NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Research in the Parks NPS Symposium Series No. 1

The study of the formation of social bonds is central to the understanding of the behavior of many social species. This is particularly true among primates, where it is well established that knowledge of genetic mechanisms is an insufficient basis for the prediction of social behavior. Studies of animal rearing in social isolation, which are part of a larger class of sensory deprivation studies, have established that animals reared in essentially sensorially depleted environments tend to show unusual and bizarre adaptations to many common social situations later in life. [1] Such adaptations are unusual and bizarre from the perspective of the previously identified patterns of adaptation common to the species under consideration. The range of adaptation is well documented in the literature and occurs in almost all aspects of the animal's life including reproductive, parental, agonistic, feeding, and other forms of behavior. Of course, individual adaptations may be functional while not contributing to species perpetuation.

Social bonds are, quite simply, attachments among individuals of the same species so that they react differently toward those conspecifics with which they are bonded than they do in similar situations with others. [2] Among primates, it appears that culture, which is a primary mode of species adaptation, is substantially implicated in almost all aspects of a species social behavior. Whether it provides alternatives for adaptive problems which are more efficacious than other modes remains to be ascertained. Although we are only beginning to study the comparative efficacy of various types of adaptation for clearly delineated functional problems characteristic of a species or several similar species, some interesting results are emerging. For example, Baldwin reports that he was unable to detect any evidence of stress among free-ranging primates under conditions of increasing density comparable to those at times reported among other vertebrates. [3] To what extent differential efficacies of modes of species adaptation may be implicated remains to be examined. What is suggested is that mechanisms of adaptation based upon learning and a culture may provide dimensions not otherwise available to a species. What is also suggested is that mechanisms for adaptation which are apparently similar may not function similarly among several species.

SOCIAL BOND RESILIENCIES

The strength of social bonds among individuals is a matter of some interest. How much stress and of what kind can different types of social bonds withstand? Among rabbits, Kenneth Myers found that the social bonds uniting a breeding group were capable of withstanding considerable pressures from increasing densities. [4] Apparently, although he documented over a considerable period of time significant changes within individuals in terms of various physiological states, including reproductive capacities, the social bonds were the last to undergo observable variations. Certainly, any student of adaptation must distinguish between changes occurring within an individual animal, whether they be physiological or psychological, from those occurring between individuals.

Given the resiliency of social bonds observable in several species, what are the facilitating conditions which account for these strengths? One answer is conditioning or habituation. But that is the mechanism by which a particular bond is strengthened among particular individuals. How is it that some social bonds seem to share a common level of strength among many recognizable members of a species who are themselves never in interpersonal contact? The answer, in part, moves into an examination of social solidarity whenever the species under consideration is Homo sapiens.

Sociologists, along with other social scientists, have been intrigued with the nature of social bonding among Homo sapiens for some time. Indeed, one might say that it is the intellectual problem which binds the field together and unifies it as a body of scientific inquiry. The challenge has been to understand the constituent elements in the solution to the problem of Hobbesian order. Briefly, social solidarity is the consensus existing among individuals in the definition of a social situation. [5] It usually presumes cooperation among the individuals (in several forms) and the existence of a shared set of symbols. As Emile Durkheim suggested, social solidarity may have varied sources and it may arise in differing ways. [6] Clearly, the persistence of a particular state of solidarity among a collectivity of individuals presupposes the satisfactory operation of processes of socialization to insure the continued presence of knowledge among participants about symbols, attached meanings, etc. An important aspect of such processes is the setting in which the processes of "identification with" and "identification of" occur. [7] All social orders, irrespective of species, appear to have settings which are strategically important for particular aspects of the process of socialization. It is apparently not sufficient to have the right kinds of individuals, i.e., in terms of age, sex, etc., to efficiently maintain or create a given state of solidarity. A particular kind of setting is often a seemingly necessary condition, [8] which brings me to the subject of parks and park-like places in human social orders.

