The Human Swarm

The Human Swarm Plot Summary

Introduction

Imagine standing in a crowded city square surrounded by thousands of strangers, yet feeling completely at ease. This seemingly ordinary experience would be utterly terrifying for our closest primate relatives. Chimpanzees, who must personally know every member of their community, would experience overwhelming panic in such a situation. How did humans evolve the remarkable ability to form societies of millions where most members will never meet face-to-face? This evolutionary journey from small hunter-gatherer bands to complex modern nations represents one of the most fascinating transformations in human history. Throughout this process, we developed psychological mechanisms that allow us to recognize "our people" through shared markers like language, clothing, and customs rather than personal familiarity. We created hierarchies that rank both our own members and other groups, often with troubling consequences. And we established boundaries between "us" and "them" that simultaneously enable cooperation within groups while sometimes fueling conflict between them. Understanding these deep patterns in our social psychology illuminates not just our past, but the challenges we face in building more inclusive societies today.

Chapter 1: Anonymous Recognition: How Humans Transcended Primate Social Limits

For most of our evolutionary history, humans lived in small bands of 25-50 individuals who knew each other intimately. This social arrangement wasn't unique to humans—most primates operate within similar numerical constraints. Chimpanzees, our closest relatives, maintain communities of 100-200 individuals where each member recognizes every other personally. This creates what scientists call a "glass ceiling" on group size, limited by the cognitive capacity to track individual relationships. The revolutionary breakthrough in human social evolution came when we developed the ability to form "anonymous societies"—groups where members don't need to know everyone personally. Instead of relying solely on individual recognition, humans began using shared markers of identity to identify fellow society members, even complete strangers. Archaeological evidence suggests this transformation was underway by at least 100,000 years ago, with early humans using ochre pigments for body decoration and distinctive styles of beads and tools that likely served as tribal identifiers. This shift represented a fundamental change in how humans organized themselves socially. It allowed our societies to grow exponentially larger, eventually enabling the formation of tribes, chiefdoms, and states containing thousands or millions of people. The mechanism behind this transition parallels what we see in certain insect societies, particularly ants, where colony members identify each other through chemical markers rather than individual recognition. Humans, however, developed a far more complex and flexible system of identity markers. The psychological foundations for this recognition system begin developing remarkably early in life. Studies show that even three-month-old infants can distinguish between faces of their own race versus other races. By five months, babies prefer individuals who speak their parents' language with a familiar accent. These early-developing tendencies to categorize people based on markers of identity appear to be hardwired into human cognition, suggesting the deep evolutionary roots of our capacity for anonymous social recognition. What makes these markers so powerful is that humans perceive them as reflecting something essential about a person's nature. Starting around age three, children begin attributing an "essence" to social groups—an elemental quality that makes members what they are. This essentialist thinking leads us to view our society, ethnicity, or nationality as reflecting fundamental, unchangeable aspects of identity. Even when a person attempts to adopt the markers of another group, they may still be viewed as essentially belonging to their original group. The emergence of anonymous recognition freed humans from the cognitive constraints that limit other primate societies, allowing our ancestors to form larger, more complex social structures that would eventually develop into the nations and civilizations of today. This capacity represents one of the most significant adaptations in human evolution, fundamentally altering our species' trajectory and enabling the unprecedented scale of cooperation that characterizes modern human societies.

