Worldbuilding question: How would a race with communal brood care be like?

Spectrum

Madman
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
245
Location
Denmark
I am writing a fantasy story. I want my non-human races to be more than just humans with funny hats. I want them to have cultures that are non-human and still understandable.

One concept that is absolutely central to most human cultures is that of marriage and bloodlines. A wedding is often considered one of the most important events in a person's (especially a woman's) life, and it is seen as natural that humans are loyal to their parents, spouses and children above all else. Many if not most cultures throughout history have been governed by some variant of hereditary monarchy. Marriages have long been a standard way of making alliances, among royals and commoners alike.

So what if we have a race that does not practice marriage? How would that affect their societies?

So I am making a race of reptilian humanoids, called the caisith (in one of their own languages) or suchians (an exonym). They have human-like intelligence and social behaviour, but they do not pair-bond like humans do. Their natural inclination is to band together in large extended families called broods. (Name might change.) A suchian is loyal, first and foremost, to his brood as a whole. Giving preferential treatment to your closest kin over the rest of the brood is considered highly immoral; you are expected to be just as devoted to your third cousins and nephews as to your own siblings and children. Children, eggs and the elderly and infirm are cared for collectively by the brood. Some brood members might devote their lives to being caretakers, or a wealthy brood might hire outsiders to act as nannies and governesses and whatnot.

Each brood will have some internal power structure, which varies between cultures. (The suchians are of course not one giant monoculture. That would be stupid.) A brood might be led by the oldest member, or by a council of elders, or they might elect a leader, or they might practice direct democracy. Some broods might not even have private property, but have all property owned by the brood in a socialist fashion.

A brood typically comprises 50-100 individuals, though that may vary between cultures. If a brood grows too large, cliques and schisms tend to form until the brood splits into two - mostly amicably, sometimes violently.

Broods are typically largely exogamous. They form long- or short-term mating arrangements with other broods where youngsters will pair up and mate, then return home. The eggs are split between the broods. Each member's exact parentage is considered unimportant; each suchian belongs to one brood and that is where his loyalties lie. Alternatively, in cultures where larger broods (hundreds of individuals) are the norm, broods might be largely endogamous, with external matings being the exception.

In very sparsely populated areas, each brood might form its own village. In more densely populated lands, broods will band together into larger tribes and nations. In larger cities, each brood will often specialize in a trade - being tailors, bakers or clerks. In a kingdom, typically one brood will be the royal brood, and the leader of the royal brood will be king.

In many cultures, citizenship and social status are assigned at brood level: If a suchian is ennobled or stripped or rank, that affects his entire brood. Some more barbaric cultures may even kill or exile entire broods for its members' crimes.

A suchian may leave or be exiled from his brood. A suchian may even join another brood, though that is rare.

What are your thoughts? What interesting consequences would such a set-up have for the development of their societies? :)
 
Well, I'm working on a distant future where humans now utilize a communal system of child rearing. And, for the record, have developed barbarian and fantasy races where there is a communal system of child rearing (two similar races though both opposite ends of the spectrum as far as society and other advancements... though the communal theme was the same).

Many indigenous cultures have a communal approach to child development. After all, a child MUST be able to thrive in society as a whole, not just within a family unit. So, that communal approach ensures that the child will be taught a spectrum of life lessons that results in more of a mean than extremes (as far as rearing, personality locked in due to genetics). Communal rearing also ensures a better chance at overall survival/success... a child is not limited by the knowledge of their parents alone. The whole bloodline thing--passing along genetic combinations--is done as long as the child survives.

Perhaps, instead of viewing the brood as a 'family unit,' it might serve you to instead view a brood as a tribe or clan (even if the bloodline is all the same). What you're suggesting regarding hierarchies and communal ramifications reminds me a lot of how tribes, communities based around a single church, towns and so on, respond to one another... So, family, town, county, state, nation. Start with the town as the core group (how to view it), eliminating the family subdivision, and how that interaction and response to internal/external factors reveals itself.

K2
 
The Israelis also tried communal child rearing in the Kibbutz. I would not say it is entirely unusual for people.

But reading about the Kibbutz would probably be good research.
 
Thanks. Yes, I know communal brood care has been done, and presumably still is done, in small communities. The key here is SMALL. My question is what happens when this is the norm in a LARGE society of many thousands or millions. I'm pretty sure the Israeli Kibbutzim do not have to worry about heirs to the throne and alliances between noble houses.

Moreover, as far as I know, even in societies where the WORK of childrearing is largely done communally, there is still a big difference between being the son of the clan chieftain and being the son of a regular clan member.
 
