No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 April 2025
Moffett contends that societies should be considered the “primary” group with respect to their social ramifications. Although intriguing, this claim suffers from insufficient clarity and evidence. Rather, if any group is to be crowned supreme it should surely be the family, with its unique capacity to encourage pro-group behavior, shape other groups, and provide meaning.
Target article
What is a society? Building an interdisciplinary perspective and why that's important
Related commentaries (16)
A nation by any other name: A failure to focus on function
Definitions and cultural dynamics in understanding “societies”
Do boundaries matter so much for societies?
How an interdisciplinary study of societies can develop a comprehensive understanding of the function of deceptive behavior
Identity groups, perceived group continuity, and schism
Identity is probably too complicated to serve as a useful criterion for defining society
Psychological mechanisms for individual recognition- and anonymous-societies in humans and other animals
Societies have functions for individuals and collectives
Societies of the open ocean without territories
Societies, identities, and macrodemes
Society: An anthropological perspective
The family as the primary social group
Understanding the jaggedness in social complexity is more important
Vocalizations are ideal identity signals
What is a society in the case of multilevel societies?
Why societies are important and grow so large: Tribes, nations, and teams