Chapter 2: Identity Markers: The Social Glue of Human Societies

As human societies grew beyond the size where everyone could know each other personally, identity markers became essential for distinguishing who belonged and who didn't. These markers emerged in various forms across different cultures, serving as the social glue that held anonymous societies together. Archaeological evidence reveals that such practices date back tens of thousands of years, with distinctive styles of personal adornment marking different cultural groups long before the advent of agriculture or written language. Language became perhaps the most powerful identity marker, with distinctive accents and dialects developing even among groups speaking the same basic tongue. These linguistic differences weren't merely practical—they served as immediate signals of group membership. Studies show that we can often identify someone's origins within seconds of hearing them speak, and we make automatic judgments about their trustworthiness and relatability based on these cues. Children as young as five months show preferences for speakers with familiar accents, suggesting how deeply ingrained these linguistic markers are in our psychology. Beyond language, societies developed visual markers through clothing, hairstyles, tattoos, and body modifications. The archaeological record shows that such practices date back to our earliest ancestors, with evidence of body painting using red ochre appearing at sites like Pinnacle Point in South Africa from 160,000 years ago. These visual markers served as immediate signals of group membership that could be recognized at a distance, allowing humans to quickly identify friend from foe in potentially dangerous encounters with strangers. Rituals and cultural practices further reinforced group identity. Shared ceremonies, from religious observances to secular celebrations, created emotional bonds between group members while simultaneously highlighting differences from outsiders. These collective experiences generated what sociologist Émile Durkheim called "collective effervescence"—a sense of unity and shared purpose that strengthened group cohesion. Even today, participation in national holidays, sporting events, or religious ceremonies reinforces our sense of belonging to particular societies. What makes these identity markers so effective is that they operate largely outside conscious awareness. Studies by psychologist Alex Todorov reveal that we assess a person's emotional state, sex, race, and ethnicity within a tenth of a second—too quickly for conscious deliberation. These snap judgments influence whether we categorize someone as "one of us" or as an outsider, with profound consequences for how we interact with them. We tend to trust, cooperate with, and feel empathy toward those who share our markers of identity, while approaching those with different markers more cautiously. Throughout history, societies have sometimes forced visible markers onto marginalized groups precisely to prevent them from "passing" as members of the dominant group. The yellow badges Jews were compelled to wear in medieval Europe and during the Holocaust served this purpose—ensuring that members of a targeted group could not be misidentified. This dark history reveals how central markers of identity are to maintaining social boundaries, sometimes with devastating consequences for those marked as outsiders. Understanding the power of identity markers helps explain both the cohesion of human societies and the persistent divisions between them. These markers aren't merely superficial differences—they tap into deep psychological mechanisms that evolved to help our ancestors quickly distinguish friend from foe in a dangerous world. While modern globalization has created more fluid and overlapping identities, the fundamental human tendency to categorize others based on markers of group membership remains a powerful force shaping our social world.

Chapter 3: Ranking Others: The Great Chain of Being in Human Psychology

Humans have a natural tendency to arrange the world into hierarchies, and this extends to how we rank other groups. Throughout history, societies have positioned themselves at the top of what philosophers once called "the Great Chain of Being"—a cosmic hierarchy with their own group closest to the divine and others ranked below in descending order of perceived worth. This hierarchical thinking appears to be deeply embedded in human psychology, emerging across cultures and historical periods. The names many hunter-gatherer groups gave themselves reveal this pattern of self-elevation. The Jahai of Malaysia call themselves the menra or "real people." The Dana-zaa of Canada and the Kusunda of Nepal used similar self-designations meaning "human beings." Even the gentle San Bushmen of the Kalahari called themselves the !Kung—"the human beings"—distinguishing themselves from other Bushmen groups they considered less than fully human. This tendency to see one's own group as uniquely and fully human while viewing others as somewhat less so appears to be universal. This hierarchical perception manifests in how we attribute emotional capacities to different groups. Psychologists have found that people readily acknowledge that all humans express basic emotions like happiness, fear, and anger. However, they often doubt whether members of other groups experience more complex secondary emotions like hope, honor, embarrassment, or guilt. Since these secondary emotions are seen as uniquely human, denying them to outgroups effectively dehumanizes those people, placing them lower on the Great Chain of Being. The consequences of this ranking extend to how we perceive the moral worth of others. Groups placed lower in the hierarchy are often seen as lacking self-control, refinement, and civility. Their actions may be attributed to basic impulses rather than complex reasoning, and their moral transgressions viewed as reflecting inherent character flaws rather than situational factors. This perception places them outside what psychologists call our "scope of justice"—the boundary within which we feel moral obligations toward others. The most extreme form of hierarchical thinking involves equating disliked groups with vermin or disease carriers. Throughout history, targeted groups have been compared to rats, leeches, snakes, or roaches—comparisons that activate disgust responses and make mistreatment seem justified. During the Rwandan genocide, Hutus referred to Tutsis as cockroaches; Nazis likened Jews to vermin; and European colonizers frequently described indigenous peoples in animalistic terms. These dehumanizing metaphors don't merely reflect prejudice—they actively enable violence by disconnecting moral inhibitions against harming fellow humans. What makes these perceptions particularly insidious is their automatic nature. The Implicit Association Test reveals that most people harbor biases they don't consciously endorse, and attempts to suppress these biases often backfire through what psychologists call the "rebound effect." When we try not to think about something, our minds often become more fixated on it. Similarly, trying to suppress automatic biases can sometimes make them more influential on our behavior. This helps explain why even well-meaning people can harbor prejudices they're unaware of and why eliminating hierarchical thinking about other groups has proven so difficult throughout human history. Understanding the psychological roots of how we rank other societies helps explain the persistence of prejudice and discrimination even in societies that officially embrace equality. By recognizing these deep patterns in our social cognition, we can develop more effective approaches to building truly equitable relationships between groups in our increasingly interconnected world.

