Game theorists have long turned to the classic hawk-dove game to study conflict:
‘Doves’ are individuals who never fight. If attacked, they run away. ‘Hawks’, on the other hand, are always ready for violence and will attack anybody who has something that they want. In a country populated by meek doves, the hawk strategy does very well. But as hawks become more numerous at the expense of doves, they spend more and more time fighting and killing each other.
There is, however, a simple modification of the hawk strategy that is superior to both hawks and doves: playing ‘bourgeois’. First, you declare a resource item — a herd, a piece of cropland — as your private property (hence the ‘bourgeois’ designation). Then you signal that you are willing to defend it no matter what it takes. Again, this is not rational in the narrow sense. You must be willing to escalate conflicts to the point where your life is at stake, even though your life is worth incomparably more than the disputed property. But again, in evolutionary terms, the strategy is a winner. While the hawks overreach, getting embroiled in self-destructive conflict, the bourgeois steadily divide the spoils among themselves, fighting only to defend their property against hawks. In the long run, the bourgeois always replace the hawks.
I’m no ornithologist, but there has to be a notoriously territorial bird we could use to extend the metaphor, doesn’t there?
The kingbird. Kingbirds are entirely capable of taking on hawks and eagles,which outweigh the kingbirds tremendously, and beating the ever-loving $#@! out of them.
They’re lovely birds. Perhaps they’ll end up on a flag someday?
Rooster, anyone?
The dodo? The bourgeois are arguably going that way.