If someone accidentally watched a group of Old World monkeys in natural conditions or in a spacious aviary, then he probably would have noticed the following. First of all, the observer would find that the group has a certain organization or structure. There would be subgroups within this group. One of these subgroups would consist of adult females and their non-independent offspring. Some of the adult females would enjoy more authority and respect than others. This respectful attitude would extend to the young of such individuals. One of the males would stand apart from the group. He would move among them, erect, head raised and tail lifted. The movements of his body would be slow and unhurried, and when meeting with other monkeys, he seemed to unceremoniously evaluate them.
If a human observer wanted to apply human categories to these animals, he would attribute to this male an almost royal manner. In human society, in a conversation with someone who has high status, the term "highly respected" is often used. Among rhesus monkeys, the term "highly respected" takes on a literal meaning. The male “alpha” or leader (mentioned above) is an individual that the rest of the group looks at more than others. The counting of the number of views unambiguously indicates that "alpha" is the object of the most careful scrutiny on the part of other members of the group.
Upon observation, it would become obvious that the leader is the first to gain access to any resources. These include everything - the choice of a place to sleep, food, the right to mate. Any individual brazen enough to infringe on the leader's right to resources would immediately become the object of a brutal and aggressive attack. Such fights would be observed quite rarely and, as a rule, would be a direct attempt by another animal to displace the "alpha" from its high position.
In most cases, subordinates (those of a lower rank) would go out of the way, showing their tacit agreement with the wishes of an individual of a higher rank. This communication would take place at the level of facial expressions, posture, gestures and some other behavioral reactions. Typical responses of a subordinate would include looking away, lowering the head, groveling or grinning of teeth in a frightened grimace. The dominant individual's responses would consist of a fixed gaze, a fully erect posture, and (sometimes) a short nudge towards a potential interfering relative. Excluding alpha and the lowest position (omega), each member of the group would have at least one dominant individual and one subordinate. These relationships would form a hierarchical structure called the status hierarchy or dominance hierarchy.
The dominance hierarchy can be defined as a set of stable aggressively subordinate relations within a group of animals.
Dominance hierarchies in the animal kingdom are not evenly distributed. Not all individuals living in social groups have a socially hierarchical organization based on aggressive relationships. Dominance hierarchies exist in invertebrates, including social insects with primitive levels of organization such as bumblebees and wasps. Other invertebrates with this form of social structure include spider crabs, hermit crabs, and some other crustaceans.
The formation of dominance hierarchies was also noted in fish and amphibians, although some researchers could dispute the assignment of these species to those forming true dominant relationships. Bernstein defined dominance as an acquired relationship between two individuals within a social group based on a previous aggressive encounter. According to this criterion, true dominance hierarchies are formed mainly by birds and mammals. Relationships in such hierarchies remain relatively stable, they are (at least in part) based on information about previous skirmishes with group members that the individual remembers.
The structuredness of the community - the maintenance of a hierarchical organization, is ensured primarily due to the phenomenon of domination and subordination.
The Norwegian ecologist T. Schjelderrupp-Ebbe discovered in groups of domestic chickens and ducks a strict order of relations between birds. Each individual is either superior in strength to a partner, or inferior to him. This relationship has been termed the "pecking order". When a group is formed, the birds' relations with each other are "clarified," during which one gradually emerges, which is the first to gain access to food and drives all the others away from it. Below it, on the "ladder of domination", there is a bird of the second rank, which surpasses all, except for the main, dominant individual, and so on. At the very base is an individual, which is chased by all members of the group.
Such a hierarchical system is developed when birds collide in the struggle for a "limited resource" (for a place on the roost, food), and many fights take place in the early stages of its establishment. However, when the hierarchy is established, it is stable, since the order of subordination of individuals is steadily maintained. Usually, when a high-ranking bird approaches, subordinate individuals give way to it without resistance.
The analysis showed that the prerequisite for the stability of the hierarchy is the individual recognition of individuals. In experiments in which the same bird was placed sequentially in different groups, "calibrated" in such a way that it occupied different hierarchical positions, chickens showed remarkable abilities to remember and recognize members of each group and did not hesitate to occupy their position.
In chickens, a perfect linear hierarchy is sometimes established, so that not a single bird ever pecks individuals higher than it on the hierarchical ladder (Table 5.1). Such "ideal" communities are extremely rare. Among invertebrates, they are formed, for example, by crickets and crayfish, in which hierarchical relationships are also built on the basis of individual recognition. At the same time, in most animal species, various deviations from the strict linear order are found.
The described phenomenon - the formation of a hierarchical structure of a group - began to be considered as a mechanism due to which one or more animals receive priority in all life situations.
It was assumed that the hierarchical ranking singles out the most viable individuals, ensuring the predominant success of their offspring in the process of natural selection.
