to analyse the choice of human behaviour in a complex pattern of causes and their effects.

We mean this; the freedom of choice, as well as the input of personal experiences and evaluations, still leave us the possibility to analyse the eventual choice as a final outcome in a complex series of causes and effects. The better we learn to appreciate the input a human being is subjected to, (including past experiences, contemporary goal-patterns and expectations for the future), the better we will be able to anticipate the direction into which its behaviour is going to develop.

The undeniable fact of a "free choice"; at least, the undeniable fact, that we, often, have to evaluate a series of sense impressions and compose the subsequent behavioural response with an act of our conscious will, does not mean, that our choices will remain arbitrary and inscrutable for an intelligent observer. The better we know, how we "operate", and, the better we know the particular circumstances under which we have to function, the more logical and predictable individual, as well as collective behaviour-patterns are going to be.

Then, we will be able to regulate human behaviour more efficiently with the guidelines of social justice and a contract of essential equality, and not, with the techniques of "mind control", deceptive persuasion, or intimidation. The fact, that our behaviour is genetically only "outlined" in its broadest ranges and most primitive and instinctive behaviour-patterns, means, that there will always be some sort of a conscious or subconscious evaluation of the circumstances we live under, and, this means, that we always ask ourselves, in one way or another, consciously or subconsciously, whether or not it is "worthwhile", or advantageous, to belong to a particular society or social organisation.

If we have no way of escaping to any other social order, and, if our life or livelyhood is threatened by such disquieting questions, we will, of course, suppress them, and, we will try to make the best of a difficult or precarious situation; yet, even, under such circumstances, we can not help that our mind makes-up this crucial balance. Even, if we do not talk about it, or think about it, the balance between benefit and harm is slowly being tallied, and, if, time and again, the conclusion is reached that we are not benefitting from a particular social order, we can not help, but feel a slowly rising resentment. We are becoming aware of the fact, that we are being exploited and oppressed; that we are living under unjust conditions, and, that the social order will have to change, sooner or later, often with a violent, convulsive revolution, if there are no other, effective channels to press for changes and reforms.

Ideas about the nature of society, the essential dignity of individual human life, and, the ever more pressing need to establish a contract of essential equality and social justice on a global scale, are spreading relentlessly, and, they add their particular stress to the complex force-fields operating within and between human beings. And, as we have argued on so many occasions, once we have a social contract of justice and equality, and, after we have been able to create the conditions that spread the benefits and the burdens of belonging to society fairly amongst all of us, we still will have to remain vigilant and watch for signs and symptoms indicating an erosion and deterioration of these beneficial and just social conditions.

Here, society reveals, once again, that it is a living entity. Just as the cell has to channel, continuously, a certain amount of energy to correct the dispersive forces of entropic deterioration, and the emergence of randomness or chaos, so will the healthy society have to spend, continuously, a certain amount of maintenance-energy in order to avoid social entropy. The maintenance activities are those of vigilance and a swift, efficient correction of any deviation from this fragile and labile balance of social justice.

We will never be free of stress. We will always have to "fight" for a condition of health and stability, and, this applies to our own personal or individual existence, as well as the just society as a whole. We will always have to spend a certain amount of energy to make sure, that we do not indulge; that we remain frugal, with a good control over our consumptive habits; that we remain honest and open in our dealings with each other, and, that we retain the ability to admit to a mistake; that we have the humility to acknowledge mis-calculations, short-comings and deviations from the ideals of individual and social health.

We still have to retain the cleansing and purifying ability to publicly acknowledge the failures of our actions and our personality, but, we can only expect people to be willingly vulnerable, if they know, that nobody will take advantage of them in their moments of weakness; if they know, that the essential dignity of the human being is retained, even, if someone goes through the painful process of evaluating his or her performance and acknowledges mistakes and short-comings.

