Hunter-Gatherer problem-solving skills:  their potential application within today’s culture

             General introduction

             Core elements of Hunter-Gatherer problem-solving behaviour

             Application of these problem-solving systems to our culture

             Source material

General introduction

Hunter-Gatherers have the best social problem-solving and conflict-resolving skills*. Many of their day-to-day behaviours and elements of their cultures help them in resolving personal and group problems. Most of these systems can be applied to our working and learning practices and can lead to big improvements in teamwork, productivity and speed of learning etc.

Over the last few years we have separated the elements of these problem-solving skills in order to make them easier for people in our Western culture to understand.  Individually these elements seem almost worthless and appear to us, at best, whimsical or of little practical value. But grasping the manner in which they form a complete system allows their full potential to be recognised. When they are seen as a whole is it possible to begin translating these skills into a form that we can use.

It should be noted that these systems are natural behaviours to all of us as social animals. It is appropriate to think of them as being the easiest and most effective that we can employ. In the experience of Palaeoquest instructors there has been much to indicate that simply by providing the correct environment, these systems begin to reassert themselves over our current and less effective social systems.  All other systems are unnatural to us and the further we deviate from these natural behaviours, the greater become our difficulties in solving interpersonal issues and in promoting productivity etc. Extensive Ethnographic studies of Hunter-Gatherers leads to the unequivocal conclusion that humans are naturally: kind, caring, co-operative and share without greed. This is a reversal of the social and religious beliefs inculcated over the last 2000 years that lead us to believe the opposite.

That is not to say that conflict never happens and that Hunter-Gatherers are always absolutely philanthropic – we are talking about humans after all. The difference is how quickly and effectively problems are dealt with and resolved without violence or even argument or resentment. It is this speed of early resolution that enables Hunter-Gatherers to operate so much more efficiently than we generally do. Resolving problems at an early stage means that they never get out of hand. In our society and within our working practices inefficient systems are so deeply entrenched that we have come to regard them and the problems they cause as natural and unavoidable. The reality is the opposite, using these systems all problems can be addressed, for instance; time wasted, low morale, and other inefficient working practices etc.can be rectified.

Publicly funded institutions can survive despite being inefficient, companies survive by natural selection. Therefore it is in business that these skills will emerge first as adaptive behaviours, inefficient companies dying out.

 Hunter-Gatherer groups today mainly live in marginal survival conditions and therefore have low population densities. These low densities are similar to those found in the Palaeolithic where there is no archaeological evidence of interpersonal violence. Archaeological evidence of such violence appears in the late Mesolithic, though it is unclear whether was due to over-population or the violent culture that is associated with farming. The temptation to view humans as naturally caring etc. and not violent, greedy and uncaring is only appropriate where they share a common goal, farming introduced conflict of resources and warfare has been the enduring legacy.

This peaceful, cooperative, Hunter-Gatherer culture could be spread across a complete continent, though its equilibrium might be disturbed from time to time by some natural disaster forcing one group to leave its own area and enter a 'stranger’s' patch, which could bring about a stress on resources - though resources have, in our research, never been a source of conflict. The concept of sharing with other Hunter-Gatherers runs so deep that starvation is more likely than conflict.  Where conflict has occurred it has been cultural conflict; the invasion of pastoralists or farmers - frequently associated with the active hunting and slaughter of Hunter-Gatherers.

The Hunter-Gather models employed here are a synthesis of those Hunter-Gatherer groups that exist in Europe, Africa, Asia, Russia etc. where warfare, theft and murder are so rare as to be frequently regarded as fantasies, much in the same  way as our culture regards fairies and dragons. Some groups of Hunter-Gatherers are, or were, frequently involved in warfare – such as the North American peoples. There may also be groups that developed farming and warfare, but then returned to a Hunter-Gatherer way of life retaining their farming-related cultural violence. In such cases loss of earlier problem-solving skills can be identified as causative.

It is useful to note that Hunter-Gatherers social systems, because they are natural behaviour, can be taught through, and during, physical activities – without any need for notation, reading skills or a classroom environment. It has also been noted that the people most likely to shun a classroom environment are frequently those likely to adopt these skills most quickly. It is worth repeating that, rather than imposing these systems by rule or force (which cannot work),  the correct environment allows such natural behaviour to re-emerge spontaneously.

Core elements of Hunter-Gatherer problem-solving behaviours:

• ‘Aggressively egalitarian’
• Joking relationships
• Defencelessness and openness
• Social time
• Good and evil spirits

1) ‘Aggressively egalitarian’

Hunter-Gatherers do not recognise status and no one person has the power to force, caution, command or coerce. Leaders are temporary: spontaneously selected by group members who recognise qualities in that person that will lead to benefits. During the activity, e.g. hunting or making clothing, the leader’s example, the ‘leader’ returns to their normal status. There is no way by which a person can elect themselves as leader.

