Human Behaviour and Biology an examination of the “sociobiology debate”

 In his theory of evolution called ” Origin of Species” Darwin proposed that new forms of life (or species) are formed as a result of every living beings’ endeavour to survive in a changing environment. Those  forms which develop characteristics that are suited for survival in a particular environment, survive, while others die out, to be replaced by new species. These new characteristics develop and flourish through the medium of genes, which are passed on by every life form to its progeny. Over a period of time, those characteristics which confer on the organism an advantage in its struggle for survival flourish. New species are formed as an older species acquires more advantageous characteristics and sheds those which are not suited for the survival of the species.

Biological Determinism

Ironically, one of the most serious assaults, in the sciences, on the Marxist understanding of society and its dynamics is being mounted today by evolutionary biologists. Many of them, in fact, claim to be the true inheritor’s of Darwin’s legacy. Their intent has been to seek  biological explanations of human behaviour – the thesis being that there is a biological influence on human behaviour (especially conflict) – and consequently on development of human societies. The attempt, therefore, is to refute the Marxist view that productive forces and relations of productions are the primary motive force in the development of human society. This school of thought has been termed as “sociobiology”, and has been attacked by Marxists for being prey to “biological determinism”, i.e. prey to the belief that inherited characteristics (through  genes) determine societal behaviour.

The argument that there is a biological basis to human conflict behaviour comes from a number of sources. The one perhaps most widely believed view derives from a simplistic interpretation of Darwinian theory. It is posited that in the distant past when man was involved in a desperate competitive struggle for survival, the chances of survival were better insofar as a man was stronger and more aggressive. The more aggressive he was, the better the chances of his mating, feeding, and defending his offspring. Thus in evolutionary terms, the selection of the fittest meant the selection of the more aggressive. Hence, it is argued, over the millennia of human existence and before the development of settled agrarian communities, aggression had been genetically bred into man.

Aggression, it is further argued,  was related to the ability to mate and to gain access to scarce resources. Between groups, however, population pressure and access to hunting grounds was also a selective pressure. Thus, it is posited, that those groups of a more pacific nature would lose out to the more aggressive social units with the result, again, that a selective pressure existed for the breeding of aggression. Hence a link is sought to be made with  ‘cultural evolution’ in that a selective pressure existed for the survival of the most aggressive cultures within which the most pressure towards the selective breeding for aggression had taken place. The argument is taken further into proposing that pressure of numbers on the resources available led again to competition and the elimination of some groups. Echoes of this line of reasoning are to be found among Malthusians who have hypothesised that population increases always lead to pressure upon resources with the result of ‘famine, vice, and misery’ at least part of which is caused by the occurrence war in the struggle for resources.

Another strand of the argument comes from a field of study that specialises in the extrapolation from the animal kingdom to the world of mankind. Thus it has been argued that  man will fight to gain and to defend territory just as stray dogs do, or birds seeking to mate. According to Konrad Lorenz , not only is aggression an innate drive that needs a periodic release of pressure but the animal world can be divided up into two kinds of animal — those with  inhibitions to killing members of their own species, and those without. The former group are  animals with powerful killing weapons, but these are tempered by “submission gestures”, the use of which prevents the stronger animal of the same species from killing the weaker. Animals without such weapons typically rely on flight to escape a stronger opponent. Lorenz argued that humans, being physically weak belong to the latter category, have no such inhibitions to killing their own species, and yet through the power of their brains have developed weapons of frightening efficiency. While the Lorenzian theory has been rejected on empirical grounds – intra-species aggression and killing are common to many animals other than man – its resonance lingers on supported by the prestige of the Nobel Prize-winning biologist.

Hidden Political Agenda

Thus there are a number of approaches that argue that there is a biological and innate predisposition to aggression. All of them would suggest, though, that the basis of conflict is inherent in that it will always happen. A common thread in this line of reasoning is of course the denial of the existence of classes as well as a denial of the role of class oppression and exploitation as the principal source of conflict in human society. These approaches have been criticised by many radical groups including the Science for the People Sociobiology Study Group (the Boston Group) consisting of radical-left scientists in the Boston area like Richard Lewontin, Richard Levins and Stephen Jay Gould. The Boston Group in a statement says, “These theories (biological determinism/sociobiology) provided an important basis for the enactment of sterilisation laws and restrictive immigration laws for the United States between 1910 and 1930 and also for the eugenics policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany. We think that this information has little relevance to human behaviour, and this supposedly objective, scientific approach in reality conceals political assumptions”.

