what is sociobiology

8/6/2019 What is Sociobiology

1/5

SOCIOBIOLOGY

What Is Sociobiology?

i was surprised--astonished--by the ini t ial react ion toSociobiology: The New Synthesis. When the book was

published in 1975, I expected a favorable react ion from othe rbiologists . After al l , my colleagues and I had m erely beenextending Neo-D arwinism into the study of social behaviorand animal societ ies, and the underlying biological principleswe emp loyed were largely conventional . The response was infact overwhelm ingly favorable. From the social scientis ts , Iexpected not m uch o f a react ion at al l . I took i t for grantedthat the human species is subject to sociobiological analysisno less than genetic or endocrinological analysis; the f inalchapter of my book simply completed the catalog of socialspecies by the addit ion ofHomo sapiens. I hoped to make acontr ibution to the social sciences and humanit ies by layingout in imm ediately accessible form the most relevant meth-ods and principles of populat ion biology, evolutionarytheory, and sociobiology . I expected that many social scien-t ists , already con vinced of the necessi ty of a biological foun-dation of their subject , would be tem pted to pick up the tools

and try them out . T his has occurred to a l imited extent , butthere has also been stiff resistance. I now understand that Ientirely underest imated the Durkheim -Boas tradit ion of au-tonomy of the social sciences, as well as the strength andpower of the antigenetic bias that has prevailed as virtualdogma since the fal l of Social Darwinism.

I did not even think about the Marxists . When the at tackson sociobiology came fro m Science for the People, the lead-ing radical lef t group within American science, I was unpre-pared for a largely ideological argument. I t is now clear to methat I was tampering with something fundamental : m ythol-ogy. Evolutionary theory applied to social systems is anextension of the great Western tradit ions of scientif icmaterial ism. As such i t threatens to transform the assump-t ions about human na ture made by some Marxis tphilosophers into testable hypotheses. Its first line of evi-

Sociobiology and Human Nature : An Interdisciplinary Critique andDefense.Copyright 9 1978 b y Josscy-Bass Inc., Publishers. Edited by Michael S.G~egory, Anita Silvers, and Diane Sutch. All but the final paper emanatefrom this volume in slightly condens ed form. T he proceeding s were origi-nally delivered at a symposium sponsored by NEX A at San Francisco StateUniversity, June 14-15, 1977.

Edward O. WilsonI

dence is not favorable to those assumptions, insofar as mosttraditional Marxists cling to a vision of human nature as arelat ively unstructured phenomenon swept along by eco-nomic forces extraneous to human biology. Marxism andother secular ideologies previously rested secure as unchal-lenged satrapies of scientific materialism; now they were indanger o f being displaced by other, less manageable b iologi-cal explanations. The remarkably harsh response of Sciencefor the People exemplif ies what Hans Kiing has cal led thefury of the theologians.

Sociobiology Misunderstood

But much o f the confusion has come from a simple misun-derstanding of the content of sociobiology. So ciobiology isdefined as the systematic s tudy of the biological basis of al lforms of social behavior, including sexual and parental be-havior, in al l kinds of organisms, including man. As such i t isa discipl in e--an inevitable discipl ine, s ince there has to be asystematic s tudy o f social behavior. So ciobiology consists

mostly of zoo logy. Ab out 90 percent of i ts current materialconcerns animals, ev en though ov er 90 percent of the atten-t ion given to sociobiology by nonscientis ts, and expecial lyjournalists, is due to its possible applications to the study ofhuman social behavior. There is nothing unusual about deriv-ing principles and methods, and even terminology, fromintensive examinations of lower organisms and applyingthem to the study of human beings. M ost of the fundamentalprinciples of genetics and biochemistry applied to humanbiology is based on co lon bacteria , frui t f l ies , and white rats.To say that the same science can be applied to human beingsis not to reduce humanity to the status of these simplercreatures.

Nor is there anything new or surprising about having sucha discipl ine within the family of the b iological sciences. Th eterm sociobiology was used independently by John P. Sco ttin 1946 and by Charles F. Hock ett in 1948, but the word wasnot picked up immediately by others. In 1950 Scott , who hadbeen serving as the secretary of the small but influentialCommittee for the Study of Animal Behavior, suggestedsociobiology more formally as a term for the"interd iscipl in-ary science which lies between the fields of biolog y (particu-larly ecology and physiology) and psychology and sociol-ogy." From 1956 into 1964 Scott and others const i tuted a

10 0147-2011/78/0915-0005502.50/1 SOCIETY@ Transa cUon, Inc..


