+ All Categories
Home > Documents > The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

Date post: 28-Oct-2014
Category:
Upload: preforman
View: 36 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
El concepto de naturaleza humana en sociobiología y su uso en la sociología evolucionista.
Popular Tags:
16
Pacific Sociological Association The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology Author(s): Alexandra Maryanski Reviewed work(s): Source: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 375-389 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389502 . Accessed: 28/07/2012 08:00 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . University of California Press and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Perspectives. http://www.jstor.org
Transcript
Page 1: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

Pacific Sociological Association

The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary SociologyAuthor(s): Alexandra MaryanskiReviewed work(s):Source: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 375-389Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1389502 .Accessed: 28/07/2012 08:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Sociological Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

Page 2: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

Sociological Perspectives Copyright @1994 Pacific Sociological Association

Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 375-389 ISSN 0731-1214

THE PURSUIT OF HUMAN NATURE IN SOCIOBIOLOGY AND

EVOLUTIONARY SOCIOLOGY ALEXANDRA MARYANSKI

University of California, Riverside

ABSTRACT: Outside of sociology, evolutionary theory is once again commanding widespread attention in social science. Having sat out the spirited debates over sociobiology in the 1970s, most sociologists are largely unaware that the field has prospered and is now a respected, interdisciplinary science with a growing number of influential scholars within the social sciences. This article takes a critical look at sociobiology with a consideration of both its historical origins and its now modified theoretical stance, which is exemplified by Timothy Crippen's article 'Toward a Neo-Darwinian Sociology." In addition, this essay summarizes an alternative approach that might be called "evolutionary sociology." While it also incorporates the Modern Synthesis, it uses established sociological methods and theory, along with primate data and the fossil and archaeological records, to consider the biological legacy of humankind.

Man acts on. & is acted on by [the] organic and inorganic agents of this earth. like every other animal.

Charles Darwin (Notebook E, 1838-1839)

A range of opinions now exists on whether or not to incorporate biology into sociology. One option is to ignore biological thinking, much as sociologists did in 1975 after E.O. Wilson introduced "sociobiology" as a new science that was to "reformulate the foundations of the social sciences." Although Wilson questioned at the time whether the social sciences could be "truly biologicized" for inclusion into the Modem Synthesis, sociobiological methods and theory are now well entrenched in the social sciences, especially in research programs in anthropology and psychology. In contrast, few sociologists have welcomed what some have called a "new paradigm" (van den Berghe 1983; Barash 1982). Having sat out the

* Direct all correspondence to: Alexandra Maryanski, Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0419.

Page 3: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 3,1994

heated discussions over sociobiology in the 1970s, many sociologists are unaware that sociobiology is now a reputable discipline with theories that command

widespread attention. Moreover, the discipline itself is now carved up into various subfields which include evolutionary biology, behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology, with a noticeable cleavage between those committed to the early biological determinism of "hard-core" sociobiology and the more "soft-jointed" sociobiology with its moderate mode and coemphasis on genes and learning. Thus, despite predictions to the contrary, sociobiology has prospered.

One objective of this article is to persuade sociologists to consider a more open scientific attitude toward biological arguments, if only to reject them once again. Let me begin with a critical review of sociobiology theory by sketching its historical

background, basic logic, key assumptions, successes, and enduring problems. Then, Timothy Crippen's article "Toward a Neo-Darwinian Sociology" (1994, this issue) will be used to illustrate sociobiology's "new look" which, Crippen hopes, will make it more appealing to sociologists and more in touch with observable reality. The second objective of this essay is to present an alternative to sociobiology by outlining a strategy which could be called "evolutionary sociology." This alternative draws from sociobiology in its concern with how biological processes impinge upon humans and human societies and in its use of the Moder Synthesis. However, it differs from sociobiology in its nonreductionist stance, its compatibility with sociological methods and theory, and its unwillingness to build in

preconceived notions about human nature.

SOCIOBIOLOGY: HISTORY, GENERAL PRINCIPALS, ACHIEVEMENTS, AND SOME ENDURING PROBLEMS

Historical Synopsis

The basis for sociobiology was forged with the synthesis of two historical traditions-theoretical genetics and selectionist theory. It was into the antiselectionist milieu of the 1920s that R.A. Fisher (1930) triggered the restoration of Darwin's selectionist doctrine and, simultaneously, laid the footings for

sociobiology. What Fisher essentially did in his The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection was to convincingly refute the then popular "mutation theory" "or saltation

theory" (see de Vries 1909-1910) by illustrating that organisms are, in general, intricately adapted to their environment and that, as a consequence, large mutations would be generally harmful (Fisher 1930:41). By restructuring Darwinian ideas on natural selection and casting them in terms of population genetics, Fisher restored natural selection to its rightful place as the central force in evolution. Above all, Fisher emphasized the overriding importance of fitness (defined as the

average worth in reproductive terms for each genotype) in his "Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection," which asserts that: "The rate of increase in fitness of any organism at any time is equal to its genetic variance in fitness at that time" (Fisher 1930:35). In other words, the mean fitness of a population will generally

376

Page 4: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

The Pursuit of Human Nature

be proportional to some component of the genetic variance, and the rate of evolution will also be confined to how much variance exists in the breeding population or gene pool. Other formidable contributions by S.W. Wright (1931) and J.B.S. Haldine (1932) followed Fisher's lead by integrating selection theory with Mendelian genetics. The constructive work of Fisher, Haldine, and Wright firmly strapped selection to a genetic foundation, while the mathematical models of these main architects gave precision to the processes of Darwinian evolution by allowing for quantitative measurement of the effect of selection on gene frequencies. And, historically, their pioneer work provided the blueprint for the broad-based research foundation that eventually crystallized into the "Modem Synthesis" in the 1940s (for discussions, see Mayr 1942; Huxley 1942; Dobzhansky 1937).