LEISURE LOCALES IN HUMAN SOCIAL ORDERS

All social orders exhibit an economy. The nature and extent of them are many and varied. Among Homo sapien social orders, economies are often characterized in terms of the mode of production characteristic of an historical era. Thus we speak of pre- as well as post-industrial societies. An apparent characteristic of human economies is the extent to which diverse forms of divisions of labor arise. Industrial economies permit, perhaps require, a more expanded division of labor than is usually found among nonindustrial economies. Basically, it is a matter of specialization and specification, that is, behavior which is recognized as specific to task accomplishment tends to become "bundled together" into particular occupational social roles. The demarcation between behavior deemed relevant to the economy and behavior deemed not relevant tends to become quite distinct, as contrasted with some nonindustrial economies. [9]

Associated with such matters are the observed distinctions within a species of individuals of differing age grades and how they are articulated with the economy. Adults tend to perform those social roles essential to the economy, while nonadults tend to perform nonessential roles, if any. Economies where the rationalization of production processes has taken place tend to separate production locales from nonproduction locales. This separation is not so much in terms of place, as a distinguishing feature of human social orders, as it is a matter of the separation of role behavior and hence social age categories. But human social life is a continuous process. Though Homo sapiens may separate age grades in an industrial economy in a manner different from that in other economies, such separations are momentary in the lives of the individuals who continue to persist in living in social groups throughout most of their lives. [10] Participation in the economy of a social order does not constitute the totality of existence. Not surprisingly, human social orders tend to be characterized by other specialized settings where various age grades participate together in ritualized behavior that transcends the particularities of specific institutionalized aspects of cultural systems.

The study of human leisure is merely beginning in a systematic sense. Some students have demonstrated the importance of play for the development of the individual into a functioning adult member of a social order. This has been demonstrated in a rather substantial manner in species other than Homo sapiens. [11] As a part of this increasing interest in the study of human leisure, an investigation of leisure locales may enable an increased understanding of the manner in which social solidarity is facilitated in human social orders, while also increasing our understanding of the conditions under which social bonds are strengthened among Homo sapiens. In a study conducted several years ago, we began to examine these phenomena and in the balance of this report we will discuss some of our findings. [12]

CHARACTERISTICS OF HUMAN LEISURE LOCALES

Leisure locales are places where members of a human social order ordinarily engage in noninstrumental behavior, i.e., behavior not ordinarily associated with an economy. This definition is an attempt to recognize that most human behavior is "place specific;" that is, space is divided into "territories" in which certain behavior is expected to occur and symbols appropriate to the behavior are shared among members of a social order. [13] For example, beach wear is ordinarily taboo at a formal dinner while, conversely, formal attire is unusual at the beach. But costume is only one among many symbols which are essential for the recognition of "locale." Not only are there expectations about the behavior of individuals or appropriate costuming, but there are expectations about the nature of the social relationships which will hold among the participants in that particular setting. For example, for many adults in this society it is considered unusual to go to a park with their boss. One of the reasons is that the "setting" is incorrect for the kinds of interaction which ordinarily occur within an "employee-employer" social relationship. In short, one of the characteristics of a leisure locale is the nature of the social bond which holds among particular individuals within the setting. For example, we found that approximately 87% of the respondents in the study had gone to a park with others. This was in contrast to the approximately 82% who reported that they went to work alone. Thus, one characteristic of a park, as a leisure locale, is the expectation that individuals encountered therein will be present as members of a two or more person social group. Thus, an individual will enter the setting as a participant in a previously existing social group whereas entry into a setting associated with the economy is likely to be as an individual, preparatory to entering an occupational social role. [14] In a leisure locale, among adult members of the society, many of the symbols and social norms characteristic of social solidarity may be present within the social groups of which they are a member.

