Deep within our biological architecture, we are shaped for communal life. The human brain, like that of many other mammals, is not a solitary machine, but an organ intrinsically “designed” for social interaction. This is not mere hypothesis, but an evolutionary reality with profound implications for our mental health and for the very structure of society. As clearly highlighted in Matthew D. Lieberman’s (2013) essay “Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect,” our predisposition to sociality is not an option, but a biological necessity rooted in our neural circuits.
This understanding deeply resonates with ancient wisdom. Already Aristotle (n.d.) asserted that “man is by nature a political animal” (zóon politikon), emphasizing how the full realization of the individual occurs only within the polis, the community. A century later, sociologist Émile Durkheim (1893/1984) would further explore how social solidarity and collective consciousness are the fundamental pillars that hold societies together and give meaning to individual existence. While modern society celebrates the individual as an autonomous entity, bearing rights sometimes understood as “inalienable” and valid regardless of context, we may be overlooking a fundamental truth: rights and duties, to be fully effective and meaningful, emerge and take shape within the community. The idea of an individual detached from their social fabric, yet holding absolute claims, risks being not only logically inconsistent but profoundly disruptive to the human psyche and to social cohesion itself.
The Social Brain: A Machine for Community, Not for Absolute Individualism
Evolution has made us interdependent beings. The success of complex species has been linked to the ability to cooperate and live in groups. This selective pressure has sculpted our brains, making them true “social brains.”
Paul MacLean’s intuitive tripartite brain model helps us understand:
- The Reptilian Brain, the oldest part, deals with individual survival, with instinctive reactions like fight/flight. There is no sociality here, but it is the foundation upon which it is built.
- The Limbic System (or Old Mammalian Brain), which emerged with mammals, is crucial for emotions, memory, and, most importantly, for mutual recognition and social interaction. This is where motivational systems related to care, attachment, cooperation, and social play originate. As Jaak Panksepp (1998) emphasizes, the “seeking” and “care” circuits are among the oldest and most powerful, fundamental for survival in a social context. The well-being experienced from belonging to a group, mediated by oxytocin and vasopressin, reinforces pro-social behaviors. This “social pleasure” naturally pushes us towards connection, but always within a framework of reciprocity and role recognition.
- The Neocortex, the most recent part and most developed in Homo sapiens, is associated with language, symbolic thought, planning, and intersubjectivity. It does not operate in isolation: it relies on the emotional and social foundations of the limbic system to allow for the construction of complex meanings, culture, and, crucially, norms and rules. This is where individual motivations become deeply influenced by the environment and the learning of social structures, enabling the formation of complex human communities based on rules, roles, and institutions.
These structures are not arbitrary additions; they have evolved in synergy to support social life. The ability to read others’ intentions, empathize, collaborate, and belong to a group is intrinsically linked to the optimal functioning of these brain areas. We are, by evolutionary design, interdependent beings, programmed to live in structured roles and relationships. At an even deeper level, the insights of thinkers like Carl Gustav Jung (1959) on the collective unconscious and archetypes suggest a kind of “psychic wiring” for universal patterns of interaction and meaning, including the search for belonging and role.
Rights and Duties Are Born in Role, Not in Abstract Individualism
The logical and neurobiological consequence of this premise is clear: the isolated individual, devoid of communal context, is an abstraction. It is only within a community that the concepts of right and duty emerge and take shape. There are no rights understood as absolute claims that precede or transcend the social relationship and the role the individual holds within it.
This understanding of rights not as abstract claims, but as deriving from roles and duties within a social fabric, resonates deeply with the thought of Aristotle (n.d.). He, not speaking of “rights” in the modern sense, emphasized justice as the virtue that regulates relationships within the polis, the community in which the individual realizes their full humanity. For Aristotle, fulfilling one’s duties and virtuous participation in common life were essential for individual and collective good.
Consider the role of “child” within the family, the first and most fundamental community. A child has the “right” to care, protection, and education. But this is not an abstract right; it is a direct consequence of the parent’s duty. If a parent, fully aware of and adhering to their role, acts according to their duty of care and protection, they are not “granting” a right, but exercising their biological and social function. Violence or the denial of fundamental needs are not the result of an “excessive emphasis on the child’s rights,” but a blatant violation of the parental role itself. A parent who abuses their child is not fulfilling their role but betraying it.
Similarly, in the school community, the student has the “right” to education and a safe environment. But these rights emerge from the teacher’s duty to teach, educate, and maintain discipline. If a teacher is prepared and acts fully in their role, they will know how to manage a difficult student with firmness and consistency, without needing to resort to loopholes based on presumed “inviolable rights” that would prevent punishment or removal. The problem, when it occurs, is not the existence of a “minor’s right,” but a lack of awareness or deviation from the role on the part of the teacher or the school system.
The idea that a “minor with rights” exists outside their role as a child or student is a legal fiction that risks disconnecting the individual from their natural environment. Such disconnection, far from benefiting the minor, can harm their psychological and psychiatric development. If a child or adolescent is not made responsible in their role, they do not learn the sense of limits, reciprocity, and contribution to the community. This can lead to emotional dysregulation, problems with impulse control (bullying is a glaring example: young people acting without respect for rules and roles, often in contexts where the “superior” figure has been weakened by fear of infringing “misunderstood rights”), and a profound sense of social alienation, which our social brain is not equipped to handle. Neglect or abuse, as highlighted by Allan Schore’s (2003) studies and research on reductions in gray matter volume in key brain areas (Zeanah et al., 2003; Teicher et al., 2003) in mistreated children, are not just physical violence, but also violations of the caregiving role, which generate neural dysfunctions and psychiatric pathologies.