2/5

S e c t io n o n A n i m a l B e h a v i o r a n d S o c i o b i o l o g y o f th e E c o l o g -ica l Soc ie ty o f Amer ica , which became the presen t AnimalB e h a v i o r S o c i e t y. D u r in g 1 9 5 0- -1 9 7 0 " s o c i o b i o l o g y " w a semployed in te rmi t ten t ly in t echnica l a r t i c les , a usage ev i -den t ly insp i red by i t s now quas ioff ic ia i s ta tus . But o there x p r e s s i o n s , s u c h a s " b i o s o c i o l o g y " a n d " a n i m a l s o c i o l -o g y, " w e r e a l s o e m p l o y e d . W h e n I w r o t e th e f in a l c h a p t e r o fThe Insec t Societies(1971) , which was en ti t l ed "T he p ros -p e c t f o r a u n i fi e d s o c i o b i o l o g y, "andSociobiology: The Ne wSynthesis(1975) , where I sugg es ted tha t a d i sc re te d i sc ip l ineshould now be bu i l t on a founda t ion of gene t ics and popula -t ion b io logy, i se lec ted the t e rm soc iob io logy ra ther thansome o ther, nove l express ion because I be l ieved i t woulda l ready be fami l ia r to mos t s tuden ts o f an imal behavior andhence more l ike ly to be accep ted .

Biological Capacity

P u r e s o c i o b i o l o g i ca l t h e o r y, b e i n g i n d e p e n d e n t o f h u m a nbio logy , does no t imply by i t se l f tha t hum an soc ia l behaviori s de te rmined by genes . I t a llows for any one of th ree pos-

s ib il i ti e s . On e i s tha t the huma n bra in has ev o lved to the po in ttha t it has becom e an equ ipo ten t ia l l ea rn ing mac hine en t i re lyde te rmined by cu l tu re . The mind , in o ther words , has beenf reed f rom the genes . A second poss ib i l i ty i s tha t humansoc ia l behavio r i s under gene t ic cons t ra in t bu t tha t a l l o f thegene t ic var iab i l i ty wi th in the human spec ies has beene x h a u s t ed . H e n c e o u r b e h a v i o r i s t o s o m e e x t e n t i n f lu e n c e dby genes , bu t we a l l have exac t ly the sam e po ten tia l . A th i rdposs ib i l i ty, c lose to the second , i s tha t the hum an sp ec ies i sprescr ibed to some ex ten t bu t a l so d i sp lays some gene t icd i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g i n d i v i d u a l s . A s a c o n s e q u e n c e , h u m a npopulat ions retain the capaci ty to evolve s t i l l fur ther in theirb io log ica l capac i ty fo r soc ia l behavior.

I conside r i t vir tual ly certain that the third al tem ative is thecor rec t one . Beca use the ev idence has been wel l rev iewe d ino t h e r r ec e n t w o r k s , m o s t n o t a b l y th o s e b y N a p o l e o n C h a g -non and Wi l l i am I rons , ed i to rs , B . I . Devote , ed i to r, andDanie l G. Freedm an, I wi ll no t under take to exem pl i fy i t o rreview i t in detai l . Instead, le t me outl ine i ts content .

Specificity o f Human Social Behavior

A l t h o u g h t h e v a r i a ti o n o f c u l tu r e s a p p e a r s e n o r m o u s t o t h ea n t h ro p o c e n t ri c o b s e r v e r, a ll h u m a n b e h a v i o r t o g e t h e r c o m -pr i ses on ly a t iny subse t o f the rea l ized soc ia l sys te ms of thethousands of soc ia l spec ies on earth . Co ra l s and o ther co lo-nial invertebrates , the social insects , f ish, birds, and nonhu-m a n m a m m a l s d i s p l a y a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s a n a r r a y o f a r -r a n g e m e n t s w h i c h a r e d i f f ic u l t f o r h u m a n b e i n g s e v e n t ounders tand , mu ch less imi ta te . Ev en i f we w ere to a t t empt todupl ica te som e of these soc ia l behaviors by consc iou s de-s ign , i t would be a charade l ike ly to c rea te emo t iona l b reak-down and a rap id reversa l o f the e ffor t .

Phylogenetic Relationships

Our soc ia l a r rangements mos t c lose ly resemble those oft h e O ld W o r l d m o n k e y s a n d a p e s , w h i c h o n a n a t o m i c a l a n d

biochem ica l g rounds a re our c loses t l iv ing re la t ives . T his i sthe resu lt expec ted i f 'we share a com mo n ances t ry wi th thesepr imates , which appears to be an es tab l i shed fac t , and i fhum an soc ia l behavior i s s ti l l cons t ra ined to som e ex ten t bygene t ic p red ispos i t ions in behaviora I deve lopment .