Whereas the Modem Synthesis underscored the role of selection for physical characteristics, selection itself was rarely invoked for social characters. But this was to change in 1962 over the question of why some animals show altruistic behaviors, an altruist being someone who acts to help others at some cost to his or her own fitness. This problem was first tackled by W.C. Wynne-Edwards in his classic work Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behavior (1962). In what is essentially a Durkheimian model, Wynne-Edwards argued that although selection normally acts on individuals, in group living the needs of the collective often take precedence over individual needs; thus, social traits that involve mutual cooperation are selected for at the population level, with the "struggle for existence" shifting to the group level. For Wynne-Edwards, then, altruistic behaviors evolved to promote the "good of the group" or the "good of the species," with selection operating upon variations between groups through differential extinction, or "group selection" (Wynne-Edwards 1962).

The academic kickoff for sociobiology came when G. Williams, W.D. Hamilton, and R. Trivers marshaled an attack against group selectionist theory. In Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966), Williams dismantled the group-selectionist argument by logically demonstrating that natural selection working on individuals alone can account for all the phenomena proposed by group selection. Rather than hypothetical emergent properties, Williams stated that group level adaptations actually reflect individual selection, with most gregariousness and other collective phenomena merely the "statistical summation of individual adaptation" (Williams 1966:258). Williams was equally pervasive in casting aside the individual organism as the actual selected entity, arguing that because the genotype and phenotype are only temporary manifestations unique to each individual, the selected unit must, therefore, evidence a higher rate of stability and a lower rate of endogamous change. For Williams, the gene qualified as the only entity to meet these criteria (Williams 1966:23). Williams also repeated Fisher's earlier emphasis on fitness, contending that all adaptations must relate to reproduction with every part of an animal organized for some function to meet the ultimate goal of reproductive success (Williams 1966).

Hamilton resolved the problem of why animals display altruistic behaviors by invoking a pseudo-form of group selection. In his "The Evolution of Altruistic

377

Page 5: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 3,1994

Behavior," Hamilton (1963) introduced "kin selection" as a concept that accounted for cooperation and self-sacrifice through a quantity he labeled "inclusive fitness." This concept rests on the premise that blood relatives share many identical genes inherited from one or more ancestors. Hamilton alleged that selection will

positively favor the evolution of "altruistic" social behaviors when individuals aid close relatives; for in this way their own fitness can also be maximized by helping those who share some identical genes.

Finally, Trivers, in his "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism" (1971), attacked the problem of why unrelated individuals still engaged in altruistic behaviors. In a number of sophisticated modeling procedures, Trivers showed that altruistic behaviors are likely to evolve in any social species when the following biological parameters exist: (1) a long lifetime to maximize the chances of altruistic encounters; (2) a low dispersal rate to increase the chances that individuals will interact

repeatedly with the same set of conspecifics; and (3) a group-living population to increase the degree of mutual dependence among individuals. Under the above conditions, altruistic behaviors are likely to occur because of the potential reciprocity in future interactions. Thus, unlike kin selection where fitness is optimized through the helping of relatives with cognate genes, in reciprocal altruism nonrelatives can also help to maximize fitness, but only when individuals are reasonably sure that circumstances will permit a return on their altruism (Trivers 1971:37-39; see Rosenberg 1992 for an excellent appraisal of biological altruism).

Finally, a number of influential scholars worked to codify the approach into a new scientific discipline. Among the most influential were J. Maynard-Smith (1974), who merged game theory with genetic evolutionary theory to describe the process of fitness; Richard Dawkins (1976), who wrote a popularized version of William's "genic selection" with his portrayal of human bodies as robot vehicles blindly programmed to serve selfish genes; R.D. Alexander (1971), who underscored the importance of viewing humans as organisms whose behaviors evolved to maximize reproductive fitness; and E.O. Wilson, whose magum opus Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975) formally labeled the field, drew together its central concepts, and established it as a new research program with a voluminous amount of empirical data (for historical discussions, see Barlow 1991; Maryanski and Turner 1991).

