Nooriye is a 39-year-old Iraqi female. She had a pretty normal life until a group of terrorists knocked on her door. Her two sons were killed in front of her. She was abused and tortured for days, as was her husband. Rebels eventually took her husband and left. Some neighbors helped her to bury her sons and provided her with shelter and food. She was about to kill herself when, miraculously, her husband came back 57 days later. He never told her what he went through during those 57 days. They were both in extreme pain but able to hold onto each other.

They immigrated to the U.S. a year later. Her husband found a job and is still working. They are safe now, but it has not been enough to heal them. Both still have nightmares and flashbacks. She spends all her time in her home. She stares at walls, feels numb and very fearful, and cries every day. Her speech is sparse, and she never smiles. She goes out with husband once a day but grabs his hand and won’t let him go when they are out. When faced with stress, she often passes out.

Her husband “has to be strong because she is the only thing he has,” although he also has extreme pain. He hides his tears from his wife, is unable to sleep at night, feels guilty, and misses his sons. He is afraid to make any Iraqi friends and stays away from mosques.

Obviously, providing a safe place, food, and a job is not enough to heal these people’s pain. Invisible wounds and problems are much harder to treat than visible ones.

In this article we will try to elucidate some elements of what Nooriye and thousands of other families have been exposed to all around the world.

Mass trauma

When a group of people, regardless of size, experience psychological effects after a trauma that was suffered collectively, this is called a mass trauma. Sometimes an entire society witnesses the same trauma, and this may cause a collective sentiment, often resulting in a shift in that society’s culture and mass actions.^1,2

Wars, political violence, natural disasters, exile, torture, and terrorism are examples of mass trauma. The Holocaust, the Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, slavery in the United States, and the 9/11 attacks are well-known collective traumas.

Collective traumas have been shown to play a key role in group identity formation. Having the same problems, suffering from the same pain, and being under the same pressures bring individuals together. This togetherness eventually helps to build a community, a group, and sometimes a nation. Almost every nation has traumatic events in their history. Even the concept of “nation” is extensively affected by these events.

Nevertheless, despite its role in building group identity, mass trauma is still individually painful. In fact, the effects of mass trauma can be very deep and transferred through the generations. In 1966, clinicians observed that large numbers of children of Holocaust survivors were seeking treatment in psychiatric clinics in Canada. Moreover, when compared to the general population, the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors were three times more likely to seek clinical psychiatric help.³

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

According to the National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, the most common stress reactions in the wake of disaster may include the following:

Emotional reactions, including shock, fear, grief, anger, guilt, shame, feeling helpless, feeling numb, and sadness.

Cognitive reactions, including confusion, indecisiveness, worrying, shortened attention span, and trouble concentrating.

Physical reactions, including tension, fatigue, edginess, insomnia, bodily aches and pains, startling easily, racing heartbeat, nausea, change in appetite, and changes in other bodily desires.

Interpersonal reactions, including distrust, conflict, withdrawal, work or school problems, irritability, loss of intimacy, and feeling rejected or abandoned.⁴

Several factors present in the acute-phase recovery environment of a disaster have been found to aggravate stress reactions and therefore increase survivors’ risk of developing negative outcomes. These include:

• Lack of emotional and social support
• Presence of other stressors such as fatigue, cold, hunger, fear, uncertainty, loss, dislocation, and other psychologically stressful experiences
• Difficulties at the scene
• Lack of information about the nature and reasons for the event
• Lack of, or interference with, self-determination and self-management
• Treatment [given] in an authoritarian or impersonal manner
• Lack of follow-up support in the weeks following the exposure

Protective factors that may mitigate negative effects include:

• Social support
• Higher income and education
• Successful mastery of past disasters and traumatic events
• Limitation or reduction of exposure to any of the aggravating factors listed above
• Provision of information about expectations and availability of recovery services
• Care, concern and understanding on the part of the recovery services personnel
• Provision of regular and appropriate information concerning the emergency and reasons for action.⁵

In most cases, the symptoms of trauma eventually disappear, but unfortunately, some of the survivors of the mass trauma will eventually develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD is a mental disorder resulting from exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor.

The National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), conducted between February 2001 and April 2003 in the U.S., estimated the lifetime prevalence of PTSD among adult Americans to be 6.8%.⁶ The lifetime prevalence of PTSD among men was found to be 3.6% and among women 9.7%. ⁷

PTSD is described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM 5) which is published by the American Psychiatric Association, as:

Criterion A (at least one required): The person was exposed to: death, threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violence, in the following way(s):

• Direct exposure
• Witnessing the trauma
• Learning that a relative or close friend was exposed to a trauma
• Indirect exposure to aversive details of the trauma, usually in the course of professional duties (e.g., first responders, medics)

Criterion B (at least one required): The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced, in the following way(s):

• Intrusive thoughts
• Nightmares
• Flashbacks
• Emotional distress after exposure to traumatic reminders
• Physical reactivity after exposure to traumatic reminders

Criterion C (at least one required): Avoidance of trauma-related stimuli after the trauma, in the following way(s):

• Trauma-related thoughts or feelings
• Trauma-related reminders

Criterion D (at least two required): Negative thoughts or feelings that began or worsened after the trauma, in the following way(s):

• Inability to recall key features of the trauma
• Overly negative thoughts and assumptions about oneself or the world
• Exaggerated blame of self or others for causing the trauma
• Negative affect
• Decreased interest in activities
• Feeling isolated
• Difficulty experiencing positive affect

Criterion E (two required): Trauma-related arousal and reactivity that began or worsened after the trauma, in the following way(s):

• Irritability or aggression
• Risky or destructive behavior
• Hypervigilance
• Heightened startle reaction
• Difficulty concentrating
• Difficulty sleeping

Criterion F (required): Symptoms last for more than 1 month.

Criterion G (required): Symptoms create distress or functional impairment (e.g., social, occupational).

Criterion H (required): Symptoms are not due to medication, substance use, or other illness.⁸

Treatment for mass trauma:

Treatment for mass trauma should be delivered at two different levels: the community level and the individual level.

1. Community level:

Dr. Frantz Omar Fanon gives the recipe for mass trauma treatment at the community level: “Mass trauma can be alleviated through cohesive and collective efforts such as recognition, remembrance, solidarity, communal therapy and massive cooperation.”

The statement above can be a topic for a separate article. Here, we would like to express the importance of the remembrance days. People comes together on remembrance days and remind the victims that they are not alone and not forgotten. This can be therapeutic for the victims and alleviate their pain.

2. Individual level

PTSD treatment includes pharmacotherapy (medical treatment) and psychotherapy. Some of the medications which have been helpful combatting depression are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), such as Fluoxetine (Prozac), Sertraline (Zoloft), Paroxetine (Paxil), and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) such as Venlafaxine (Effexor) and Duloxetine (Cymbalta).

There are several therapy types that have been shown to be effective at treating PTSD. Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the most highly recommended psychotherapies for PTSD. In these therapy types the treatment focuses on the memory of the traumatic event or its meaning. These treatments use different techniques to help a victim process their traumatic experience. Some involve visualizing, talking, or thinking about the traumatic memory. Others focus on changing unhelpful beliefs about the trauma. Prolonged exposure therapy, Cognitive Processing Therapy, Eye-Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Brief Eclectic Psychotherapy, and Narrative Exposure Therapy are the some of the therapies that have been found to be helpful for PTSD patients.

Additionally, spirituality might help treat PTSD, too. A study of Bosnia-Herzegovina war veterans suggested that veterans who prayed had significantly higher levels of incorporation, self-protection, and reactive formation and significantly lower levels of regression, compensation, transferring, lack of control, and aggressiveness than their peers who did not pray. ⁹

In brief, providing shelter, food, and a safe environment are mandatory for trauma patients, but they aren’t nearly enough. Psychological traumas are very hard to treat, and treatment may take years. It has been shown that soldiers who have somebody to share their war experience/trauma with, have a lower risk for PTSD when compared with the ones who can’t talk to anybody. Victims need professional help along with community support. Trauma can be alleviated through cohesive and collective efforts and cooperation. Praying for the trauma victims, as politicians suggested for recent hurricane victims, definitely has some social impact. It has also been shown that medication/prayers decrease PTSD symptoms ¹⁰; however, showing support and empathy, listening to victims, and acts of remembrance are the other key elements of community support.