Conformity to Sociobiological Theory

In the case o f the hypothes i s o f gene t ic cons t ra in t s onhum an soc ia l behavior, i t should be poss ib le to se lec t some ofthe bes t p r inc ip les o f popula t ion gene t ics and eco log y, wh ichf o r m t h e f o u n d a t i o n s o f s o c i o b i o l o g y, a n d a p p l y t h e m i nde ta i l to the exp lana t ions o f hum an soc ia l o rgan iza t ion . Th ehypothes i s should then no t on ly account fo r many o f thek n o w n f a c t s i n a m o r e c o n v i n c i n g m a n n e r t h a n p r e v i o u sa t tempts , b u t a l so iden t i fy the need for new k inds o f in forma-t ion no t conceptua l ized by the una ided soc ia l sc iences . Thebeha vior thus exp la ined shou ld be the mos t genera l and leas tra t iona l o f the human reper to ry, the fu r thes t removed f romthe in f luence of yea r-by- year sh if t s in fash ion and con ven-t ion . There a re in fac t a subs tan t ia l num ber o f an thropolog i -

ca l s tud ies comple ted or underway tha t mee t these exac t ingcr i te r ia o f pos tu la t iona l -deduc t ive sc ience . Am ong the m canbe c i t ed the wo rk of Joseph Sh epher on the inces t taboo ands e x u al r o le s ; M i l d re d D i c k e m a n o n h y p e rg a m y a n d s e x -b iassed in fan t ic ide ; I rons on the re la t ion be tween inc lus ivegene t ic f i tness and the emic c r i t e r ia o f soc ia l success in aherd ing soc ie ty ; Chagnon on aggress ion and reproduc t ivec o m p e t i t i o n in t h e Ya n o m a m r ; W i l li a m D u r h a m o n t h e re l a -t ion be tween inc lus ive f i tness and war fa re in the Mundurucf iand o ther p r imi t ive soc ie t i es ; Robin Fox on the re la t ion off i tness to k insh ip ru les ; Me lv in Ko nner and Freed man on the

Soc iob io lo gy i s the sys temat ic s tudy o f theb io log ica l bas i s o f a l l fo rms o f soc ia l

behavior, including sexual and parenta lbehav ior, in a l l k inds o f o rgan i sms ,

inc lud ing man

adapt ive s ign i f icance of in fan t deve lopmen t ; James W einr ichon the re la t ionsh ip o f gene t ic f i tness and the de ta i l s o f sexua lprac t ice , inc lud ing homosexua l i ty ; and o thers .

Genetic Variation within the Species

A c c o r d i n g to V. A . M c K u s i c k a n d F. H . R u d d l e , b y 1 9 77more than 1200 loc i had been loca ted on human chromo-somes th rough the f i r s t ana lys i s o f b iochemica l and o thermuta t ions . Many of these po in t muta t ions , as wel l as ag r o w i n g l is t o f c h r o m o s o m a l a b e r r at i o n s, a f f e c t b e h a v io r.Mo s t s imply d imin ish menta l capac i ty and m otor ab i li ty, bu ta t l eas t two , the Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, based on a s ing leg e n e , a n d Tu r n e r ' s s y n d r o m e , c a u s e d b y t h e d e l e ti o n o f a s e xc h r o m o s o m e , a l t e r b e h a v i o r i n n a r r o w w a y s t h a t c a n b ere la ted to spec i f ic neuromuscula r mechanisms . The adreno-gen i ta l syndrome, which i s induced by a s ing le recess ive

Sep tember /Oc tobe r 1978 11


3/5

gene , appears to mascul in ize g i r l s th rough an ear ly induc t ionof adrenocor t ica l subs tances tha t mimic the male horm one .

M o r e c o m p l e x f o r m s o f h u m a n b e h a v i o r ar e a l m o s t c e r-ta in ly under the cont ro l o f po lygenes (genes sca t te red onm a n y c h r o m o s o m e l o c i ), w h i c h i n t u rn c r e a t e t h e i r e f f e c t sthrough the a l te ra t ion of a wide a r ray of media t ing device s ,f rom e lementary neurona l wi r ing to muscular coord ina t iona n d " m e n t a l s e t " i n d u c e d b y h o r m o n e l e v e l s. I n m o s t in -s tances , the ro le of behaviora l po lygenes can be eva lua ted ,bu t on ly qua l i ta t ive ly, by the carefu l appl ica t ion of twin andadopt ion s tud ies . The m os t f requent ly used me thod i s tocompare the s imi la r i ty be tween ident ica l twins , which a re