I would think, as I can only guess with no real life examples known to me, that individuality would dilute significantly. In our formative years, obviously parents (or guardians) have the greatest influence on social development... sins of the father sort of thing. The more socialized an individual is, those specific traits mimicking parents, are diluted by siblings, teachers, friends, neighbors and so on. If you eliminate the core forming element (parents, family), then you I suspect would develop more generalized mannerisms.

Using an oldest child as an example, you'll often find they're a directly influenced (could even be to the opposite direction... rebelling) by the parents. Each subsequent child tends to be influenced somewhat more by their older siblings, their siblings friends, etc.. If you remove those core influences and start with a large group where everyone is essentially equal (in your case 'hatched' at the same time) then members of that group would influence one another equally... naturally taking into account individual personality traits.

Just my opinion...

K2
 
Thanks. Yes, I know communal brood care has been done, and presumably still is done, in small communities. The key here is SMALL. My question is what happens when this is the norm in a LARGE society of many thousands or millions. I'm pretty sure the Israeli Kibbutzim do not have to worry about heirs to the throne and alliances between noble houses.

Moreover, as far as I know, even in societies where the WORK of childrearing is largely done communally, there is still a big difference between being the son of the clan chieftain and being the son of a regular clan member.
Why would your brood society even have kings chosen by birth? We have them because of the way we mate, so what is driving similar behavior in a society with such strong egalitarian drives?

If you can answer that question you'll likely have some answers. This is a question like "Why would people with starships have swords?" They wouldn't, unless you impose another limiting element that hopefully drives the story in other ways.
 
Interesting ideas here. I can tell they're interesting because they make me ask questions.

1. What delimits a brood? You mention third cousins. How far out do relations extend. Cousin-hood is defined by marriage, after all. How do I know I'm in Brood A and not Brood B? And how do I know you're from Brood B and not my brood?

2. Is a brood co-located? Seems like they're small enough to essentially be villages (and small ones at that). How would a city work?

3. How do standard governmental functions work? Taxes. Army. Law and justice. Infrastructure.

I'm not so much looking for answers as offering questions for your consideration. No need to brood over them. <gdr>
 
You might want to look at other cultures to see how things are and have been done differently than in the modern West. The Israeli Kittbutz immediately comes to mind in terms of communal childcare (as SC mentions).

Additionally, patriarchal family structure entered Europe with the Indo-Europeans around 3,000BC, but there's a belief that before then European societies were more communal and matriarchal, and that while having babies was considered very important, the father's identity was not.

So it might be worth looking at what assumptions you're making about modern society, and look at other societies. There are probably some good anthropology books to help challenge your ideas and provide a better idea of communal childcare. :)
 
are these constraints discussed feelings, or rules? If a young individual in a brood that mates externally fell in love with a brood member would it be forbidden? Would it just not happen? And any illcit offspring- there would be no clue how closely related they are? Rules about cosanguinity in people are designed to reduce birth defects so would this be an issue in broods with internal marriages? How do you explain from an evolutionary point of view the individuals not feeling a strong attachment to their own offspring? In nature ants raise their siblings rather than their own offspring as due to a genetic quirk they are more related to their siblings than their offspring, and many animals care for each others' babies, but would have an attachment to their own too. Would an individual be raised by a specific carer? Would not doing this have consequences for their emotional health? (attachment is a big part in human parenting, and that of other animals too). If they have no strong attachment do their family who do they live with? Do they have a batchelor house, a nursery house, etc etc?
 
Thanks a lot for your questions! I will answer some of them - partially for the sake of the discussion, partially just for my own sake.

Why would your brood society even have kings chosen by birth? We have them because of the way we mate, so what is driving similar behavior in a society with such strong egalitarian drives?
Because by default each suchian's loyalty lies with his brood. They tend to want to keep their power and wealth within the brood. So if one suchian is king, he will want one of his brood-kin to succeed him. (The brood chieftain/king might be able to name his successor, or the brood might elect one of their number as the new king.)

1. What delimits a brood? You mention third cousins. How far out do relations extend.
Good question. Each egg is assigned to a brood before hatching. Many cultures are matrilinear by default so that each egg belongs to its mother's brood unless a special arrangement is made.

A brood can keep growing in numbers until it gets too large to function well, and then an arrangement will be made to split the brood into two or more new (separate but allied) broods. These closely related broods can remain closely allied or they may drift apart after a few decades.

And how do I know you're from Brood B and not my brood?
You mean how do broodkin recognize each other? In most cultures broods are small enough that everyone just knows everyone else - if you see someone you don't recognize, you know he's not broodkin. In case of very large broods (hundreds of people) that dwell near other broods, they may want to wear special items of clothing to recognize each other, or something.

2. Is a brood co-located? Seems like they're small enough to essentially be villages (and small ones at that). How would a city work?
By default broods live close together. In a city, each brood might live in one big house or several houses close together. If circumstances force broodkin to live apart, they will endeavour to get together often and spend quality time with broodkin. If broodkin are geographically separated for long periods of time, their emotional bonds with each other will weaken until they are effectively "broodkin in name only".