References

1. Lisa Gale Garrigues, “Slave and Slave Holders Break Free of History’s Trauma“, Yes Magazine, August 2, 2013
2. Updegraff, Silvler, Holman, “Searching for and Finding Meaning in Collective Trauma, Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, September 2008
3. Coffey, R. (1998). Unspeakable truths and happy endings. Sidran Press. ISBN1-886968-05-5
4. https://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/handouts-pdf/Reactions.pdf
5. NSW Institute of Psychiatry and Centre for Mental Health. (2000). Disaster Mental Health Response Handbook.North Sydney: NSW Health.
6. Kessler, R.C., Berglund, P., Delmer, O., Jin, R., Merikangas, K.R., & Walters, E.E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6): 593-602.
7. National Comorbidity Survey. (2005). NCS-R appendix tables: Table 1. Lifetime prevalence of DSM-IV/WMH-CIDI disorders by sex and cohort. Table 2. Twelve-month prevalence of DSM-IV/WMH-CIDI disorders by sex and cohort. Accessed at: http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/ncs/publications.php
8. American Psychiatric Association. (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (5th ed.). Washington, DC.
9. Pajević I, Sinanović O, Hasanović M. Association of Islamic Prayer with Psychological Stability in Bosnian War Veterans. J Relig Health. 2017 Dec;56(6):2317-2329. doi: 10.1007/s10943-017-0431-z.
10. Gallegos AM, Crean HF, Pigeon WR, Heffner KL. Meditationand yoga for posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analytic review of randomized controlled trials. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017 Dec; 58:115-124. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.004.

Coming to the Canadian experience, which has no doubt been hovering in the backs of our minds, with a nation requiring so much intellectual mediation, we may well worry that as the memory of the parties who fought on the Plains of Abraham fades into the background of the national consciousness, only homo economicus may survive, who looks to the nation only to optimize consumerism in the quest for status, rationalized as the summa of self actualization.

And we may justifiably worry that the universals of human nature which have obstructed utopian visions will continue to haunt the national dream, among them nepotism, inequality of intellectual and social potential, and the quest for dominance through violence, which is also embedded in our genes. And by the way, on the score of economic man, you’ll be amused to know that the most sophisticated instrument for the study of national identity, called the National Identity Scale, is not the work of academics or Statistics Canada, but of marketing agents. You can google it. Their goal is to profile all of our nationalist sentiments, loyalties, and proclivities in order to target our purchasing inclinations. How ironic is it that interested parties are seeking to brand us as consumers by profiling our diversities of national feeling?

There are other obstacles to national experience and identity worthy of mention. The word itself is derived from “natio” which essentially means birthplace, taken from “nasci,” to be born. We may well wonder whether our place of birth is our life’s destiny. He or she who swears an oath to the Queen in a citizenship court is making a vow that is tantamount to a religious conversion. Yet where people are born remains a huge part of their identity. A group of Canadian nationalist academics back in the 1970s, in a narrow spirit of mind, confirmed that very belief by stating that anyone not born in Canada lacked a true national experience and should therefore be barred from all positions of influence within our university systems. What a doctrine to impose upon an essentially immigrant nation, eager to recruit talent from abroad to maintain its national dream!

Yet that issue will never ultimately die, because we will never ultimately agree about how we construct identity and fashion allegiances, who is really in and who is not. How malleable are we, and how much baggage from our pasts is too much when it comes to forming a new national community? And how much superiority can the native born claim for themselves?

Something once said by George Bernard Shaw cuts both ways: “There is nothing that can be changed more completely than human nature when the job is taken in hand early enough.” The gist of it is that we are indeed malleable, but only when we are young. Each of us here is as apt to speak Japanese as any child born in Japan, had we been born there. Yet nothing makes learning Japanese more difficult than first speaking English, because we were born here. So is birth tantamount to the only nation we can experience? How much plasticity do we have? Can a second language ever equal a first? That debate is likewise yours to discover.

The topic of memory in this context is also significant. It is not possible to dwell on all its complexities here, for memory is both key to the construction of t he self and key to those common experiences that define national identity. But self and nation entail different kinds of memory. A self is a point of view concerning its own lived history. National memories are preserved through books, paintings and pictures, letters, and journals housed in national archives and libraries. A nation emerges only when historical memory becomes personal memory, when the story of a people is internalized, inviting us to feel for and with those who created our national past.

Can a nation shed this component and still be a nation? I ask in innocence. Perhaps we can thrive together on current events. But if we require a deeper historical memory, how is it to be framed and disseminated? It is a real challenge for educators, who must referee among the embarrassing facts, the touchy opinions, and political correctness. Can we even afford an embattled Canadian history? Or do we beat our breasts and construct it as one long trail of colonializing abuse and ethnic misunderstanding? After all, two of our three founding peoples are conquered nations, and much of the history of Canada has been devoted to assuaging the loss of those former identities.

The Quebecois have a dearly-held sense of themselves as a first experience quality of nation centered on birth, language, a common history and culture, and at one time a common religion, yet they too must seek to embrace the contractual, legal, and secular components of a modern pluralistic society. The most intense intellectual debates within Quebec today are concerned with this very question. There is a lot of nostalgia in la belle province, and who can blame them? At some level, we all crave the kind of oneness they hope to find in a society still tenuously held together by a common language and traditions, made urgent by a history of perceived subjugation and collective hope.

Meanwhile, it is easy to imagine how irrelevant those confrontations must seem to newer Canadians who have no stakes in that conversation and can only hope for a second order gesellschaft nation or retreat into former national feelings; our historical solitudes go in many directions. Yet this part of our national experience cannot and should not be pretended away. And thus, how do we shape the collective memory of Canada? An attempt will be made in the transformation of our National Museum of Civilization into a Museum of National History, which I think we all recognize as an effort in nation building, in selectively representing the Canadian past in ways which will instill national pride in all its citizens. But whether this new institution will represent a faithful and comprehensive history or a cheerleading version of it remains to be seen. Behind it all is an admirable goal, to give our national memory a monument or shrine to make visible who we are, and to make it accessible to all the people.

I have thrown up a lot of obstacles to the realization of national identity in modern diversified societies. Unfortunately, I cannot resolve all the stressors and dilemmas which I have raised. I would be bigger than God if I had a band-aid for all our national divisions, and I would be a menacing tyrant if I had the power to imprint nationalist universals by fiat in the mind of every citizen.

What I would venture is that we all desire to be members of a national community—to participate personally in that cluster of ideas which not only holds us together but distinguishes us from all other nations, and to experience it as part of our extended personal identity. It is a level of the self that is big, but not too big, and still within imagining. National sentiments are strong when Canada does well in international ratings concerning our financial fundamentals. We are justifiably proud of our social welfare net, our peacekeeping objectives, or when planes fly overhead in formation, or when we take Olympic medals or win the World Series.

But we sense there is even more pro patria to be felt through education, historical consciousness, generous feelings toward our fellow citizens, and openness to dialogue and exchange. Emotions cannot be coerced, but when we feel them, they can help form the bonds that hold us together. In Canada, a dialogue among cultures has replaced the monolithic orientations of older and more traditional societies, which is now as it must be, but it is an ongoing experiment all the same, with an uncertain outcome. That brings us back to the intercultural and interfaith dialogues sponsored by such organizations as the IDI (Intercultural Dialogue Institute), which are vital to the shaping of our national ethos; we become one in sharing our differences and in understanding just how those differences still pertain both to our common humanity and to our national aspirations. In that regard, we can champion Fethullah Gulen’s great commission when he urges that “Each person who loves his or her country has to be a proper representative of that nation. Every member should invest in its values and put energy and aid into its development, and follow this pathway throughout life.” It is a great reciprocity conducted by granting identity to others and assuming an informed identity for ourselves.

