The western world almost universally accepts that it is the natural tendency of human societies for individuals to aggregate. It is assumed that the natural social evolution is to “urbanize” and the arguments that differing social, racial and economic groups are readily miscible. There is usually a political benefit to that view causing it to be promoted and enforced by prevailing political philosophy.
The belief about desire to aggregate is half true. A minimal critical mass is necessary for the survival of a social group. This enables the group to protect itself, dilute gene pools, and offer that cultural commonness which humans require for their complex sets of behaviour and ultimately their contentment. Initial aggregation is necessary, but only to a certain point. Then reversal occurs – the typical counter-current.
An extension of this has been the agglomeration of small political units, best demonstrated by the “unifications “of France, Germany and Italy. Without these agglomerations, the magnitude of the world wars would not and could not have been as disastrous as they were.
The new major threats are the agglomeration of the greatly diverse “European Union” and the somewhat less diverse unification of the United States of America, under the persuasion of the Federal Government.
In addition, the majority of political domains have increased as population growth has increased.
This is the fundamental conceptual flaw of modern humans. Instead, the natural history of human social evolution, which is well illustrated by the social evolution of every other species of social animal, ought to be the tendency for groups to fragment and then to break away to form new, and different groups.
This thesis is born out also by the evolution of language. The multiple languages which exist can only be explained by the breaking away, by small groups, from one language base and the evolution of a new language. It is also illustrated by the diversity of sites of occupation in the various continents, not the least was Europe. Until relatively recently communities in Europe were multiple, as illustrated by the variety and spread of villages, dukedoms, principalities and all the rest.
Of course there are many reasons why large groups of humans fragment. The most important is the search for a patrimony. This comes to mean the use of land for the production of food. Other reasons include the escape from social abuse, the search for the protection offered by isolation and many others are easily imagined. However, important reasons must be sorted from the less important or chance or incidental reasons for human separation behaviour.
It can be argued that the uprisings of the Arab Spring, the European discontent and much more has as its foundation the inherent desire of large humans groups to fragment. Of course, for urban humans this is in many ways not a practical possibility. Urban people are locked into a pattern of living, a system of utilities, a monetary necessity and the absence of vacant land or other ready alternatives.
The natural history of social animals which are forced to aggregate is aggressive contest and often death. Much the same applies to humans.