Chapter 4: From Bands to States: The Transformation of Social Organization

The journey from small hunter-gatherer bands to complex nation-states represents one of the most profound transformations in human history. For roughly 95% of our species' existence, humans lived as nomadic foragers in groups of 25-50 individuals. These band societies were remarkably egalitarian, with fluid leadership based on skill and persuasion rather than coercion. As anthropologist Richard Lee recorded when asking a Bushman about headmen: "Of course we have headmen! In fact, we are all headmen. Each of us is headman over himself!" The first major shift in social organization began around 12,000 years ago with the emergence of agriculture. As humans settled in permanent villages to tend crops and livestock, population density increased dramatically. Archaeological sites like Çatalhöyük in Turkey show early farming communities of several thousand people living in densely packed houses. This new lifestyle created both opportunities and challenges. Food surpluses could support specialized roles beyond food production, but also generated new conflicts over resources that required more formal mechanisms of conflict resolution. Chiefdoms emerged as an intermediate form of social organization between egalitarian bands and hierarchical states. Chiefs, unlike the situational leaders of band societies, held permanent positions of authority based on kinship and controlled defined territories. They coordinated communal projects, redistributed resources, and settled disputes. The archaeological record shows this transition through the appearance of larger ceremonial structures and status differentiation in burials, with chiefs interred with valuable goods that signaled their elevated position. The chiefdoms of the Pacific Northwest, with their elaborate potlatch ceremonies and inherited status positions, exemplify this form of social organization. True states emerged between 6,000 and 4,000 years ago in Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and Mesoamerica. These societies featured professional administrators, codified laws, and specialized military forces. Unlike chiefs, who had to personally oversee all aspects of governance, state rulers could delegate authority through hierarchical institutions, allowing them to control vastly larger territories and populations. The earliest states were typically centered around temple complexes or palaces that served as administrative centers, as seen in the ziggurats of Mesopotamia and the palace complexes of Minoan Crete. A key innovation that enabled the growth of states was their ability to incorporate conquered peoples. Earlier societies had typically enslaved, killed, or driven away defeated enemies. States, by contrast, developed mechanisms to absorb foreign populations while maintaining social control. The Roman Empire exemplified this approach, granting varying levels of citizenship to conquered peoples while spreading Latin language, Roman law, and cultural practices throughout its territories. This strategy allowed Rome to maintain control over vast territories for centuries, creating a multiethnic society bound by common institutions. The psychological impact of this social transformation was profound. Humans had to adapt to living among strangers, following abstract rules enforced by distant authorities, and identifying with communities too large to experience directly. New psychological mechanisms emerged to facilitate these adaptations, including more abstract forms of social identity based on shared symbols rather than face-to-face interaction. The development of writing systems further transformed social organization by allowing information to be stored and transmitted across time and space, enabling more complex forms of administration and cultural transmission. Understanding this evolutionary journey from bands to states helps explain many features of modern societies. The tension between egalitarian impulses and hierarchical structures, the challenges of maintaining cohesion in diverse populations, and the human capacity to identify with abstract communities all have roots in this long process of social transformation. By recognizing these deep patterns in our social evolution, we gain insight into both the strengths and limitations of our current social arrangements.