Sociobiology's Theory and Applications

Sociobiology has greatly enlarged its scope within the last fifteen years in traditional biology and zoology, as well as in the social sciences, in part because of its novelty, theoretical sophistication, elegant mathematical models, innovative

concepts, and dynamic evolutionary thrust. Those directly under the sociobiology umbrella can normally be identified by their commitment to a strategy metaphor, their strict application of Darwinian selection, their focus on ultimate causation, and their application of such pivotal concepts as kin selection, inclusive fitness, and reciprocal altruism. Essentially, sociobiology is a theory-driven science that is rooted in the evolutionary principle that the ultimate goal of all organisms is

378

Page 6: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

The Pursuit of Human Nature

to survive and reproduce. However, in place of the classic selection model which conjures up an image of relatively passive individuals being acted upon by the environment, sociobiologists concentrate on the interactions among conspecifics and portray organisms as selfish and calculating actors who actively seek to maximize their reproductive success by any means imaginable (although no conscious intent or moral undertones are ever implied). In these efforts, actors must adopt strategies with different relative outcomes under particular circumstances. Sociobiology has also revamped the selectionist doctrine by deemphasizing the individual as the unit of selection and highlighting "selfish" genes, which Williams had earlier highlighted as the units actually affected by the selection process. But, Hamilton unquestionably forced this shift with his "inclusive fitness" concept as the additive quantity that could maximize individual fitness by helping relatives who share identical genes.

In applying this strategy, sociobiologists rely upon the following logic: In the past, natural selection favored particular kinds of behavioral adaptations which increased the fitnesses of individuals in a given environment. Nonadaptive behaviors were selected out long ago, leaving in place morphological and social traits that now serve the functional goal of maximizing fitness. Researchers then seek to discover how particular social behaviors are adaptive for a fitness payoff. Generally, sociobiologists focus on particular groups of behaviors where the influence of kin selection and reciprocal altruism can be examined and, then, be associated (through proximate factors) with reproductive success. For example, in behavioral ecology (a subfield of sociobiology), animal researchers collect data on specific behavioral patterns, with the comparative method used to assess whether species differences are related to ecological differences. Hypotheses are then formulated about particular behavioral strategies; and experiments are designed to assess the "costs" and "benefits" of different behavioral strategies. Finally, optimality models are then constructed to analyze "fitness" decisions and to make quantitative predictions about the benefits of a particular strategy (for discussions, see Krebs and Davies 1987; Gray 1985). Some outcomes which are framed in terms of "costs" and "benefits" actually rely upon Maynard-Smith's (1974, 1978) concept of an "evolutionary stable strategy" (ESS), which uses game theory for fixed fitness payoffs. Here, the optimal strategy will hinge upon "net benefit" since it must include the tactics of a number of conspecifics who play out different strategies within a given social field.

In human sociobiology, earlier models of absolute determinism are usually supplanted with relative "dual-inheritance" models which involve an interface between genes and culture. Most sociobiologists now assume that human behaviors are highly flexible in their expression and that humans have a much greater latitude for learning and choice than other animals. However, in their view, human action is still the result of past adaptations and, hence, humans are predisposed to assess the "costs" and "benefits" of social interactions. Thus, even cooperative and altruistic behaviors are viewed as adaptive strategies to maximize payoffs for "selfish genes" that compete in the "struggle for survival."

379

Page 7: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 3,1994

Sociobiology's Successes

Sociobiology theory is used to interpret a variety of social behaviors among animals and humans. For example, evolutionary models have been developed to explain the existence of dominance hierarchies in female rhesus monkeys as a mechanism for females to optimize their inclusive fitness (Chapais 1981). Also, the ranging patterns of male and female primates have been shown to follow different reproductive strategies through the choice of different food resources, with findings in line with expected sociobiology predictions (Wrangham 1979). The significance of kinship bonds in social living animals has been particularly well-established. For example, in bird species the "inclusive fitness" concept has been successfully upheld with documented field studies showing that in some bird colonies, individuals forego their own direct individual fitness and turn to helping close kin rear their offspring by alloparenting (becoming helpers) (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1984; Krebs and Davies 1987). Also, in agonistic conflicts among primates, close relatives often aid each other much more than distant relatives (Kurland 1977; see also Gray 1985).

In human sociobiology, researchers focus on a range of social issues where key sociobiological concepts can be applied. For example, to account for the widespread cooperation and altruism among humans, kin selection theory has been widely applied to such traditional sociological topics as murder, racism, infanticide, despotism, male dominance, gender roles, sexual jealously, mate selection, rape, child abuse, and parental care, with predictions that relate to fitness maximization. Formal game theory employing the notion of inclusive fitness is often used to establish the conditions under which particular forms of altruism can evolve, or conversely, the cause for constraints on kinship investment. For example, parental investment models are used in conjunction with cross-cultural data to test hypotheses that include such variables as the relationship between parental investment and paternal certainty (which is predicted to effect residence and descent rules), the degree of genetic relatedness and child abuse (with predictions that biological children are less likely to be abused), the degree of genetic closeness and the transmission of property (with the rule of inheritance considered a kind of parental investment), the relationship between the likelihood of infanticide and chronological age (with the prediction that the younger the child, the more likely s/he is to be a victim of infanticide), and the probability of male or female infanticide (with predictions that female infanticide will likely prevail with scarce resources since males are often favored for inheritance and have a greater overall fertility potential) (see, for example, Voland 1984; Dickemann 1985; Daly and Wilson 1981, 1984, 1988; van den Berghe 1990; Archer 1991).