A nation is dialogic. It is made by thinking it together. My purpose has been to think about the self and its experience in the context of nation, and how buying in cognitively adds to our experiencing of the self as a thinking participant. I can’t imagine a working nation without conditions like respect for law and the rights of others, respect for democratic institutions, and fiscal integrity. And here we get into the hard points for discussion. We need working languages to avoid our own Tower of Babel; thus it seems reasonable that we foster the two official languages of Canada as efficient vehicles of communication. We need citizens with religious sensibilities, even if they are confirmed atheists, but we must be wary of guiding ourselves in matters of the collective secular nation by religious principles more specific than generic ethics and civic morality; the French Revolution got that right. We need residents who imagine the common good and respect the dignity of life by instinct. And I would add my support for extending the historical consciousness of the nation, because Canada has had a rich history in its scant 400 hundred years of urban settlement. Canada has been pluralistic from its inception, yet we have forged a sense of a single dominion historically grounded and tied to a precious social and political formula based on reason and the spirit of order and cooperation. Yet I think we can remain true to our inspiring cultural diversity through discussion and sharing. Upon such a heritage, minds can build a nation.

I seem to recall that it was a beer company that branded us with a bit of national self-affirmation through its “I am Canadian” campaign. It was a “good feeling” ad. But Gulen said it more eloquently: “It is vital for citizens of a nation to say, ‘this is my country.’ The altruism of today will lead to the happiness of tomorrow’s generations.” And all this we do with our brains and minds in the most remarkable and mysterious of ways are, as a cognitive philosopher, are matters of eternal fascination to me. Nation-building we accomplish only by synchronizing our minds. We build an invisible yet compellingly real national community just by thinking in a collective way. Nation, in that sense, is a cognitive and emotional opportunity for the construction of the self, and clearly as a collective idea, nation has its adaptive value as a point of view from which we exercise our interests in the world. That alone gives grounds for the instauration of national bonds.

Donald A. Beecher is Chancellor’s Professor at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
Editor’s note: The first part was published in the previous issue #99.

So when it comes to self identity, in what kinds of groups are we most likely to flourish? And if the sociological truism holds that we bond first with those who confirm our identities by being most like us, how large is that group likely to be?

Steven Pinker, in The Blank Slate, states that “The universality of ethnocentrism and other forms of group-against-group hostility across societies, and the ease with which such hostility can be aroused in people within our own society” is one of the greatest obstacles to the extension of identity communities.

Still, for an opener, you can see self and group formation at work in high school cafeterias as clusters of the like-minded create an identity by excluding outsiders, largely through gossip, sometimes around matters as trivial as a dress code, or who owns the latest electronic gadgetry. In effect, they are behaving like little tribes or nations. The fascinating part is the emotional drive to belong, and the fear of exclusion, even from groups arbitrarily defined and ephemeral, including those created in cyber space. These same principles pertain to the 700 gangs which form the social fabric of south-central Los Angeles. Yet, arguably, this same group-making process, through intellectual imagination, might be extended all the way up to the world nation or global community, with each echelon defined by shared interests, activities, values, and memories. A nation, among them, is a mutuality of thinking among persons sharing common purposes. Yet as a principle of social cohesion, it is also emotional, allegiance-oriented, exclusionary, and collectively administered. There is no nation without those who are not members. Nations may also entail chauvinism, loyalty tests in time of threat, and hostility toward non-members. Karl Deutsch famously defined a nation as “a group of people united by a mistaken view about the past and a hatred of their neighbors.” In his view, national groups lie to themselves about who they are as warriors or victims in order to justify their aggression. They can act as gangs. That is an unnecessarily dark view of the national experience, but it gets much brighter as we go along.

According to the traditional dictionary definition, a national bond arises, not only because people share a common geographical territory, but because they practice the same mores, speak the same language, worship the same gods, fight common enemies, participate in the same identifying rituals and traditions, share a common stock of stories and a common history, and are often related to each other through blood ties. Cohesion around sporting events and beer preferences is merely a parody of bedrock national identity, although in a self-effacing manner, Canadians like to start there. But it is inversely conceivable that diverse peoples with diverse allegiances may somehow share a common territory without a sense of national identity, because most of those listed characteristics typically defining a nation are simply not shared by the members of pluralistic societies. So if such populations are to find an identity center for themselves in a nation, they really have only three options.

One is to redefine themselves around more vague, generic and inclusive categories of nationhood. Another is to impose uniformity through the melting pot, the Lord Durham solution, through enforced and universal education, imposed official languages, an official history, and official social rituals in the search for a common brand of allegiance. A third is to choose a new concept under which they can unite themselves as a secular community and forget about being a nation altogether. In my view of Canadian practice, we are currently pursuing all three solutions at once. The third option entails falling back upon the universals of our humanity. We might simply acknowledge the common desires and instincts of all humankind as members of the global village, and we might view Canada as a piece of this village in which we listen to each other’s first national stories in a spirit of good will. Is that not the mandate of the Canadian ministry of multiculturalism? To be sure, it would seem only right that we remain free to express the national imperatives of our birthplaces, our mother tongues, our religions, and our respective ethnicities, yet such practices appear to obstruct the formation of a specifically Canadian national identity-or maybe not? The point is very much up for discussion.

Let’s return for a moment to the second option, the nationalist teach-in for all citizens. While recognizing diversity, national governments may also recognize the value in proactively promoting a national brand, but it is a challenging enterprise, because a meaningful nationalism cannot be bought with jingoism, cheerleading, and trinkets, or bread, circuses, and revisionist history. Identity as a mind-state entails a combination of pride and duty that is somehow earned and experienced, who knows exactly how? It is something we instinctively desire, yet identity arises only when we feel emotionally drawn to the collectivity of minds, values, and practices that constitute a nation-the argument becomes circular. We may well wonder how such emotional allegiances may best be fostered. It is a point to which I will return. But it must also be lamented that nations may also include stories of failure; in fact, our literature is full to overflowing with them, and they are studied in our university classrooms with empathetic attention. From that perspective, a lament for our national failure to create a national home for new Canadians may be our most common and unifying characteristic; it is an obsession among our literary critics.

There are many stories to choose from, but I am most immediately reminded of a touching personal narrative written by Elena Maccaferri and translated by her sister as A Bench on Which to Rest. Maccaferri came to Canada from a small village above Bologna, lured to a better life by an Italo-Canadian who promised marriage, but failed to meet her at the dock upon her arrival. A hard and lonely life followed, until she was at last found by a man who had also come from her village. She went on to raise children here, who grew up Canadian in soul and spirit, but Elena could never find a true home away from her native mountains, and was overwhelmed by nostalgia. At last, when her children were grown, she returned to Italy, only to discover that all she once knew had vanished. Canada had found no place in her emotions, but had succeeded only in alienating her even from her own children.

Thomas Henricks stated that “for the most part, people experience personhood in the terms that their host societies offer them.” But that does not always happen, and when that host society somehow fails to offer acceptable terms around which personal values can flourish, the story becomes tragic, as it was for Maccaferri. It was a crisis in personal identity in relation to a nation. And while I’m telling stories about the inability of a host nation to inspire allegiance, I’ll mention another, which goes back to my bachelor days as a young Carleton professor. I had just exhausted my resources on a six-bedroom fixer-upper in Ottawa south with rooms left over to rent out to students. In that little community we had a mysterious roomer who never joined in our collective kitchen exploits and conversations. That was not a problem in itself, but his place in the household came to a strange crisis, nevertheless, when one afternoon a couple of the other students found him in the kitchen counting out huge piles of change. He explained simply that if the laundromat owners were so stupid in their choice of coin boxes, they deserved to be robbed. In no time I had a report upstairs, and went down for an account of my own. It was a sad litany: that his father had come to Canada with promises and expectations, and that to his mind this country had ruined him, giving him only custodial work to do. In his disappointment, he had trained his children to blame the entire country, giving them carte blanche to recover his losses any way they could. The laundromat theft had been conducted as a grievance against the nation. Any Canadian was thus a fair target, and revenge could be taken indiscriminately. What bizarre turns the idea of nation can take; it is a reminder that dialogue can help.