We w i l l s o o n b e a b l e t o l o c a t e a n dcharac ter ize spec i f ic genes tha t a l te r them o r e c o m p l e x f o r m s o f s o c i a l b e h a v i o r

known to be gene t ica l ly iden t ica l , wi th the s imi la r i ty be-tween f ra te rna l twins , w hich a re no c loser gene t ica l ly thanord inary s ib l ings . When the s imi la r i ty be tween ident ica ltwins prove s grea te r, th i s d is t inc t ion be tween the two k indsof twins i s ascr ibed to hered i ty. Us ing th i s and re la ted tech-n iques , g ene t ic i s t s have pro duce d ev idenc e of a subs tan t ia la m o u n t o f h e r e d i t a r y i n f l u e n c e o n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f avar ie ty of t ra it s tha t a ffec t soc ia l behav ior, inc lud ing num bera b i li t y, w o r d f l u e n c y, m e m o r y, t h e t i m i n g o f l a n g u a g e a c -q u i s i t i o n , s e n t e n c e c o n s t r u c t i o n , p e r c e p t u a l s k i ll ,p s y c h o m o t o r s k il l , e x t r o v e r si o n - in t r o v e r si o n , h o m o s e x u a l -i ty, the t iming o f f i rs t he te rosexua l ac t iv i ty, and cer ta in form sof neuros i s and psychos is , inc lud ing the manic-depress ive

s y n d r o m e a n d s c h i z o ph r e n i a.In publ i shed wo rk there i s a f law in the resu l t s tha t render

most o f them less than def in i t ive : iden t ica l twins a re com-mo nly t rea ted mo re a l ike by the i r paren ts than a re f ra te rna ltwins . T hey a re ins t ruc ted in a more near ly para l le l man ner,dressed m ore a l ike , and so for th . In the absence of be t te rcont ro ls , i t i s poss ib le tha t the g rea te r s imi la r i ty of iden t ica ltwins could , a f te r a ll , be due to envi ronm enta l in f luences andnot the i r gene t ic iden t i ty. How eve r, new and m ore sophis t i -ca ted s tud ies have begun to take account of th i s addi t iona lf a c t or. J . C . l . x ~ h f i n a n d R . C . N i c h o l s, f o r e x a m p l e , a n a -l y z e d t h e m a n y a s p e c t s o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t s a n d p e r f o r-

m a n c e s o f 8 5 0 s e t s o f tw i n s w h o t o o k t h e N a t i on a l M e r i tScholarsh ip tes t in 1962 . The e ar ly h i s tor ies of the subjec ts ,as w el l as the a t t i tudes and rear ing prac t ices of the paren ts ,was taken in to account . T he resu l t s showed tha t the genera l lym o r e s i m i la r t r e a tm e n t o f t h e i d e n t ic a l t w i n s c a n n o t a c c o u n tfor the i r g rea te r s imi la r i ty in genera l ab i l i t i es , persona l i tyt ra i ts , o r eve n idea ls , goa ls , and voca t iona l in te res ts . I t i sev ident tha t e i ther the s im i la ri t ies a re based in subs tan t ia l par ton gene t ic iden t i ty, o r e l se envi ronmenta l agents were a twork tha t remained h idden to Loehl in and Nichols .

My overa l l conc lus ion f rom the ex is t ing in format ion i s tha tHom o sapiens i s a typ ica l an imal spec ies w i th re fe rence to the

qua l i ty and magni tude of the gene t ic d ivers i ty a ffec t ing i t sbeha vior. I also bel ieve that i t wil l soon be w ithin our abil i tyto loca te and ch arac te r ize spec i f ic genes tha t a l te r the m orecomplex forms of soc ia l behavior. Obvious ly the a l le lesd iscovered wi l l no t p rescr ibe d i ffe ren t d ia lec t s o r modes ofd r e s s . T h e y a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o w o r k m e a s u r a b le c h a n g e sthrough the i r e ffec t s on learn ing mo des and t iming , cogni t iveand neuromuscular ab i l i ty, and the persona l i ty t ra i t s mos t

sens i t ive to hormonal media t ion . I f soc ia l sc ien t i s t s andsoc iobio logis t s someho w c hoose to ignore th i s l ine of inves-t iga t ion , they wi l l soon f ind huma n gene t ic i s t s coming up onthe i r b l ind s ide . The in tense in te res t in medica l gene t ics ,fue led now by new methods such as the e lec t rophore t icsepara t ion of p ro te ins and rap id sequenc ing of am ino ac ids ,has resu l ted in an acce le ra t ion of d i scover ies in human hered-i ty tha t i s ce r ta in to have profound consequences for thegene t ics of soc ia l behavior.