Chapter 5: Ethnicity and Race: Living Together Yet Apart

The incorporation of diverse populations into single political entities created a new social reality: societies containing multiple ethnicities and races living together yet apart. This arrangement, now commonplace around the world, would have been incomprehensible to our hunter-gatherer ancestors, whose societies were remarkably homogeneous. Understanding how these multiethnic societies function requires examining the psychological and social dynamics that govern relationships between groups. When conquering societies absorbed foreign populations, they typically maintained clear status hierarchies. The dominant group—usually the original founders of the society—claimed superior status and controlled key institutions, while incorporated groups occupied subordinate positions. These arrangements were justified through origin myths and historical narratives that portrayed the dominant group as uniquely deserving of their privileged position. In ancient Rome, for instance, the founding myth of Romulus and Remus provided divine sanction for Roman rule, while in colonial America, doctrines like Manifest Destiny justified European dominance over indigenous peoples and enslaved Africans. The relationship between dominant and minority groups typically involves a complex process of assimilation. Minority groups face pressure to adopt the language, customs, and values of the dominant culture, but complete assimilation is rarely expected or even desired. Instead, minorities are required to adapt enough to function within the broader society while maintaining sufficient distinctiveness to preserve existing social boundaries. This creates a perpetual balancing act for minority group members, who must navigate between maintaining their cultural heritage and adapting to majority expectations. Spatial segregation has been a common feature of multiethnic societies throughout history. In ancient Rome, different ethnic groups concentrated in specific neighborhoods; medieval cities typically had distinct quarters for different religious and ethnic communities; and modern cities continue to show clear patterns of ethnic clustering. This segregation sometimes results from explicit policies, but often emerges from the natural tendency of people to seek out others who share their cultural background, combined with economic factors that concentrate particular groups in specific areas. Despite living in close proximity, different ethnic groups often develop separate social networks with limited interaction across group boundaries. Studies show that even in integrated settings like schools or workplaces, people tend to form closer relationships with members of their own ethnic group. These patterns are reinforced by cultural differences in communication styles, values, and social norms that can make cross-group interactions feel more effortful and less rewarding. The result is what sociologists call "parallel lives"—different communities existing side by side with minimal meaningful contact. Throughout history, multiethnic societies have developed various mechanisms for managing diversity. Some, like the Ottoman Empire, employed a "millet system" that granted religious communities substantial autonomy in managing their internal affairs. Others, like the United States, have emphasized shared civic values and national symbols that transcend ethnic differences. The most successful multiethnic societies have found ways to balance unity and diversity, creating what political scientists call "superordinate identities" that encompass but don't erase ethnic distinctions. The challenges of building cohesive multiethnic societies remain evident in the contemporary world. From Brexit in the United Kingdom to ethnic tensions in India and racial divisions in the United States, the question of how diverse groups can share political space while maintaining distinct identities continues to shape politics globally. Understanding the deep psychological and social dynamics that govern intergroup relations helps explain why these challenges persist even in societies officially committed to equality and inclusion.

Chapter 6: Nationalism vs. Patriotism: Competing Visions of Belonging

The modern world has witnessed the rise of two powerful forms of social identity: nationalism and patriotism. Though often confused or used interchangeably, these represent distinct psychological orientations toward one's society with profound implications for how people relate to their own group and to outsiders. Understanding the difference between these mindsets helps explain many of the political conflicts that characterize our era. Nationalism emerged as a political force in the late 18th and 19th centuries, transforming how people thought about political communities. Nationalists view their nation as defined by shared ancestry, language, and culture—what scholars call an "ethnic" conception of nationhood. They see the nation as an extended family with deep historical roots, emphasizing continuity with the past and the preservation of traditional ways of life. This perspective tends to view national identity as something inherited rather than chosen, making it difficult for newcomers to be fully accepted regardless of their legal status. Patriotism, by contrast, centers on attachment to shared values, institutions, and civic principles rather than ethnic heritage. Patriots can feel deep love for their country while remaining open to change and self-criticism. Where nationalists emphasize loyalty and conformity to traditional norms, patriots focus on living up to ideals like liberty, justice, or equality. This "civic" conception of nationhood makes it easier to incorporate immigrants and minorities, as belonging depends on commitment to shared principles rather than ancestral ties. The tension between these competing visions became particularly evident during the French Revolution. The revolutionary government initially embraced a civic conception of French identity, declaring that anyone who accepted the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity could become a citizen regardless of origin. This civic vision contrasted sharply with the ethnic nationalism that later emerged in Germany, where thinkers like Johann Gottfried Herder emphasized the unique spirit (Volksgeist) of the German people as expressed through their language and cultural traditions. These different conceptions of national belonging have shaped immigration policies throughout the modern era. Countries like France and the United States have historically emphasized assimilation to civic values, while nations like Germany and Japan have maintained stronger connections between citizenship and ethnic heritage. Though both approaches have evolved over time, the tension between civic and ethnic conceptions of nationhood remains evident in contemporary debates about immigration and multiculturalism. Research in psychology reveals that these different orientations correlate with broader personality traits and values. Nationalists typically score higher on measures of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, preferring hierarchical social arrangements and strong leadership. They place greater emphasis on loyalty, respect for authority, and purity as moral values. Patriots, while still identifying strongly with their national group, tend to emphasize fairness and care for others, and are more comfortable with social change and diversity. These competing visions of belonging have profound implications for international relations. Nationalist movements often define themselves in opposition to other nations, viewing international politics as a zero-sum competition. This perspective can fuel conflicts over territory, resources, and status, as nations seek to advance their interests at others' expense. Patriotic orientations, by contrast, more readily accommodate international cooperation based on shared principles and mutual benefit, viewing national interests as potentially compatible rather than inherently conflicting. Understanding these competing visions helps explain why societies often seem pulled in opposite directions—simultaneously embracing globalization while experiencing nationalist backlashes. Rather than representing a contradiction, this reflects the ongoing tension between different ways of conceptualizing what it means to belong to a society—a tension that has shaped human communities throughout history and continues to define our political landscape today.