When social groups are organized around adhesion to extended clans or tribes, as they were among the First Nations of the New World, we have an early example of the tribal-nation as a tight working survival community sharing a single culture, and calling for unflinching loyalty. But it was only after the long hiatus of the Dark Ages, and a pre-Renaissance period characterized by city states and assorted feudal principalities that the modern nation emerged in conjunction with the political institutions that framed the autonomous state.

The sixteenth century was the first great age of nation building, with England leading the way under the Tudors. And what an experiment it was. A poem I teach nearly every year is entitled The Faerie Queene, written by Edmund Spenser. It was, unabashedly, a national epic which, by chivalric and allegorical example, set out to teach its readers the great civic virtues upon which the new nation could build, including loyalty to the queen and a sense of duty in the cause of right and justice.

Of course, there is nothing like war and the threat of invasion to quicken a sense of common cause and rouse a sense of national fervor. This is simply a by-product of the craving for self- protection which can only be realized where there is a feeling of all-for-one and one-for-all. Canadians still construct some of their strongest moments of national identity through recollections arising from the First and Second World wars. They are noble stories in which we all can share, dealing with a nation coming of age through the baptism of sacrifice. And we have been reminded at times that the nation expects such matters to be treated with ultimate respect and honor. On these occasions the self is lost for a moment in the experience of the nation, and in that regard it is an experience of extended identity, a national ritual that contains the self within the group. The spiritual philosopher, Fethullah Gulen, extends that loss of self in a nation into a hope for a collective future: “Any nation that liberates itself from the deadly web of selfishness and egoism, stereotyping, excessive entitlements, fear of the future, long-lasting hatred and hostility, and at the same time respects the freedom of ideas and beliefs, while turning away from oppressors, as well as giving rights to the innocent, will surely experience long life.” That requires not only self-investment, but collective monitoring and the mastery of the dialogic self in each member. Such a nation must seek to amplify the positive qualities of experiential identity at the national level. But how to extend that experience to the optimum level of respectful allegiance is a challenging formula to meet.

We are, in fact, discussing a rather elusive state of mind. What is it like to experience an ideal national allegiance? How will it feel to be a participating member? One part of our nature seeks a spontaneous glow of unconditional brotherhood in a community of homogenous values. Another part realizes, intellectually, that we have a mutually beneficial contractual arrangement with fellow citizens only at a legal and organizational level. The German terms for these, often employed by scholars, are gemeinschaft for the former, and gesellschaft for the latter. The contrast can be understood historically. In the Middle Ages, rural populations spent their entire lives within view of their parish church steeples; their thought preoccupations were concerned with fixed or received views invested in work, rituals, and customs which remained unchanged throughout generations. Such communities had little need for debate or discussion, because everyone knew what the others were thinking. These were societies entirely integrated through common religious festivals, language, history, and traditions. These were experiential quality nations generating a sense of gemeinschaft.

Renaissance societies worked outwards from this communal base toward new identities based on restraint in a secular, legislated, legal, and impersonal society. This new order we might call a second experiential quality of nation, conceived as a partnership or a social contract to promote political and economic order. Both the communal nation and the legal nation are principles of group organization and experience, but they do not share a common ethos. For better or for worse, the modern plural nation has been compelled to redefine itself as a society regulated by law, charters, and citizenship-a gesellschaft. My point is that as societies foster libertarian individualism, much of that intuitive and communal sense of the first experiential quality of nation disappears. We have heard much, since the nineteenth century, about alienation, solipsism, existentialism, the anxieties of modernity, the breakdown of the nuclear family, rapid mobility, and transnationalism.

The longing for a tribal structure in size and cohesion prevails even in modern societies. We might try to replace that feeling at the national level through an equitably administered legal society, through education, and through health and welfare support. But that returns us to the awkward crux. Does a true sense of brotherhood and identity emerge only when there are collective bonds that include language, religion, customs, food and festivals, and life on a village scale? States may structure themselves around welfare nets, global educational systems, and the legal protection of opportunity for all, but there remains intense anxiety over the oneness of our collective national experience.

Donald A. Beecher is Chancellor’s Professor at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
(Editor’s note: A follow-up of this article can be find in the 100th issue of The Fountain Magazine)

Large scale phenomena, with almost similar religious zeal, can also be observed in the natural world. The Qur’anic verse, “All that is in the heavens and on the earth extols and glorifies God, for He is the Tremendous, the Wise,” (57:1) tells us that all creatures of God glorify, praise and, hence, worship God in a language of their natural disposition. When a seed lifts a tall tree or a bud on a branch opens into a beautiful flower, they reflect the Power, Wisdom, and Glory of God. Just as this occurs individually when creatures display the wonders of the Creator and live in accordance with the purpose of their creation, they also worship God collectively by obeying the call of God in large numbers. All dramatic animal migrations, with their millions of creatures moving as one, and the synchronized blossoming of all plants in the spring, are examples of collective acts of worship in the natural world. In Africa, wildebeests migrate – tens of thousands of them, all going at the same time – to greener pastures in the continent’s highland steppes. In North America, millions of monarch butterflies migrate thousands of kilometers every winter. A recent discovery spectacularly demonstrated that corals along the length of the Great Barrier Reef, on the east coast of Australia, germinate at the same time, even down to the hour. Similarly, Muslims also display a mass act of worship by hearing the invitation of God for pilgrimage, and turning up in their millions, at the same time and place.

Cosmic objects and sub-atomic particles orbiting around a central point can be seen as another common act of worship expressed in the tongue of natural disposition. While electrons ceaselessly orbit the nucleus of an atom, the earth and planets tirelessly traverse space in an orbit around the sun. In turn, the solar system becomes the whirling dervish orbiting the centre of the Milky Way. It seems that circling a central point of reference is a universal act of worship. Muslims join in this cosmic mode of worship and synchronize with the whole universe and all existence by circling the Ka’bah as the reference point of monotheism.

The central aims of worship – exalting, glorifying and praising God – are realized individually and collectively. Muslims exalt God by showing up in mass as though saying “O Lord! You are greater than my self and You are far exalted above the whole humanity; here we are ready to worship you in mass.” They glorify God by going around the Ka’bah as though saying “just as we circle the single point of reference, the one and only Ka’bah, the oldest place of worship on earth, we only obey You, the Absolute One worthy of worship.” They praise God through the collective supplication and remembrance of God in the plains of Mt Arafat.

Muslims believe that the Ka’bah was the first place of worship built by the first human, and the first prophet, Adam. It was later rebuilt on the same foundations by Abraham and his son, Ishmail, and declared as a shrine dedicated to the belief and worship of one God (2:125-127) – the central tenet of monotheism. Abraham called on people to make pilgrimage to the site. Before the days of Islam, the Hebrew Bible confirmed the existence of this pilgrimage to Mecca: “O Lord Almighty, my King and my God. Blessed are those who dwell in Your house; they are ever praising You. Blessed are those whose strength is in You, who have set their hearts on pilgrimage. As they pass through the Valley of Beca, they make it a place of springs; the autumn rains also cover it with pools” (Psalms 84:4-6).

The climax of Pilgrimage occurs on the plains of Mt Arafat, about twenty kilometers outside of Mecca. All pilgrims have to be present in this location at the same time, simulating the day of resurrection when all humanity will be gathered before the court of God. Everyone wears the same simple garment and supplicates to God with no distinction of race, color, wealth or status.

Mt Arafat has a very significant place in the history of humanity. According to Islam, this is the place where the first man, Adam, and his partner, Eve, sincerely repented and received forgiveness for their mistake committed in Paradise. Similarly, Muslims repent for their sins and ask forgiveness in the same place. The plea and petition of millions of people at the same time is a compelling spiritual force that begs forgiveness. If three million people walked to the home of a president and asked for something, it would be impossible to ignore them. According to Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, God will not send away empty handed a pilgrim who sincerely asks for forgiveness. His or her sins will be wiped clean and they will attain the sinless state of a newborn. Over time, it has become a tradition for pilgrims to visit their family and friends before going for hajj, where they ask for forgiveness of any unsettled grievances or transgressions of human relations.