Edward O.Wilson, one of the principal adherents of the sociobiology theory has attempted to link the main tenets of the theory to the evolution of different cultures in the following manner : “…social behaviours are shaped by natural selection..and hence ultimately influence the statistical distribution of culture on a world-wide basis”. Wilson’s belief in the salutary effect that aggression has had in development of human society pushes him into taking a sexist view of evolution. He says, for example, that there exist “modest” genetic differences between men and women. It would thus follow that,  if aggression is a necessary trait for human survival, the genetically “submissive” women are consigned to perpetual serfdom under men! Wilson has further argued that different cultures have a set of characteristics which are genetically determined, and cross-cultural differences can be explained on the basis of differences in these sets of characteristics. Thus, for example, cultures (he believes) could be inherently “enterprising”, aggressive”, etc.

A Second Look at Darwin

Stephen Jay Gould, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists has rebutted the contentions of the sociobiologists in the following manner : “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo Sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty years ago .. All that we have done since then – the greatest transformation in the shortest time that our planet has experienced since its crust solidified nearly four billion years ago – is the product of cultural evolution”. Thus Gould’s essential argument that there is no evidence of any evolution of the human brain since the advent of modern man on earth. If that is so, one cannot explain away cultural differences on the basis of genetic differences – for there appear to have been very little evolution of the human brain in the period when different cultures have grown, perished and survived.

Moreover, the last fifty thousand years (and especially the last ten thousand years) have seen much greater transformations on this planet than ever before. This transformation has largely been brought about by man’s interaction with nature – in a period when man himself has evolved very little. Hence, these transformations and evolution of different societies can only be explained if one takes into account the role played by man in changing his environment and as a consequence the material world in which he exists. Man is, after all, the first (and only till date) species  on the planet that is capable of moulding nature rather than just obtaining material resources from nature.

It has to be remembered that Darwin was refining his theory of evolution in a period which was the high noon of free enterprise under the tutelage of the rising tide of global Capitalism. For many, his supposed espousal of “survival of the fittest” being the cornerstone of his theory  was seen as an affirmation of the basic tenets of Capitalist society. John D.Rockefeller, Sr. (father of the Rockefeller empire in the U.S.) once said, “The growth of a large business is merely survival of the fittest…The American Beauty Rose can be produced in the splendour and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it. This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God”. Interestingly, the term “survival of the fittest” was not coined by Darwin himself but by a British philosopher Herbert Spencer. Spencer was not a Darwinian himself and in fact believed in the theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics (proposed by Lamarcke).

The Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

Darwin’s theory of evolution has for long been misinterpreted at various levels. The survival of the fittest concept has often been construed to mean merely survival of the more aggressive. But the animal kingdom is replete with examples of species which are more aggressive dying out (the dinosaurs of yore for example and the tiger in recent times) and of species that are not aggressive surviving (the house sparrow or the field rabbit). Thus the “fittest” to survive is not necessarily the most “aggressive”. Further, evolution involves the evolution of the whole species and not an individual. Hence, traits which may ensure survival of a single individual do not necessarily ensure survival of the species as a whole. Also, evolution is not a linear process which takes place at the same pace in nature, irrespective of environmental factors. Finally, the role played by sheer chance in the evolutionary process should not be underplayed — there is no “grand design” which is directing evolution.

Stephen Jay Gould in his theory of “Punctuated Equilibrium”, has refined Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection to address the above concerns. Punctuated Equilibrium is the idea that most evolutionary change happens in geologically “brief” speciation events  separated by long periods of “stasis”. According to Gould there are short periods when a species shows a high degree of genetic mutations (random changes) and evolutionary tendencies, which are punctuated by long periods of no or relatively minor evolutionary activity.