— Lakshmi Yazhini
Gregariousness is believed to be a quality central to the lives of humans. The American Psychological Association defines gregariousness as “the tendency of human beings to enjoy the company of others and to want to associate with them in social activities.” Over time, the word gregariousness came to be associated with feelings of togetherness, companionship and social stability among the humans observed. I wonder if, gregariousness is a quality inherent to the human species? Or is it a social construct created to facilitate our current ways of life? Is it possible for one to survive without any human interaction? Or is an anti-social life just a myth?
Aristotle once said, “Man is a gregarious animal. He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.”
Ever since we are born, we are exposed to socialization and social interaction in some form or degree. From being fed to being taught how to speak and walk, we first learn how to socialize with our family members and kin. Eventually, interacting with our fellow beings for human needs creates the need for us to be gregarious. Thus, in the simplest of terms, the primary meaning of gregariousness in this context is ‘to depend on a group of similar beings to fulfill one’s needs’. It can be as simple as ordering your food in a restaurant or asking where the restroom is. Apart from these basic biological needs, we also need to find our niche in life to grow and develop into our best selves, something possible only with a good social environment. Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist devised a hierarchy of needs specific to humans, where he mentions that to grow and thrive, love, nourishment and a sense of belonging are indispensable.
Some sociological scholars (D.O Williams among others) claim that fear of loneliness can also be a factor influencing the gregarious nature of humans. Self-protection is an innate instinct and comes easily when we are in a group. Consider a commonplace, all too relatable scenario: we forgot to do our assignment, but the fact that quite a few of our classmates forgot to do it too assures us that the consequences would not be too harsh. Although we do not think much of it, we subconsciously look for people to surround ourselves with whenever a flight-or-fight situation arises. But would we still require secondary levels of socialization if the threats we were faced with were eliminated? I wonder.
In the contemporary world, procuring basic needs like nutrition, physical protection, survival, etc has become less dangerous than it once was, and humans have become less social than ever. Is there a causal relationship there? Another question to ponder upon. I believe that using online modes of communication have only made it easier to live un-socially, which is why a solitary life in this world may not seem like a bad idea. In fact, the presence of too many people and imminent social pressure can indeed make it suffocating to socialize. Whether or not humans are naturally gregarious, socializing is an integral part of their lives and remains an interesting field of academic research and study.
Edited by Anoushka Agastya
Design by Aaromal S Kesav
Article 19 