On Fitness Maximization and Other Enduring Problems

One of sociobiology's great virtues is its clear methodological protocol which addresses broad and basic questions in terms of one set of coherent concepts. As a result, investigators follow a systematic research procedure which, in turn, allows

380

Page 8: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

The Pursuit of Human Nature

scholars from diverse fields to converge upon a common set of issues. Sociobiology has also brought some fresh ways of looking at sociality, forcing scientists to become more sensitive to how selection pressures might operate to produce adaptations that enhance reproductive fitness.

Nevertheless, criticism continues to be leveled at sociobiological arguments (see, for example, Lerner and von Eye 1992; Kitcher 1985; Saunders 1988; Travis and Yeager 1991). As long as this theory was applied to such organisms as social insects, it was successful. But when researchers used sociobiology theory to explain the complexity of social behaviors in higher mammals, problems began to emerge. One problem is whether or not all social behavior is adaptive. Generally, for a trait to be considered an adaptation, it must be shown to have been historically cast-that is, "if and only if it is the product of selection for the trait in question" (Burian 1992:8, his emphasis; see also West-Eberhard 1992). This point has been most emphatically argued by Stephen Jay Gould and Elizabeth Vrba (1982), who maintain that sociobiology is dominated by an "overly adaptationist neo- Darwinian theory" which ignores the crucial distinction between historical genesis and current utility. Characters utilized today may indeed have been selected for in the past, but a trait's former function might now be usurped; or alternatively, a once-adaptive trait might now be converted for other functions than its original utility; or, perhaps a character might be important now, but it may have arisen originally by being entailed to other structures and then co-opted for current use (Gould 1991). In human sociobiology, this issue is especially pertinent because humans evolved in small bands of less than 100 individuals and lived as nomadic food-collectors. Even if we grant the assumption that all current behaviors are adaptive, the shift from food foraging to a sedentary lifestyle without a corresponding shift in human biology is likely to have skewed the direct historical relation between behavior and adaptation.

A second major impediment is the validity of sociobiology's core assumption that organisms are always seeking to enhance the number of genes they leave behind whether directly through their own offspring, indirectly through the offspring of their relatives, or through a reciprocal exchange of services with nonrelatives. Yet, in long-lived animals with complex social behaviors, how can fitness be measured? How can it be determined if a behavior involves "reciprocal altruism"? How can we begin to assess the actual "costs" and "benefits" of any behavior in terms of later reproductive success? Sociobiologists try to surmount these obstacles with probability models and game theory to predict expected Darwinian fitness through the playing of particular strategies, making every effort to test their hypotheses with comparative data and (when applicable) cross- species data. By fitting the data to the theory, findings are often in the predicted direction, but most are limited to making simple associations (see Archer 1991). Critics charge that sociobiology narratives are easy to construct and provide only pseudo-explanations that simply confirm unsubstantiated assumptions. Also, analogous to classical sociological functionalism, sociobiology explanations can slip into tautologies: Why does a social behavior exist? It exists because it

381

Page 9: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 3,1994

promotes fitness. How do we know that it promotes fitness? It promotes fitness because, otherwise, it would not exist.

In human sociobiology, "fitness maximization" generates heckling even within

sociobiology, with some critics charging that "there are absolutely no grounds for proposing such a general principle" (Harpending, Rogers, and Draper 1987:132). Although research on some animal societies has shown a positive association between such proximate factors as higher status and greater fertility, human males usually do not follow expected predictions (for detailed discussions, see Hill 1984; Gray 1985). More seriously, the adaptive value of male "cultural success" when measured in terms of power, prestige, and wealth in industrial societies actually manifests a negative relationship: higher-status males have reduced fertility rates over lower-status males.

In regarding this serious problem, two recent articles with very different solutions take up the challenge of why genic fitness is not maximized (or at least not fully operative) in human societies. Daniel Perusse (1993) in his "Cultural and Reproductive Success in Industrial Societies" concludes that although an inverse relationship undoubtedly exists between career success and reproductive success, his research did find a strong positive association between a male's social rank and his frequency of sexual intercourse. In short, Perusse maintains that industrialized males are still striving to optimalize fertility, thereby behaving no differently than in the past. But in modern societies, a male's "potential fertility" is blocked by two unnatural fecundity disrupters: a monogamous mating pattern and artificial birth control which, he says, has derailed the adaptive system. In comparison, Timothy Crippen (1994, this volume) says it is "patently false" to assume that all social behavior is adaptive. For Crippen, fitness is still the ultimate evolutionary goal, but organisms should be seen as only tending to behave as though they were optimizing fitness. Equally important, in humans the motivation to optimize is now often subverted by proximate factors (whether genetic, environmental, or sociocultural) which once enhanced fitness but are now likely to result in maladaptive and even genuinely altruistic behaviors. In light of these obstacles, Crippen calls for an "amended maximization principle" along the lines suggested by Lopreato (1984,1989), which would highlight the probabilistic nature of adaptation and shift attention away from a focus on adaptive behavior to a focus on the proximate, constraining factors that subvert the tendency to maximize fitness.