Table 5.1 "Ideal" line of the hierarchy in a group of 12 chickens
Note. In the experiment, each of the birds was individually labeled. The table is compiled on the basis of ethograms of registration of bird contacts with each other during a certain observation time.In the vertical columns - the number of pecks that this chicken inflicted on other members of the group, in the horizontal columns - the number of pecks that it received from other members of the group
The "ideality" of this hierarchical structure is expressed in the fact that not a single chicken pecked any of the individuals standing on the hierarchical ladder above it
Indeed, some experiments have directly indicated the better fitness of members of tightly organized communities. For example, in some groups of chickens, the dominant individual was regularly removed and replaced with an unfamiliar bird, so that the rest had to constantly engage in "sorting out the relationship", while members of the control groups were not disturbed. In the control groups, aggressive clashes occurred less frequently, the egg production of chickens was higher, i.e. groups with a permanent composition had a clear advantage due to a stable social environment. Colonies of gray rats have a similar hierarchical structure and properties.
One of the most common methodological techniques, especially in the study of the physiological foundations of dominance and aggressiveness, is the experimental analysis of behavior in "competitive situations" when limited access to resources is modeled. To do this, two animals, deprived of food or water for a certain time, are simultaneously opened the way to one feeder or drinker. Depending on the experimental conditions, either only one of the competitors can receive reinforcement, or an animal that eats more or controls the feeder for longer is considered a dominant.
Experiments of this kind carried out on animals different types showed that the correlation between different indicators of dominance (competition for food, water, territory, access to a sexual partner, the ability to go to the nest, etc.) may be weak or completely absent. Even in strictly controlled laboratory conditions when using genetically homogeneous same-sex and same-age animals, no "single" dominant was found.
The role of hierarchy in communities
Dominance hierarchies can be considered an evolutionary trade-off between the advantages of living in a social group and the negative aspects associated with increased competition for food, sexual partners, housing, and other limited resources. There are many benefits to living in a social group. These include the reduction of pressure from the side natural enemies as the group is better protected from possible predators. Group gathering becomes more efficient (compared to solitary life), since there is a higher chance that at least one person will find a rich source of food or something else that matters to all members of the group. In the case of hunting behavior, it is obvious that hunting together dramatically increases the likelihood of obtaining food. When observing the lions of the Serengeti, it was found that the chance of success in hunting for lone lions was 15%, and for a group of more than five lions, the probability of catching prey was close to 40%. Lone lions are many times more likely to die of hunger.
Each member of the group, although he gains advantages by existing in it, is forced to compete for them with other members of the group. For primitive organisms, the right to access resources is determined solely by physical size and strength. More highly developed animals are able to remember the experience of communication with other individuals and not get involved in a fight after the first meeting. Everything social organisms who, in the course of evolution, did not have such a system, would arrange aggressive skirmishes each time when new resources appeared.
This constant aggression would inevitably weaken all members of the group, and therefore it is unlikely that the genes coding for this behavior will survive.
The benefits of growing status in the hierarchy are substantial. Higher rank primates are less likely to die during periods of lack of food. In many species, the dominant position is closely related to successful reproduction. In most primates, the link between dominance and reproductive success does not always seem clear. However, observations of baboons have shown that although low-rank males can mate with females, high-status males monopolize females during ovulation. It has been established that in chimpanzees, individuals occupying a higher position have greater access to females during estrus. In the first six civilizations ( Ancient mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, the states of the Aztecs and Incas, the Indian kingdom and Ancient China) kings and nobles had the privilege of possessing hundreds of women and producing hundreds of offspring.
One of the strongest needs of living beings is the need to occupy specific place in the herd hierarchy. Hierarchy is understood as the order of subordination of animals in a group. In this case, it is not at all necessary that a strong and aggressive animal be the dominant individual. Strength ranking usually exists, but only in those species where it is justified by the interests of the population as a whole. In other cases, the criteria that determine the rank of animals are completely different, often psychological, signs. So, in some birds, the dominant individual is capable of solving such problems that other members of the group cannot solve.
Hierarchical relationships in the group are very stable
The life of a group of animals is least of all like a constant struggle between everyone and everyone. High-ranking animals are aggressive only towards the nearest in rank individuals. Often these animals intervene in the fight on the side of the weak, that is, a lower-ranked participant in the conflict. Even with an artificial (transmitted by radio) electrical stimulation of the center of rage, the monkey attacks not any animal that is nearby, but an individual that is one step lower in the monkey hierarchy. At the same time, irritation of the centers of rage in low-rank monkeys does not cause aggressive behavior in them.
The hierarchy is often based on aggressive behavior... According to Lorenz, animals have an internal, irresistible need for aggression, which necessarily requires its release. Therefore, an animal of a low rank cannot direct its aggression towards anyone, often directs it towards itself (for example, monkeys bite their limbs).
The clearest hierarchy exists in insects and birds.
So, in chickens, the dominant chicken boldly bites a subordinate who cannot respond in kind. This hierarchy is usually established for a long time. But in a group of mammals, the dominance of some animals over others can sometimes change within a few hours, depending on which of the rivals is more hungry or angry, and prefer to retreat for the sake of their peace of mind, since at this moment he is not very interested in the subject of competition (food, housing , female, etc.).
The dominance-submission relationship is basically "personal" and is impossible if the animals do not recognize each other. For example, fights between pigs were stopped by spraying them with perfume, because now the pigs stopped distinguishing each other and the hierarchy was broken.
Usually stronger, large and heavy animals dominate. As a rule, these qualities are primarily associated with age. Important role also plays aggressiveness, which in males is closely related to their sexual activity.