Only, if we all know, that everyone will have to acknowledge, from time to time, the mistakes that have been made, and, that no-one is exempted from the basic requirements to be humble, honest and open, only, then, can we bring-up the courage to be publicly repentant and constructively humble; only, then, can we bring-up the courage to let our defenses down and invigorate ourselves, and our environment, with a renewed promise to do better, and, to work with a renewed vigour for the common good.

Mutual trust is the essential life-blood of social cohesion, but, mutual trust has to be protected by an iron-clad social contract of justice and dignity. Behavioural flexibility is useless, if we did not have the possibility to start again, but, in order to start again, we will have to have the courage to admit, that we have done something wrong, or, that we made a mistake, and, we can only do this, if we know, that such an admission will not be followed by a ruthless attack from our competitors.

This is the reason, why unbridled competitive strife, even, if it is limited to the sphere of economic free-enterprise, is incompatible with healthy social conditions. Unless the forces of competitive strife are as well regulated as they are in a good game, (where the accent lies on sportsmanship and not on the spoils), we can not expect people to adhere scrupulously to the rules and regulations of society. As long as the competitive strife of free-enterprise leads to serious differences in social status and well-being, our anxieties are stimulated to the point, that a "defeat", or a loss of assets and earning powers, will be avoided at all costs; if necessary, with somewhat unscrupulous or illegal means.

The same motivations that lie behind the traditional dreams to work oneself up from "rags to riches", from utter poverty to unbridled wealth, (and motivated so many people to work hard and build-up a continent), are also responsible for the slide into illegal and immoral activities and exploitations, because so many people, far too many people, have become dependent on the status of financial success, and, they will get money, somehow, if not completely legally and honourably, then, slightly less legally and less honourably; as long as the money is coming-in.

Just as unbridled personal activities and initiatives in the exploitation of economic possibilities lead to undesirable and harmful side-effects, so do we have to realise, that an unregulated principle of "democratic representation", is just as socially destructive. Merely extending the right or principle of universal suffrage does not guarantee at all a condition of social justice or a workable government.

What is the use of universal suffrage, if people are not treated equally and fairly under the law? What is the good of the right to vote, if there are no laws to ensure, that every citizen is taxed according to his means to contribute, or, if there are no laws to ensure, that all citizens have, at least, a basic minimum level of existence? How can we talk about democratic rights or human rights, if there is no body of law, no judiciary, nor an appropriate law-enforcement agency to ensure, that the principles of equal voting rights are also reflected in an obligation to make proportionate contributions to society, and, to have a scrupulously equal influence upon the instruments of government?

Unless there is such a body of law to extend the democratic principle to a contract of essential equality, the democratic society is deluding itself when it believes itself to be a model of virtue and envy for other countries. Soon, the democratic process will stifle and stagnate, bringing society to a standstill in a state paralysis and chaos. Such a condition brings, invariably, the military coup d'etat. However, with the take-over, we see, as a rule, an increase in arbitrary judgement and a harsh suppression of dissent.

We have described the processes of social polarisation and the dictatorial take-over, many times before. The democracy with the pluralist political structure and the freedom of opinion and expression, is a fragile flower, indeed. There is always the danger, that a dogmatic view-point will gain the upper hand, and, that society will slide into a dictatorship of the right or the left. Either, the successful entrepreneurs will band together with a powerful military elite to safeguard their interests in a right-wing, elitist philosophy, or, the poor and oppressed will manage to grab power and will impose, eventually, a One-Party State, based on Dogmatic Socialism.

It is time to realise, that, every form of polarisation is detrimental to the aspirations of individual health and freedom, and, that we have to find ways to make the truly pluralist society, with its freedom of speech and discussion, a more viable entity. Only, if we are successful in promoting a more attractive alternative to the totalitarian regimes of the right or the left, will it be possible to avoid these trends, which come to the fore, as soon as a society comes under severe and chronic stress. Only, if we are able to create and maintain a truly open, just, equitable and flexible social environment, can we overcome the global threats to life resulting from super-power rivalry and ideological polarisation.

.......