Crippen avers that humans are equipped with "deep-seated behavioral predispositions" derived from humans' long tenure as food-foragers, which on average and in specific circumstances is still invoked to enhance fitness. But, with changing environmental circumstances, this motivation is now often conditioned, or supplanted, by proximate conditions such as needs for "creature comforts," which undermine genetic self-interest. This realization calls for a modified optimizing principle which would preserve the "covering law" of fitness and adaptation but, at the same time, promote and guide the investigation of the proximate conditions-material and emotional rewards, maximization of leisure,

382

Page 10: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

The Pursuit of Human Nature

and so forth-that override and constrain the human motivation to maximize inclusive fitness.

Thus, Crippen's selectionist approach is fundamentally different from traditional sociobiology which is mostly concerned with ultimate causation. Instead, while Crippen concurs that behavior is inherently and functionally designed to optimize fitness, he also seeks to investigate the proximate factors (whether environmental, sociocultural or genetic) that, under varying conditions, are likely to promote, constrain, or override the optimizing process. By advocating this dual emphasis, Crippen seeks to bridge the gap between sociobiology and sociological theory through the use of a common theoretical framework for both ultimate and proximate causation. Crippen is aware, we can only hope, that his approach is fraught with the same problems, revolving around issues of adaptation and causation, evident in traditional sociobiology, while his focus on the nature of proximate factors is likely to augment these methodological difficulties. Still, if Crippen's strategy does lead to some convincing results, it would no doubt stimulate lively debates in sociology.

EVOLUTIONARY SOCIOLOGY

Even the harshest of opponents credit sociobiology with highlighting what has too long been ignored in the social sciences: humans are animals who evolved just like every other organism, with selection favoring particular traits over others. Yet, despite this emphasis, sociobiology has won few converts in sociology, in part because of the field's biological reductionism but also because of its cynical and decidedly unpleasant portrayal of humans as manipulative, fitness maximizers. In short, the discipline "has a distinct penchant for bad news and the 'ugly' side of human behavior" (Arens 1989:403, his emphasis), which recently led one sociobiology critic to question: "can they all really mean what they seem to be saying?" (Settle 1993:62).

Notwithstanding this inclination, sociobiologists have provided a much-needed corrective for the extreme social determinism of the past, although, if truth be told, sociologists have always entertained notions of "human nature." They just viewed these as inconsequential for understanding human behavior. But with the nature/ nurture problem now actively being explored within the social sciences, it would benefit general sociology to at least begin to consider how biology might influence human behavior and organization.

But the question remains: how to proceed. First, it is important to emphasize that despite Wilson's skepticism, quite a number of sociologists have already incorporated the Modem Synthesis into sociology but without the sociobiological thesis (see, for example, Lenski, Lenski, and Nolan 1991; Grove 1987; Kemper 1990; Freese 1988, 1994 [this volume]; Baldwin and Baldwin 1981; Machalek 1992; Catton 1992; Tenhouten 1991; Sanderson 1992; see also Masters 1991). Second, in considering additional ways to foster an evolutionary sociology, we might start by taking into account the evolutionary history of primates, which includes over

383

Page 11: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 3,1994

190 species, classified into 25% prosimians, 70% monkeys, and 5% apes and humans. In the middle 1930s, detailed and long-term field studies on primates were initiated. These studies have now provided great insights into primate behaviors and organization. In particular, they allow scholars to appreciate how labile primate behaviors and patterns of social arrangements are and how much environmental/ ecological conditions and phylogenetic heritage (i.e., retention of characters from taxa of origin) interact in complex ways to shape patterns of primate organization. In short, the nonhuman primates are much like those who study them. Also, just as general patterns and forms of social organization and behaviors can be depicted for humans, there are discernible social structural and behavioral forms among nonhuman primates. Thus, by placing humans within this more inclusive primate framework, we can then entertain questions about "human nature" that move well

beyond cross-cultural research. Such an approach has a number of advantages: First, it is empirically driven,

keeping us in touch with reality by using the archaeological and fossil records as this can best be documented. Second, this method would incorporate the accumulated data on human and nonhuman primates, which could then guide inferences about humans' most basic behavioral, interactional, and organizational propensities. Third, this approach would allow us to employ established

sociological research methods and theory and avoid excessive reductionism by stressing that, at times, selection processes operate at other than the genic level. Fourth, this approach would embrace the Moder Synthesis, which is not merely neo-Darwinian but a broad-based evolutionary paradigm that subsumes both micro and macro levels of evolution. Undoubtedly, this strategy lacks the elegance and precision of sociobiology models, but what it lacks in refinement it makes up in being congruent with humans' long-term evolutionary legacy.