There are several main types of dominance:
1) linear hierarchy: when a strong animal threatens an animal that is one step lower, and then another subordinate individual, etc. The dominant animal is usually denoted by the letter Greek alphabet"Alpha", subordinates - "beta", "gama", etc. Below the hierarchical position is occupied by the animal "omega". The alpha animal actually maintains the discipline in the group, and the omega animal exists for the psychological release of all other members of the group, who drive her away from food, and sometimes even beat her to death. Often, omega males cannot mate because the females do not accept them;
2) triangular hierarchy: sometimes observed in a small group of chickens or young cockerels, when a hierarchical order of pecking is established: the alpha animal threatens the beta animal, the beta animal threatens the din animal, and the din animal threatens the alpha animal. This hierarchy can be kept for quite a long time, although it is very difficult to explain it;
3) a stepped hierarchy, in which one individual dominates over other individuals with the same rank. This type of hierarchical relationship is quite common, especially among mice and rats;
4) mixed domination, when one or the other member of the group takes over. Often it depends on whose territory the animal is in. In the pursued animal on its own territory, dominant properties are strengthened, and it begins to actively drive out the pursuer, whose ardor in foreign territory noticeably fades away;
5) a parallel hierarchy is observed when it is one for males and another for females. This happens in chimpanzees, rats, mice, birds. For example, the Californian jay has a parallel social hierarchy among males and females. But at the end of winter, the rank of females begins to fall and social dominance changes to sexual dominance, when the male becomes the “father of the family” and demands complete submission from the female. In the initial period of pair formation, the male is very aggressive, and the calming behavior of the female is aimed at minimizing the male's aggressiveness as quickly as possible, otherwise the pair will break up. This whole complex process of stabilization of the relationship between two individuals is of the type chain reaction with feedback.
Modern ethology distinguishes between several types of high-ranking individuals.
The dominant leader ensures the stability of the group organization, closely monitors the distribution of food, females and territory, immediately attacking the offenders. Maintaining order in a group, he himself is a prisoner of this order and is incapable of behavior, different from the behavior of the group. That is why, when faced with an uncertain situation, the group selects individuals capable of independent non-trivial behavior. For such leaders, it doesn't matter whether the group follows them or not, they "do their job."
So, in deer and wolves, in moments of danger, the dominant male ceases to be the leader and the old female leads the flock. After overcoming the danger (obstacle), the dominant man again becomes the leader. Such a leader is independent of the rest of the group, he acts mainly in his own interests (first of all). He is completely independent in his behavior, and other animals can behave at their own discretion. The behavior of the dominant leader is based mainly on aggressive reactions, on the defense of his territory. But in case of danger, he either obediently walks in the group with everyone, or runs away altogether, and then another animal becomes the real leader of the group.
Hierarchical relationships in the herd are the basis of animal behavior and stabilize the group organization, which has great importance for the survival of the individual and the species as a whole.
In contact with
The collective is different from a simple gathering of animals, which gives its members certain advantages. Animals help each other find food, protect their fellows, guard their peace. No wonder even inveterate hermits in the most difficult periods of their lives (during migrations, when raising offspring) gather in large flocks or acquire a family.
In flocks of animals there is always a leader. Usually he goes ahead and leads the whole flock. What a leader does, so does everyone else. If he eats, the members of the pack are also looking for food. The leader is resting - the whole flock is resting.
It is an honor to be a leader. Not every animal can become one. In a herd of deer, an old, experienced female leads, in a herd of cows - the largest and strongest cow. Sometimes zoologists call such leaders leaders.
But the real leaders are found only in packs of the most advanced animals: in wolves, hyena dogs, monkeys. Pack members do not just imitate the leader, they obey him. When the servant in the zoological garden brings food to the baboons, he is the first to eat the leader - a large, strong male. Until he is satisfied, no one has the right to touch food. And if someone turns out to be too impatient, the leader will look at him so that he will spoil his appetite for a long time. If the animals are in danger, the leader of the flock gives an alarm. Everyone is in a hurry to run away, carrying out his command, and the leader, if necessary, rushes to meet the enemy.
There are complex relationships among the members of the herd. There will certainly be those who obey the leader or leader, but oppress the rest. Scientists say that these are animals of the second rank. There may be animals of the third rank, obeying the tribesmen of the first and second ranks, but finding members of the herd, which, in turn, can be commanded. Etc. Sometimes there are 4-7 or more ranks. Animals are divided into ranks, not only leading a gregarious lifestyle, but also simply living next to each other. So, among the finches nesting in the same grove, there are birds of the first, second, third, and sometimes fourth ranks.
How do animals decide which of them is older? Usually the strongest and most agile animal is in charge, and in order to find out this, you have to measure your strength.
Depending on situations, the rank of animals can change, and more than once. This can be seen very clearly in the example of crickets. The rank of these insects depends on their size and strength. Crickets arrange knightly tournaments. Sometimes the matter is limited to a small duel: insects, grappling with antennae, push each other. When there is a big battle, the crickets jump up, jump on the enemy, accompanying their actions with a battle song. When the defeated one is thrown back, the fight ends.
Crickets grow quickly, often shedding, throwing off tight clothes. Their rank is gradually increasing. They reach the highest rank on the 12th day after the last molt.
