Structures of Human Societies


We have previously shown (“How People See Society: The Network Structure of Public Opinion Concerning Social Conflicts”, Connections, 2004, 26(1): 71-89) that opinions on social conflict are structured in very stable networks at the level of individuals, of arbitrary collections of individuals, of structured social groups and of representative samples of the French population, for more than thirty years. Similar surveys in Great Britain and Russia, for over ten years in Costa Rica, show the stability and extent of application of these results. Our first working hypothesis is that this network structure with two axes openness/closure and emotional/non-emotional—applies to all human societies. For this, we look at recent developments in archaeology, which describe two and only two types of structure for Neolithic human groups: hierarchical structures and cooperative structures. We show that these two types of structure are the poles delimiting the openness/closure axis, that there are no other stable structures, and that human societies can thus be characterized by the set of “tools” elaborated in common, this is, socially, for managing social conflicts inherent in any viable and stable group of human beings. And finally, these “tools” form the system of “values” characteristic of each society.

Share and Cite:

Meter, K. (2014). Structures of Human Societies. Sociology Mind, 4, 36-44. doi: 10.4236/sm.2014.41005.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Abric, J.-C. (2006). Pratiques sociales et représentations. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
[2] Agoramétrie (1987). Les structures de l’opinion en 1985—Enquêtes et méthodologie. Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 14, 94-97.
[3] Agoramétrie (1998). Les structures de l’opinion fin 1997. Paris: Agoramétrie.
[4] Bandy, M. (2006). The neolithic demographic transition and its consequences. Presentation during the session “Early Village Society in Global Perspective”. The 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 10.
[5] Corneloup, J. (1993). Escalades et société—Contribution á l’analyse du système, du communicationnel et du social. Thèse de doctorat (STAPS), Université Paris-Orsay.
[6] Davidson, R. J. (1998). Affective style and affective disorders: Perspectives from affective neuroscience. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 307-330.
[7] Davidson, R. J., & Irwin, W. (1999). The functional neuroanatomy of emotion and affective style. Trends in Cognitive Science, 3, 11-21.
[8] Davidson, R. J., Marshall, J. R., Tomarken, A. J., & Henriques, J. B. (2000). While a phobic waits: Regional brain electrical and autonomic activity in social phobics during anticipation of public speaking. Biological Psychiartry, 47, 85-95.
[9] Durand, J., Pagès, J.-P., Brenot, J., & Barny, M.-H. (1990). Public opinion and conflicts: A theory and system of opinion polls. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 30-52.
[10] Inglehart, R. F. (2008). Changing values among Western publics from 1970 to 2006. West European Politics, 31, 130-146.
[11] Nondédéo, P. (2005). Rio Bec (Mexique), Habitat et organisation sociopolitique d’un site maya. Fondation Fyssen—Annales, 20, 112-122.
[12] Papousek, I., & Schulter, G. (2006). Individual differences in functional asymmetries of the cortical hemispheres—Revival of laterality research in emotion and psychopathology. Cognition, Brain, Behavior (Romanian Association for Cognitive Science), 10, 269-298.
[13] Pochon, J.-B. (2008). Bases neuronales du conflit pendant la prise de décision. Fondation Fyssen—Annales, 22, 70-80.
[14] Poltronieri, J. (1999). Evolucion de las estructuras de la opinion publica en Costa Rica 1988-1999: Principales resultados estatisticos de las encustas nacionales de 1988 a 1999. San Jose: Escuela de Matimaticas, Universidad de Saint Jose, Costa Rica.
[15] Quillet, V. (1998). Perception des risques et délibération publique: Des radiations aux gènes. Thèse DESS, Université de Versailles-Saint Quentin; also presented at the Troisièmes Entretiens Scientifiques de Brest. Brest, 22-23 October 1999.
[16] Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty (1990). Media and communication in the USSR. Munich: Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty.
[17] Rappaport, R. A. (1968). Pigs for the ancestors. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[18] Rukavishnikov, V. (1992). Public opinion structures and environmental concerns in modern Russia. The “Current Developments in Environmental Sociology” Symposium, Woudshoth, 17-21 June 1992, 21.
[19] Santos, A., Rondan, C., Mancini, J., & Deruelle, C. (2007). Behavioural indexes of callosal functioning in Williams syndrome. Journal of Neuropsychology, 1, 189-200.
[20] Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 15-25.
[21] Saroglou, V., Kempeneers, A., & Seynhaeve, I. (2003). Need for closure and adult attachment dimensions as predictors of religion and reading interests. In P. Roelofsma, J. Corveleyn and J. van Saanev (Eds.), One hundred years of psychology and religion (pp. 139-154). Amsterdam: VU University Press.
[22] Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Basic human values: An overview.
[23] Thorpe, S., Rolls, E., & Maddison, S. (1983). The orbitofronal cortex: Neuronal activity in the behaving monkey. Experimental Brain Research, 49, 93-113.
[24] Tomarken, A. J., Davidson, R. J., Wheeler, R. E., & Doss, R. C. (1992). Individual differences in anterior brain asymmetry and fundamental dimensions of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 676-687.
[25] Ur, A. J., Karsgaard, P., & Oastes, J. (2007). Early urban development in the near east. Science, 317, 1188.
[26] van Meter, K. M. (2001). The structure of public opinion concerning social conflicts as a fractal structure for society. International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, 9, 143-158.
[27] van Meter, K. M. (2004). How people see society: The network structure of public opinion concerning social conflicts. Connections, 26, 71-89.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.