
Social relations, communication, and cognition.

Andrew Lock and Kim Symes

Abstract

The human body can be used to communicate either by itself or
as a support for a number of 'props'. Bodily communication is
often emotional in nature, relying on underlying physiological
and physical responses. What evokes these responses is
generally learned, and varies across cultures. Expressive
repertoires are used to mark social roles and power. These
are also marked by using the body as a 'prop' for various
adornments, such as tattooing or clothing. The use of body
mutilation is related to the permanence of status assignment
of individuals in a society, being generally absent from
complex, mobile societies, where temporary adornments such as jewellery or clothing take on a larger burden for marking
social roles.
The marking of social roles is also reflected in language
forms. Many societies have different forms of male and female
speech. Female forms of speech tend to be more conservative
than male forms, and reflective of 'prestigious' styles used
by high status groups. Status, or social power, is widely
marked by particular speech-forms in socially stratified
societies. Speakers also shift their speech-forms in
predictable ways across different social situations, thus
marking a society's construction of social contexts.
A number of indices of a society's complexity or
'differentiation' have been put forward. These indicate a
trend for societies to become more complex over time; but as
they become more complex their elements become less cohesively
integrated. This is not a simple relationship, but one
involving factors such as an individual's ability to use the
resources provided by more complex social organizations to
assay novel activities, and to promote the formation of
subcultures. Hunter-gatherer societies tend to have low
social complexity, while agricultural ones show increasing
degrees of complexity. Family structures tend to be related
to food-procurement strategies, being of an 'extended' type
mainly in sedentary, agricultural societies.
Food-accumulation practices also show a relationship to
child-rearing practices, tending to emphasize compliance in
agricultural societies versus assertion in hunter-gatherer
ones.
Social structure, language, thought, 'individuality', and
child-rearing practices are elements of human life that have
been claimed as interrelated. A central notion in these
interrelationships is 'shared presuppositionality'. The
essential argument is that high levels of shared knowledge,
such as would hold among members of small-scale,
undifferentiated societies and in those where social roles are
rigidly marked, reduce the need for highly explicit linguistic
coding of information for effective communication. The
elements of language, both grammatical and lexical, reflect
social needs. Less 'elaborated' linguistic structures provide
fewer resources for the handling of complex problem-solving þ
the view not that language determines thought, but that it
provides the equivalent of a problem-solving 'tool-kit',
variously facilitating or hindering certain forms of problem
formulation and solution. Both language and social structure
also mediate child-rearing practices, and hence the process of
cultural reproduction. These interrelations have been
explored in a number of studies which stem from different
theoretical stances, making the comparison of results
difficult. But, while at this point in time it is not
possible to specify the exact nature of these
interrelationships, their broad outlines can be perceived.
These suggest that claims as to the availability of complex
language in Upper Palaeolithic societies may be unwarranted,
as the relatively simple structure of these societies would
have promoted high levels of presuppositionality among their
members, enabling effective interpersonal communication to be
conducted with quite restricted forms of symbolic language.