It is sometimes easier to become a leader, to acquire the highest rank for animals that are somehow outwardly distinguished among their fellow tribesmen. Even such supporters of equality as schooling fish, if an albino appears in their midst, begin to imitate him mainly. The white animal is better noticeable, it involuntarily catches the eye.
The idea that in conditions of limited access to any resource, dominance contributes to its acquisition in the first place, is confirmed in numerous studies. social behavior animals.
With the increase in the number of studies on animals of different species, many deviations from the classical linear scheme of the hierarchical structure of communities have been revealed. The most common deviation is the transformation of a "ladder" or "chain" into a two-level structure: dominant - and all the rest. Cases of such absolute dominance are observed, for example, when keeping male house mice or male sticklebacks in a confined space. In other cases, in hierarchical "chains", "loops" or "triangles" can be observed, when an individual A an individual chases V, individual V - individual C, but A fears WITH. There are even described situations when a long hierarchical chain was closed in a circle.
The simplest type of hierarchy is linear. A classic example of such a hierarchy system is the hierarchy of small (up to 10 individuals) chicken flocks. For the first time, the hierarchy was described by the Norwegian scientist Schjeldrupp-Ebbe in 1922, using the example of the pecking order in chickens. The hierarchy manifests itself when feeding. Alpha chicken is the first to peck food, beta chicken is the second, and so on, and violations of the order of pecking (for example, an attempt by a lower-ranked chicken to peck grains before a higher-ranked chicken) are suppressed by a peck on the head or torso of the violator of the hierarchy.
Later it turned out that in large groups chickens may disturb the transitivity of dominance relations, which leads to the formation of the so-called circular hierarchy, when the hen, which occupies a dominant relation in relation to the second, takes a subordinate position in relation to the third, in turn subordinate to the second hen.
It is shown that communities can act parallel systems hierarchy - in males and females. A change in the rank of a female, as described by Lorentz when studying the community of jackdaws, can occur if she becomes the spouse of a high-ranking male. In most species, males are of higher ranks, but there are exceptions.
In some animal species, within a large community, there are stable groupings - clans, most often formed by one or more females with their offspring of one or two generations. Such "mother clans" can be observed, for example, in elephants, dolphins, hyena dogs.
In addition to relatively stable groupings and clans, community members can form temporary coalitions aimed either at achieving "momentary gain" or at increasing their overall rank. Studies of primates (Japanese macaques, green monkeys, baboons, chimpanzees) provide many examples of such situations. So, two or three males can unite to distract the dominant, staging a fight or an interesting find, and while the dominant "puts things in order", take turns to get access to food or even take the female away.
There are many examples when the primate community develops not so much a hierarchy of individuals as a hierarchy of groupings.
Blood and domination
If a person becomes Napoleons, then in animals they are both born and become. Dominant and subordinate individuals differ in biochemical parameters.
Dominants quickly get into stress and just as quickly get out of it. Their blood reaction is hyperglycemic, that is, with increased content glycogen, which at the right time releases the deposited glucose.
Low-ranking animals get sick from stress and may die. Their blood reaction is diabetic, with a low glycogen content, so at the most crucial moment they experience a glucose deficiency.
Dominance, like aggression, is determined by the ratio of hormones. And biochemical parameters, as you know, can be inherited. Dominants are born from dominants. Laboratory mice have entire lines of either dominant or subordinate individuals. In cats, such a selection selection has never been carried out, therefore, among the representatives of all breeds, there are both dominants and subordinate animals.
The main function of dominants is to maintain a certain order in the group; therefore, they almost always resolve conflicts within the group peacefully. In other words, they perceive all conflicts within the pack as if they were addressed to themselves. In feline communities, this is most evident in cats. They protect kittens and repel the attack of strangers. Dominant cats prevent other cats from participating in breeding.
Such chances are sharply reduced in father-son, mother-daughter pairs in a small area (for example, in a city apartment). In this example, on the contrary, the suppression of a young animal is noticed (up to hormonal, at the level of odor communication). But sometimes a young cat or a cat manages to re-rank with the older ones. This usually happens with the help of social support that the person provides. Moreover, he himself may not even notice that he is providing such support.
When a community consists of several animals, in addition to dominants, there are subdominants in it, which are ready, under certain conditions, to take the place of dominants.
Within the feline community, the nucleus of high-ranking cats is most active. But dominance is not absolute: in some individuals, the digestive instinct is more developed, in others - sexual, in others - exploratory behavior. Therefore, say, the subdominant is quite capable of taking the best piece away from the dominant. The subdominant explorer is exploring new food supplies in new territory. Sometimes it is the subdominants who take the initiative and seek to be the first to drive away the alien individual.
Hierarchy systems in different animals
In George Orwell's famous novel Animal Farm, there is a saying: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal." The novel is not written about animals, and its author is not a zoologist. But nevertheless, the fact remains - in the populations of many animals there is a complex hierarchy, and the role of each individual for the population can be very different depending on its hierarchical rank in a particular group of animals. In this regard, a natural question arises: how does each particular animal occupy a particular position in the group, and why it is this, and not another, individual who becomes the head of the hierarchy. Coming to the question, let us try to avoid both the "right bias" - anthropocentrism, and the "left bias" - biological reductionism. The change in the position in the hierarchy in animals outwardly is largely similar to the "career" in human society... At the same time, the external similarity should not hide many fundamental differences.