Summary

1. Stress is an inalienable part of living existence.
   The range of stressful stimuli.
   Adapting to various forms of stress.
   Is it possible for people to dedicate themselves, convincingly, to the goals of large-scale social harmony and peace?
   The art of making peace on a large scale has no genetically encoded instructions.
   How to let our leaders experience a "sobering of the mind".
   Hiding in a nuclear-proof bunker is a perversion of leadership.
   Unnecessary sacrifices on the alter of the war-gods.
   After a violent confrontation, there is always some sort of settlement.
   The lure of combat and an opportunistic, predatorial attack.
   Acts of treachery, and the inevitability of a retaliatory attack, sooner or later.
   When leaderships lose contact with their own people.
   The inhibitory influence of a balance of power between arch-rivals.
   The relativity of a condition of "parity".
   What is the value of the ability to kill your opponent more than once?
   The solution of the social contract of essential equality.
   
   
   
2. Human socialisation patterns are still rarely "obligatory", or irreversible.
   When there is a strong inhibition to tear a social organisation apart.
   Inter-dependencies have a tendency to become parasitic.
   The essential equality of members who contribute to a healthy and viable social entity.
   Social integration in terms of stress and energy-expenditure.
   The tendency towards small-scale socialisation is part of our biological heritage.
   Large-scale socialisation has to be brought-about consciously, with the help of a viable cultural code.
   Behavioural flexibility, parental care, and socially beneficial behaviour-patterns are linked together.
   A review of viable parental behaviour.
   Pathological aberrations in large-scale leadership behaviour.
   Differences between parental care and the concerns of a small-scale social leadership.
   The function of a cultural input in small-scale social units.
   The need for a consciously designed framework for making deliberate decisions.
   The stress of social constraints.
   The stress of collapsing and disintegrating bonds of social cohesion.
   A comparison between embryological defects, and, defects of the personality development caused by abnormal conditions during early childhood.
   Relying on unequal relationships; parasitism, or a neurotic type of dependence.
   The stress associated with a breach of trust.
   It is wise not to expect too much from the people around us.
   Respect and loyalty have to be earned, again and again.
   A fickle loyalty.
   When a leader has nowhere to go.
   
   
   
3. Stress, resulting from a failure of "social expectations".
   The stress of a failed expectation and a failed performance.
   A two-way street of expectations and obligations.
   When we become a trusted and valued member of the community.
   Competitive strife inhibits the mechanisms of social integration.
   The many faces of "courage".
   Facing a challenge that exceeds a routine level of stress.
   Stress may be a challenge, as long as the element of choice has not been eliminated.
   In an act of courage, we deliberately accept a challenge or risk, often, for the benefit of the society we belong to.
   When the benefits are egocentric, we rarely consider a dangerous course of action to be courageous.
   Every act of courageous behaviour can be commercialised.
   Courage, and the willingness to engage in warfare.
   The courage of negotiating carefully and persistently.
   The courage to speak-out, whenever the community begins to behave erratically.
   The balance of power; an inhibitory factor for hostilities, as well as a stalemate for rivalries.
   
   
   
4. Courage and the arms-race.
   When courage becomes foolhardy and ignorant.
   Varying interpretations, seen from different vantage-points.
   We all are tempted to grab an unfair advantage, whenever the opportunity presents itself.
   Beneficial international behaviour rests on common psychological mechanisms.
   The meaning of "pacifism".
   When courage is based on patriotic attitudes and a strong faith in one's social leadership.
   Unusual acts of courage.
   The courage of widespread military sabotage.
   The most beneficial outcome of the arms-race; economic exhaustion and political disintegration of the super-powers.
   Real courage is characterised by a strong resistance to any trend, that will be detrimental to the society of mankind.
   When courageous acts of resistance lead to unnecessary bloodshed and suffering.
   Courage may well mean, that we do everything we can to provide decent possibilities of existence for future generations.
   Motivations behind an act of courage.
   Are the rewards personal, communal, or both?
   When courage, or "self-sacrifice" for the group, is associated with an instinctive assumption of leadership responsibilities.
   Behavioural trends, selected by consistent existential pressures.
   The factors of inspiration, admiration and guidance.
   