In recent years, this approach has been used to address such issues as hominoid

sociality (Maryanski and Turner 1992; Maryanski 1992). Essentially, humans and

apes are descendants of a large adaptive radiation of hominoids that flourished during the Miocene epoch (about 20 million years ago), although contemporary hominoids [i.e., the chimpanzee (Pan), gorilla (Gorilla), Orangutan (Pongo), gibbon (Hylobates), and human (Homo)] make up only a handful of primate species. Using a cladistic/network analysis for the organizational tendencies of the Last Common Ancestor (LCA) to humans and present-day hominoids (Maryanski 1992; Maryanski and Turner 1992), a striking conclusion can be drawn: like contemporary apes, the Last Common Ancestor of apes and humans evidenced a fluid

organizational structure, consisting of a low level of sociality and a lack of

intergenerational group continuity over time. The reasons for this structure are a combination of several forces: (1) female (and

also male) dispersal from the natal unit at puberty, which is the opposite trend from monkeys, where male-biased dispersal leaves females to form intergenera- tional matrilines; (2) shifting mating patterns that make it impossible to know

paternity (with the gibbon being the exception); and (3) relatively low social bonding among most adults. These features are associated with the dramatic

384

Page 12: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

The Pursuit of Human Nature

decline in species of apes in the middle Miocene epoch, during which species of Old World monkeys suddenly proliferated and, according to the fossil record, moved into the former ape niches. One explanation for this replacement is that Cercopithecoid monkeys developed a competitive, dietary edge over the hominoids. In turn, this forced apes to evolve a novel skeletal structure with forelimb dominant locomotion in order to feed in borderline ecological zones, such as the terminal branches of fruit trees where quadrupedal monkey could not range (see Andrews 1981; Temerin and Cant 1983). Whatever the explanation, the fossil record confirms that ape niches during the Miocene were usurped by monkeys and that, during this replacement phase, apes were undergoing anatomical modification for forelimb dominant locomotion and other novel skeletal features that characterize both apes and humans today (Conroy, 1990; Andrews, 1981).

But, in addition to skeletal modifications, movement into a new niche must have entailed organizational changes. Since terminal branch feeding or any marginal habitat is, by definition, one with thinly distributed resources, selection pressures would surely have worked against large, intergenerational groupings or stable

cliques through time. Instead, if the social network reconstruction of the LCA

population is correct (see Maryanski 1992; Maryanski and Turner 1992), pressures in the new adaptive zone selected for: (1) a dispersal of females from mother at

puberty (a rare phenomenon among mammals in general and primates in

particular), thereby preventing the continuance of the mother-daughter relationship known to be the primary building block for prosimians and monkey networks and for group continuity over time; and (2) behavioral tendencies for

relatively low sociality, high individualism, and high autonomy, that created, at the hominoid organizational level loose and fluid social networks (which a

comparative network analysis of the underlying structural relations of

contemporary apes clearly makes evident). But at some point in time, descendant ape populations branched off from the

LCA population and moved into forest zones, where selection seemingly favored the building of network ties, a trend evidenced by the novel organizational structures of the extant apes, whose network ties reflect efforts to work around the phylogenetic stumbling block of female dispersal at puberty. Moreover, the overall lack of density in ape organization seemingly stems from the hominoid

general propensity for loose, fluid, and weak ties-a striking contrast to the tight- knit and high density female cliques that characterize most monkey species.

And what of hominids (i.e., humans or those early ancestors near to, or on, the line to humans)? While space forbids a discussion here (see Maryanski and Turner 1992; Maryanski 1993), some conclusions can be summarized. First, to the extent that we are willing to consider inferences from our closest ape relatives-where, for example in chimpanzees, our DNA differs from theirs by 1.1% [which "is far smaller than that between species within a genus of mice, frogs or flies" (King and Wilson 1978; see also Goodman et al. 1990; Sibley et al. 1990)1-hominoid social structure has an inherent tendency to be built around a predominance of weak ties over strong ties, which facilitates fluid, individual movement around a shared

385

Page 13: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 3,1994

ranging area. A richness of weak ties over strong ties, as theoretically elaborated

by Blau (1974), Friedkin (1980), and, in particular, Granovetter (1973), is also seen to provide hominoids with a degree of integration at the macro-population level in contrast to monkey populations where a richness of strong ties over weak ties is seen to provide integration at the micro-group level of organization (Maryanski 1987). Third, a predominance of weak ties among hominoids also suggests that, among humans, there might not be a biological need for "great intimacy" despite what many social philosophers have argued. If there is such a need for primary relations (aside from mother and offspring), it must have been selected for when early proto-hominids moved from the forest to open ranging savanna areas and confronted greatly increased predation pressures, where more intimate bonds might promote survival and reproductive success. Or, alternatively, it might have been selected for at the sociocultural level rather than at the genetic level.

This conclusion might help us to understand the constant tension and vacillation in humans over constraint versus freedom, individualism versus collectivism, freedom of choice versus the collective good, and so on. At the biological level, humans may be far more individualistic than the "collectivist" biases of sociology would acknowledge. Also, the constant tension between the individual and the collective could be the result of humans' hominoid legacy of loose weak ties and a relatively low level of sociality. Finally, some of the conclusions outlined here on hominoid sociality might have broader implications for uncovering the origins of some core human social institutions, especially the economy with its economic division of labor between males and females; kinship with its traditional emphasis on patrilocal residence, marriage, and female-biased dispersal after puberty; and religion with its integrative Durkheimian rituals. While these considerations are for now highly speculative, they can provide some rich insights into the dynamics of human organization, if only by questioning implicit presumptions about "human nature" and by allowing for the possibility of discovery. Most significantly, they provide an alternative to "hard core," reductionist sociobiology.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Richard. 1971. "The Search for an Evolutionary Philosophy of Man." Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria [Melbourne, Australia] 8: 99-120.