Communities with complex structure all kinds of animals live. Among invertebrates, the most complex communities are formed by ants, termites and bees. Each colony of these insects consists of many thousands of individuals, and these individuals are divided into "castes" that vary greatly in appearance, with clearly distinct functions for each "caste". For example, a bee colony consists of a queen, worker bees and drones. Ants and termites also have "soldiers". The functions of each individual are rigidly programmed even during its individual development. For example, in bees, all eggs laid by the queen are initially the same. But in the future, the larvae hatched from these eggs are fed in different ways, and as a result, depending on the quantity and quality of nutrition, the larvae turn into a queen, some into drones, and some into worker bees. Thus, in social insects, the place of an individual in the hierarchy is rigidly specified from the outset, and practically nothing depends on an individual individual. In fact, each colony of such insects is a kind of one large organism, not reducible to the sum of its constituent elements.
To find out their place in the hierarchy, most birds and mammals have complex rituals of "clarifying the relationship" between individuals of their own species. Moreover, the more powerful weapons attacks these animals possess, the more instinctive restrictions on their use against individuals of their own species. For example, wolves, lions, elephants, large deer, birds of prey rarely hurt and even more so kill each other. The defeated person deliberately exposes his weak spot (for example, his neck) to the winner, and the winner immediately stops attacks. Hence the principle: "If you were hit on the left cheek, substitute the right one." But animals leading a solitary lifestyle, for example, bears (especially white ones) quite often kill and eat individuals of their own species. Also, there are no restrictions on the reprisal of their own kind in weakly armed animals. In nature, in such animals, the defeated simply runs away, but in a zoo, it often comes to killing. K. Lorenz notes such cases for turtle doves and roe deer. In a small enclosure, a strong male roe deer can gore to death not only a weaker male, but also a female.
Human ancestors were also weak animals, so the instinctive mechanisms of restraining intraspecific aggression are poorly expressed in him. He has such mechanisms (fall on his knees, prostrate himself), but they do not always work. At the same time, in the course of his development, man is very well armed, so he tortures and kills other people a lot and regularly. “For balance,” a person developed religion, morality and customs, and later laws. But up to modern times, they were relatively effective only in a fairly narrow circle of “their own” (people of their kind, their tribe, their family members, relatives). And at present, the problem of limiting intraspecific aggression for humans is very urgent. A "double standard" in dealing with "friends" and "aliens" is widespread among both "civilized" and "barbaric" peoples.
The behavior of birds, in contrast to mammals, although very complex, but for the most part is innate, "machine-like". However, each bird species has a very large set of behavioral programs that make it possible to act expediently in a sufficiently wide range external conditions.
In relatively small flocks of birds, where all individuals know each other (for example, in a hen house or on a dovecote), a hierarchy is formed, externally expressed in the “pecking order”. This order consists in the fact that each individual "has the right" to peck all who are below, and meekly accepts pecks from the "higher" ones. One individual is "the main one", that is, it bites everyone, but no one bites it, and one individual is the "last" one, which everyone bites with impunity.
Determination of the rank of a bird is usually based on some external key features (for example, the shape and size of the comb in chickens, body size, color, etc.), when comparing this bird with others.
The following experiments were carried out: the chicken was placed in turn in several different chicken coops. In each of them, her rank turned out to be different, and it turned out that it was enough to keep her in each chicken coop for an hour a day for her rank to be fixed. And to change the rank within one hen house, it turned out to be enough to slightly change it appearance: Attach a colored tag to your head or paint some feathers. In general, the procedure for changing rank in chickens is hardcoded; the change in rank is weakly associated with the actions of the chicken itself.
In nature, most birds have individual nesting sites. It can be a piece of land with a nest in colonial species, but it can also be a very large area with forage lands. In some cases, the male holds the territory, in others, the female. "Landless" individuals do not have the opportunity to have a mate and remain without offspring. Accordingly, the “owners” strive to retain and increase what they have, while the “have-nots” try to expel one of the “haves” or take the place of the deceased “owner”.
The behavior of mammals is much more flexible, has more "degrees of freedom" than all other vertebrates. Even such not the most highly organized creatures as rodents have a rather complex social life. For example, in every rat population there is an “authority”, his minions (“sixes”), “middle layer” and outcasts (“omitted”).
The "superior" rats get the best food and the most comfortable places; The "inferior" are sent first to where it is dangerous (for example, to try bait or to explore an unfamiliar place), and the last to be admitted to the best food. A change in position occurs as a result of fierce fights: a representative of the "middle stratum" can gnaw or expel the weakened "higher" and take his place. But the "rejected" usually does not shine for an improvement in the situation. Unless, if everyone above them perishes, then they have a chance to become the first.
In gregarious ungulates, the following types of herds are usually observed: "harem" (a group of females headed by a male), a herd of females and young animals, and a herd of males. In the case of a “harem” (for example, in horses and many deer and antelopes), the male strives to concentrate around himself as many females as possible (taking into account their preferences a little) and keep in his possession as much as possible large territory... Under this system, there are usually many "poor" males, usually young. They have a chance to become the owners of the "harem". A male with a harem spends a lot of energy on holding the territory and females. As soon as he weakens from old age or illness, one of the "have-nots" immediately overthrows and exiles him. Among the females in the "harem" there is also a hierarchy, but usually not very pronounced.
