I've been conducting an insteresting experiment in human socialization. As a prequel to studying the Stone Age and the rise of early civilization in Ancient World History, I have come up with a class group activity that requires them to reconstruct human civilization on a small but survivable island in the wake of a nuclear war.
That, however, is not the clever bit. The clever bit is the division of the class into two groups. Group One (The Grassland Tribe) was given one instruction: Survive. You're on your own. Do your best. Group Two (The River Tribe) was instructed to sub-divide into committees for Basic Survival, Work Assignments, Government/Law, and Society/Culture. Hilarity Ensues.
This the record of what they came up with:
Period 6's Grassland Tribe fell under the sway of one ambitious fellow who thought it most profitable to attack and conquer the River Tribe. Despite the fact that he was in a minority, he brought the rest of the Group to his point of view. They even drew up a hit list of who was to be killed and who to be used as slaves. Rumours of war came to the River Tribe and they began to construct panicky plans for a defense, mostly centered on a defensive wall to be built of some kind of mud brick or stone.
Period 7's Grassland tribe likewise fell into a hunter/gatherer dynamic and decided to steal what extra they might need from the River Tribe, presumably by frequent raiding. When questioned about this, they countered that they were justified in doing whatever was necessary to serve their group's needs. The River Tribe was busy constructing their society and had no idea this was even being planned.
Period 1's Grassland tribe supplemented hunting, fishing, and gathering with domesticating the island's goats for milk. The River Tribe had a similar dynamic, yet when asked for comments believed that their society was far more advanced because they had a formal government, which the Grasslanders did not. Otherwise, there was no thought of dealing with the other.
Period 2 is still working. So far the Grassland Tribe has managed to knock over my podium, and the River Tribe is not conducting it's business quietly.
UPDATE: No open declarations of hostility, but conflict seemed ready to arise when the Grassland Tribe declared their intent to use the river as a toilet. The River Tribe's peaceful query of grabbing a few of the goatelopes for domestication purposes was loudly rebuffed, and followed by hard words on both sides. I declared that conflict seemed likely, and everyone agreed.
Incidentally, "Grassland Tribe" and "River Tribe" are terms I use in this post. They weren't used in class.
4 comments:
Follow this up as far as it goes. It is an interesting exercise. Curiosity: wrt committee purposes, did you explain what was to be the function of each committee, or did you just give titles? Reason for asking: where functions are named and categorised, they are also narrowly defined. I don't see a Defence committee among your list, and it doesn't implicitly fall under "Basic Survival", as you describe the function of the unit ("reconstruct human civilization". If you had included Defence specifically as one of the options, or if you had allowed the group to come up with its own committees (even with the requirement of "Government/Law"), how might it have altered the outcome?
Each committee had specific tasks to do, which is to say specific plans to draw. There was no Defence or Foreign relations committee, because I wanted to see what they came up with, if they came up with anything. I suspect that if such had been included, the River Tribe might have made a larger diplomatic offensive, and the Grasslanders would have responded as their whims decided. In this admittedly small sample, the hostility seemed to originate from the less-organized crowd, where some young chaps enjoy blowing triumphalist, can become lowder. Of course, nothing prevents a charismatic warrior from ending up in the River Tribe either.
One thing does prevent a charismatic warrior, not from ending up in the River Tribe, but from being allowed by the group to prioritise war. To one group you left wide open the possibilities, but to the other you assigned specific tasks in the guise of establishing committees: Basic Survival, Work Assignments, Government/Law, and Society/Culture. Every one of these choices emphasises in-group structure. None balance it by emphasising structure relative to out-groups. Add to this that nowhere is it suggested that other committee possibilities might exist (did they?). You mention that you did not include "Defence" or "Foreign Relations" because you wanted to see what they came up with [on their own]: but that approach would be valid only if the River Tribe were also allowed to come up with the other committee categories and taskings as well. By assigning some categories and not others, the only way you could have overcome the perception of an assigned, static, not-to-be-challenged structure was to explicitly explain that the River Tribe had the option to alter or add categories as they saw fit.
What I think I meant was I wanted to see what they did about the Other, or if they even thought of the Other, un-promtped. In two of the circumstances, only the Grasslanders even thought about it. In one circumstance, only the River Tribe thought of it. But your point carries. It would be interesting to see what a Defense/Foreign Relations committee comes up with, given that among the River folk the committees often work without much communication with other committees (a design flaw typical with students).
I might revisit this Island after the 2nd Chapter, and move us forward a few hundred years. We shall see.
Post a Comment