This suggests that there might be instances where two groups of suchians outwardly identify as being the same brood (the "Johnsons"), even though they know they don't actually share genuine emotional bonds with all their alleged broodkin. Such a situation will usually be unstable - eventually the two groups will give up the charade and identify as two separate broods (the "West Johnsons" and the "East Johnsons"). I suppose in many cases a brood might split but both broods will keep the same brood name, making the situation confusing for outsiders.

In some circumstances, political or financial incentives might make two groups keep identifying outwardly as one brood even though they do not share proper brood bonds - e.g. when there is shared property that they can't agree on how to divide. That could lead to some interesting stories, actually! And nations and broods will probably set up customs and laws in an attempt to prevent or mitigate such conflicts...

If a young individual in a brood that mates externally fell in love with a brood member would it be forbidden? Would it just not happen?
What do you mean by "fall in love"? Do you mean "become sexually attracted and want to mate and impregnate" or do you mean "develop romantic attachment and want to form a couple and stay together and be sexually and emotionally exclusive, potentially for life"?

Regarding the latter does not generally happen. The suchians do not have the drive toward sexual pair-bonding that humans have. Two individuals (broodkin or across broods) may develop close bonds/friendships and they may be sexually attracted. This is considered two orthogonal things; there is no norm saying that these go hand-in-hand, unlike most human cultures.

Regarding the former: Two suchians may become sexually attracted and end up mating illicitly. I suppose in some cultures this would be acceptable and in other cultures it would be condemned and punished.

And any illcit offspring- there would be no clue how closely related they are? Rules about cosanguinity in people are designed to reduce birth defects so would this be an issue in broods with internal marriages?
As far as I know, most modern people have an inflated impression of inbreeding. The occasional case of inbreeding - even between siblings - is not dangerous. Inbreeding is only dangerous if it continues across several generations.

In case of endogamous broods, I suppose they might need some system to keep track of bloodlines to avoid too much inbreeding among close kin. But as long as the breeding population is large enough (hundreds of individuals), I do not think this will be a significant problem.

How do you explain from an evolutionary point of view the individuals not feeling a strong attachment to their own offspring? In nature ants raise their siblings rather than their own offspring as due to a genetic quirk they are more related to their siblings than their offspring, and many animals care for each others' babies, but would have an attachment to their own too.
That is a good question. The answer is that they did not evolve completely naturally. Nor were they exactly "created" or "designed" for a specific purpose. Rather, their evolution was influenced by supernatural forces which imposed a certain spiritual structure.

Would an individual be raised by a specific carer? Would not doing this have consequences for their emotional health? (attachment is a big part in human parenting, and that of other animals too).
Each individual is not raised by a specific carer, no.

The suchians actually have a kind of weak telepathy. Their bonds with broodkin are not purely mundane. They are telepathic bonds that have a very concrete, objective existence. They cannot share complex thoughts or ideas telepathically, but they have a certain sense of the general emotional state and well-being of their broodkin, even across distances. The brood-bond itself is not merely the sum of the bonds between individuals; the brood is an objective "thing" that exists in a kind of telepathic "cyberspace" which brood members are "plugged into". A weak hivemind.

So when infants grow up, brood members ensure that they form proper telepathic bonds with the brood. There may be hired (brood-foreign) helpers that do menial tasks, but broodkin will ensure that the youngsters bond with the brood. This way, the young also bond "transitively" with brood members whom they do not actually have much contact with.

Evolution-wise, their minds are shaped not just by genes and brain chemistry but also very much by the influence of this hivemind. This helps keep cheating tendencies in check - in most cases the communal spirit is strong enough to overpower the "selfish gene".

Thanks again for the questions!
 
Because by default each suchian's loyalty lies with his brood. They tend to want to keep their power and wealth within the brood. So if one suchian is king, he will want one of his brood-kin to succeed him. (The brood chieftain/king might be able to name his successor, or the brood
That doesn't explain why an organism with a mating system that puts no emphasis on birth order would create hereditary kings. That goes against their fundamental nature to see individuals as special that way instead of more meritorious, democratic or arbitrary selection system. And that's if they would even settle on a single monarch at a time rather than a council.

You need a reason they decided, against their nature, to have hereditary monarchs. The answer will provide the other answer you're looking for.
 
First of all I'm a bit confused about how Brood is being used here.
You might want to look at articles such as these:
To help cement your notions.
I could see calling something a Brood Tribe.
With a hierarchy of Brood mothers--who don't have to necessarily lay eggs--they just have to nurture them.