While there are other spiritual meanings expressed within the rites of hajj , Muslims especially announce their commitment to God through the two fundamental aspects of hajj – the circumambulation of the Ka’bah and the collective prayer offered on the plains of Mt Arafat. As people from all races and nations gather at the spiritual epicenter of the world, they affirm their common paternal ancestry with Adam and their spiritual ancestry with Abraham, peace be upon them.

Mehmet Ozalp is an author and PhD candidate at the University of Sydney, Australia.

References

1. These quotations are mine. They are intended to express the sentiments of pilgrims.
2. In ancient times, Mecca was known as Bakkah.
3. Ghazzali, Ihya’ul Ulumuddin, Tugra Nesriyat (Tr): Istanbul, Vol 1, 622. Hadith was narrated by Abu Hurayrah in Bukhari and Muslim hadith collections. Note that some scholars interpret this hadith to say that human rights violations are not included in this overarching forgiveness.
4. All rituals of hajj relate the story of Abraham, his son Ishmail, his wife Hagar and their dramatic ordeal to survive as monotheist in the largely polytheist world. Rituals of hajj include being present at Mt Arafat; circumambulation of the Ka’bah; offering ritual prayers after circumambulation; sa’y the fast walk between two hills; stopping at Muzdalifa on the first day of the festival; symbolic stoning Satan’s pillars; wearing of ihram; and cutting of the hair at the end.

Land in my country was state property and it was divided into collective farms like this one. Mom worked for the only state bank in our town and was expected to come out once a year and check the procedures on this collective farm.

I enjoyed coming here with her. Walking among the vines, I wondered how those dry trunks could produce such a juicy fruit. I suspected that rain and the sweat drops of the kooperativists had contributed to the process.

I loved the outdoors, yet the reason I wandered as far as possible from where Mom kept comparing numbers was something else. You see, Mom was a pure Communist at heart. She would not eat grapes she hadn’t paid for. And I wouldn’t dare eat them either, at least not in front of her.

“C’mon Comrade Liri, eat some,” her colleagues would insist. “Don’t be so self-righteous. Everybody else eats these grapes. It’s no big deal.”

And I secretly agreed. What harm would eating some grapes do to the huge harvest of this collective farm? Mom shook her head stoically to these objections while I sneaked outside to the tempting juicy globes.

In my country nobody owned anything other than the clothes they had on and the food on their table. Everything else was state property. Yet, the state was us, the people; so in a sense everything belonged to everybody in general and nobody in particular. This was confusing enough to make me give into temptation.

After finishing one big cluster of grapes, I started picking randomly juicy balls here and there, selecting the biggest ones, which were shining like jewels under the sun. Meanwhile I listened to the talk of the workers as they snapped the grapes from branches with large scissors. They were talking about some important members of Political Bureau, a top organization within the Socialist Party, who had come all the way from the capital to visit their successful collective farm. They were now having lunch with the foreman. The workers, it seemed to me, picked the grapes with diligence, as if to impress the PB members.

Later the talk shifted to plain gossip and I was losing track of it when all of a sudden somebody started blowing a whistle. Whoever was blowing the whistle so loudly intended to challenge his lungs to full capacity and I wouldn’t have been surprised if he had blown his brains into the whistle.

Everybody around dropped their scissors and hurried in one direction, which was a good enough reason for me to run along, perspiring profusely.

The crowd gathered in front of the white stucco building. The foreman stood on the front steps, whistle in hand, brain intact, taking in the view of the sweat drenched kooperativists and the vineyard shimmering under the sun.

“Comrades,” he shouted when everybody had gathered, “something despicable has happened in our exemplary Kooperative. This wretched person,” he said pointing to a middle-aged man who stood apart, head bowed, not moving to even wipe his sweat from his face, “this person with no conscience, no morals, this degenerate was caught red-handed stealing grapes.”

All turned around to the degenerate, noticing that he still held a bag half full with grapes. I found Mom among the onlookers. Her face seemed a mix of unreadable emotions. Contempt? Anger? Pity? My mind, out of its own volition started estimating whether the amount of the grapes in my tummy came any where close to the amount in the bag, while I searched for the whereabouts of my conscience. Feeling my cheeks blush, I wished I had stuck to Mom’s resolution of not eating grapes that belonged to everybody.

“Comrades,” continued the foreman, “this man is an enemy of the proletariat and his act will not be overlooked. He dared violate the code of work, the fruit of his comrades’ sweat. What do you have to say?” the foreman sternly asked the red-handed enemy. The once-comrade spoke, without raising his eyes to look at the people who were co-workers, his neighbors, his relatives.

“I am sorry. I shouldn’t have done it.” His voice broke into sobs and tears joined drops of perspiration on the edge of his chin. I felt my spit dry in my mouth.

A couple of fellow kooperativists spoke in turns, shaming their brother and at the same time, trying to appease the anger that, like rain clouds, had started to gather on the PB members’ faces. As they say, wet wood burns along with the dry wood.

“Comrades,” Finally, the oldest PB member spoke as the whole crowd shifted on their feet. “We will set up a makeshift court right here, right now and condemn this shameless act.”

He asked the foreman to appoint someone from the crowd to take part in jury.

“Comrade Lavdi.” The foreman startled my mom and made my heart skip a beat. “Would you volunteer to be part of the jury?”

Even a thirteen-year-old girl as myself knew that the question was only a formality, because the Party people never took no for an answer.

The three Bureau members went into the building, my mom in tow, while the crowd scattered to sit under the shades of the two big oaks. The “enemy” remained on foot under the sun. Three wasps flew in a circle around the bag, trying to get in, without worrying about guilt or sin.

I don’t know how long we waited for the verdict, but I suspect it was long enough that we began to worry that something had gone wrong. Finally one of the Bureau members came out and whispered something to the foreman, who was fanning himself with his hat.

The foreman jumped to his feet and they both went inside again. The person closest to the foreman, who had overheard something of the whispered message, passed it around with no delay. Somebody was refusing to sign the verdict!

As people gasped at the news, my heart trembled with recognition that that somebody had fixed himself for big trouble. That somebody risked being declared an enemy of the people, getting a large stain on their personal reference records and would face grave consequences.

“That somebody can’t be my mom,” I remember convincing myself wishfully. “She hates dishonesty, especially stealing. She wouldn’t mind if they hanged the man.”

Yet, I couldn’t think who else could possibly break the unanimity that every decision required in our country, a place where dissidents did not exist. I couldn’t imagine the three Bureau members disagreeing. They even walked in concord, like soldiers in a military parade.

Finally they came out. Mom, pale as a dead woman, walked out last. Fear gripped my heart. I remember only vaguely what happened afterwards: the shock of the crowd upon hearing the death sentence, the pleading eyes of the guilty, my Mom’s right hand trembling and her transfixed gaze that betrayed disappointment.

All were dismissed. Mom and I walked home on the dusty road after refusing a ride in the PB members’ jeep, the guilty man inside. Mom cried silently all the way home holding my hand in a tight grip, as if the ground was slipping under our feet.

That night I woke up to my mom’s muffled cries and my father’s soothing words.

“I can’t believe it,” Mom was saying, sniffing, “sentence a man to death for a bunch of grapes! What is happening?” demanded my mom, raising her voice. “This is not Communism. This is despotism!”

“Shshshsh. Somebody will hear,” worried my dad.

“They made me sign the verdict,” she continued in revolt. “They threatened me. They said unanimity was a must, otherwise people would think that the Party could be wrong. They assured me that the death penalty was just to frighten people, that a higher court will overrule it and sentence the man to prison for a couple of years. But, what if they don’t?”

Mom paused to catch her breath than continued: “This is not what my father fought for in the war to liberate this country. This is not what they promised Communism would be.”

Both of them fell silent. Only Mom’s occasional sobs spoiled the dark silence. I don’t know if Mom became an enemy of the people that night, but she surely wasn’t a die-hard Communist anymore.