   
   
5. The lure of power.
   The rewards, and the pre-requisites, of aggressive behaviour.
   Adopting an aggressive attitude towards one's own weaknesses.
   When one can only fight.
   The stress of selecting a responsible course of action.
   A low hierarchical position corresponds with a low level of identification with the social unit.
   Being captured in a separate sub-culture.
   A dependence on the career-environment.
   When we have to fight "on orders", without the ability to scrutinise or question the reasons for a violent confrontation.
   When trustful bonds are only formed with the closest members of one's own sub-grouping.
   When ordinary citizens fear the society at large.
   Courageous behaviour in a battle with the elements.
   A brief look at martyrdom.
   When suffering and death are a necessary price for communal survival.
   Every belief-structure needs its rewards, before it can become truly successful and widely accepted.
   Rationalising the experience of suffering and death.
   Courage, and the mental adjustments necessary to accept stress and hardship.
   When life was short and precarious.
   Coping with stress.
   
   
   
6. Courageous resistance may reach horrifying proportions.
   The power of a fanatic belief is immense.
   When commitment becomes a trap from which an escape is impossible.
   The courage of ordinary citizens.
   Courageous attitudes of common-sense.
   The courage of being steadfast and thoughtful.
   The courage of dealing, swiftly and expertly, with violations of the accepted codes of conduct.
   A review of the various force-fields man is subjected to.
   The early socialisation of behaviourally flexible animals.
   Dispersive tendencies resulting from a competitive instinct.
   Excercising a measure of behavioural control.
   The function of hierarchical ordening.
   When the aspect of an all-out struggle has been removed from the mechanisms of competitive strife.
   An "intuitive wisdom" of the forces of nature.
   Does man share the protective mechanisms of a sense of "satiation"?
   Man's manipulative skills have taken him out of the range of being a prey for other life-forms.
   A grudging acceptance of the requirements of social integration.
   
   
   
7. A review of the reasons for the phenomena of social integration.
   A balance between benefits and burdens of belonging to society.
   Often, the stress of belonging to society is severe.
   Mechanisms of entrapment.
   The entire pre-cellular evolution of the living organisation is based on the advantages of forming a socially integrated unit.
   Cellular components are "obligatory social".
   A break-through in the range of tolerable conditions.
   Varying levels of socialisation or social integration.
   Behavioural flexibility, and the limits of genetic encoding.
   Why social integration between the members of a flexible species is a reluctant and difficult process.
   A specific balance of force-fields.
   Natural selection had to shape an important discriminatory ability into the mechanisms of aggressive arousal.
   The potential benefits of socialisation are enormous.
   It is impossible to sustain life without the help of others.
   We are already "obligatory socialised", but, we still have to learn to appreciate the vastly enlarging unit of social coherence we are becoming dependent upon.
   The problem of complexity, and, the varying levels of social integration.
   When the social unit of dependence exceeds, by far, the sphere of "the familiar".
   What an innovative political leadership can do.
   
   
   
8. We all resist, strenuously, to be completely bound to the dictates of a social organisation.
   Yet, we let slip, so easily, our freedoms of movement and choice.
   The present status of social integration.
   Contradictory force-fields within national units.
   We can analyse social events as variants in the processes of competitive strife and the solution of social integration.
   The factors of "freedom of choice" and "individualised input".
   The subjective experience of a "free choice".
   Regulating human behaviour effectively with the guidelines of social justice and a contract of essential equality.
   Making it worthwhile for everyone to belong to society.
   The living nature of a social entity.
   The need for "social maintenance activities".
   We will never be free from stress.
   The cleansing and purifying ability to acknowledge, publicly, that we have failed or made an error.
   Mutual trust is the life-blood of social cohesion.
   Regulating the forces of competitive strife.
   The harmful effects of unbridled economic activities.
   Equal rights, and the obligation to make proportional contributions to the well-being of the social environment.
   Controling the mechanisms of social polarisation.

.......