Distinguishing Intergroup and Long-Distance Relationships

Abstract

Intergroup and long-distance relationships are both central features of human social life, but because intergroup relationships are emphasized in the literature, long-distance relationships are often overlooked. Here, we make the case that intergroup and long-distance relationships should be studied as distinct, albeit related, features of human sociality. First, we review the functions of both kinds of relationship: while both can be conduits for difficult-to-access resources, intergroup relationships can reduce intergroup conflict whereas long-distance relationships are especially effective at buffering widespread resource shortfalls. Second, to illustrate the importance of distinguishing the two relationship types, we present a case study from rural Bolivia. Combining ethnography and two different experimental techniques, we find that the importance of intergroup relationships—and the salience of group membership itself—varies across populations and across methods. Although ethnography revealed that participants often rely on long-distance relationships for resource access, we were unable to capture participant preferences for these relationships with a forced-choice technique. Taken together, our review and empirical data highlight that (1) intergroup and long-distance relationships can have different functions and can be more or less important in different contexts and (2) validating experimental field data with ethnography is crucial for work on human sociality. We close by outlining future directions for research on long-distance relationships in humans.

The evolution of intergroup cooperation

“…Our model uses a simplified spatial context, with patches in which groups can interact locally, and between which long-distance dispersal is possible. In reality, both local and longer-range spatial networks are more complex, and groups' proximity and relative positions within a wider network can have substantial influence on the likelihood of intergroup cooperation in both humans [39,[53][54][55] and ants [56,57]. Our model provides a starting point for more complex spatial structures linking to specific ecological or geographical contexts.…”

Demographic and hormonal evidence for menopause in wild chimpanzees

“…By contrast, females typically disperse from their natal community to reproduce in others, where they remain until they die ( 45 ). Unlike humans, chimpanzees cannot maintain long-distance helping relationships with individuals who reside in different communities ( 46 , 47 ). Thus, female dispersal limits opportunities for chimpanzee grandmothers to help either their daughters or their daughters’ offspring, who will generally live elsewhere.…”

Long-distance social relationships can both undercut and promote local natural resource management

“…To manage risk, people maintain social networks with nested structure, in which the wellconnected core around an individual helps them manage risks that are more idiosyncratic across households, while their sparsely connected periphery, involving connections that are often long-distance, helps them manage morecorrelated risks [29,30]. These long-distance relationships frequently span community boundaries [31,32] and thus can create fitness interdependence across communities. Indeed, some of the most important risk-management networks in the twenty-first century are remittance networks, with resources often flowing across country borders and even continents [33].…”

“…Likewise, long-distance relationships are often central to populations participating in market economies, both historically (e.g. as facilitated by merchant guilds [31]) and today (e.g. trans-local divisions of labour across countries [33]).…”