You might know the professor of clinical psychology Jordan B. Peterson by his controversial viewpoint on dominance hierarchies in lobsters. In his book 12 Rules for Life, he posits that due to the very similar neurochemical reactions of humans and lobsters to various stimuli, these dominance hierarchies can be applied to our own societies. But what do these hierarchies have to do with an evaluation of socialist structures? In this article, I will walk you through this and explain why the same natural inclination to dominance in the social hierarchies of humans leads inevitably to the violation of socialist values.

Let us start by considering the life of a typical American lobster. Lobsters live on the ocean floor, and their feed includes the edible bits that rain down from the remains of sharks' and whales' prey far above, as well as their own hunting. They naturally look for shelters that are the safest and richest in food resources, usually something like a burrow under a rock in the proximity of shells. The problem is that these high-quality shelters are scarce. As a result, when exploring shelters, lobsters usually encounter one another with conflicting interests. They engage in aggressive posturing such as waving their claws around and releasing a spray from a jet placed under their eyes that signals size, sex, health, and mood. Afterwards, either the weaker lobster retreats immediately, or they engage in a fight. The result of the fight — which determines who gets to stay in the good shelter — then has permanent effects on the self-assessment of lobsters. A victorious lobster tends to take higher risks, feel more confident, and receive better mating opportunities, while the opposite is true for the loser. This is because of a hormonal change in serotonin and octopamine levels in lobsters. If you are a lobster, you know you should not mess with the winner. A dominance hierarchy, therefore, is shaped based on the market value of male lobsters.

In other studies of animal dominance hierarchies, the findings are more or less the same. Establishing dominance largely depends on Resource Holding Potential (RHP), intrinsic motivation, conventions, and social dynamics. Claw size signals dominance in crabs, black facial spots in wasps, and call frequency in frogs. Somehow, there are a priori determinants of social status across most animal groups. Although maintaining dominance requires voluntary effort, it is still very closely dependent on the physical and motivational predispositions that are inherited through gene transmission. For example, among wasps, the queen is usually the largest and the most fertile — traits that are inherited, not earned.

Now, what does this have to do with the notion of socialism? Peterson argues that there are numerous neurochemical similarities between humans and lobsters that lead us to behave similarly in society. He states that those who take big risks and persevere until they win will take higher risks and win bigger. This reinforces their self-perception and boosts their confidence, wealth, and social status. He frequently mentions Elon Musk as a relevant example. "Stand up straight with your shoulders back," his famous phrase, hints at this: be a dominant lobster and win in the competition of life. But what if we impose a structure on a society that distorts free competition? What if, for instance, we try to equalise the social statuses and remove all natural dominance hierarchies? Calling everyone "comrade," as was the case in the Soviet Union, was an attempt to do exactly this: eliminate dominance hierarchies.

There are empirical experiments and observations that investigate the effect of artificially imposed equal resources in lobsters, to see how they behave. In a study by Cromarty et al., it was found that the longer you keep male lobsters in equally sized shelters, they tend to show more aggressive behaviour. Similarly, in a study by Briones-Fourzán et al., it was found that putting lobsters in equally sized tanks that restrict movement increases aggression levels. In an experiment by Robert S. Steneck, it was shown that shelter competition and subsequent aggression are associated with demographic diffusion. In other words, restricting lobsters to equal, unattached spaces could cause higher competition motivation and raise aggression levels.

There is another element to consider before we can conclude. Subdominant animals constantly challenge the dominants to see if they can move up their hierarchy in case the dominant has lost power. In unstable hierarchies — that is, where aggression is more common — this challenge between subdominants and dominants is the norm. For example, when a queen wasp becomes very old, the second-level dominants test the waters and are very likely to overthrow the queen. The hierarchy is preserved, but its incumbents have changed. The same process can happen in a lobster hierarchy.

Combining our two pieces of analysis, constraining free competition for shelter and productive resources between lobsters increases their aggression level. Increased aggression convinces lobsters that the dominance hierarchy is unstable. Instability in the lobster hierarchy then leads to a higher possibility of subdominants overthrowing the most dominant lobster.

In a socialist revolution, the same thing happens, but instead of lobsters, humans are affected. The intention of socialism is seen by "comrades" as admirable: to be equal. As the equality of outcome takes place and the redistribution of resources takes from the wealthier and gives to the poorer, the basis of competition for wealth and status becomes very unstable. This instability lets the second-class wealthy take ownership from the leaders and corrupt the good intention of equality. The result is a redistribution of resources, not from the top to the bottom, but from the top to the sub-top. The rise of Vladimir Putin and the slow overthrow of Boris Yeltsin is a good example. Power did not move from Yeltsin to the ordinary Russians. A second-class politician moved up the hierarchy.

The lesson to be taken to heart is that dominance hierarchies cannot be destroyed, they can only be replaced. In a socialist country, redistribution does occur, but from capitalists to politicians, not from capitalists to the ordinary poor majority. Why are dominance hierarchies necessary? Because there is no natural equality in the intrinsic endowment of resources. Socialists and Marxist thinkers usually ignore this principle. Hierarchies are not created by market failures; they are a natural feature of societies, arising from biological differences. No lobster wants small claws, but there is no choice.

Sources

  • Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (2018) — penguinrandomhouse.com
  • S. I. Cromarty et al., research on serotonin and shelter competition in juvenile American lobsters, Journal of Comparative Physiology A — pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • Patricia Briones-Fourzán et al., "Aggressive behaviour of spotted spiny lobsters (Panulirus guttatus) in different social contexts," ICES Journal of Marine Science — doi.org
  • Robert S. Steneck, "Possible Demographic Consequences of Intraspecific Shelter Competition among American Lobsters," Journal of Crustacean Biology (2006) — academic.oup.com