Andrews. P. 1981. "Species Diversity and Diet in Monkeys and Apes During the Miocene." Pp. 26-61 in Aspects of Human Evolution, edited by C.B. Stringer. London: Taylor and Francis.

Arens, W. 1989. "Essays in Human Sociobiology." Journal of Human Evolution 18: 401-407. Archer, John. 1991. "Human Sociobiology: Basic Concepts and Limitations." Journal of Social

Issues 47: 11-26. Baldwin, John, and Janice Baldwin. 1981. Beyond Sociobiology. New York: Elsevier. Barlow, George. 1991. "Nature-Nurture and the Debates Surrounding Ethology and

Sociobiology." American Zoologist 31: 286-296. Barash, D.P. 1982. Sociobiology and Behavior. New York: Elsevier. Blau, P. 1974. "Parameters of Social Structure." American Sociological Review 39: 615-635.

386

Page 14: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

The Pursuit of Human Nature

Burian, Richard. 1992. "Adaptation: Historical Perspectives." Pp. 7-12 in Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, edited by E. Keller and E. Lloyd. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Catton, William, Jr. 1992. "Separation Versus Unification in Sociological Human Ecology." Pp. 65-99 in Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 1, edited by Lee Freese. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Chapais, B. 1981. The Adaptveness of Social Relationships Among Adult Rhesus Monkeys. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge.

Conroy, G. 1990. Primate Evolution. New York: W.W. Norton. Crippen, Timothy. 1994. "Toward a Neo-Darwinian Sociology: Its Nomological Principles

and Some Illustrative Applications." Sociological Perspectives 37(3): 309-335. Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson. 1981. "Abuse and Neglect of Children in Evolutionary

Perspective." Pp. 405-416 in Natural Selection and Social Behavior: Recent Research and New Theory, edited by R. Alexander and D. Tinkle. New York: Chiron Press.

Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson. 1984. "A Sociobiological Analysis of Human Infanticide." Pp. 197-210 in Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives, edited by G. Hausfater and S. Blaffer. New York: Aldine.

Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson. 1988. Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dickemann, Mildred. 1985. "Human Sociobiology: The First Decade." New Scientist 108: 38-

42. Dobzhansky, Theodosius Grigorievich. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York:

Columbia University Press. Fisher, R.A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Freese, Lee. 1988. "Evolution and Sociogenesis: Part 1, Ecological Origins." Pp. 51-89 in

Advances in Group Processes, edited by E.J. Lawler and B. Markowsky. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Freese, Lee. 1994. "The Song of Sociobiology." Sociological Perspectives 37(3): 337-373. Friedkin, N.E. 1980. "A Test of the Structural Features of Granovetter's Strength of Weak

Ties' Theory." Social Networks 2: 411-422. Goodman, M., D.A. Tagle, D.H.A. Fitch, W. Bailey, J. Czelusnak, B.F. Koop, P. Benson, and

J.L. Slightom. 1990. "Primate Evolution at the DNA Level and a Classification of Hominids." Journal of Molecular Evolution 30: 260-266.

Gould, Stephen. 1991. "Exaptation: A Crucial Tool for An Evolutionary Psychology." Journal of Social Issues 47: 43-65.

Gould, Stephen, and Elizabeth Vrba. 1982. "Exaptation: A Missing Term in the Science of Form." Paleobiology 8: 4-15.

Granovetter, M.S. 1973. "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360- 1380.

Gray, J. Patrick. 1985. Primate Sociobiology. New Haven: HRAF Press. Grove, Walter. 1987. "Sociobiology Misses the Mark: An Essay on Why Biology but not

Sociobiology is very Relevant to Sociology." The American Sociologist 18: 258-277. Haldine, J.B.S. 1932. The Causes of Evolution. London: Longmans, Green. Hamilton, W.D. 1963. "The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior." American Naturalist 97: 354-356. Harpending, Henry, Alan Rogers, and Patricia Draper. 1987. "Human Sociobiology." Yearbook

of Physical Anthropology 30: 127-150. Hill, J. 1984. "Prestige and Reproductive Success in Man." Ethology and Sociobiology 5: 77-95.

387

Page 15: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 37, Number 3,1994

Huxley, Julian. 1942. Evolution: The Moder Synthesis. New York: Harper and Bros. Kemper, Theodore. 1990. Social Structure and Testosterone: Explanations of the Socio-Bio-Social-

Chain. London, England: Rutgers University Press. King, Marie-Claire, and Allen Wilson. 1978. "Our Close Cousin the Chimpanzee." Pp. 88-

94 in Human Evolution, edited by N. Korn. San Francisco, Calif: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kitcher, Philip. 1985. Vaulting Ambition. Cambridge: MIT Press. Krebs, J.R., and N.B. Davies. 1987. An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. Oxford: Blackwell

Scientific Publications. Kurland, Jeffrey. 1977. Kin Selection in the Japanese Monkey. New York: S. Karger. Lenski, Gerhard, Jean Lenski, and Patrick Nolan. 1991. Human Societies: An Introduction to

Macrosociology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lerner, Richard, and Alexandra von Eye. 1992. "Sociobiology and Human Development:

Arguments and Evidence." Human Development 35: 12-33. Lopreato, Joseph. 1984. Human Nature and Biocultural Evolution. Boston: Allen and Unwin. Lopreato, Joseph. 1989. "The Maximization Principle: A Cause in Search of Conditions." Pp.