Weeks later we heard that the higher court did indeed overrule the death penalty, sentencing the thief to five years in prison. Mom never spoke of that day and everything went back to normal, except that her eyes never shone again upon hearing the victories of our country under the lead of the Socialist Party, and she never reminded me what a fortunate people we were to be living in the last stronghold of Communism in Europe.

Years later, long after Communism had collapsed and the land had been privatized, Mom came home one day with a black plastic bag in one hand and red-rimmed eyes. She said that a man had thanked her for a signature she had hesitated to give so long ago and had given her grapes in a plastic bag saying, “Eat them with a clean conscience sister! They are the fruits of my pure perspiration and of my honest toil in my own land under the sun.”

Mirkena Ozer is pursuing MA in women studies at the University of Georgia, Atlanta.

A: There is no Mujaddid (renewer) presently. All of them have passed on having completed their mission. Today what is left behind as a duty for us is to recognize them and make sound assessments of their interpretations and perspectives. All of them and especially “the sage of the age” (Bediuzzaman) never drew attention to themselves when they started service to belief and the Qur’an and they understood this phenomenon as a “collective personality” (shakhs al-manawi) rather than a [particular] individual (shakhs), in the sense that after this, service to belief and Islam would be represented by the “collective [spiritual] personality.” As a matter of fact, some people may fall into an error as a result of a false ijtihad (independent reasoning), and may incline to show added fondness and favor toward certain individuals. Such favored individuals-if they are any righteous-are expected to direct this favor into preventing these people from splitting apart, and will never exploit it for a personal interest (or attribute this favor to any of their personal qualities). Certainly, it is always possible that such individuals, who ensure the unity of their community and encourage them for good service, may be blessed with things that they have never thought about or never expected. If it is useful for the community, then such a fondness must be maintained. “Otherwise, all (personal) talents and gifts should be shattered like a crystal bowl; and the “collective [spiritual] personality” should always be indicated as the foundation.”

Meanwhile, there are some individuals who have become the lifeblood of a community out of a respect arising from the bottom; you can observe the presence of such individuals in every part of the structure top to bottom, although they are “nothing.” However, if these individuals are beneficial to the community even at a tiniest level, then it is not worth causing troubles for them. Such individuals become an idol, if they cannot provide guidance for the society, construct the spirit of revival at a desired level, embrace every section of the society and be in harmony with them, and can only get along with those who respect them; such idols should be brought down. It is unacceptable that these individuals are capable of representing the “collective personality” if they cannot work in harmony even with those “pharaohs” within the society.

If such individuals are equipped with some sincerity (ikhlas), when they realize they cannot be in harmony with the entire society, they would go into a self-denial and would bury themselves in an “individual absence” (ghaybubiyyat al-fardiyya), like Ibrahim Adham did, in order to find out their own souls. Otherwise, being at the head of such service may place this person in a risk to lose some of the things they possess.

Turning back to the original question, even though the Renewer (Mujaddid) had been awaited as a single individual, at a time when the world has become more global and we are experiencing a “shrinking” of distances both in time and space (taqarrub al-zaman and taqarrub al-makan), and masses apparently living far apart have become members of the same household, service to humanity (hidma) should be undertaken, not by an individual par excellence (fard al-farid), but rather by the collective [spiritual] body (shakhs al-manawi). Those who will constitute the shakhs al-manawi might be persons drawn from a wide spectrum; from those who participate to the smallest degree to those whose contribution is unimaginably great and who cooperate with everyone in perfect harmony. This service will not involve people with specialties; however, some special people will be the teachers of this communal school; they will be the “individuals par excellence” of the transcendental dervish lodge of this age; they will be the head teachers of the madrasa beyond these times; they will be the commanders of this collective barracks.

I believe that today the (spiritual ranks of) the Qutb and Fard are primarily represented by the collective spiritual bodies. At certain times, the ranks of Qutb and Ghaus are conjoined, whereas the rank of Qutb al-Irshad (Pole of Guidance) might have several representations, for it is related to guidance (irshad). The Autad (pillars) will perhaps be represented within this collective understanding or will assume the role of the lifeblood of a sacred and absolute unity that will be achieved either through uniting with this collective understanding or through spreading among all Islamic communities/groups (jamaats).

There are countless righteous saints of sevens, or forties who are climbing the stairs of Qutb al-Irshad. Even though they appear disconnected, one day they will certainly reach a point of intersection. Our master the Messenger of God says, “Souls are soldiers lined up in ranks; they come together as much as they know each other.” People who share the same soul, the same meaning, and the same thought will certainly unite, even though they are far apart, just like rivers flowing into the same sea, reaching the target sometimes by carving into mountains or by finding out different routes when their paths are blocked by visible or hidden obstructions; or like those who have intended for pilgrimage may meet at holy precincts like Arafat, Ka‘ba, or Rawda. It does not matter if they had the intention to meet or not, the domains they would like to do services at will unite them, and they will represent this grand truth with a hope-inspiring “collective gathering” (jamm al-ghafir).

All of these depend on the existence of unpretentious people with no expectations (hasbi), and they are certainly a grace of God. Therefore, people must seriously train themselves in the direction of being with no expectation in return (hasbi) and altruism. They must be unpretentious and just like the people during the Makka period could not see the season of conquests, they should also free themselves from every kind of worldly expectations and seek the pleasure of God. They should never forget that God may not allow them to continue this work till the end. These people of courage should be loyal, but should never be after any expectation. Service is done not for the reward to be given here, but because it is God’s order. If some reward is given here, then it should be regarded as ulufe (a regular salary the Sultan paid to some soldiers), but it should never be attributed to any individuals.

*This refers to the classical models of the Hidden Government in which there are ranks of saints: one Qutb (axis, pole) or Ghauth (help), 4 Autad (pillars), 7 Abrar (pious), and 40 Abdals (substitutes). Below this are 300 akhyar (Good) and 4000 Hidden saints. (Schimmel, 1975, 200).

You can send us your questions:

questions@fountainmagazine.com

Ants and Ecosystem³

The abundance of ants on earth is legendary. They live almost everywhere except very cold places such as Antarctica and Greenland. A worker is less than one-millionth the size of a human being, yet ants taken collectively rival people as dominant organisms on the land. Lean against a tree almost anywhere and the first creature that crawls on you will probably be an ant. Stroll down a suburban sidewalk with your eyes fixed on the ground, counting the different kinds of animals you see. The ants will win hands down. The British entomologist⁴ C. B. Williams once calculated that the number of insects alive on earth at a given moment is one million trillion, 1018. If, to take a conservative figure, one percent of this host is ants, their total population is ten thousand trillion. Individual workers weigh on average between one to five milligrams, according to the species. When combined, all ants in the world taken together weigh about as much as all human beings. But being so finely divided into tiny individuals, this biomass⁵ saturates the terrestrial environment.⁶

Ants absolutely dominate in rainforests, which are the most biologically diverse ecosystems on earth. Rainforests are so diverse that in a single leguminous tree (a relative to beans and peas) in Peru, 43 species of ants belonging to 26 genera⁷ were found, about equal to the ant fauna⁸ of the British Isles. In a single square mile of tropical forest in Peru or Brazil, there may be 1,500 or more species of butterflies-twice the total number found in the United States and Canada combined.⁹ In Amazon rainforests ants and termites together compose nearly a third of the animal biomass. In other words, when all kinds of animals, large and small, from jaguars to monkeys down to roundworms and mites, are weighed, nearly a third of the weight consists of the flesh of ants and termites.

All of the ants, composing in formal taxonomic classification the family Formicidae of the order Hymenoptera, contain about 9,500 species known to science and at least twice that number of species remaining to be discovered, most of which are confined to the tropics. The total number of species of social insects is about 13,500 out of a grand total of 750,000 insect species that have been recognized to date by biologists. These numbers show that social insects seem to constitute 2 percent of all insects yet, in terms of biomass, social insects are half or more of all insects. Why are ants and other social insects so successful in the terrestrial environment? Their strength comes from their social organization.¹⁰ In addition to the question of why ants and other highly social insect species have been so successful, it is also important to understand how such a large collection of individuals maintains order and collectively accomplishes tasks without producing chaos. With potentially thousands of individual ants to coordinate, how do they make decisions regarding who does what and when, especially critical decisions regarding reproduction?¹¹ These questions become even more intriguing when you realize that ants have quite limited sensory devices to experience the world. They also have relatively simple nervous systems that process only a limited number of stimuli and are aware of only a few minutes to a few hours into the past.¹²

What is Collective Intelligence?¹³

Intelligence can be defined simply as the ability to solve problems. One system is more intelligent than another system if in a given time interval it can solve more problems, or find better solutions to the same problems. A group can then be said to exhibit collective intelligence if it can find more or better solutions than the whole of all solutions that would be found by its members working individually.

