Rachel's Sociological Theory of Monkey Brains

[kleenexwoman]

Important note: This is probably not exactly how actual monkeys behave. This is, however, almost precisely how most humans behave. Analogies are never exact.

Humans are, essentially, highly advanced monkeys without tails. (Which would make us apes, technically, but who's keeping track?) No matter how intelligent, rational, or noble humanity in general ever becomes, humans will always have that little part of their brain which is wired to swing through trees.

Monkeys directly fear three things (and indirectly fear one):
1. The other monkeys in your own tribe. (all those damn kids who drive me crazy)
2. The other tribes of monkeys. (scary humans who aren't like us)
3. The tiger. (the unknown--death, sickness, aliens)
4. (indirect) Starvation, characterized here as a lack of bananas. For simplicity's sake.

There are two kinds of monkeys, alpha monkeys and omega monkeys. The classification is often situational, but of course most people will be more inclined to take one role over the other.

Omega monkeys are generally afraid that the other monkeys in their own tribe will kill them or not allow them to have bananas. Omegas will strive to make themselves useful or servile to the tribe in an attempt to ingratiate themselves.
When another tribe attacks, omegas will try to make themselves look weak in an attempt to convince their own tribe that they need help defending themselves (human equivalent is pity).
When the tiger attacks, an omega will hide or try to make themselves appear not to be a monkey in order to convince the tiger not to eat it (deliberate and calculated nonconformity).

Alpha monkeys are generally in power. They will attack the other monkeys in their own tribe if the other monkeys try to usurp their position or take their bananas.
When another tribe attacks, alphas will try to get the other monkeys to fight along with them (seeing as the alphas are in power anyway, this could probably be propaganda, whether personal or national).
When the tiger attacks, the alpha will try to get all the other monkeys to fight along with them regardless of tribes. This is sometimes effective diplomacy, but often just results in the alpha dragging down everyone else with them in a losing battle.

Most misunderstandings and confrontations come from when two alphas try to treat each other as omegas (pissing contests, bravado), or when two omegas try to treat each other as alphas (mutual cringing and apologizing).



I know this is a depressing system, but it seems to be the way things work. It's what I've observed lately. Am getting Sheptoski to look it over. He's such an accomodating prof.

Comments

[vicfitz82.livejournal.com]

Isn't social psychology fun? Really makes a person feel small sometimes.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

The worst part is that I can't figure out if this is one of those things Sheptoski wants his neophyte sociologists to fix or if it's just ingrained. Universal lobotomies may be in order.

[vicfitz82.livejournal.com]

i never had Sheptoski, but I think the goal of social psychology isn't to tear down the established primate social order, but simply to study and recognize it as a fact of life.

When human beings aren't Homo sapiens sapiens any more, maybe social interaction will make a greater departure from our ape roots. Until then, I don't think humans are doing too bad. At least we realize how similar we are to monkeys and apes. That's pretty good for an animal.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

He's pretty persuasive on the point of sociologists taking some kind of action. Maybe not tearing down the established order per se, but one of the things he likes to harp on is that studying is simply not enough. Not sure whether I agree with him or not.

It'd probably be nicer if humans were evolved from wolves. Alpha wolves are protective instead of power-trippy, and beta/omega wolves are respectful instead of cringing. Monkeys are just mean.

[nike-victory.livejournal.com]

My soc prof is a parole officer. Does that count towards doing something?

And it would be nice if we evolved from wolves. Hmm... I should use that in my original fiction.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

I suppose being a parole officer could definitely count. Although I think it's not quite the kind of action my prof is talking about, it is admirable.

Some of us...

[wolf-heart9.livejournal.com]

It'd probably be nicer if humans were evolved from wolves. Alpha wolves are protective instead of power-trippy, and beta/omega wolves are respectful instead of cringing. Monkeys are just mean.

...feel more wolfish than others. Though I could introduce you to a couple of my male friends who claim to be wolfish, but really in the corner, you can see their attempt at alpha maleness is really just making them hoard bananas and snarl at those they consider inferior.

I feel I'm less power-trippy and more protective.

Re: Some of us...

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

true. you aren't really either alpha monkey or omega monkey, are you? you're the good bits of both.
or, maybe there's also wolf humans. be nice to think so.

Re: Some of us...

[wolf-heart9.livejournal.com]

Maybe the bulk of humans seem more like their monkey selves. Perhaps some people have gotten beyond the monkey selves (not that the primate is utterly wrong or unworthy) and have begun exploring the other animals within, so to speak. Maybe the people who seem more like wolf-people and less like monkey-people have just looked at embracing a different...societal pattern. Perhaps what it comes down to is that some monkey-people have decided not to cower as omegas, nor to they want to bully as alphas, so they look at other patterns in the jungle/forests/whatever and find a pattern that suits them. Therefore, you wind up with people who act more like cats, more like dogs or wolves, more like birds.

I know my share of monkey-people who think they're something else. And perhaps on the surface, they've created this exterior that appears to be something else. But deep down, they're still monkey-people and either cowering or bullying.

[vicfitz82.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's fair to suggest humans change everything about their primate social inheritance. I suppose we're always moving farther away from it, with increased dependence on technology and complicated social networks making it impossible for people to be left alone. I mean, a monkey in the jungle might only know the other monkeys in his tribe, which might be 20 or 30 individuals. Humans spend a lot more time together because of civilization, and it's probably not uncommmon to be able to recognize more than 100 individuals, if not more. So human nature has to change simply because we're exposed to so many other individuals.

...So I understand how Sheptoski would advocate changing the ways humans interact, but I think it already is changing just as a factor of our environment. I mean, how could I ever say I belong to any particular "tribe?" Is the tribe the "state?" Or maybe it's the "city?" But certainly, people in the same city don't know each other. Or does "tribe" imply intimacy, as in family or close friends? But, I prefer to think of "tribe" as being an exclusive group, to which very few people belong because of interconnected social networks. I think it's almost impossible for people to belong to such an exclusive group.

...anyway, I'm sorry I've gone on too long with this. Combined with the fact that I'm not an expert on human (or monkey) social psychology, all this probably isn't worth much. I guess I find it all very interesting.

Don't loose too much faith in humanity because of social psychology. You'll think about how we're all smelly apes, get stoned, and sit around scratching your head as you try to justify all the acheivements humans have made just for having thumbs. Doesn't help the self-esteem area, and completely discounts the potential within humanity, which I believe in even though I have a hard time doing so these days.

[vicfitz82.livejournal.com]

and please ignore any spelling and grammar errors.

[kleenexwoman.livejournal.com]

i'm still firm in the belief that we're smelly apes. but particularly clever, wonderful smelly apes.
people say evolution's depressing, say it means we're nothing because we came from germs and dirt and monkeys. the fact that humans have managed to rise above their germs and their dirt and their monkeys and build civilization and beauty and ethics says a lot more about the innate amazingness of the human race than it could ever mean if we were spat out by some god who was already perfect anyway. in my opinion.

good point about the tribes. i suppose anymore it might just mean whoever you happen to identify with. your family, your english class, your little circle of friends, a certain subculture, a certain race...nebulous meaning for a nebulous analogy.

[vicfitz82.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you. It's much more interesting to think about the processes that lead up to the present. It really gives humanity some kind of merit, I think, rather than just being some beast created by some selfish deity.

But I won't pretend to know all the answers to the problem of existence.

Anyway, I'm just trying to cheer you up a little. Embrace the ape within! Speaking of which, I'm almost out of bananas...