Sociobiology: Wonderful idea, wrong species

Sociobiology is a sub-branch of biology studying social behaviour among animals from an extreme Neo-Darwinist perspective. That in itself could be controversial, but hardly outside a small circle of scientists. The real problem started when sociobiologists extended their perspective to include humans. Edward O. Wilson is often (wrongly) considered to be the founder of sociobiology, because of his book "Sociobiology. The New Synthesis". It was first published in 1975, and while most of the book is about animals, the last chapter also deals with man. In 1978, Wilson published a more popularized book, "On Human Nature". As indicated by the title, it deals almost exclusively with humans.

The idea that human behaviour is more or less genetically determined was intensely controversial, and Wilson was even physically attacked by a Maoist group (PL-InCAR) during a meeting of the AAAS. At a convention of the American Anthropological Association, a motion proposed the banning of "Sociobiology", but it was defeated after an intervention by Margaret Mead, ironic since Mead has become one of the main villains in sociobiological mythology. Equally ironic, Wilson was actually a moderate liberal in political matters, and later became an outspoken environmentalist. And while many of his opinions are surely wrong, his way of putting them forward has always been less dogmatic than that of the inevitable epigones (some of whom seem to have "seen the light"). I admit that I somehow like good old Eddie!

But is he right? And is sociobiology in general right? The shortest answer I can think of is: Absolutely not. It denies the problem that needs answering. A theory that "explains" reality by wishing a large chunk of it away, really doesn't explain anything. Rather, it borders on sheer pseudoscience. Many, perhaps all, sociobiologists argue that war, patriarchy and hierarchy are human universals. From this, they build their grand theories about the adaptive value of territorial aggression, male dominance and status. Let's put the political issues aside for the moment, and only look at the scientific evidence.

The problem, of course, is that war, patriarchy and hierarchy are *not* human universals. Gender roles in different societies show a remarkable degree of variation. The Iroquis were a warrior society where the men were chiefs and warriors, and yet the women had considerable power in their own right. They owned all the land, their children belonged to them in case of divorce, and the most powerful women had the right to veto political appointments. Indeed, 19th century anthropologists considered the Iroquis to be matriarchal! In the West African kingdom of Dahomey, the army consisted of both men and women. In a certain tribe in the Philippines, both men and women were hunters. I mention these particular examples since they are about societies were women to some extent filled "male" roles.

Archaeological excavations show that even some high cultures, which were presumably hierarchic, were nevertheless peaceful. This is true of the Indus Valley Civilization, which lasted too long and covered too large an area for the fact to be explained away. It may possible be true also of the Norte Chico civilization in South America. At least some Neolithic cultures were also peaceful for millennia, Catalhöyük being a well-known example. It's also interesting to note that male deities are almost absent from most of these cultures, whose religion seems to have combined female deities and some kind of nature or animal worship. This is suggestive of a more matrifocal society.

Another central concept of sociobiology is "kin selection", the idea that living organisms aid their closest kin ahead of more distant kin, or non-related individuals. The idea was first developed to explain the existence of sterile worker castes among social insects, including ants. It's well known to Wilson, who is a myrmecologist. But can the principle be applied to humans? The anthropologist Marshall Sahlins demonstrated already in 1976, in his book "The Use and Abuse of Biology", that many cultures around the world have a kinship structure that doesn't confirm to sociobiological expectations. There are many examples of cultures where siblings belong to different clans, and are counted as adversaries, while more distant kin or even illegitimate children are considered members of the family! Sociobiologists have decided to ignore Sahlins' book, or only quote statements from it that are frankly irrelevant.

As long as sociobiologists turn a blind eye to these scientific findings, little progress will be made. If human behaviour is genetic and adaptive, then sociobiologists must find a Neo-Darwinian answer to the fact that humans can construct both peaceful realms such as the Indus Valley Civilization, and warring militaristic city-states or empires, as those of the Indo-Europeans. If no genetic explanation can be found, we must bid adieu to sociobiology. The problem will not go away! 40 years later, the facts, like stubborn Trobriand spirit children, haven't moved.

Sociobiology? Wonderful idea, wrong species.