2) Joking relationships

We all have friends that we can make fun of. If we get it right they laugh; they recognise the interaction as complimentary because we are paying them attention, we’ve used our mental effort (wit), and they know that, deep down, our respect for them is undiminished – even though we may have pointed out a feature of their behaviour that is, in some way, laughable. This laughable element might be a piece of behaviour that could potentially lead to difficulties in your personal relationship or within the group. Hunter-Gatherer’s use these jokes to suggest prudent changes to a person’s behaviour. Generally these jokes are balanced with jokes against yourself (to show that people have let you know of some similar problem in yourself – and that you have noted it!), and diluted by other, positive recognition of that person’s qualities.

3) Defencelessness and openness

We are talking here about a state of mind that lets a person accept criticism, from themselves or others, highlighting a certain habit without them feeling the need to put up barriers or dismissing it as irrelevant. Such barriers vary, taking the form of deliberate or instinctive withdrawal from the contact that fosters communication: inapproachablity, pulling seniority, aggressiveness etc.  Openness allows a member of a group  to speak freely about their fears for the group, possible problems for the group in achieving its goals, things they see as failings or weaknesses – and all this without their status in the group being in any way diminished; indeed in Hunter-gatherer groups it is a common strength, universally  held and approved.

4) Social time

Hunter-Gathers have plenty of time to socialise, relax together in a non-competitive environment (Hunter-Gathers compete with themselves rather than their fellows, much as runners try to beat their ‘personal best’) This is likely to remain a problem in our competitive society  whose members are otherwise conditioned to compete against each other. There remains the full potential of team co-operation built over time and augmented with the use of social, non-competitive time.

5) Good and evil spirits

This religious element may seem to be the least applicable to us but, tied into the rest of these Hunter-gatherer systems, it is likely to be the most dynamic factor of all for any group that needs to achieve goals.  Hunter-gatherers invariably believe in a spiritual world in which benign, beneficent, and malevolent spirits abound. This means that when anything happens, whether good or bad, everyone looks into themselves and into the group to try and find out what caused it.  For example, if they see a bolt of lightning they might take it to mean a malevolent spirit has been allowed to come too close.  The Hunter-Gatherers are immediately compelled to find the source of the ‘evil’, either in their own behaviour or in that of the group.  They make their thoughts known with confidence, knowing that their thoughts can’t be rejected since one individual’s thoughts are as good as anyone else’s. In practice this means that, because everyone probes their own recent behaviour and their potential either to support or sabotage a communal activity, problems are sought, identified, exposed and addressed before they become too large to handle. This is in absolute contrast to our culture in which problems are disregarded by all until some other pressure forces managers or politicians to pretend to find solutions that are popular, even fantastic, rather than practical. Problems such as poverty, abuse of the weak by the strong, youth violence, drug culture, marital violence and a host of others are regarded as unpleasant, unavoidable aspects of modern society. Unpleasant problems they may be, but not insoluble.

Synthesis and the possible application of these problem-solving systems within our culture

Building these elements together into a synthesis of problem-solving behaviour leads us to see that almost every aspect of Hunter-Gatherer social behaviour involves, to some extent, problem-solving. Their advantages in achieving their skills undoubtedly include the long-term intimate manner in which they live, the way they bring up their children, the abundance of social time and also interaction and ties often not available to us, such as subtle rules about sharing, naming children and ancestral links.

However there is much left that we can still adapt to our culture and working practices.

1) ‘Aggressively egalitarian’

In our culture, seniority, line management and the distance of those who direct activities from those actually carrying out the activities severely damage communication. In team environments where openness is regarded as admirable, (e.g. certain therapeutic environments) the full potential of a team in our culture can be realised. Clinical consultations often deal with deeply upsetting and traumatic material, requiring great patience, trust and openness between client and therapist if anything is to be achieved. In this sense the therapists and clients work as a team using trust etc. as a dynamic tool. The key word here is team; which is bound and empowered by trust, a trust achieved by direct contact between the skilled service provider and the unskilled client, both having the same goal. Neither of them has any difference in status within the ‘team’ they have created. Both ‘lead’ where it is required of them.

We could look at a tailored definition of the words command and demand. If a person demanded respect, a Hunter-gatherer would be frightened, shocked and would, in all probability, walk away immediately. In many of our schools, companies and institutions, respect is demanded through fear: Senior staff are better placed to abuse junior staff e.g., by giving them the most unpleasant jobs, adversely influencing their career, or even bringing about their dismissal    Juniors do not have this power over seniors. Information in the form of instructions passes easily down the chain of command – but not up. This means that incompetent managers can force juniors to work in an unpleasant and/or inefficient way.
Hunter-Gatherers respond unconsciously where respect is merited. When a hunting party gets together individuals will attach themselves to the person most able to lead the party effectively. There is no competition to become the ‘leader’. It needs to be stressed again that after the hunting is over, successful or not, the ‘leader’ goes back to normal status – if there is a better butcher or tanner in the group the same individuals will join them for those activities. It is always left to an individual to decide whether they feel a person can lead an activity, so there is no chief or permanent leader. The system is purely chaotic. Clearly there is great potential for us to adopt elements within groups where status is abandoned and the team as a whole decides targets and strategies. This can be achieved where the team know each other as individuals – their strengths, potential and weaknesses.

