How hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory unifies social science

“...the aim is to demonstrate how hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory unifies social science.”

Introduction


In this article, the aim is to demonstrate how hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory unifies social science. Specifically, the objectives are to describe and explain:

 

  • A previously unsuspected link between personality, social change and environmental variability, which, in effect, unifies key elements of psychology, history and sociology
  • How the academic disciplines of anthropology, history and sociology can be at least partly unified

 

This demonstration uses non-technical language but reveals the extraordinary potential of hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory to identify relationships between the following social sciences; namely, psychology (personality) and anthropology/history/sociology (social change).



“The argument is that hunter-gatherers c. 12000 bp were able to cope with environmental variability by deliberately adapting their behaviour to the contrasting requirements of their environment. ”

Hunter-gatherers and environmental variability c. 12000 bp


The argument is that hunter-gatherers c. 12000 bp were able to cope with environmental variability by deliberately adapting their behaviour to the contrasting requirements of their environment. One crucial environmental factor would normally have been rainfall. Plentiful rain typically gave rise to a territory which had ample water and food (an abundant environment). A serious shortage of rain resulted in a territory which had little water or food (a scarce environment). One of the most challenging transformations to an environment at this time for hunter-gatherers would have been from plentiful rainfall to arid conditions which resulted in, for example, semi-desert or desert. In these circumstances, those individuals or groups who were unable to relocate would have been faced with major economic and social challenges to their survival.


 

Note:

The concept of ‘deliberate behaviour patterns’, which is introduced in the next paragraph, describes regularly occurring deliberate behaviours. In brief, these deliberate behaviour patterns can consist of individual, social and/or societal decisions and actions, which are motivated by feelings and emotions.









“Present-day humankind has intelligence and flexible deliberate behaviour in order to have mastered, as a hunter-gatherer, the abrupt economic and social change of sudden, profound environmental change.”

Hunter-gatherer economic and social change c. 12000 bp


Since hunter-gatherers from c. 12000 bp were, in fact, able to survive an environmental change from abundance to scarce and vice versa, their deliberate behaviour patterns would have been sufficiently flexible to overcome the challenging economic and social transformations when a more abundant environment became scarcer. Moreover, hunter-gatherers c. 12,000 bp would have possessed deliberate behaviour patterns which would have been more likely to maintain their population in times of scarcity. Equally, hunter-gatherers could have adopted different deliberate behaviour patterns which would have maximised their population by exploiting opportunities when a scarce environment became more abundant. In other words, hunter-gatherers had the reasoning ability and flexible behaviour patterns to cope with abruptly changing environments.


These hunter-gatherer aspects of human behaviour are still widely seen, for example, in humankind’s present-day economic and social adaptability in face of rapid economic and social change, for example industrialisation. Human adaptability, which is based upon its deliberate behaviour, is a truism, but now there is a credible, straightforward explanation. Present-day humankind has intelligence and flexible deliberate behaviour in order to have mastered, as a hunter-gatherer, the abrupt economic and social change of sudden, profound environmental change.


A comparison of industrial and hunter-gatherer societies


Humankind’s deliberate behaviour patterns are examined in more detail by considering the contrasting importance of loyalty to a group and individual freedom in some industrial and hunter-gatherer societies.


Collectivist and individualist industrial societies


In Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival,[1] Geert Hofstede and his co-authors demonstrate with many examples that present-day industrial society cultures differ markedly in several ‘dimensions’ of culture, for example in the relative importance of the group and of the individual. In Hofstede’s terminology, a ‘collectivist’ society is one where group objectives have precedence over an individual’s objectives. Hofstede and his co-authors contrast a ‘collectivist’ society with an ‘individualist’ society, which is one where an individual’s objectives have precedence over group objectives. As a general rule, which is evidenced by their detailed research, East Asian societies tend to be collectivist, while the United States of America and European societies tend to be individualist.





“For most Japanese, loyalty to the group is a key feature of their societal values.”

Japan


Present-day Japan is a collectivist society. One characteristic of a collectivist society is a belief in the necessity of being a loyal member of a group. Japanese children are taught and encouraged to work together effectively in a team. Special emphasis is placed upon the duty and loyalty which students owe to their class and school. Teachers insist that children are responsible as a group for tidying and cleaning their classroom. The Japanese consider that, as a general rule, everyone ought to work cooperatively in teams. The historical origin of this belief is partly explained by Japan’s earlier agricultural economy of cooperative wet-rice farming. For most Japanese, loyalty to the group is a key feature of their societal values.


