Self-Interest and Beyond

With the turmoil, polarization and conflict in out world, we need to look for deeper root causes underlying these tensions. Here we can explore the concept of centrism within the framework of systems science. Centrism, in this context, refers to the tendency of living systems to prioritize and preserve elements that are perceived as similar to themselves, leading to self-identification and the preservation of the system’s components. We can examine this phenomenon across various scales, from individual organisms to the broader ecosystems and societal structures.

Egocentrism (Self):

• At the individual level, organisms exhibit egocentrism, focusing on self-identification and self-preservation. This is a fundamental aspect of survival and is essential for maintaining the integrity of the individual system.

Ethnocentrism (Group):

• Moving to a group or community level, ethnocentrism arises. Communities tend to prioritize the preservation of their own identity, values, and culture. This fosters the senses of identity, empathy, bonding, belonging and unity, contributing to the stability and coherence of the group.
• In today’s world, geography plays a diminishing role in defining communities compared to communities of interest that form online. We do not fully engage our social instincts in virtual reality, but in the absence of authentic community we engage our intellect and intuitions in communities of resonant thoughts, values and beliefs.
• This tendency gives rise to polarizing identity politics that may be based on a shared sense of race, religion, or political party alignment. Moral enemies become mortal enemies.

Anthropocentrism (Human-Centric):

• On a larger scale, anthropocentrism emerges, where human societies tend to prioritize human interests and well-being. This is a natural extension of the self-preservation instinct to a societal level.
• Some people have moved beyond anthropocentrism in adopted animal rights as a step towards embracing nature as a whole. Others have adopted the notion of Gaia, the planetary biospheres as a living system.

Geocentrism (Earth-Centric):

• Expanding further, this ancient notion of geocentrism emerged from the idea that the Earth is the centre of creation and that the universe revolves around it. While modern astronomy shows otherwise, many people still believe that there is no intelligent life beyond our planet.
• Geocentrism reflects the interconnectedness of living systems with the environment. It emphasizes the importance of preserving the Earth’s ecosystems, as it directly impacts the well-being of all life forms.

Path Dependence:

• The concept of path dependence (from complex adaptive systems) is crucial in understanding how systems evolve over time. It suggests that the current state of a system is dependent on its historical path. In the context of centrism, the choices made by a system in the past influence its present state and trajectory.
• Path dependence also refers to the bias for perpetuation of order, similar to laws of conservation of energy and motion. Unless acted upon by an outside force, entities continue in their same form. The form that is perpetuated is a self-replicating form that depends on feedback loops of circular causation.

Fractal Nature of Life:

• Applying a fractal lens, we can view these different forms of centrism as iterations of a larger pattern. The preservation of self-identification, self-organization, and other self-centric principles repeats across scales, forming a fractal structure in the systems of life.

Diversity and Selective Embrace:

• While centrism emphasizes the preservation of self-identity, it also allows for the selective embrace of diversity. This occurs when systems recognize shared goals, values, or complementary skills, knowledge, and wisdom. Diversity, in this context, becomes a strategic adaptation to environmental challenges and opportunities.
• Diverse complementary information, knowledge, skills, and wisdom can be shared for mutual gain, symbiosis, or synergy. A more complete model of reality is synthesized and constructed, permitting a greater range of effective and appropriate responses to environmental opportunities and threats.

Empathy and Expanded Sense of Self:

• Empathy, rooted in the expanded sense of self, arises from recognizing similarities and shared goals with others. It becomes a mechanism for preserving not only individual or group identity but the broader interconnected web of life. Once one is able to routinely manage immediate requirements, a broader sense of identity and empathy is formed, and attention is turned to managing the next concentric layer of environmental opportunities and challenges.

Centrism, as a fundamental aspect of living systems, operates across scales and is intricately tied to the preservation of identity. The path dependence of choices made over time, combined with the fractal nature of life, contributes to the adaptive capacity of systems in the face of environmental dynamics. The selective embrace of diversity ensures a resilient response to challenges, creating a balance between preservation and adaptation within the systems fractal of life.

Hierarchy of Identity?

Let’s now integrate the concept of centrism and the hierarchy of needs proposed by Abraham Maslow. The hierarchy of needs suggests that individuals and societies move through various stages of development, with each stage building upon the fulfillment of basic needs. The connection between centrism and the hierarchy of needs can be elucidated as follows:

Basic Needs (Physiological and Safety):

• At the foundational levels of the hierarchy of needs, individuals and societies prioritize physiological and safety needs. This corresponds to the egocentric and ethnocentric aspects discussed earlier. The narrow focus is on immediate survival, self-preservation, and the security of the family group. Altruism is expensive and is appropriately reserved for close affiliates.

Social Needs (Love and Belonging, Esteem):

• As individuals and communities progress through the hierarchy, social needs come into play. Ethnocentrism aligns with the need for love and belonging, emphasizing the importance of community, culture, and social identity. Esteem needs further contribute to the preservation of group identity and status.
• Sometimes gathering as a group against a common threat instinctively strengthens the group bond. Demonstrating a threatening anger at the enemy becomes a point of heroism, patriotic pride, and moral virtue. Some unscrupulous leaders have used the appearance of outside threats as a diversionary strategy to strengthen their position of power.

