Ingroup vs Outgroup Dynamics
Definition
Terje Bongard:
"Ingroups and outgroups are not easy to define properly, but an ingroup is functional if all members know each other and can freely look into each member’s actions. Beyond a certain size (maybe 20-50) the control exercised by the individuals fail, and outgroup strategies begin to dominate, like Tragedies of the Unmanaged Commons etc ...". (cfr. The Biological Human)
Discussion
Terje Bongard:
"An ingroup is defined as a constellation of members that know each other and observe each other closely. An outgroup, on the other hand, is either a larger constellation where personal relations are minimal, like a city, or an alien outgroup consisting of unknown individuals. Cross-culturally, outgroups are generally looked upon with different degrees of suspicion. For millions of years, humans evolved in small groups in Africa. The human mind was formed to behave among, be attractive to, and relate to the nearest family, friends and a limited number of acquainted people that constituted an ingroup. As evolutionary offspring of people with these inclinations, we bond to and invest in family and ingroups we feel personally connected to. Through human evolution, tribes were functional ingroups, and political fights, allies and maneuvering skills had significantly impact on human attractiveness and subsequent evolution. We are therefore, universally, emotionally familiar with the situation of being in an ingroup, relate to discussions and to maneuver among «those who think with me and those who think not». Life has probably always been driven by conflicts of interest, and only the cleverest and best performers have managed to outwit competitors and become ancestors. Closeness between ingroup participants halts or moderates Machiavellian assertiveness, because the evolved drivers of generosity and cooperation will be triggered. We find these emotions present in politics. Corruption, egoism and nepotism are not wanted from democratically elected representatives. Alas, in large societies, individuals lose close contact control, and this environment therefore easily triggers the corrupt and egoistic drivers.
Today, a modern human being is likely to be member of a series of ingroups. Not only workplaces, but all sorts of cultural activities create ingroups. The Handicap Principle has shaped humans to be generous and extravagant only when being observed. In ingroup cultures, selfishness are controlled by peers. A large number of markers can trigger ingroup behavior. To be a football hooligan, supporting a team from another country, only known through TV, exemplify these strong incentives for solidarity. At the same time, societies have exceeded group sizes where social control curbs behavior. The world is now practically one large outgroup, where free-riders and selfish business life thrive at the expense of a small number of morally self-imposed, concerned actors. In today’s societies, these mechanisms lead to over-exploitation of the Commons, or ecosystem services. The examples described by Ostrom et al. are interesting exceptions to the rule, but no more than that. The pastoralists from Mongolia she presents as an example of successful organization only shows that stability and sustainability increase when a society is closer to an ingroup organization. Occasionally, Non-Governmental Organizations focusing on each member’s moral and political correctness may become quite large, but none has ever reached numbers that have had any impact on the basic economic system. To start with the man in the mirror has failed as a solution to change over-consumption in large societies. The human universals explain why, and are extremely important to policy making in general, and the TEEB initiative in particular.
By using both simple and sophisticated experimental settings, research is now reading the outcome of millions of years of evolution in the human mind. One of the most important findings is the dichotomy between ingroup and outgroup situations. The ingroup solidarity and urge to be generous is so strong that it emerges with only symbols of being seen by others present in experimental settings: A picture of two eyes on the wall can be enough to increase cooperation."
Source: Essay: Ingroup democracy: A political organization model based on evolved human behavior to establish global sustainability. By Terje Bongard.