“For most Americans, the ability of individuals to pursue their own objectives is a fundamental right which everyone ought to possess.”

United States of America


In contrast, present-day America is individualist. Americans praise individual effort and achievement. Children are taught to be effective when working as individuals. Americans consider that, as a general rule, everyone ought to be judged as an individual. The historical origin of this belief is partly explained by America being settled by economic and religious migrants who sought individual economic, social, religious and political freedom. For most Americans, the ability of individuals to pursue their own objectives is a fundamental right which everyone ought to possess.










“…the evidence suggests that the deliberate behaviour patterns of these societies, for example collectivist or individualist, were adaptive to hunter-gathering in conditions of environmental variability.”

Collectivist and individualist hunter-gatherer societies


There is plenty of evidence that deliberate behaviour patterns, for example collectivist and individualist, occur in contemporary industrial societies.[1] However, the existence of specific deliberate behaviour patterns in industrial societies does not prove that these are founded upon the deliberate behaviour patterns of hunter-gatherers. Reliable evidence is also needed of hunter-gatherer deliberate behaviour patterns. Fortunately, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, anthropologists researched in detail the deliberate behaviour patterns of a some of the surviving hunter-gatherers, who typically lived and worked in an extended family. [The extended family was the hunter-gatherer living and working unit, which commonly consisted of c. 25 to c. 35 members.]


Admittedly, these hunter-gatherers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were few in numbers and often in contact with industrial and/or agricultural societies. Moreover, their societies were frequently disintegrating. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that the deliberate behaviour patterns of these societies, for example collectivist or individualist, were adaptive to hunter-gathering in conditions of environmental variability. These behaviour patterns are also analogous to those which have been identified, for example by Hofstede and his co-authors, in industrial societies. In this context, research into some Australian Aborigines, Eskimos and !Kung San proved to be particularly valuable. [2][3][4][6]

Australian Aborigines and !Kung San


Some hunter-gatherers normally lived and worked together collectively in their extended family. Others typically lived together but worked more often as individuals. For example, Australian Aborigines who inhabited semi-desert (a scarce environment) lived and worked together collectively.[2] In these environments, every Aborigine had to be loyal to their extended family and fulfil their social responsibilities to their family. Some !Kung San of the Kalahari in Southern Africa, who lived in more abundant environments, lived together in an extended family but worked to a greater extent as independent individuals who organised their own lives.[3][4] 

“In a scarce environment, extended families believed that members ought to be obedient and loyal because of the continual need to maintain mutual support in the face of recurrent food shortages.”

Scarce hunter-gatherer environments 


In a scarce environment, extended families believed that members ought to be obedient and loyal because of the continual need to maintain mutual support in the face of recurrent food shortages. These societies were usually governed by a senior male who consulted, and cooperated, with the other senior men. Societal decisions had to be the outcome of a consensus between the ruler and the other senior men. These individuals, who had to be respected and obeyed, had the authority both to take unpleasant, but necessary, decisions and to impose their disagreeable instructions upon other extended family members.

“…in an abundant environment, nearly every adult member of an extended family took part in consensus decision making, which, consequently, took account of everyone’s interests. ”

Abundant hunter-gatherer environments 


In contrast, in an abundant environment, nearly every adult member of an extended family took part in consensus decision making, which, consequently, took account of everyone’s interests. In this case, the generally-accepted view was that everyone ought to show individual initiative. Only enterprising individuals would be able to take full advantage of the plentiful hunting, gathering and other opportunities which an abundant environment offered.








“... present-day Japanese society deliberately has behaviour patterns which are built upon hunter-gatherers’ ability to deal with a scarce environment, while present-day American society has deliberately adopted behaviour patterns which are founded upon hunter-gatherers’ ability to take full advantage of an abundant environment.”