In a herd of females and young animals (for example, elephants, bison, feral cows), the relationship is more complex. The herd is headed by an old experienced female, and the rest of the females are divided into several ranks. Since usually all females are blood relatives, the relationship in such herds is usually mild, collisions are rare. Clarification of the position in the hierarchy takes place in strictly ritualized forms. If an individual is too aggressive, then it is usually expelled.
More complicated relationship in predators living in groups. Classic examples are a pride of lions, packs of wild dogs (wolves, red wolves, hyena dogs, jackals) and hyenas. Pride of Lions is a classic "harem". The male “patriarch” guards the territory and controls his lionesses, who vie for his favor. Grown-up males are expelled from the pride and then lead the life of vagrants, looking for opportunities to seize territory and start a harem. If such a male is lucky, he can defeat the head of some pride and inherit his lionesses. After that, he gnaws at the lion cubs (so that the lionesses quickly bring children from him), and then his main task is to keep the captured until old age or illness takes away strength.
The closest monkeys to us - chimpanzees and gorillas - do not form complex hierarchies, since they live in forests, with an abundance of food and a small number of natural enemies. Gorillas live in "patriarchal families" led by an old male. Several younger males occupy a subordinate position, but this subordination is moderate. They pay homage to the "patriarch", giving him the best pieces and females. The same one is not too strict, usually limited to a menacing look and a light slap (even if the younger males secretly "committed adultery" with his "wives"). In chimpanzees, the hierarchy is even less rigid, and friendships and relationships of equality are common among males. Interesting case watched by Jane van Lavik-Goodall. The young male chimpanzee was able to enter the ranks of the leaders in the herd thanks to his ingenuity. On the territory of the herd, people left an empty canister. At first, the chimpanzees hesitated to approach her. But this male overcame his shyness, went up to the canister and began to knock on it. After that, he began to do it regularly, and he was very "respected", he became "cool" and "fashionable".
The closest to the social structure of the herd of human ancestors is the structure of herds of non-modern great apes, and some modern lower monkeys living in the savanna: - most species of baboons, green monkeys and hussar monkeys. Like the ancestors of man, these monkeys live in the open savannah, where there are few shelters, many predators; and the abundance and availability of food varies greatly over time and space. Accordingly, the solutions to these problems are largely similar.
In baboons, the herd is headed by a "Politburo" of old and strong males ("patriarchs"), approximately equal to each other. Below them are males of the second rank. Females occupy a subordinate position and do not have their own complex hierarchy (there can only be temporary "favorites" of one or another member of the "Politburo"). “Patriarchs” try to prevent other males from reaching females (although subordinate males constantly secretly take their toll). Children stand outside the hierarchy, the "patriarchs" are not afraid of them, they take care of them and teach what they know. Among adult males, a fierce struggle for leadership is constantly going on, fights and simply "showdowns" are frequent. Since baboons have females “lower” than males, the defeated one in a duel takes the position of a female when mating, the winner imitates copulation and then proudly retires. Those who are at the bottom of the hierarchy have a bad time: they are constantly beaten, deprived of better food, they experience constant stress, get sick more often and live less. But old males weaken over the years, and also often die in battles with predators. Therefore, males of lower ranks have a chance to take a higher place. They are constantly building coalitions, these coalitions often break up due to mutual competition. But finally a stable group develops, in which the males are no longer at enmity, for they are convinced of the equal strength of each other. At some point, this group overthrows the “patriarchs” and forms a new “politburo”.
The situation is somewhat different with green monkeys. Their herds are headed by a leader, there is "one-man command". The power of the leader in green monkeys is very stable, since there is an effective mechanism for maintaining it. For example, a member of the herd displeased the leader. As soon as this discontent is shown, then the others immediately attack the "disgraced" - they beat him, shout at him, throw feces at him. And the lowest are the most diligent. In other words, there is a transfer of aggression from the leader, with whom it is dangerous to contact, to an accessible object. From a human point of view, this system looks unattractive, "vile", but for people it is quite common. This is an order when the ruler (or boss) gains the support of the lower classes of society, involving them in reprisals against the unwanted representatives of the nobility and the "middle strata". Many dictators have done and are doing this. In preparing the material, information was used from the psychological newspaper: We and the World (No. 19/20 1999) and literature: Fundamentals of ethology and genetics of behavior. HS 2002.
Hierarchy * (* From the Greek hyeros - sacred + arche - power). For a long time, people treated animal communities as an unorganized horde. In fact, a rigid hierarchical order reigns among them. Hierarchy can be established in small groups such as small families. But it is most pronounced in large and genetically heterogeneous groups of animals of the same species, occupying common area... Here no individual regards any area as his own, and each animal uses it only temporarily; however, not all sites are equally accessible to all individuals. Consequently, the hierarchy is a derivative of the aggressiveness and territoriality of animals. Among vertebrates, the hierarchical organization of the community reaches the highest perfection in primates ** (** A simple and strict "linear" hierarchy, when no animal encroaches on the higher in the hierarchical ladder, is quite rare and is most pronounced in domestic chickens.) The expressiveness of the hierarchical organization is the stronger. , how more dangers threatens this species.
