According to Bertrand de Jouvenel, “The essential freedom is the freedom to create a gathering, to generate a group, and thereby introduce in society a new power, a source of movement and change.”

But, as they grow, how do groups avoid social dilemmas such as the “Stag Hunt” and the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”?

How Do Groups Avoid Social Dilemmas?

As written by Vincent Ostrom: “A critical aspect turns upon the question of how observers of and participants in self-governing societies think of and experience themselves as they relate to other human beings: as individuals struggling for advancement to gain positions of dominance and [to] become masters of others; or as fellow citizens pursuing courses of inquiry in addressing and resolving problematical situations in human societies.” – ‘The Intellectual Crisis In American Public Administration’

Paine, Rousseau, Ostrom, Laland, Odline-Smee and Feldman all focus on cooperation as a core requirement for groups overcoming social dilemmas:

Thomas Paine on cooperation wrote in ‘Common Sense’ that, “It is not in numbers but in unity, that our great strength lies.”

According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the “On The Social Pact” of his ‘On Social Contract’: “Now, since men cannot engender new forces but merely unite and direct the existing ones, they have no other means of preserving themselves than to form by aggregation a sum of forces that can overcome this resistance, bring them into play by means of a single motive power, and make them act in concert. The sum of forces can arise only from the cooperation of several men…each person, in giving himself to all, gives himself to no one.”

In ‘Understanding Institutional Diversity’ Elinor Ostrom referred to the importance of cooperation for heterogeneous groups when she stated: “When given an opportunity to communicate, craft their own rules, and sanction nonconformance to these rules… Through their own efforts, these groups achieve close to optimal results. Those [groups] who forego such an opportunity are not able to sustain a high level of performance,” and “The future belongs to those whose covenants are bonds of mutual trust grounded in principles of self-governance and who learn to use processes of conflict and conflict resolution to elucidate information, clarify alternatives, stimulate innovation, and extend the frontiers of inquiry to open new potentials for human development.”

Finally, according to K. N. Laland, J. Odling-Smee, and M. W. Feldman, “Studies that look at niches, or spatial relationships among participants, often show that conditional reciprocity can lead to the cooperation to overcome social dilemmas.” – ‘Cultural Niche Construction & Human Evolution’

Final Thoughts

The path from individual action to collective success is paved with cooperation. As these thinkers spanning centuries remind us, groups don’t overcome social dilemmas through dominance or competition, but through the harder work of building trust, crafting shared rules, and creating spaces for genuine collaboration.

What strikes me most about these perspectives is their convergence on a simple yet profound truth: sustainable group success requires us to see ourselves not as isolated competitors but as interdependent participants in a shared enterprise. Whether it’s Paine’s “unity,” Rousseau’s “sum of forces,” or Ostrom’s “mutual trust,” the message remains consistent—we achieve more together than apart.

The question isn’t whether cooperation is necessary (it clearly is), but how we can better design our institutions, communities, and networks to nurture it. That’s the ongoing challenge—and opportunity—for every group seeking to transcend the sum of its parts.

Thanks for reading!