Is the Human Being Itself Also a “Group”?

Key idea:
What we perceive as an individual is itself a cooperating system.

In the previous chapter, we more or less stated that a human being is a separate, tangible entity, whereas a group as a whole cannot be touched or observed as a single, separate entity in the same way. But here too, we can make some qualifications.

As we will discuss later in “Mortality, Evolution, and the Temporary Individual”, natural selection is based on differences in survival and reproduction, whereby some heritable characteristics are, on average, passed on to subsequent generations more often than others. Humans are mortal and therefore serve as temporary carriers of genetic information that can be passed on through reproduction.

But if we examine a human being at the microscopic level, we see that the human body consists of a combination of organs. These organs and systems work together to maintain the body and allow the individual to function for as long as possible. We have legs, for example, to flee when danger is present. We have eyes and hands to obtain food and determine whether it is edible. Internally, we have various organs and systems that work together to keep the body functioning. These organs and systems form an integrated whole that is necessary for the survival and functioning of the individual.

But can we also view a single individual as a system of organs, systems, and limbs that together form a “group”? This raises the same question as in the previous chapter: if a group consists of separate individuals, what distinguishes a group from an individual that itself consists of different cooperating parts?

When we look at a large flock of starlings moving through the air, they must, for example when faced with the threat of birds of prey, regularly change direction. They have a collision-free solution: they continuously respond to the movements of a limited number of neighboring birds and ensure that they maintain sufficient distance to avoid collisions. If a few starlings change direction, that movement spreads through the entire flock because they all rapidly adapt to the movements of their immediate neighbors. From a distance, such a group appears almost like a single, flexible cell.

It may seem as if there is a force between the starlings that holds all the elements together. This resembles a pre-programmed instruction, but it is more likely that each bird possesses evolutionarily shaped behavioral mechanisms that cause it to respond to its environment and to other birds. This can be supplemented by learned behavior and direct imitation. As the flock changes direction, a starling may sometimes be on the outside and at other times within the flock. The precise relationship between innate behavior, individual perception, and learned behavior is not easy to determine.

Within the human body itself, the various components at the microscopic level are held together by physical interactions between atoms and molecules. Here we are therefore dealing with physical interactions, not social or psychological relationships.

With groups of people, we can additionally speak of another kind of cohesion. Two or more individuals can respond to one another through their relationships in such a way that their behavior can be regarded as one cooperating system. I use the term “virtual force” for this, but I explicitly do not mean a physical force. It refers to the psychological and social influence that individuals exert on one another through their relationships.

Other relational forces can also be considered. Take, for example, two people playing tennis. Here the behavior of the players is influenced by the ball moving from one side to the other, effectively drawing the players around the court. It can therefore appear as if the players are connected by an elastic line.

Another example is two separated parents who have a child. One parent remains connected to the other through the existence of the child. Here too, a lasting relational and social connection arises.

Within human groups there are also psychological and social forces that influence individuals and can contribute to holding the group together and enabling it to function. These forces can arise from innate characteristics, learned behavior, shared experiences, expectations, and mutual dependence. Or, as the English expression puts it: “nature or nurture.”

The distinction from a human group is therefore not that a human being consists of separate parts while a group does not. Both are composed of multiple elements. The difference is that the parts of a human being are physically and biologically integrated into one organism, whereas the cohesion within a human group arises primarily from social, psychological, and relational processes. This cohesion can arise from innate or learned drives, but also from the relationships and circumstances in which people find themselves.

We can also define a group as a collection of entities that are each, to some extent, capable of functioning independently. If we divide a flock of starlings into separate birds, those birds can continue to survive independently. The same applies to human beings: an individual can function independently, perhaps with a reduced chance of survival. But when we divide a human being into its separate organs, its survival as an integrated organism comes to an end.

Therefore, it remains meaningful to regard the human being as an entity, albeit as an extremely complex system.

And this brings us to an even more fundamental question: What do we actually mean by “the human being”?