119-130 in Sociobiology and the Social Sciences, edited by R.W. Bell and N.J. Bell. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press.

Machalek, Richard. 1992. "The Evolution of Macrosociety: Why Are Large Societies Rare?" Pp. 33-64 in Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 1, edited by Lee Freese. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Masters, Rogers. 1991. "Individual and Cultural Differences in Response to Leaders' Nonverbal Displays." Journal of Social Issues 47: 151-165.

Maryanski, Alexandra. 1987. "African Ape Social Structure: Is There Strength in Weak Ties?" Social Networks 9: 191-215.

Maryanski, Alexandra. 1992. "The Last Ancestor: An Ecological Network Model on the Origins of Human Sociality." Pp. 1-32 in Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 1, edited by Lee Freese. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Maryanski, Alexandra. 1993. "The Elementary Forms of the First Protohuman Society: An Ecological/Social Network Approach." Pp. 215-241 in Advances in Human Ecology, Vol. 2, edited by Lee Freese. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Maryanski, Alexandra, and Jonathan H. Turner. 1991. "Biological Functionalism." Pp. 152- 177 in The Structure of Sociological Theory, edited by J. Turner. 5th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Maryanski, Alexandra, and Jonathan H. Turner. 1992. The Social Cage: Human Nature and the Evolution of Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Maynard-Smith, J. 1974. "The Theory of Games and the Evolution of Animal Conflicts." Journal of Theoretical Biology 47: 209-221.

Maynard-Smith, J. 1978. "Optimization Theory in Evolution." Annual Review of Ecological Systems 9: 31-56.

Mayr, Ernst. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press. Perusse, Daniel. 1993. "Cultural and Reproductive Success in Industrial Societies: Testing

the Relationship at the Proximate and Ultimate Levels." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16: 267-322.

Rosenberg, Alexander. 1992. "Altruism: Theoretical Contexts." Pp. 18-27 in Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, edited by Evelyn Keller and Elisabeth Lloyd. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

388

Page 16: The Pursuit of Human Nature in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Sociology - 1994

The Pursuit of Human Nature

Sanderson, Stephen. 1992. Social Evolutionism: A Critical History. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Saunders, Peter. 1988. "Sociobiology: A House Built on Sand." Pp. 275-293 in Evolutionary

Processes and Metaphors, edited by M.W. Ho and S. Fox. New York: Wiley. Settle, Tom. 1993. "'Fitness' and 'Altruism': Traps for the Unwary, Bystander and Biologist

Alike." Biology and Philosophy 8: 61-83. Sibley, Charles G., John A. Comstock, and Jon E. Ahlquist. 1990. "DNA Hybridization

Evidence of Hominoid Phylogeny. A Reanalysis of the Data." Journal of Molecular Evolution 30: 202-236.

Temerin, J., and J. Cant. 1983. "The Evolutionary Divergence of Old World Monkeys and Apes." The American Naturalist 122: 335-351.

Tenhouten, Warren. 1991. "Into the Wild Blue Yonder-On the Emergence of the Ethnoneurologies-the Social Science-Based Neurologies and the Philosophy-Based Neurologies." Journal of Social and Biological Structures 14: 381-408.

Travis, Cheryl, and C.P. Yeager. 1991. "Sexual Selection, Parental Investment and Sexism." Journal of Social Issues 47: 117-129.

Trivers, Robert L. 1971. "The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism." Quarterly Review of Biology 46(4): 35-57.

van den Berghe, P. 1983. "Human Inbreeding Avoidance: Culture in Nature." The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6: 91-124.

van den Berghe, P. 1990. Human Family Systems: An Evolutionary View. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Voland, Eckart. 1984. "Human Sex-Ratio Manipulation: Historical Data from a German Parish." Journal of Human Evolution 13: 99-107.

Vries, Hugo de 1909-1910. The Mutation Theory; Experiments and Observations on the Origin of Species in the Vegetable Kingdom, trans. by J.B. Farmer and AD. Darbishire. London: Kegan Paul.

West-Eberhard, Mary Jane. 1992. "Adaptation: Current Usages." Pp. 13-16 in Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, edited by E. Keller and E. Lloyd. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Williams, George C. 1966. Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wilson, Edward 0. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, Edward 0. 1978. On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. Woolfenden, G.E., and J.W. Fitzpatrick. 1984. The Florida Scrub Jay. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press. Wrangham, R. 1979. "Sex Differences in Chimpanzee Dispersion." Pp. 481-489 in The Great

Apes, edited by D. Hamburg and E. McCown. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings. Wright, S. 1931. "Evolution in Mendelian Populations." Genetics 16: 97-159. Wynne-Edwards, V.C. 1962. Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behavior. New York: Hafner.

389


Recommended