All organizations, whether they are firms, institutions or sporting teams, are created on the assumption that their members can do more together than they could do alone. Yet, most organizations have a hierarchical structure, with one individual at the top directing the activities of the other individuals at the levels below. Although no president, chief executive or general can oversee or control all the tasks performed by different individuals in a complex organization, one might still suspect that the intelligence of the organization is somehow merely a reflection or extension of the intelligence of its hierarchical head. This is no longer the case in small, closely interacting groups such as soccer or football teams, where the “captain” rarely gives orders to the other team members. The movements and tactics that emerge during a soccer match are not controlled by a single individual, but result from complex sequences of interactions. Still, they are simple enough for an individual to comprehend, and since soccer players are intrinsically intelligent individuals, it may appear that the team is not really more intelligent than its members.

With the growing interest in complex adaptive systems, artificial life, swarms, and simulated societies, the concept of “collective intelligence” is coming more and more to the fore. The basic idea is that a group of individuals (e.g. people, insects, robots etc.) can be smart in a way that none of its members is. Complex, apparently intelligent behavior may emerge from the synergy created by simple interactions between individuals that follow simple rules.

How do ants succeed?

Now we have lots of questions to ask about the success of ants as a group. How do they govern? Who is the ruler? How do they foresee the future? How do they elaborate plans and preserve equilibrium? These, indeed, are puzzling questions. Every single ant in a colony seems to have its own agenda, and yet an insect colony looks so organized. The seamless integration of all individual activities does not seem to require a supervisor. For example, leaf-cutter ants cut leaves from plants and trees to grow fungi. Workers forage for leaves hundreds of meters away from the nest, literally organizing highways to and from their foraging sites. Weaver ant workers form chains of their own bodies, allowing them to cross wide gaps and pull stiff leaf edges together to form a nest. Several chains can join to form a bigger one over which workers run back and forth. In their moving phase, army ants organize impressive hunting raids, involving up to 200,000 workers, during which they collect thousands of prey.¹⁴

A harvester ant colony performs many tasks: It must collect and distribute food, build a nest, and care for the eggs, larvae, and pupae. It lives in a changing world to which it must respond. When there is a windfall of food, more foragers are needed. When the nest is damaged, extra effort is required for quick repairs. Task allocation is the process that results in certain workers engaged in specific tasks, in numbers appropriate to the current situation. Task allocation is a solution to a dynamic problem and thus it is a process of continual adjustment. It operates without any central or hierarchical control to direct individual ants into particular tasks. Although “queen” is a term that reminds us of human political systems, the queen is not an authority figure. She lays eggs and is fed and cared for by the workers. She does not decide which worker does what. In a harvester ant colony, many feet of intricate tunnels and chambers and thousands of ants separate the queen, surrounded by interior workers, from the ants working outside the nest and using only the chambers near the surface. It would be physically impossible for the queen to direct every worker’s decision about which task to perform and when. Consider the commercially available ant farms being sold. Since it’s forbidden to transfer ant queens, in the US ant farms are sold with only worker ants. Still they work in harmony. They build their nest, they build bridges, they collect food and they defend their colony. They do all these things without a queen. The absence of central control may seem counterintuitive, because we are accustomed to hierarchically organized social groups in many aspects of human societies, including universities, businesses, governments, orchestras and armies. This mystery underlies the ancient and pervading fascination of social insect colonies.

No ant is able to assess the global needs of the colony, or to count how many workers are engaged in each task and decide how many should be allocated differently. The capacity of an individual is limited. It cannot make complicated assessments. It probably cannot remember anything for very long. Its behavior is based on what it perceives in its immediate environment. Each worker needs to make only fairly simple decisions. There is abundant evidence, throughout physics, the social sciences and biology that such simple behavior by individuals can lead to predictable patterns in the behavior of the group. It should be possible to explain task allocation in a similar way, as the consequence of simple decisions by individuals.

Though ant colonies must respond to changing conditions, the response does not have to be perfect. It is not like clockwork, or an army, each unit snapping into place so the whole system ticks on without a hitch. There must be enough ants to collect food, often enough for the colony to survive and grow. The appropriate range of numbers should be allocated over a set of similar occasions. If the colony did not get enough food today, perhaps it will tomorrow. The process results in more or less the right number of ants engaged in the appropriate task, often enough for the colony to carry on.

Maximizing the number of ants that perform each task may not always be best for the colony. A task allocation problem for a human city is how to get the right number of firefighters to the scene of a fire. It may be a waste to have too many firefighters on the city payroll. Too many ants allocated to each task may be expensive for a colony if the excess ants could be doing something more useful than waiting around when they are not needed.

The most difficult thing to grasp about task allocation is that it is not a deterministic process even at the individual level. An ant does not respond the same way every time to the same stimulus; nor do colonies. Some events influence the probabilities that certain ants will perform certain tasks, and this regularity leads to predictable tendencies rather than perfectly deterministic outcomes. The ant is jostled in a stream of events that send it sometimes into one task, sometimes another. Task allocation is not a system in which each ant awaits the crucial event that defines its status forever. Like a twig in a turbulent river, an ant may tend to go in one direction, but there are many places it could get washed ashore, to be picked up and then swept in another direction altogether.

Stories about totalitarian societies, inexorable armies, and voracious monsters are often told as stories about ants. But ants have no dictators, no generals and no evil masterminds. In fact, there are no leaders at all.

In short, the basic mystery about ant colonies is that there is no management. A functioning organization with no one in charge is so unlike the way humans operate as to be virtually inconceivable. There is no central control. No insect issues commands to another or instructs it to do things in a certain way. No individual is aware of what must be done to complete any colony task. Each ant scratches and prods its way through the tiny world of its immediate surroundings. Ants meet each other, separate, go about their business. Somehow these small events create a pattern that drives the coordinated behavior of colonies.¹⁵

Elements of Collective Intelligence¹⁶

More is different. This old slogan of complexity theory actually has two meanings that are relevant to our ant colonies. First, the statistical nature of ant interaction demands that there is a critical mass of ants for the colony to make intelligent assessments of its global state. Ten ants roaming across the desert floor will not be able to accurately judge the overall need for foragers or nest-builders, but two thousand will do the job admirably. Individual ants do not know that they are prioritizing pathways between different food sources when they lay down a pheromone¹⁷ gradient near a pile of nutritious seeds. In fact, if we only studied individual ants in isolation, we’d have no way of knowing that those chemical secretions were part of an overall effort to create a mass distribution line, carrying comparatively huge quantities of food back to the nest. It is only by observing the entire system at work that the global behavior becomes apparent.

Ignorance is usually useful for ants. The simplicity of the ant language-and the relative stupidity of the individual ants-is, as the computer programmers say, a feature but not a bug. Emergent systems can grow unwieldy when their component parts become excessively complicated. Better to build a densely interconnected system with simple elements, and let the more sophisticated behavior trickle up. That is why an ant does not respond to all stimuli around her, namely she ignores until she decides that the stimulus is strong enough to be responded to.

Encourage random encounters. Decentralized systems such as ant colonies rely heavily on the random interactions of ants exploring a given space without any predefined orders. Their encounters with other ants are individually arbitrary, but because there are so many individuals in the system, those encounters eventually allow individuals to gauge and alter the state of the colony itself. Without those haphazard encounters, the colony would not be capable of stumbling across new food sources or of adapting to new environmental conditions.