In order to ascertain if such experiences are common, we asked if the respondents normally went to a park with these same others. Approximately 79% reported affirmatively. Another indication of the nature of the social bonds shared by persons in a park is suggested by the finding that 90% of the respondents who reported going there with others also reported that the group had remained physically together throughout the period of time present therein. In an effort to gain some further insight into the nature of the social bonds which existed among the social persons in these groups, we inquired whether they, as individuals, had accompanied the group willingly or not. Seventy-nine percent reported that they had gone to the park because they had wanted to. Apparently, a park as a leisure locale is characteristically a setting where individuals are members of relatively stable social groups which have previous experiences in such settings. The social bonds among the members of the groups appear to be comparatively strong (meaning repetition tends to strengthen relationships via the mechanisms of habit strength formation) and cognitively defined as affectively positive. In short, the social bonds holding among the members of the groups appear to be highly particularistic, as contrasted with more universalistic criteria.

Additional support for this observation was obtained when we examined data concerning the characteristics of the social groups in the parks. Approximately 57% of the groups were kinship groups, that is, all members were related to each other by blood or marriage. About 29% of the groups were friendship groups; that is, members were friends although some members might also be related through kin ties. The balance of those individuals who had gone with others did so as members of organized groups such as clubs, tour groups, etc., but were not characterized by kin ties among the members though some members might have previously been in a friendship relationship. Most people in such groups were previously not known to each other. Thus the observation that the nature of the social bonds existing among members of the social groups present in the leisure locale of a park are predominantly particularistic tends to be confirmed.

An additional characteristic of the park as a leisure locale is that it is a setting where social groups, characterized by particularistic bonds among individual members within them, come into social and physical proximity. Few such situations exist elsewhere in the society. What are the consequences of this juxtaposition of such groups for the emergence, perpetuation, or diminution of social solidarity within a society? [15]

INTERGROUP CONTACT AND SOCIAL SOLIDARITY

Social groups of the kind which characterize parks, as a special case of leisure locales, tend to be closed groups; that is, individuals not sharing social bonds based upon kinship or friendship ties are unable normally to gain access to the social transactions occurring within them. This appears characteristic of social groups wherever they are observed within the animal kingdom. They are exclusive and tend to maintain their social boundaries. Attempts to penetrate such systems of particularism by either individuals or other groups are normally repulsed in varying ways, either culturally or biologically. The observations of Georg Simmel have enabled an understanding of how conflict tends to increase intragroup solidarity. [16] In short, conflict seems to tend to strengthen the social bonds existing among individuals in a social group at least for a finite period of time. But what about the strength of social bonds within the group once a conflict situation no longer exists? Do they attenuate and if so, at what rate? If not, what other complementary social process operates to maintain a state of social solidarity such that we may speak of the presence of a human social order?

At quite another level of analysis is the question of how social groups, as entities per se, are related to each other in the face of conflict and, more importantly for our concerns, in the face of an apparent lack of manifest conflict? Within a functionalist orientation, perhaps it is the function of leisure locales to assist the maintenance of social bond strength in a manner not otherwise widely available in a society. If this is so, how might it be accomplished?

First, parks themselves are symbolic of certain shared values common among members of a society. Particular empirical classes of parklands are legitimated in terms of metaphors within the common symbol system of a society. National parks, for example, commemorate selected aspects of a society's history, both natural and military. State parks commemorate more localized historical happenings and so on.

Second, most parklands in this society are supported by public monies or gifts for the public weal. Thus social groups gather in space without the concerns of boundary maintenance so characteristic of much of the space they occupy throughout most of their daily lives, with the exception of those social groups who attempt to impose their own special definition upon a particular subarea of a park through its repeated use. In short, parks are settings where many of the otherwise expected reservations attenuating intergroup noncompetitive or conflictful exigencies may not operate. [17] Perhaps it is the opportunity to view the behavior of others in social groups much like one's own (analytically speaking) which assists the formation of the consensual basis so essential for social solidarity among social groups. Our data suggest that the observation of the behavior of others while in parks is a major concern of respondents. Seventy-nine percent reported engaging in it.