An explanation of collectivist and individualist industrial societies


On the basis of the preceding descriptions, an explanation is suggested of why industrial societies are capable of having the contrasting behaviour patterns of, in Hofstede’s terminology, collectivist or individualist. Some Australian Aborigines and !Kung San who were studied by anthropologists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries also had the contrasting behaviour patterns which were analogous either to collectivist Japan or individualist America. This evidence raises the possibility that present-day Japanese society deliberately has behaviour patterns which are built upon hunter-gatherers’ ability to deal with a scarce environment, while present-day American society has deliberately adopted behaviour patterns which are founded upon hunter-gatherers’ ability to take full advantage of an abundant environment. Accordingly, the explanation of why an industrial society can be either collectivist or individualist is that the deliberate behaviour patterns which hunter-gatherers used for dealing with environmental variability continue to be found in industrial societies.

 

Note:

Abundance and scarcity in industrial and hunter-gatherer societies

 

Established industrial societies are largely abundant in terms of the availability of goods and services. Nevertheless, all aspects of these societies are subject to scarcity, particularly of resources. Abundant hunter-gatherer societies experience little scarcity. For example, in the most favourable circumstances, some hunter-gatherers had ample renewable resources and only needed to work three or four days a week.






“By these means, the academic disciplines of anthropology, history and sociology are partly unified.”

How hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory creates a common framework for social science


In the preceding explanation of one aspect of societal culture, the same theory (that humankind has the deliberate behaviour patterns of hunter-gatherers who were adapted to environmental variability) and the same concepts (collectivist and individualist) are used to explain aspects of both hunter-gatherer and industrial societies. By these means, the academic disciplines of anthropology, history and sociology are partly unified. Much other analogous unifications can also be made. Moreover, as the following section demonstrates, psychology can be brought within this framework.


























“Perhaps surprisingly, this explanation of social change as utilising a hunter-gatherer ability to cope with environmental variability has the unexpected bonus of explaining some aspects of personality.”

Personality and the process of social change


Hunter-gatherer social change: transition to a scarce environment


When territories became scarcer and less productive, the argument is that c. 12,000 bp hunter-gatherers were capable of deliberately amending their individual, social and societal behaviour. Less effort was spent on looking for new opportunities in hunting, gathering or tool manufacture, and more time was devoted to finding sufficient water and food for the least possible effort. Hunter-gatherers became risk averse and increasingly relied upon those hunting and gathering techniques which were most likely to yield some food.


In these less productive environments, instead of being largely indifferent to adjoining “tribes”, these neighbours were treated with suspicion as competitors for scarce resources. Any aggression met with a violent response. Every adult ceased to take part in decision making. Instead, societies developed the new superior statuses of male ruler and senior men, who were in charge of society and able to take and impose unpleasant, but necessary, decisions, for example compelling all men to fight to defend the group.


The argument is that humankind’s present-day and historical social change utilises these hunter-gatherer capacities for social change. The previous section contains a brief description and explanation of the social change which occurred when abundant territories became scarcer. Perhaps surprisingly, this explanation of social change as utilising a hunter-gatherer ability to cope with environmental variability has the unexpected bonus of explaining some aspects of personality. As will now be demonstrated, specific individual personality traits are an essential ingredient in explaining the occurrence and characteristics of some social change. For example, the process by which a society ceased to be an individualist society and became a collectivist society.


Personality characteristics: group oriented compared with self-reliant 


There are two contrasting individual personality characteristics which are widely recognised and supported by detailed research. Cattell described these two personality characteristics as group oriented and self-reliant. For example, one of Cattell’s 16 personality factors (self-reliance) distinguishes between individuals on the basis of whether their personality is group oriented (collectivist) or self-reliant (individualist).[5] Some people are group oriented and are loyal to their organisation. Their organisation’s interests are put before their own. Other people are individualist in their behaviour. In other words, their own interests, aims and ambitions come first. A majority of people are a mixture of both characteristics. Their own or their organisation’s interests are placed first depending upon the circumstances.


Societal social change and the personality characteristics of group oriented and self-reliant 


The process of societal social change is illustrated by an alteration from an individualist society to one that is collectivist. With regards to personality, hunter-gatherers are posited, in the same way as present-day humans, to be in one of the following three broad personality categories:

 

  • Collectivist (group oriented): those who are typically loyal to their organisation
  • Individualist (self-reliant): those who generally pursue their own interests
  • Broadly equal collectivist and individualist: those who are capable of being loyal to their organisation or pursuing their own interests, depending upon their experience of the abundance or scarcity of the territory

 

In the previous section, some societies, for example America, are individualist, while others, for example Japan, are collectivist. A majority of Americans behave in an individualist (self-reliant) manner, while a majority of Japanese behave in a collectivist (group oriented) manner.