Chapter 7: The Lifecycle of Societies: How Human Groups Form and Dissolve

Throughout history, societies have followed predictable patterns of formation, growth, and eventual dissolution or transformation. Understanding these patterns helps us recognize similar processes unfolding in the contemporary world and perhaps avoid the worst outcomes of societal breakdown. While each society's trajectory is unique, certain common dynamics govern how nations rise and fall. The birth of new societies typically occurs through one of several processes. Division happens when an existing society splits along internal fault lines, usually reflecting geographical, cultural, or ideological differences that have developed over time. The breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s exemplifies this pattern, as a multiethnic federation fragmented into ethnically defined successor states. Conquest creates new societies when a powerful group subjugates others and incorporates them into a new political entity. The Spanish conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires created novel societies that combined European and indigenous elements in previously nonexistent configurations. Once established, societies typically experience a period of consolidation and growth. During this phase, they develop distinctive markers of identity—languages, customs, symbols, and narratives that distinguish members from outsiders. They also create institutions to maintain internal order and defend against external threats. Successful societies generate sufficient resources to support specialized roles beyond basic subsistence, allowing for innovations in technology, art, and social organization that further strengthen the society. As societies mature, they often face increasing internal tensions. The very success that allows them to grow creates new challenges: larger populations strain communication networks; greater social complexity generates conflicts between different segments of society; and accumulated wealth creates incentives for elites to exploit their positions. These internal strains interact with external pressures like climate change, resource depletion, or competition from neighboring societies to create multiple stressors that test social resilience. Historical analysis shows that state societies typically last between two and five centuries before fragmenting or transforming into new configurations. The Roman Empire endured for approximately five centuries in the West before dissolving into successor kingdoms. The Tang Dynasty in China lasted about three centuries before collapsing amid rebellion and invasion. Even the seemingly eternal Egyptian civilization experienced multiple periods of fragmentation and reconsolidation over its three-thousand-year history. When societies do break apart, they typically fragment along pre-existing fault lines. These may reflect geographical features that impede communication, cultural or linguistic differences that complicate cooperation, or economic disparities that generate resentment. The Soviet Union's dissolution along the boundaries of its constituent republics illustrates how administrative divisions can become the template for societal fragmentation when central authority weakens. Perhaps most importantly, societal breakdown rarely means the disappearance of a people or their culture. Instead, elements of the original society persist in its successors, often in reconfigured forms. When the Western Roman Empire fell, many Roman institutions continued in the successor kingdoms, while Roman law, language, and religion evolved into new forms that shaped European civilization for centuries afterward. Similarly, the cultural and institutional legacies of modern societies will likely outlive their current political configurations. This perspective on societal lifecycles offers both caution and comfort. It cautions us against assuming our current arrangements are permanent or inevitable, reminding us that all societies eventually transform or dissolve. Yet it also reassures us that such transformations need not mean catastrophe—human communities have repeatedly demonstrated remarkable resilience in adapting to changing circumstances and rebuilding after periods of disruption. Understanding these patterns may help us navigate the transitions that inevitably lie ahead.

Summary

The story of human societies reveals a remarkable journey from small hunter-gatherer bands to complex modern nations. Throughout this evolution, certain fundamental patterns have persisted. Societies form boundaries between insiders and outsiders, develop markers of identity that signal membership, and create hierarchies that rank both their own members and other groups. These patterns reflect deep psychological tendencies that evolved during our species' long history of group living and continue to shape our social world today. The central tension running through this history is between our need for belonging and our tendency toward division. Humans crave the security and meaning that come from being part of something larger than themselves, yet simultaneously create distinctions that separate "us" from "them." This paradox explains why societies continually form, split, and reconfigure in new arrangements. It also suggests that managing diversity within societies requires acknowledging both our desire for group identity and our capacity for cooperation across group boundaries. Rather than expecting either complete assimilation or permanent separation, successful societies find ways to balance unity and diversity, creating shared identities while respecting differences. As we face growing global challenges that transcend national boundaries, cultivating this balance becomes increasingly crucial for our collective future.

About Author

Loading...

Mark W. Moffett

Read more