If a junior is empowered to ask why a senior acts in a certain way (perceiving a potential problem or inefficiency), the senior, rather than being affronted, should recognise that the junior is actively developing their problem-solving skills and should  therefore value them more highly. If the junior has asked out of naivety and their question is irrelevant, they will learn what is relevant and will make more effective challenges in the future. That junior must be rewarded for this behaviour and must be in a work culture where this is behaviour is rewarded universally.

2) Joking relationships

Formality and polite deference to seniors are expected within our society. Hunter-Gatherers are deeply suspicious of this behaviour and we should be too. Hunter-Gatherers recognise that only when you can make fun of someone without hurting them (and vice-versa) do you have trust and true communication. To illustrate this, the reader can look at their own relationships and clearly see that the people - within their family, social and work groups - with whom they can joke are, almost without exception, those who are most trustworthy and reliable. If you imagine them as a team with the correct skills, they would probably out-perform any other group you have ever worked with.

3) Defencelessness and openness

In school, every one of us has, at some time, failed to ask a question in case the rest of the class would see us as stupid. This is known as defensive behaviour:  an individual defending against a perceived threat (embarrassment, being seen as unintelligent etc.). This barrier to the flow of communication (information) leads to students and pupils falling behind. The situation easily worsens, with a consequent loss of self-esteem which in turn compromises achievement levels and the acquisition of qualifications.  But if this question asking behaviour is rewarded, that barrier can be removed and the pupil’s potential maximised. Effective rewards are social and verbal, the teacher having encouraged this culture by stating, for instance, that the whole class including the teacher are there to maximise everyone’s potential.  When a question is asked the student is rewarded verbally. For example, “Well done – I need you all to tell me when I haven’t got this across properly.” Hunter-Gatherers sincerely admire defencelessness, so they freely admit their doubts, fears and feelings of being inadequate. By doing so they reveal their perceived truth about themselves. Without knowing the truth a problem cannot be solved, unsolved problems too readily grow and damage an individual’s or group’s performance and potential. Methods of reward are social, admiration and praise being the most effective.  Any teacher or employer who actively encourages and rewards the expression of doubts etc. is going to see great benefits in terms of how an individual, group, or class achieves its goals.

4) Social time

Most companies, institutions and schools recognise that teams work better if they are allowed time to socialise, get to know each other, solve problems, and have fun together. Corporate days, play-times, breaks, school trips etc. allow time for such activities.   But rarely, in institutions and companies, is the idea sufficiently valued or time allotted to it.  When a new person joins a Hunter-Gatherer group there is immediate socialising and getting to know each other in an unstructured, enjoyable atmosphere. This seldom happens in a business environment and juniors are often expected to plunge immediately into work without knowing their team. This can lead to social blunders and permanent damage to that teams potential, for example in the development of damaging personality conflicts.

5) Good and evil spirits

As we have seen, for Hunter-Gatherers problem-solving is an on-going process. In our culture most teams will have meetings before, during, and after projects. The outcome of almost every institutional or business meeting in our, or similar, cultures is compromised because the whole range of the most potent social dynamics that promote problem-solving cannot be employed. Greater efficiency is achieved by removing the obstacles to communication discussed in this document and by rewarding problem-finding behaviours. Only when these communication barriers are removed and the work-place becomes one unending meeting can the real force of these behaviours be seen with problems spontaneously identified and solved long before they damage the achievement potential. There are many systems to apply this and each group will find the approach that is most appropriate for it.

Conclusion

This synthesis of behaviours (so easily put into practice) indicates that once you have sufficient communication, openness, support, intimacy, trust, encouragement and relaxed respectful relationships, then education, productivity, and potentials will be maximised: and problems can be solved before they damage the individual’s or group’s ability to achieve goals. The correct environment enabling these systems to naturally reassert themselves being key concepts. Publicly funded institutions can survive despite being inefficient, companies survive by natural selection. Therefore it is in business that these skills will emerge as adaptive behaviours, inefficient companies dying out.

In most companies you will find distant, aloof and unapproachable bosses, aggressive or submissive executives, people who know that they cannot express their fears regarding their own performance and many other types of people that should be regarded as actively damaging the groups output. These roles and attitudes are so desperately inefficient in comparison to what can be achieved that even a small change in a company is likely to have a major effect.

Contributors: Gary Bonn, Sue Kearsey

Related material

(1) There is a huge body of research and study material on Hunter-Gatherers. A very good introduction and source of references can be found in the:

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers: (Lee and Daly) 1999. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge