3.3 Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

Most people are familiar with the role of genetics in changing morphological characteristics in animals. Farmers bred cows for milk production and dogs have been bred over generations to such an extent that the link to the wolf-like morphology has largely disappeared in creatures like the poodle. Recent research on genetic manipulations and induced mutations provide more evidence for the role of genes at the morphological level. There is also obvious behavior characteristics bred into animals under the broad topic of temperament. For example bulls are bred for their aggressiveness which bullfighters anthropomorphize as “courage”. The contributions of genes to both the morphology and behavior in animals are beyond dispute. Is there any reason to believe that genes should not contribute to behavior also in humans?

Studies by biologists of animal behavior offer tantalizing inferences to human social interactions. Ethology as a discipline has carried out field studies of animals in their natural habit that permit interesting cross-species comparisons. Varying research projects have examined territoriality, but also courtship behavior and communication in animals. Anyone who has been around dogs knows that they are territorial, and commence warning barks when any stranger invades their human defined space. Other species display similar behavior. The behavior pattern in animals tends to be regular and predictable, and this invariance is explained by genetic control factors. However, it is within the constraints of particular ecological niches that even so-called instinctive responses occur as the behavior is also a response to stimuli in the environmental context. Human cultural groups have historically presented similar territorial and aggressive behavior as most wars have at least in part been fought over control of territories. The most intractable human conflict is over territory claimed by historical myth to belong to two different population groups as is the case of the Palestinians and the Jewish immigrant community in Palestine.

Studies from human ethology emphasize the biological basis of human behavior as significant similarities between human and animal behavior is observed (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989). In recent times research has concluded that animals too have culture, although not the ability to engage in complex cognition and symbolization which is the foundation of human culture. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1979) presented evidence that demonstrated the role of phylogenetic development at the human level. Many universal patterns of behavior are present in all cultures observed. However, there are also differences between cultures in the expression of universal behaviors. Some human rituals suggest universality, like the open hand salute used as a sign of peaceful intentions. Eibl-Eibesfeldt argues strongly for the presence of genetic components in much of human interaction and in cognition. Nevertheless there are important differences as animal behavior patterns tend to remain more fixed and invariable, and human behavior more plastic and influenced by the cultural context.

The preceding discussion has emphasized the biological predispositions essential to cultural development. The study of human ethology demonstrates our evolutionary link to other species. For example kissing is a universal sign of affection in children and is probably a phylogenetic adaptation to feeding in our evolutionary past (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1979, 1989). This universal response by mothers toward children probably derived from mouth to mouth feeding in early stages of evolutionary development as we can also observe this behavior in non-human primates. Although we should maintain a healthy sense of skepticism in evaluating comparative similarities of species there is a remarkable overlap between social behavior in animals and humans. Although similarities may be accidental, many behaviors are strikingly similar across species requiring at least openness toward the possibility that they are the result of similar selective evolutionary pressures that shaped behavior. These behaviors may have evolved from our phylogenetic evolution, but the source may also be cultural evolution derived from common ancestors. For example head gestures may signal elementary responses like “no”. For most of the world no is indicated by shaking the head horizontally leading to some conjecture of a common evolutionary origin. However, cultural influences are also at play as for example “no” in Bulgaria is indicated by up and down motion of the head, not a sideways shaking. This variance must have derived from common cultural ancestors. Eibl-Eibesfeldt suggests that genetic mechanisms are the grammar of human interaction upon which culture builds variances through socialization. However, it is well to keep in mind that the higher the organism places on the phylogenetic scale the more plastic the behavior and the greater the role of learning in adaptation.

Sociobiology seeks to explain human behavior as a response to evolutionary pressures (Wilson, 1975). From this perspective human behavior is fundamentally motivated by the need to maximize inclusive fitness, thus leaving not only direct offspring but also supporting the productive success of close relatives. The meaning of family closeness is produced by the evolutionary pressure to protect and ensure the reproductive success of succeeding generations. In the most extreme case Wilson argues that the humanities and social sciences can be reduced to branches of biology. The biological origin of behavior is verified if the category studied is found in nearly all or all societies. Can human culture at some level be reduced to principles of evolution?