is expansive. It gives people a sense of the possible. “As one’s ability to monitor surrounding activities increases,” wrote architecture professor John Archea, “so does one’s awareness of emerging behavioral opportunities.” Paradoxically, full exposure can also be restrictive in ways that are also beneficial, especially from a social perspective. When “the likelihood of being monitored by others increases,” Archea continued, “so does the person’s accountability for his or her own behavior.” 21
But exposure was also protective. In small, open societies, people were able to achieve some level of personal security without surveillance cameras, police, or an aggressive press—mechanisms that are required in larger societies. But there was a price to pay: openly living beings could not quit monitoring, and when they observed wrong-doing they had to take action personally or spread the word.
In small-scale communities, even subtle events are likely to reach public notice. Since each person is known to everyone, his conduct will automatically be of interest, and since the material featured in gossip usually involves some sort of indiscretion, the person’s “news” will travel rapidly. In Semai communities there are few ways that Semai can be forced to conform to community standards,according to Robert Dentan, but “each person knows that his neighbors are watching him.” If a man does something that offends a neighbor, “the news will be all over the settlement by bedtime.” 22
Small-scale societies are usually egalitarian. Everyone is happy, more or less, as long as no one is trying to get ahead, because in such arrangements personal advancement can only occur at the expense of others. To avoid being victimized, villagers keep a close eye on the activities of everyone else. 23 “Egalitarian societies,” wrote Anthony Forge, “can only be maintained at the cost of continuous vigilance by their members.” 24
A specific thing that members maintain with vigilance is their systems for sharing food, which might, at first glance, appear to be supported by trust. But trust is not a well-formed concept in societies in which there is little possibility of violations, and round-the-clock surveillance makes those unlikely. Individuals who have food—that is, are
seen with food
—are expected to share it, and if they hoard it—that is, are
seen not sharing it
—they are chastised. One Samoan told Bradd Shore that if a family wished to eat a pig in an open
fale
house, the pig would have to be shared with other families because the family would be seen eating it. If, on the other hand, they were among the few that had a closed
pãlagi
house, they would not be forced to give food away, because then no one would know what the family was eating.
Eavesdropping offers psychological benefits as well. In order to preserve some level of peace and harmony, people in interdependent groups need to be aware of mood changes, and if they live in close proximity to each other, they are. They see facial expressions, a tightening or loosening of the body, and subtle movements of the hands. When people are close to each other, they can see eye gaze, and by following lines of regard they can tell what others are looking at, or refuse to acknowledge. They can detect emotions in the voice, and may be able to make out whispered messages, including ones that are not intended for them.
Collectively, these subtle behaviors tell the observant individual what others are doing and intend to do. To fully benefit from group living, people must have this information, but they will not have it if everyone is widely dispersed. To benefit from group living, people need to huddle.
Psychological escape
From the perspective of the unwitting “sender,” however, there may be psychological problems with proximity. The English psychologist Nicholas Humphrey has written that people require at least the
possibility
that they will be able to
But exposure was also protective. In small, open societies, people were able to achieve some level of personal security without surveillance cameras, police, or an aggressive press—mechanisms that are required in larger societies. But there was a price to pay: openly living beings could not quit monitoring, and when they observed wrong-doing they had to take action personally or spread the word.
In small-scale communities, even subtle events are likely to reach public notice. Since each person is known to everyone, his conduct will automatically be of interest, and since the material featured in gossip usually involves some sort of indiscretion, the person’s “news” will travel rapidly. In Semai communities there are few ways that Semai can be forced to conform to community standards,according to Robert Dentan, but “each person knows that his neighbors are watching him.” If a man does something that offends a neighbor, “the news will be all over the settlement by bedtime.” 22
Small-scale societies are usually egalitarian. Everyone is happy, more or less, as long as no one is trying to get ahead, because in such arrangements personal advancement can only occur at the expense of others. To avoid being victimized, villagers keep a close eye on the activities of everyone else. 23 “Egalitarian societies,” wrote Anthony Forge, “can only be maintained at the cost of continuous vigilance by their members.” 24
A specific thing that members maintain with vigilance is their systems for sharing food, which might, at first glance, appear to be supported by trust. But trust is not a well-formed concept in societies in which there is little possibility of violations, and round-the-clock surveillance makes those unlikely. Individuals who have food—that is, are
seen with food
—are expected to share it, and if they hoard it—that is, are
seen not sharing it
—they are chastised. One Samoan told Bradd Shore that if a family wished to eat a pig in an open
fale
house, the pig would have to be shared with other families because the family would be seen eating it. If, on the other hand, they were among the few that had a closed
pãlagi
house, they would not be forced to give food away, because then no one would know what the family was eating.
Eavesdropping offers psychological benefits as well. In order to preserve some level of peace and harmony, people in interdependent groups need to be aware of mood changes, and if they live in close proximity to each other, they are. They see facial expressions, a tightening or loosening of the body, and subtle movements of the hands. When people are close to each other, they can see eye gaze, and by following lines of regard they can tell what others are looking at, or refuse to acknowledge. They can detect emotions in the voice, and may be able to make out whispered messages, including ones that are not intended for them.
Collectively, these subtle behaviors tell the observant individual what others are doing and intend to do. To fully benefit from group living, people must have this information, but they will not have it if everyone is widely dispersed. To benefit from group living, people need to huddle.
Psychological escape
From the perspective of the unwitting “sender,” however, there may be psychological problems with proximity. The English psychologist Nicholas Humphrey has written that people require at least the
possibility
that they will be able to
Similar Books