Expanded Identity (Self-Actualization):

• Moving towards self-actualization, individuals and societies begin to expand their sense of self. This aligns with the idea of transcending egocentrism and ethnocentrism, reaching a higher order of identity that goes beyond immediate affiliations. Here, the focus is on personal growth, creativity, and a broader understanding of one’s place in the world.
• In self-actualization, one begins to see a broader, more inclusive, identity as a clue to hidden potentials and complementary or collaborative ventures, and as a way to expand oneself. This may involve re-framing or a paradigm shift of ‘self’. Mentorship can play a role in this personal transformation.

Transcendence:

• The pinnacle of Maslow’s hierarchy is transcendence, representing a shift from self-actualization to a focus on the greater good, beyond individual or group interests. In the context of centrism, this involves transcending narrow identifications and embracing a holistic perspective that considers the interconnectedness of all living systems.

Centrism and Transcendence:

• Centrism, as discussed earlier, involves the preservation of self-identity and the selective embrace of diversity. As individuals and societies progress through the hierarchy of needs, there is a natural tendency to expand the scope of identity. This expansion aligns with the movement towards self-actualization and, ultimately, transcendence.
• Every living system is embedded in a hierarchy of interdependent concentric systems. At the center of any living system is an order that is top priority. For example, it has been said that a human is simply a worm with limbs and a central nervous system. We are an alimentary canal with terrestrial mobility and enhanced ability to detect nutrients and toxins. Warmth, oxygen, water, food, and sleep are top priorities. Others are secondary or tertiary.

Fractal Nature of Identity:

• The fractal nature of identity, as suggested by the systems science perspective, is reflected in the hierarchy of needs. The same principles of self-identification, self-preservation, and selective embrace of diversity manifest across different levels of the hierarchy, creating a fractal pattern in the evolution of identity.

Empathy and Transcendence:

• Empathy, rooted in an expanded sense of self, becomes a driving force towards transcendence. As individuals recognize shared goals, values, and interconnectedness with others, the focus shifts from narrow identifications to a collective well-being that transcends individual or group interests. This persists as long as all concerned feel they are meeting their needs within this configuration.

Centrism begins with the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, emphasizing the preservation of basic needs and identity. As individuals and societies progress upward through the hierarchy, there is a natural evolution towards expanded identity and, ultimately, transcendence. The interconnected principles of centrism and the hierarchy of needs contribute to a holistic understanding of how identity evolves and adapts to higher-order goals and aspirations.

All Together Now

Now let’s analyze the existence of three innate moral codes in humans through the lens of systems thinking, incorporating the principles of centrism, hierarchy of needs, and the fractal nature of identity.

Moral Code for Trusted Inner Group (Ethnocentrism):

• Drawing from the earlier discussion, humans exhibit ethnocentrism, emphasizing a strong moral code for their trusted inner group. This aligns with the foundational levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, particularly the need for love and belonging. The moral code within the trusted group is characterized by cooperation, support, and a shared set of values and norms that contribute to the cohesion and well-being of the group.

Moral Code for Strangers (Caution for Uncertainty):

• Systems thinking recognizes the adaptive nature of behavior based on the environment. When it comes to strangers, there is a natural tendency for caution and a distinct moral code that reflects the need for safety and security. This can be seen as an extension of the safety needs in Maslow’s hierarchy. Humans may project the same suspicion onto the strangers and expect they are similarly both curious and defensive. The moral code for strangers involves a balance between curiosity and caution, allowing for potential collaboration while mitigating uncertainty and potential threats.

Moral Code for Known Enemies (Preservation against Threats):

• Building on the concept of centrism and the preservation of identity, the moral code for known enemies is rooted in the need for self-preservation. This aligns with the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, particularly the physiological and safety needs. Known enemies may be predatory or lethal competitors. Humans may also project their own doubts onto the enemies and expect the enemies feel the same way towards them. The moral code towards known enemies may involve defensive strategies, conflict resolution, or even avoidance to ensure the safety and integrity of the self or the trusted inner group.

Fractal Nature of Morality:

• Systems thinking emphasizes the fractal nature of patterns across scales. In the context of morality, the three innate moral codes exhibit a fractal pattern, mirroring the principles of self-identification, self-preservation, and selective embrace of diversity. Each moral code operates within a specific context while adhering to the fundamental principles of the system.

Hierarchy of Needs and Moral Development:

• The hierarchy of needs provides a developmental perspective on morality. As individuals and societies progress upward through the hierarchy, moral codes evolve from a focus on immediate group interests to a broader understanding that encompasses strangers and, in some cases, even known enemies. This evolution reflects the transcendence aspect of the hierarchy, where morality extends beyond self-interest to consider the well-being of the larger system.

Adaptive Nature of Morality:

• Systems thinking acknowledges the adaptability of behavior based on environmental dynamics. The three innate moral codes are adaptive responses to different social contexts, reflecting the need for survival, cooperation, and conflict resolution. This adaptability ensures that moral codes align with the diverse challenges and opportunities presented by the social environment.

