Lewis Thomas On Societies As Organisms

Humans generally hold a cynical perception of ants carrying some dust and crawling on a negligible distance in a courtyard. However, that is one small task for an insect, but one giant leap for the building of the nest. Like social insects, men working together sets up a whole fascinating mechanism. Everyone plays a role in the global society, and one citizen is not microscopic among billion others, as it may be thought. To reinforce that theory, the persuasive essay entitled “On Societies as Organisms”, written by Lewis Thomas, argues that human societies have much to learn from the communal accomplishments of other life forms. Using various rhetorical patterns, such as analogy, enumeration of processes and figurative language, the author

effectively transmits his main idea to the readers.
First and foremost, the analogies, on which Thomas’ argumentation relies, clearly associate human groupminds to insect communities working in a body toward a common goal. Indeed, the essay begins with the principal analogy of conventioneers gathering for a meeting and being described as an “assemblage of social insects…[touching] antennae” (232). Men, just like insects, naturally perform individually and collectively, creating what Thomas calls an organism (233). Scientists share their knowledge during conferences to extend the development of countries, just like animals exchange information to fulfill the communal purpose (233). Then, the parallel proposed by the author between these two kinds of being is sound, but conceals the assumption that an organism solely possesses positive aspects. Later, this congregation is said to correspond to a “live computer” (233) that contains a “circuitry” (235) to communicate and so, ensures the organized progression of the activities. This second analogy illustrates the multiple collaborating brains forming a new network that requires linked operators to work out, as much as for the humanity as for the social insects. Thomas’ powerful mass thinking idea concretely supports his theory of a constructive organism bringing humans together, although the negative impact of common reasoning is missing in the article. Furthermore, the author refers to the ants’ business of “[launching] armies into wars… [capturing] slaves”, as well as the “child labor” in the weaving industry (233). Insect activities and human’s are then related as the writer establishes similarities between their respective management techniques in the agricultural, military, financial and industrial fields. Assigning human actions to ants is a thoughtful device used by the author to implicitly depict his opinion to the readers.
Second, the author dynamically enumerates processes performed by different social insects, from ants, termites and bees to fish, birds, and slime molds.

By listing down enough accurate examples to prove his thesis, Thomas presents a clear structured and logically organized essay. For instance, the essay focuses on the steps of building “the Hill”, a collective process that consists in using the efficient group thinking to develop knowledge (233-34). Starting with a unique ant and adding others one by one, Lewis Thomas clearly illustrates the progressive creation of the organism (233). It also emphasizes the importance of understanding the different animals’ way of living and working as an entity, since humans are part of an organism as well. Additionally, Thomas’ description of the beehive’s construction and organization to expand the family is relevant to provide basic knowledge on the subject while reinforcing Thomas’ authority on the topic. Bees form a communal intelligence that builds “symmetrical polygons” and spreads out their “family genome” when half of the members are led by the new queen (234-35). According to Thomas, this collaboration and transmission of information is also observed in the men’s activities. Thus, this other detailed explanation provides a logical reason to the author’s thesis. In short, the processes are effectively used, along with scientific terminology, to present the similar procedures mankind and other life forms daily

perform.
Last but not least, Thomas’ opinion article contains figurative language that creatively reaffirms his message.

From the beginning, the researchers’ crowd is described as a mass of insects, “[swarming]” and creating a “vibrating, ionic movement” (232). The use of visual and kinetic imagery ingeniously inspires the readers and immediately sets up the principal analogy of humans acting like social insects in an organism. Likewise, the “blackening” of the soil by “[fumbling] and [shoving]” ants as they collaboratively build the nest enhances the text by increasing the reader’s interest (233). Moreover, the termite nest’s “architecture” may impress some readers, as the enthusiastic author glorifies the “artists” that erect “beautiful, curving, symmetrical arches” of the nest (234). The comparison of mankind with insects then seems obvious (or acceptable for unwilling readers), since similes successfully picture appealing images in our brain of the organism’s impressive effectiveness.

In a nutshell, Lewis Thomas, in his opinion essay “On Societies as Organisms”, claims that human societies are built on the same concept of organism as the social insect communities, by judiciously appealing to the readers with analogies, enumeration and metaphors. Finally, since a reliable connection between social insects and men has been established, the following interrogation might arise: what are the negative aspects of this

comparison?