This frees the egg layers to continue to produce eggs without being burdened with the entire process of laying and brooding and raising.
This might necessitate an understanding of environmental factors that might encourage the separation to have larger broods to produce more 'people' because the survival rate after hatching is rather brutal, they need more hatch-lings to maintain population levels.

Since the social order is rather free it leaves things open for actual pedigree. If there is a fear of inbreeding there would have to be some exchange with nearby Brood Tribes that are not derived from this Brood Tribe. However if there is to be a hierarchy for ruling class perhaps there might be a royal brood mother who chooses those eggs that will follow that line. This means that there might be several Royal egg layers whose eggs are in the running for this privilege.

Use your imagination here and the possibilities become endless.
 
That doesn't explain why an organism with a mating system that puts no emphasis on birth order would create hereditary kings. That goes against their fundamental nature to see individuals as special that way instead of more meritorious, democratic or arbitrary selection system. And that's if they would even settle on a single monarch at a time rather than a council.

You need a reason they decided, against their nature, to have hereditary monarchs. The answer will provide the other answer you're looking for.
I may have explained something badly. The suchians do not care much about individual bloodlines, but they care very much about the continuity of the brood. Each suchian will want future generations of his brood to survive and prosper. So if a brood holds power, the brood members will want to keep that power within the brood.

I did not mean to say that the suchians never "see individuals as special". They are not a full-fledged hivemind of identical drones. Each brood is a bunch of individuals with different talents, skills and experiences, and there are lots of circumstances where it make sense to place some individuals in positions of leadership.

Neither did I mean to say that every major suchian nation will have a king. Probably many won't. But in most cases it is safe to assume that some broods will have more wealth and power than others. It seems logical then that in many cases (not all) one brood will end up dominating all the rest. This dominant brood can have a variety of power structures. It might have a leader who rules for life or for a limited term.

If we have a nation with a dominant brood with a leader, then we might as well call the leader a king. The king and his brood will want to keep power within the brood, so they will pass on the kingship to a broodkin if at all possible.

Other nations might not have kings. They might have one dominant brood led by a council or by direct democracy, or the nation might have several competing noble broods who elect a council and/or a leader, or something else.

Thanks for the critique. Does this make sense?
 
I may have explained something badly. The suchians do not care much about individual bloodlines, but they care very much about the continuity of the brood. Each suchian will want future generations of his brood to survive and prosper. So if a brood holds power, the brood members will want to keep that power within the brood.

I did not mean to say that the suchians never "see individuals as special". They are not a full-fledged hivemind of identical drones. Each brood is a bunch of individuals with different talents, skills and experiences, and there are lots of circumstances where it make sense to place some individuals in positions of leadership.

Neither did I mean to say that every major suchian nation will have a king. Probably many won't. But in most cases it is safe to assume that some broods will have more wealth and power than others. It seems logical then that in many cases (not all) one brood will end up dominating all the rest. This dominant brood can have a variety of power structures. It might have a leader who rules for life or for a limited term.

If we have a nation with a dominant brood with a leader, then we might as well call the leader a king. The king and his brood will want to keep power within the brood, so they will pass on the kingship to a broodkin if at all possible.

Other nations might not have kings. They might have one dominant brood led by a council or by direct democracy, or the nation might have several competing noble broods who elect a council and/or a leader, or something else.

Thanks for the critique. Does this make sense?
Still don't see the mechanism for choosing the one king from within the brood by heredity. Everyone in the brood has the requisite heredity, so the mechanism ought to be something else - like an election or show strength. By birth doesn't make any sense in your scenario. The whole brood is royal (or not), like a ruling class structure.
 
Still don't see the mechanism for choosing the one king from within the brood by heredity.

Clearly at that juncture, you use the 'which egg stands on its end' test.

6845056163_e23b642416_o.jpg


K2
 
Still don't see the mechanism for choosing the one king from within the brood by heredity. Everyone in the brood has the requisite heredity, so the mechanism ought to be something else - like an election or show strength. By birth doesn't make any sense in your scenario. The whole brood is royal (or not), like a ruling class structure.
Leaders are not chosen by birth. I did not mean to say that.
 
You might want to look at other cultures to see how things are and have been done differently than in the modern West. The Israeli Kittbutz immediately comes to mind in terms of communal childcare (as SC mentions).

Additionally, patriarchal family structure entered Europe with the Indo-Europeans around 3,000BC, but there's a belief that before then European societies were more communal and matriarchal, and that while having babies was considered very important, the father's identity was not.

So it might be worth looking at what assumptions you're making about modern society, and look at other societies. There are probably some good anthropology books to help challenge your ideas and provide a better idea of communal childcare. :)

To add a bit specificity to that - @Spectrum might want to look at cultures that are very family-oriented with a focus on extended families. Certain Asian, African, and Central/South American cultures will have that.
 

Back
Top