The existence of three innate moral codes in humans can be understood through the integrated lens of systems thinking, centrism, and the hierarchy of needs. These moral codes reflect adaptive responses to different social contexts, emphasizing the preservation of self-identity and the well-being of the broader system. The fractal nature of morality is evident as similar principles operate at different scales, contributing to the complexity and adaptability of human moral behavior.

The Innate Pecking Order

The idea of centrism is closely related to the concept of hierarchies, especially when viewed through the lens of systems science. Let’s explore this relationship:

Centrism Defined:

• Centrism, in the context of systems science, refers to the tendency of living systems to prioritize and preserve elements that are perceived as similar to themselves. This inclination leads to self-identification and the preservation of the system’s components. It’s a fundamental aspect of how living systems organize and interact with their environment.

Hierarchies as a Systemic Structure:

• Hierarchies represent a systemic structure where elements or individuals are ranked or organized in levels or tiers based on certain criteria. These criteria could include power, authority, influence, or other attributes depending on the context of the hierarchy.

Centrism within Hierarchies:

• In hierarchical structures, centrism manifests in the tendency of individuals or components to prioritize and preserve elements similar to themselves within their immediate vicinity or level in the hierarchy. This could be observed in social groups, organizations, or ecosystems where entities within a specific tier share common characteristics or functions.

Path Dependence and Fractal Nature:

• The concept of path dependence, a key aspect of systems thinking, is crucial in understanding how hierarchies evolve over time. The choices made by a system in the past influence its present state and trajectory, creating a path-dependent hierarchy. The fractal nature of life, viewed through centrism, results in similar patterns repeating across different scales within hierarchical structures.

Selective Embrace of Diversity:

• While centrism emphasizes the preservation of self-identity within hierarchies, it also allows for the selective embrace of diversity. This occurs when systems recognize shared goals, values, or complementary skills, fostering a strategic adaptation to environmental challenges and opportunities.

Empathy and Expanded Sense of Self:

• Empathy, rooted in an expanded sense of self, is another aspect of centrism within hierarchies. As individuals recognize similarities and shared goals with others within their hierarchical level or beyond, empathy becomes a mechanism for preserving not only individual or group identity but the broader interconnected web of life.

Centrism and hierarchies are intertwined concepts in systems science. Centrism influences how entities within a hierarchy prioritize and preserve elements similar to themselves, creating patterns that repeat across different scales. Understanding centrism within hierarchies provides insights into the adaptive nature of living systems and how they organize themselves to navigate their environments.

Social Hierarchies

Social hierarchies, or pecking orders, are prevalent among many species of animals, including humans, due to evolutionary, adaptive, and systemic factors. Hierarchy, as a strategy for safety in numbers or economies of scale, provides some central planning and co-ordination for the group or community. Here’s an exploration of why social hierarchies exist, the triggering conditions, their functions from a systems perspective, and constraints on their size and complexity:

Evolutionary Advantages:

• Resource Distribution: Social hierarchies can facilitate efficient distribution of resources such as food, shelter, and mates. The ability to access resources as a coordinated group can enhance an individual’s chances of survival and reproduction (e.g., hunting packs).
• Cooperation and Division of Labor: Hierarchies promote cooperation and division of labor within groups, allowing individuals to specialize in specific roles. This specialization can improve the overall fitness of the group.

Triggering Conditions:

• Resource Scarcity: Limited resources, such as food or territory, can trigger competition among individuals, leading to the establishment of hierarchies.
• Reproductive Opportunities: Competition for mates and reproductive opportunities can be a significant trigger for the formation of social hierarchies.
• Environmental Challenges: External threats, such as predators or environmental challenges, can prompt the need for coordinated responses within a group, reinforcing the importance of hierarchy.

Functions from a Systems Perspective:

• Efficient Communication: Social hierarchies streamline communication within a group. Clear hierarchies reduce the complexity of communication networks, allowing information and signals to flow more efficiently.
• Decision-Making: Hierarchies provide a structured framework for decision-making. Leaders or higher-ranking individuals often play a crucial role in making decisions that benefit the group.
• Conflict Resolution: Social hierarchies establish mechanisms for resolving conflicts. Dominance hierarchies, for example, can help minimize physical confrontations by defining clear rules of engagement.

Constraints on Size and Complexity of Scale:

• Communication Efficiency: As a social group grows in size, maintaining efficient communication becomes challenging. Hierarchies may be constrained by the limits of effective information flow.
• Coordination Challenges: Larger groups may face difficulties in coordinating actions and responses. Hierarchies may become more complex or decentralized to address these challenges.
• Resource Limitations: The availability of resources can limit the size of social groups. If resources are insufficient to support a larger population, the group may fragment or face internal competition.

In a systems perspective, social hierarchies are dynamic and adaptive structures shaped by interactions between individuals and their environment. They provide a framework for efficient organization, resource allocation, and coordinated responses to external challenges. However, these hierarchies are not without constraints, and their size and complexity are influenced by factors such as communication efficiency, coordination challenges, and resource availability.

Understanding social hierarchies as part of complex adaptive systems allows for a more comprehensive analysis of their functions and limitations, considering both internal dynamics and external influences.