Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:p>Seeking to impress both gods and humans, early state societies across the globe displayed their power by ritually killing human victims.</jats:p>

<jats:p>Humans aren't the only species to engage in ritual combat. Honeypot ants of the U.S. Southwest stage elaborate, ritualistic face-offs against nearby nests that can involve hundreds of ants and last for days.</jats:p>

<jats:p>Researchers are probing links between the status of women in a society and its propensity toward war.</jats:p>

<jats:p>The ability to reconcile differences after a spat was once considered a uniquely human trait, but researchers have since observed it in more than 30 primate species—and even among birds.</jats:p>

<jats:p>Are remotely piloted aircraft changing the nature of war?</jats:p>

<jats:p> Ancestral <jats:italic>Pan</jats:italic> , the shared predecessor of humans, bonobos, and chimpanzees, lived in social dominance hierarchies that created conflict through individual and coalitional competition. This ancestor had male and female mediators, but individuals often reconciled independently. An evolutionary trajectory is traced from this ancestor to extant hunter-gatherers, whose coalitional behavior results in suppressed dominance and competition, except in mate competition. A territorial ancestral <jats:italic>Pan</jats:italic> would not have engaged in intensive warfare if we consider bonobo behavior, but modern human foragers have the potential for full-scale war. Although hunter-gatherers are able to resolve conflicts preemptively, they also use mechanisms, such as truces and peace pacts, to mitigate conflict when the costs become too high. Today, humans retain the genetic underpinnings of both conflict and conflict management; thus, we retain the potential for both war and peace. </jats:p>

<jats:p>Although people often tend to consider themselves and others as unique individuals, there are many situations in which they think, feel, and act primarily as group members. This can bring out the best in them, as when they are inspired to help fellow citizens in need, or the worst, as when they show hostility against others simply because they represent another religious or ethnic group. Understanding when and why the group self becomes more important than the individual self, and how this affects people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, can help to prevent and redirect unwelcome aspects of human behavior by addressing them at the appropriate level of self.</jats:p>

<jats:p>Humans have an evolved propensity to think categorically about social groups. This propensity is manifest in cognitive processes that have broad implications for public and political endorsement of multicultural policy. Drawing on these principles, we postulate a cognitive-evolutionary account of human adaptation to social diversity. This account explains broad social trends marking a resistance to multiculturalism, while providing an important reorienting call for scholars and policy-makers seeking intervention-based solutions to the problem of prejudice.</jats:p>

<jats:p>Religion, in promoting outlandish beliefs and costly rituals, increases ingroup trust but also may increase mistrust and conflict with outgroups. Moralizing gods emerged over the last few millennia, enabling large-scale cooperation, and sociopolitical conquest even without war. Whether for cooperation or conflict, sacred values, like devotion to God or a collective cause, signal group identity and operate as moral imperatives that inspire nonrational exertions independent of likely outcomes. In conflict situations, otherwise mundane sociopolitical preferences may become sacred values, acquiring immunity to material incentives. Sacred values sustain intractable conflicts that defy “business-like” negotiation, but also provide surprising opportunities for resolution.</jats:p>

<jats:p>Over the second half of the 20th century, conflicts within national boundaries became increasingly dominant. One-third of all countries experienced civil conflict. Many (if not most) such conflicts involved violence along ethnic lines. On the basis of recent theoretical and empirical research, we provide evidence that preexisting ethnic divisions do influence social conflict. Our analysis also points to particular channels of influence. Specifically, we show that two different measures of ethnic division—polarization and fractionalization—jointly influence conflict, the former more so when the winners enjoy a “public” prize (such as political power or religious hegemony), the latter more so when the prize is “private” (such as looted resources, government subsidies, or infrastructures). The available data appear to strongly support existing theories of intergroup conflict. Our argument also provides indirect evidence that ethnic conflicts are likely to be instrumental, rather than driven by primordial hatreds.</jats:p>