“Consequently, over time, perhaps only a generation or two, the society’s culture changes from individualist to collectivist, which now matches the requirements of a scarce environment.”


An example of social change in a hunter-gatherer society 


The relationship between individual personality and social change can now be described in the context of a hunter-gatherer society whose environment changes, as a result of markedly diminished rainfall, from abundant to scarce. In an abundant society, a majority, who determine society’s social values, are individualist (self-reliant) in their behaviour. However, as the environment deteriorates and becomes scarcer, individuals decide to cooperate more closely together and share in the growing hardship. There are ever fewer individual opportunities to exploit. Everyone needs to be a loyal, dutiful member of their extended family. Those whose personalities can be either individualist or collectivist (group oriented) increasingly become group oriented and eventually form a majority. Consequently, over time, perhaps only a generation or two, the society’s culture changes from individualist to collectivist, which now matches the requirements of a scarce environment. Nevertheless, a minority remain individualist and, when the environment becomes more abundant, start the change in attitudes back to favouring an individualist society.



“Moreover, the application of the theory reveals a previously unsuspected link between personality, social change and environmental variability.”

Conclusion


Benefits


The preceding examples of hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory offer social scientists, including historians, the benefits of a straightforward explanation of:

 

  • The diversity of societies
  • The specific features of societies
  • The variety of human personalities
  • The precise personality characteristics of humankind
  • Social change, in particular how changes in individual behaviour eventually have a societal impact

 

Moreover, the application of the theory reveals a previously unsuspected link between personality, social change and environmental variability.

“The status of hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory as a genuine science has been justified in this article.”


Hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory as a genuine science


The status of hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory as a genuine science has been justified in this article. The justification demonstrates that the theory’s predicted patterns of deliberate individual, social and societal behaviour can be refuted by empirical research. This fundamental point is illustrated by the following argument:

 

If hunter-gatherer environmental variability is true, deliberate human behaviour has the resources to master environmental change. This prediction is confirmed by the existence of collectivist and individualist societies. If all societies were essentially the same, then hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory would be refuted. Moreover, there has to be a way of changing societies from, for example, collectivist to individualist and vice versa in order to manage environmental variability. Humankind’s diverse personalities supply the resources for changing societies. If empirical research revealed that everyone had basically the same personality, then hunter-gatherer environmental variability theory would be refuted.

“Ever more specialisation on a single, specific, short-term historical or present-day event is unlikely to assist in the identification of deliberate behaviour patterns.”


Other insights


There are many other insights to be gained from this article. For example, at a practical level, the discovery of patterns in deliberate behaviour requires a researcher to have a general knowledge of individual, social and societal behaviour during the last c.12000 years. Ever more specialisation on a single, specific, short-term historical or present-day event is unlikely to assist in the identification of deliberate behaviour patterns. In particular, more and more causal information on the participants’ motivation(s) is likely to confuse rather than to assist the researcher. Most importantly, a refutable hypothesis is the only reliable basis for social science research. 


The way forward


A full understanding of this proposed unification of social science can only be realised by reading the trilogy:

 

  • Societies from Hunter-gatherer to Industrial (Second Edition)
  • The Management of the COVID-19 Pandemic in England 2020-22
  • A Guide to Everyone’s Personality: An introduction to the Davies Personality Profile (Second Edition)

 


REFERENCES


1 Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival, Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. and Minkov, M., Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, (2010).

2 The Australian Aborigines: How to Understand Them, Elkin, A. P., Fourth Edition, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, (1964).

3 The !Kung San: Men, Women and Work in a Foraging Society, Lee, R. B., University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, (1979).

4 Kalahari Hunter-Gatherers: Studies of the !Kung San and Their Neighbors, Lee, R. B. and Devore, I. Editors, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, (1998).

5 Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), Cattell R. B. et al., Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, Champaign, IL, (1970).

6 The Eskimos, Burch, E. S. Jr., Macdonald and Co. (Publishers) Ltd., London and Sydney, (1988).


 Copyright © 2026 Michael James Davies, All Rights Reserved