However important this may be, it is probably necessary for some exchanges of verbal communications between social groups to occur in order to maintain the social definition of the parkland as a space where essentially benign interactions are expected to occur. Theoretically, in societies where "gesellschaft relationships" are thought to predominate, it is to be expected that anonymity and personal reserve characterize ordinary, daily life. The exchange of greetings among strangers is a comparatively rare occurrence in such societies. Our data indicate that respondents report less likelihood of talking to people previously unknown while walking down a street than when they were present in a park as a member of a social group. This suggests that perhaps the presence of significant others is a necessary condition for such interchanges to occur. Of equal importance is the existence of places such as parks in which such interchanges may transpire. Although a history of parklands, as cultural phenomena per se, has yet to be written, impressionistically it appears that most literate societies have places similar to these. Why this should be so may, in part, be explained by some of the characteristics discussed above. In short, parks may be particularly important for the maintenance of social solidarity among social groups in societies having industrial economies. Far more than the recreational ideology of individual renewal presumed to transpire in such locales may be the perpetuation of symbols and myths necessary to the social order under observation.

SUMMARY

No social order, particularly of Homo sapiens, can exist which is comprised solely of instrumental relationships among individuals. Professor Walter Wallace cogently pointed out that even within sociology there is no unitary theoretical position regarding the extent to which subjective states of individuals were necessary datum for the science. [18] The same dilemma characterizes other sciences which share with sociology an interest in the nature of social bonding within the social orders of the social species. What our work during the last few years in the study of parks and human behavior therein suggests is that such areas may be immensely important not only for the understanding of the behavior of species other than Homo sapiens but also for it as well. Perhaps at the bicentennial symposium in 2072 some of our colleagues will address themselves more knowledgeably to that proposition.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

¹Although there is a considerable literature on this topic, its scope is perhaps well exemplified by the work of H. F. Harlow and his associates of the University of Wisconsin. A technical bibliography is beyond this paper but a recent popular summary may be found in "Monkeys at Play" (with Stephen J. Suomi) in Natural History, Vol. LXXX, No. 10, Dec. 1971, pp. 72-75.

²This definition follows somewhat the one employed by Lionel Tiger in Men in Groups (New York: Random House, 1969) p. 19.

³Baldwin, John reported in a symposium session during the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, August 1971. Professor Baldwin is at the University of California.

⁴Myers, Kenneth. Effects of Density and Space on Sociality and Health in Mammals, presented during annual meeting of American Association for Advancement of Science. Dallas, Texas, 1968. Mr. Myers is with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization located in Australia.

⁵One of the better studies of social solidarity is Frank W. Young Initiation Ceremonies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Status Dramatization (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc. 1965).

⁶Durkheim, Emile The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press 1954).

⁷Gregory P. Stone has done much to differentiate these two complementary aspects of the larger process.

⁸An interesting treatment is found in Brian Sutton-Smith "Play, Games and Controls" in Social Control and Social Change edited by John Paul Scott and Sarah F. Scott (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1971).

⁹Note this is a comparative statement. The situation being described is but a variation with the larger phenomenon of culture per se. It is, in short, always a matter of degree.

¹⁰cf. Burch, William R., Jr. "The Social Circles of Leisure" in Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 1. No. 2, 1969.

¹¹Harlow, H. F. and Stephen F. Suomi, op cit.

¹²The data reported are from a study in which 1251 adult respondents were interviewed about going to parks. The sample was an area probability sample.

¹³A detailed study of this phenomenon can be seen in Gerald D. Suttles The Social Order of the Slum (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1968)

¹⁴I have discussed some additional aspects of this in my "Towards a Theory of Not-Work" in Pacific Sociological Review Vol. 14, No. 3, July 1971, p. 245 if.

¹⁵The importance of this is suggested by S. L. Washburn when he states "Our ancestors lived in very small groups and we have evolved to feel strongly about only a very small number of people" (emphasis added, NHC). cf. Washburn, S. L. ed. The Social Life of Early Man (Chicago: Aldine Books 1961) in particular his "Conflict in Primate Society" p. 11 if.

¹⁶See Coser, Lewis The Functions of Social Conflict (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press 1965) for a cogent reformulation of Simmel's insights in the processes operating.

¹⁷Erving Goffman has written suggestively about the mechanisms through which collective definitions of social situations he terms "public" are maintained. See his Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order (New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1971).

¹⁸Wallace, Walter, ed. Sociological Theory (Chicago: Aldine Books 1970).