Look for patterns in the signs. While the ants do not need an extensive vocabulary and are capable of syntactical formulations, they do rely heavily on patterns in the semiochemicals they detect. A gradient in a pheromone trail leads them toward a food source, while encountering a high ratio of nest-builders to foragers encourages them to switch tasks. This knack for pattern detection allows meta-information to circulate through the colony mind: signs about signs. Smelling the pheromones of a single forager ant means little, but smelling the pheromones of fifty foragers imparts information about the global state of the colony.

Pay attention to your neighbors. This may well be the most important lesson that the ants have to give us, and the one with the most far-reaching consequences. You can restate it as “Local information can lead to global wisdom.” The primary mechanism of swarm logic is the interaction between neighboring ants in the field: ants stumbling across each other, or each other’s pheromone trails, while patrolling the area around the nest. Adding ants to the overall system will generate more interactions between neighbors and will consequently enable the colony to solve problems and regulate itself more effectively. Without neighboring ants stumbling across one another, colonies would be just a senseless assemblage of individual organisms-a swarm without logic.

Conclusion

Ants, first of all, have something to teach us about how nature works. Any system whose behavior arises from the interactions of its components has something in common with ant colonies. Using ants and other social insects as models, computer scientists have developed software agents that cooperate to solve complex problems, such as the rerouting of traffic in a busy telecom network or internet. Another example, the famous traveling salesman problem, in which a salesman tries to find the shortest and fastest route between many cities, is almost impossible to solve definitively. But with the methods inspired by ants the problem can be solved at least approximately, because ants are very good at finding the shortest path between the food and the nest collectively. Collective robotics borrowed from collective intelligence in ant colonies is being used to manage systems composed of lots of robots in synchronization.

Nature is a book to be read by the people who approach it to live in harmony, not to dominate. We are not the owners of the beautiful things around us, but observers searching for signs which reveal the wisdom behind them.

Footnotes

1. Haskins C.P., Of Ants and Men, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1939.
2. Huxley J., Ants, AMS Press, 1969.
3. An ecosystem is a grouping of plants, animals, and other organisms interacting with each other and with the environment in such a way as to perpetuate the grouping more or less indefinitely.
4. The scientific discipline in which ants are studied is called myrmecology and it is one of the branches of the study of insects, entomology.
5. Biomass is the total weight of all living organisms in a biological environment.
6. Holldobler B. and Wilson E.O., Journey to the Ants, Harvard University Press, 1994.
7. The word Genera is the plural of genus. Genus is a taxonomic category ranking below a family and above a species and generally consisting of a group of species exhibiting similar characteristics.
8. Fauna (Flora) is the animals (plants) of a particular region or period, considered as a group.
9. http://www.savenature.org/images/pdfs/ecoandinsects.pdf
10. Holldobler and Wilson, ibid.
11. Bonabeau E., Dorigo M., and Theraulaz G., Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial System, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Oxford University Press, NY:1999.
12. Holldobler and Wilson, ibid.
13. Heylighen, F. “Collective Intelligence and its Implementation on the Web: Algorithms to Develop a Collective Mental Map,” Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory. 1999, Vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 253-280.
14. Bonabeau et al, ibid.
15. Gordon D., Ants at Work, W. W. Norton. 1999.
16. Johnson S., Emergence Simon & Schuster. 2001.
17. The pheromone is the semiotic chemical ants use to communicate with each other and with other colonies. Every colony has its own odor. That is why ants can recognize their sisters from the same colony easily.

Collective responsibility

But just acknowledging this shared responsibility is not enough. Frequently, the real problem is group inaction, for harm can be prevented if enough people form a group to prevent it. Collective responsibility often can be ascribed to those people who have the ability to form such groups but do not do so. To the extent that this is the case, they are collectively responsible for their collective inaction.

Members of the dominant Western culture may consider it overly severe to assert that all of us are collectively responsible for our failure to do something about the world’s many problems. While not saying that people who do not form groups are guilty due to their inaction, I do feel that our inaction should provoke a sense of shame within us.

Goodin describes his approach as putting consequences to the fore, meaning that consequences quickly take up the whole stage, not just its front and center. He preserves a central link between responsibility and causality, and claims to make better sense of our present practices of responsibility. Larry May sets out to expand significantly our sense of responsibility within groups. The keystone of moral responsibility here is that for who one chooses to be. Attitudes and habits, states of mind and character, roles and affiliations, and the professional, institutional, and social climates shaping our interests, perceptions, and values are reviewed even as we continue to shape them.

A welcome but difficult result is that we are responsible for failures of awareness and insensitivity, as well as unexamined habits, traits, allegiances, and identifications that predispose us to moral failure. Another result is that people should see themselves as responsible for certain harmful events occurring within their communities, even if they are not direct participants or cannot prevent them. We are”and should feel”accountable for tolerating our own morally flawed character, contributing to a morally irresponsible attitudinal climate, or failing to reckon adequately with our institutional roles. These enriched bases of responsibility are not intended as new bases for subjecting people to punishment. I suggest that shame and taint, not just guilt, are appropriate individual reactions to expanded responsibility.

My concern is the collectivities, attitudinal climates, and expectation of groups that shape what people think is up to them and what they become used to ignoring. This has implications for all people who function within institutions where the most significant outcomes are the work of many minds and hands. A group’s responsibility is a fundamental moral issue. Therefore, groups are responsible for events and should be held responsible for them.

Shared responsibility

People should see themselves as sharing responsibility for the harm experienced by their communities far more often than they do. There is a distinction between shared responsibility and collective responsibility. Collective responsibility applies to a group as such (not necessarily to individual members), whereas shared responsibility applies to individuals within groups because of their membership relation with the group. We live in a world of groups. Groups affect our daily life, attitudes, and character, and greatly increase our power to act. Individuals receive great benefits from group membership. Those increased benefits and power should come with increased responsibility. Yet, although groups cause more and greater harm than individuals and have a greater capacity to correct large-scale social problems, individuals typically identify less with harm caused by groups and less often assume responsibility for them.

People share responsibility for harm done by groups, including those that result from omission. More harm occurs collectively than individually, and yet people take less responsibility for it for two reasons: Groups break problems into pieces, responsibility gets diffused, and groups allow individuals to assume that someone else will”or at least could”act. An expanded notion of moral negligence, the idea that since individuals within groups and the group’s structure and policies influence one another, and since group membership structures its members’ values and tends to desensitize them, individual members should be aware of this and responsible for reducing the risk of harm perpetrated by their group. Since there is a duty to act, the failure to do so may constitute negligence. This makes group members responsible for group values and, derivatively, for whatever harm the group does.

Shared responsibility is particularly appropriate for the value transformations that occur within groups. Since people affect one another’s conduct more, and attitudes are more closely shared, people should feel a heightened sense of responsibility to offset any risks associated with misconduct, including negligent omission or inaction. Of course, there is always the problem of defining the scope of negligence. This problem can be handled by using a reasonable person standard to ascertain what our roles would commit us to. We are not negatively responsible for all of the world’s failures, but only what a reasonable group of fellow citizens would expect of someone in our circumstances. Recognizing negative responsibility, including responsibility for omis-sions that allow an unreasonable risk of group harm, helps people lead lives that are more integrated with their moral values, because that involves both acts and omissions. To be in harmony with ourselves, we need to integrate principles with behavior that promotes moral integrity.

Conclusion

Shared responsibility, by focusing the issues of responsibility in a different light, provides us with the beginning of an account of how people, as moral agents, are connected to and function within groups and institutions. This analysis also provides a picture of the nature of informal groups and social relations. Most human relations influence the daily life, attitudes, assumptions, aspirations, and acts of individuals everywhere, such as in voluntary associations. We should remember the team’s perception of the Challenger space shuttle disaster: It is time to take your engineer’s cap off and put on your manager’s cap.1 An aggregate approach or something like it is necessary here, making shared and vicarious responsibility particularly appropriate. 

Footnote

1. Amy Gutnam and Dennis Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997), 189.

References

• Goodin, Robert E. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
• Gutnam, Amy and Dennis Thompson. Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3d ed. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers, 1997.
• May, Larry. Sharing Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
• Thampson, Dennis E. Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.