Community Disintegration: A Consequence of Disconnection from Roles
When a conception of “rights” disconnected from role and community is prioritized, the consequences for mental health and social cohesion can be significant. Social isolation and chronic loneliness, as described by Cacioppo and Cacioppo (2018), are not just unpleasant sensations, but chronic stressors that activate the same physiological responses as physical danger. Research by Eisenberger et al. (2003) has shown that being socially excluded activates the same brain areas as physical pain. This suffering is not due to the lack of a “right to inclusion” written on paper, but to the loss of a sense of belonging and role within a functioning community.
This state of disorientation and lack of clear norms, defined by Émile Durkheim (1893/1984) as anomie, can emerge when social ties weaken and individuals lose their sense of belonging. Similarly, the case of significant migratory flows, not adequately managed in terms of integration capacity and cohesion preservation, can dramatically illustrate this tension. When an existing community, which by its nature is a complex system with limits and needs for stability, rapidly and without adequate structures has to absorb new populations, social tensions can inevitably arise. The challenge lies not in the existence of universal human rights, but in the ability to integrate new components in a way that preserves the host community’s sense of identity and security, while offering newcomers a true path to integration and a meaningful role. The difficulty of balancing these needs can ultimately harm everyone: members of the host community, who may lose their sense of security and belonging, and the migrants themselves, who find themselves in a disorganized context incapable of offering true integration.
The warning of the Roseto Effect (Putnam, 2000) is more relevant than ever. In the 1960s, the community of Roseto, Pennsylvania, enjoyed exceptional cardiovascular health, not due to diet or genetics, but to extraordinary social cohesion and strong family and neighborhood ties. When this cohesion weakened due to “modernization” and the loss of traditions – that is, when roles and community networks frayed – heart diseases dramatically increased. This demonstrates how the strength of a community is the true protective shield, and how the disintegration of roles and bonds has real and measurable costs.
True Altruism: Functional to Role and Community
There is a form of benevolence that, when disconnected from roles and duties within a community, can become counterproductive. If a “superior” (parent, teacher, legislator) acts for the benefit of an individual (be it an aggressive child or a migrant) in a way that compromises the well-being or integrity of the community as a whole, this action, though motivated by good intentions, can have disruptive effects. It is not authentic care that builds, but an action that, ignoring communal dynamics, ultimately weakens the social fabric and, in the final analysis, also harms the individual, depriving them of healthy containment and the structured context in which they can truly thrive. Treating Francesco solely as a “minor with rights” without giving him the tools and limits of his role as a student would deprive him of the opportunity to develop a healthy personality integrated into society. His brain, wired for structured social life, would be deprived of essential stimuli derived from understanding his place and duties in the community.
Rediscovering Roles to Rebuild Mental and Social Health
The understanding that our mental health is deeply linked to the health of our communities compels us to reconsider the foundations of our social organization. Neuroses and psychiatric disorders are not merely the result of chemical dysfunctions or individual traumas; in many cases, they are the neurobiological signature of a social brain wounded by the loss of healthy communal contexts and well-defined roles.
We are biopsychosocial beings. Our biology, our psychology, and our social environment are intrinsically interconnected. The health of our brain is inextricably linked to the health of our relationships and our communities, which in turn depend on the clarity and strength of the roles and duties that constitute them.
To promote mental health and individual well-being, it is therefore imperative to invest in the health of our communities, not through a disordered emphasis on abstract rights, but through:
- Strengthening Roles: Educating and empowering parents, teachers, officials, and legislators to fully understand and fulfill their roles and duties towards the community.
- Clarity of Rules: Establishing and enforcing clear rules and limits, which are the language through which our social brain learns to operate in harmony.
- Fostering a Sense of Belonging: Actively cultivating a sense of identity and belonging, from an early age, in families, schools, neighborhoods, and the nation.
Ultimately, “Mens et corpus sani in comunitate sana” (a healthy mind and body in a healthy community) is a profound neurobiological and sociological truth. The human brain is a deeply social organ whose health is intrinsically linked to the quality of our interactions and belonging to healthy communities, structured by clear roles and duties. When relational and communal conditions are adverse or insufficient, when roles fail or are distorted by a disconnected interpretation of rights, the neural system dedicated to interaction falters, leading to psychological and psychiatric suffering. Understanding that rights and duties are not pre-existing or inalienable outside the community, but are its products and pillars, imposes a collective responsibility: to invest in the creation and maintenance of cohesive, supportive, and orderly communities to promote the mental health and well-being of every individual, building a more resilient future for all.
References
Aristotle. (n.d.). Politics. Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2018). The growing problem of loneliness. The Lancet, 391(10119), 426. Durkheim, É. (1984). The division of labour in society (W. D. Halls, Trans.). Free Press. (Original work published 1893) Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302(5643), 290-292. Jung, C. G. (1959). The archetypes and the collective unconscious. Princeton University Press. Lieberman, M. D. (2013). Social: Why our brains are wired to connect. Crown Publishers. Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. Oxford University Press. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect dysregulation and disorders of the self: Affect regulation theory. W. W. Norton & Company. Teicher, M. H., Andersen, S. L., Polcari, C. A., Anderson, D. M., Navalta, C. P., & Kim, D. M. (2003). The neurobiological consequences of early childhood stress. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 5(3), 253-271. Zeanah, C. H., Nelson, C. A., Fox, N. A., Zeanah, P. D., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2003). The effects of early adversity on neurobehavioral development. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed., pp. 317-342). Cambridge University Press.