The essence of a hierarchically ordered organization is the organization of a "pyramid of subordination" The top of such a stepped pyramid is occupied by the most aggressive and experienced individual (sometimes - individuals). Individuals occupying dominant positions are called dominants *** (*** From Latin dominas - dominant), and those located one step below are called subdominants. The ranks of animals, depending on the steps occupied in the pyramid, are indicated by letters Latin alphabet(from alpha to omega, and omega is the name for individuals of the lowest level, regardless of how many real steps such a pyramid contains). Dominant members of the group take over best sites, the best food, the best females. If an animal has taken a dominant position, then it strives with all its might to preserve it, resorting to both physical means punishment, and to symbolic means of intimidation or suppression in relation to the recalcitrant (or to potential competitors-subdominants). Demonstrating its superiority, the dominant animal by all means shows self-confidence, the importance of its person - by striving to be in high places, by gait, ostentatious aggressiveness. This is especially noticeable when the individuals subordinate to him begin to worry and get nervous. It is important that the visible, emphasized (elevated to the rank of a symbolic form) self-confidence of the leader is psychologically necessary for all members of the community, testifying to them of the general well-being of the situation, their protection from external and internal troubles. The behavior of the dominant is constantly monitored by other animals, and when he moves, they rush to change their location.
The hierarchical order is established as a result of aggressive skirmishes, and ends with a demonstration of a posture of submission or the flight of the defeated. The winner is pacified and can replace the actual beating with a ritual one - patting the hair, patting the paw, pushing, pinching, shitting. The hierarchical organization is dynamic in the sense that its status is continuously confirmed (verified), and in the event of death, old age, injury and even “loss of face”, the dominant, its place is taken by one of the subdominants (individuals of the “beta” rank). Tough, but very efficient system organizations where everyone knows their place, everyone submits and obeys. Its most important purpose is to avoid constant conflicts between everyone and everyone, the struggle of everyone with everyone for primacy, as a result of which internal cohesion is formed as the basis for joint actions of the entire group.
The dominant is not necessarily the strongest animal, but the one that is more aggressive, many and skillfully threatens others and easily withstands other people's threats. If it were a man, he would be called stubborn. They habitually begin to give in to him for the reason that they are "reluctant to get involved." This feature of dominance should be taken into account by psychologists and educators. This circumstance is more typical for adults. Children often measure themselves directly by strength (they often beat stubborn ones). The ability to dominate - persistence - and the brightness of the leader's phenotypic manifestations are a biologically expedient mental function, but not all animals are equally capable of it. Some strong and balanced subdominant baboons do not become dominants under any circumstances (even the most favorable). On the other hand, it is known that surgical damage to the "centers of aggression" in the brain leads to an instant loss of the animal's rank and throws it to the very bottom of the hierarchical pyramid.
A group of animals or people, left to their own devices, spontaneously organizes according to a hierarchical principle. This is an objective law of nature, which is extremely difficult to resist. One can only replace the spontaneous, "zoological" self-assembly with another, built according to reasonable human laws. The hierarchical organization of communities, built on the principle of dominance, is always unstable and requires information support, significant efforts to maintain its integrity. Outwardly, such efforts can appear rather strange.
Let's turn to the pigeons. If there are few of them in the group, a series of subordination is established between them. The pigeon that conquers all will be the dominant, the subdominant will be located below, and so on up to the lowest rank. Inevitably, a moment comes when the dominant will bite the subdominant (due to a spontaneous outburst of aggression). He will not answer him, but will bite a pigeon standing below him on the hierarchical ladder (redirects aggression, because it is scary to touch the dominant). By redirecting, aggression will reach the pigeon standing at the lowest level. There is no one to peck at, and he redirects aggression to the ground. A signal seemed to run along the chain. In this case, he said nothing, just confirmed the hierarchy. But a command can be sent along the same chain. For example, if a dominant takes off, then the rest will follow. And you can send very complex commands, as happens in humans. * (* Dolnik V. Naughty child of the biosphere. - M .: Pedagogika-Press, 1994 168)
In a social group, the hierarchical structure acts as a "supporting structure". In reality, there may be several of them - a male model of hierarchy, female, adolescent and others.
Shortly after the end of World War II, Japanese biologists Miyadi and Imanishi (Kyoto) began to study social organization in primates in vivo. But their writings, published in Japanese, for a long time were unknown to other specialists. The situation was corrected by the famous ethologist Karl von Frisch (who owned Japanese), who in the early 60s accidentally discovered their books in the library of the University of Chicago. In practice, they used the same methods as K. Lorenz in his studies of geese and ducks. They strove to know each animal personally; as soon as it became possible, the animals were given names. The monkeys (Masasa fuscata) that lived on an isolated stretch of the coast of Kyushu Island were easy to recognize by great variety in the color of their fur. Short description works of Japanese scientists, based on the message of K. Frisch, is as follows:
Males on the periphery
Rice. 35. Concentric distribution of individuals in a herd of macaques from Mount Takasakiyama, corresponding to the hierarchy. In the center are the dominant animals (by R. Chauvin, 1965)
Macaques have a certain social structure, which is reflected in the concentric distribution of the population on the territory (Fig. 35) The center is occupied almost exclusively by females and young animals of both sexes, and sometimes there are several large males. In the population of monkeys that lived on low grief Takasakiyama, there were sixteen such males, but only six of them - the largest and most powerful - had the right to stay in the center. The rest of the males, including those that did not reach sexual maturity, were only on the periphery - on rocks or in trees. But even here their dispersal was not arbitrary: not quite mature males were pushed closer to the boundaries of the site, and adults settled closer to the center. But very young monkeys could rush around as much as they wanted, and they made extensive use of this opportunity. Tinbergen observed exactly the same with huskies in Greenland.
