James Griffin

The Similarities between Social Dynamics and Cell Formation

Probably one of my more abnormal habits, ever since high school I’ve been actively

observing the social dynamics of groups of different people. After reading more about biology

(mainly Driesch and Virchow), I’ve noticed a few trends and similarities that I at least think are

moderately puzzling. Cliques, and different circles of friends when they fracture or divide,

appear to behave in a similar fashion to dividing micro-organisms after they’ve been damaged

in some manner.

I’ll begin by noting some of the aspects of social circles that I’ve observed over the years,

in their normal states. I should note that I tend to call social groups comprising of four or more

people cliques, primarily because I haven’t come across any terms that I feel are accurate, and

clique is a rather shorthand way getting my point across. In my opinion, the best place to

examine cliques in their natural state, is in your average high school cafeteria, and any adjacent

gathering places. In this environment, hundreds of people tend to cluster in their various social

groups, with only a few individuals periodically moving about. As far as I’ve observed, the basic

clique tends to comprise of various dyads and triads of people, bound together by the various

individuals in each dyad/triad. These amalgamations never seem to have more than a dozen

people, I’m not totally sure why this is, but any explanation would be beyond the scope of this

essay. Generally, cliques tend to have one or two people around which the whole group

revolves, akin to the nucleus of the cell. The whole clique tends to meander or move in the

same direction as the so called “nuclei”, and they tend to bend to the whims of this apex

individual or individuals. This can be seen in even the most rudimentary of social environments,

such as the classroom. Upon examination the students who tend to talk the most, or rather,

socially dominate their peers, also appear to be the de facto group leader or “nuclei” in their

social circles; and as far as I’ve seen, no one officially votes them into their role of group leader,

they just are by tacit consensus.

Now how might this relate to experimental biology might you ask? Well, curious

enough, if you were to examine the cafeteria from an aerial perspective, you might notice

shocking similarities between the cells visible through a microscope, and the various

meandering cliques. The first and most obvious would be the shape of the various groups. They

tend to be roundish, with the occasional bulge forming around the “nuclei” individuals, just as

in cells. When examined for some length of time, enough so that more individuals are allowed

to file into the mass of students, a curious pattern can be observed. Once the cliques reach the

approximate threshold, (one or two “nuclei” individuals, and/or 10-12 total people) they divide

into other smaller cliques, much like Driesch’s cells. But if any of the cliques lacks a “nuclei”,

they tends towards disintegration.

In a handful of experiments reminiscent of Roux, during a few lunches, I picked out

those whom I thought to be the “nuclei”, and I observed them and what I believe to be their

cliques. I noted that whenever they were there, they’d be surrounded by friends (much like the

matter comprising a cell), and the groups would function normally (well, by the standards of the

average high school class), and when they weren’t, the cliques never fully formed. So begun

trying to attempt to replicate these results artificially, to some degree of success. Much akin to

Roux, I noted that certain factors are vital in the development of the clique, much like in the

case of the cell.

I’ve also noted that in some cliques, where two “nuclei” are typically present, one

missing nucleus may drive down the maximum number of people functioning in the clique. Akin

to Driesch’s sea urchin experiment on page 89 of the lab workbook, when he separated the

Blastomeres of the Echinus and smaller but visually similar versions formed.

Another similarity (which personally I find to be rather hilarious), is that cliques tend to

act like cells when they are pressed under special constraints. In a rather silly fashion, rather

than moving to more open areas, cliques often just bend and form based off of the contours of

the environment, much like Driesch’s Echinus eggs spacing out because of the exterior

pressure placed upon them.

One experiment that I will have to try in the future, is subtly mashing together multiple

cliques by drawing the “nuclei” together and forming them into one giant clique, like Driesch’s

giant Echinus (page 90), although I highly doubt the feasibility of this endeavor. Like I

mentioned before, there is probably a reason why they rarely if ever go above a dozen people.

I’d hypothesize that because the nuclei tend to be dominant personalities, the large clique

wouldn’t last as long as Mangold’s large Newt.

I should end by noting that the clique to micro-organism analogy isn’t the most accurate

(in part because cliques tend to grow simply by people being added to them, whereas micro-

organisms tend to grow on their own), but I believe this is fairly accurate for modeling the

splitting of different cliques and micro-organisms.