This placement does not change throughout the day; the animals are fed on the spot. With the onset of evening, the group leaves for the night, and a real ceremony occurs. In the procession, always in the same order, the male leaders walk first; with them - several females with cubs; only after this, finally making sure that all the "leaders" have already followed, adult males of the lowest rank, directly subordinate to the leaders, penetrate into the "sacred center" of the group. They lead away the remaining females and young monkeys, playing the same role that their leaders have just played, vigilantly guarding the group from possible attacks by enemies, maintaining discipline, in particular, separating the fighting, and then giving the signal to set off. Soon the center becomes empty, only some of the belated remain here, and then half-adult males who have not reached maturity dare to enter here; the last adult males to hesitate to let them pass, allowing them to help collect the straggling females. For some time, semi-mature males and young animals can frolic here, but in the end they leave too. “Then male hermits appear (there were three of them on Takasakiyama); they enter territory that they have not approached during the day, and collect scraps lying around here.
[...] The difference in rank is also evident in how the monkeys treat unusual food. Observers, of course, could not completely protect Takasakiyama from outsiders, could not prevent them from throwing candy to the monkeys. But unlike the zoo monkeys, who know perfectly well what candy is and how to unwrap it, the monkeys from Takasakiyama have never seen candy. And unusual food is considered unworthy of the ringleaders here, and only cubs pick it up. Later, mothers will taste it, and even later - adult males (during the period when females are preparing to give birth to new cubs, and males look after one year old babies). Finally, males who have not reached maturity are the last to get acquainted with sweets: they live far from others and do not communicate with the center. The whole process of getting used to it turns out to be very extended: it took almost three years for the younger males to get used to sweets! * (Chauvin R. From a bee to a gorilla. - M .: Mir, 1965.)
The question arose, do monkeys behave in a similar way in other populations? It turned out not. The mores of Takasakiyama's monkeys turned out to be the harshest, "Spartan" in comparison with twenty other populations studied by Japanese scientists. And here they were dealing, as it were, with different "subcultures", with different "traditions." For example, among the monkeys from Minootami, younger males sometimes united in "gangs", making forays far beyond the herd's habitat, and disappeared even for several days. When these monkeys were given food, they rushed to it with cheerful shouts all together, not observing the "table of ranks." In the community of monkeys from Minootami with their gentle dispositions of "Athenians", very rarely guilty low-ranking individuals were punished with bites. To maintain their dignity, monkeys of high rank were limited to feigned, demonstrative attacks on a subordinate animal. In the Takasakiyama community, it often came to real bites, and low-ranking individuals were completely covered with scars - traces of punishment. It was enough for the leader to look into the eyes of the guilty one, and he rushed to his heels, without waiting for the continuation. The addiction to sweets also took place in different ways. It took the Minootami monkeys no more than two months to complete this process.
Note that in primates, female individuals, as a rule, do not compete with males for hierarchical rank, but form their own, most often weakly expressed and very unstable pyramid. At the time of communication with the male, the rank of the female corresponds to the rank of the male in the male hierarchy.
If a baby monkey from Takasakiyama is with its mother, it has the same rank as its mother. When he ceases to depend on his mother, then he himself, in fights with his peers, wins a rank among them, no longer relative - according to his mother, but his own, absolute. In principle, absolute rank is only revealed when two monkeys are alone. Together with the acquisition of a rank in your social stratum begins the process of displacing the adolescent to the periphery and losing the rank associated with the position of the mother. This process looks different in the colony from Minotami. According to the Japanese ethologist Kawamura, two basic principles determine the rank here: the first is that the rank of the cub corresponds to that of its mother, and the second is that the youngest of the siblings is given a higher rank than the older. To this should be added an important observation: the cubs of dominant females automatically learn the "behavior of the masters", and the cubs of subordinates - the skills of obedience! And, what is especially important, the cubs of animals "from the central zone", living next to the leader, accept him as a role model, strive to gain recognition of the leader and his entourage and, in the end, become their successors.
For all its socio-biological effectiveness, "networks of hierarchical structures" are capable of holding relatively small groups of animals, incomparably smaller than flocks that do not know the hierarchy. Because in reality social group is based on the principle that everyone's rank is known to everyone, that is, everyone should know each other by sight. This circumstance ensures the normal well-being of each member of the group and creates conditions for the "predictability" of events within it. When the frequency of contact increases unreasonably, and the individual distance is constantly disturbed, the group members inevitably experience severe stress. Therefore, there are mechanisms that ensure the optimal number of animal communities. Even in unorganized flocks, the stress of overpopulation causes an irresistible urge to settle, which contributes to mass migrations of animals from their usual habitats (migrations of lemmings are most familiar). In social animals, more subtle mechanisms of regulation of the number of communities are known.
Loading...