G e n e s a n d M e t h o d o l o g i c a l R e d u c t i o n i s m

I wish now to d i scuss in broad te rms the w ays in which the

severa l in te l lec tua l t rad i tions represen ted so wel l by the o thercont r ibu tors to th i s spec ia l i s sue m ight be reconc i led wi th there la t ive ly uncom prom is ing b io logis tic approach I have takento the presen t t ime .

The f i r s t a rea of con f l ic t tha t can be reso lved i s the re la t ionof genes to cu l ture . M any soc ia l sc ien t i s ts see no v a lue insoc iobio logy because they a re persuaded tha t var ia t ionam ong cu l tures has no gene t ic bas i s . T he i r p remise i s r igh t ,t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n w r o n g . We c a n d o w e l l t o r e m e m b e r R o u s -seau ' s d ic tum tha t those wh o wish to s tudy me n should s tandc lose , w hi le those w ho wish to s tudy man should look f romafar. Th e soc ia l sc ien ti s t i s in te res ted in the of ten microsc opic

but impor tan t var ia t ions in behavior tha t a lmos t everyoneagrees a re due to cu l ture and the envi ronment . Thesoc iobio logis t i s in te res ted in the more genera l fea tures ofhuman na ture and the l imi ta t ions tha t ex is t in the envi ron-menta l ly induced v ar ia t ion . He i s espec ia l ly in te res ted in thefac t tha t a l though a l l cu l tures taken toge ther cons t i tu te a verygrea t amount of var ia t ion , the i r summed conten t i s fa r l essthan tha t d i sp layed by the remain ing spec ies of soc ia l an i -

There i s no a p r io r i r ea son w hy any po r t iono f t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f h u m a n s o c ia l b e h a v i o r

m u s t b e e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e d o m a i n o fsoc iob io log ica l ana lys i s

m a l s . B y c o m p a r i n g t h e d i a g n o s ti c f e a t u re s o f h u m a n o rg a ni -za t ion wi th those of o ther pr imate spec ies , the soc iobio logis ta ims to recons t ruc t the ear l ies t evolu t ionary h i s tory of soc ia lorganiza t ion and to d i scern i t s gene t ic res idues in contem po-rary soc ie t ies . The approach co mple me nts tha t o f the soc ia lsc iences and in no w ay d imin ishes the i r impor tance- - --qu itethe cont ra ry.

Thos e imm ersed in the r ich lo re of the soc ia l sc iences

12 SOCIETY


4/5

sometimes reject human sociobiology because it is reduc-tionistic. But almost all of the great advances o f science havebeen made by reduction, in the form of conjectures that areoften bold and momentari ly premature. Theoret ical physicstransformed chemistry, chemistry transformed cel l biologyand genetics, natural select ion theory transformedecology--al l by stark reduction which at f i rs t seemed in-adequate to the task. Reduction is a method by which newmechanisms and relational processes are discovered. In themost suc cessful case histories of postulational-deductive sci-ence, propositions are expressed in forms that can be elabo-rated into precise, testable models. The other side of reduc-tion, the antithema of the thema, is synthesis. As the newprinciples and equations are validated by repeated testing,they are used in an attempt to reconstitute the full array of thephenomena of the subject. Karl Popper has correctly sug-gested that philosophical reductionism is wrong but meth-odological reductionism is necessary for the advancem ent ofscience. Here is how I tried to summarize the role ofsociobiological reduction inDaeda lu s (Fall 1977):

The urge to be reductionistic is an understandablehuman trait. Ernst Mach captured it in the followingdefini t ion: "Science may be regarded as a minimalproblem consist ing o f the completest presentment offacts with the least possible expenditure of thought."This is a sentiment of a member of the antidiscipline,impatient to set aside complexity and get on with thesearch for more fundamental ideas. The laws of hissubject are necessary to the discipline above, theychallenge and force a m ental ly more eff icient restruc-turing, but they are not sufficient for its purposes.Biology is the key to human nature, and social scien-

tists cannot afford to ignore its emerging principles.But the social sciences are potentially far richer incontent. E ventually they will absorb the relevant ideasof biology and go on to beggar them by comparison.

Physical Basis of Mind

The strongest redoubt of counterbiology appears to bemental ism. I t is diff icult--f or some i t is impossible-- toenvision the existence of the mind and the creation of sym-bolic thought by biological processes. T he human m ind, thisargume nt often goes, is an emergen t property of the brain thatis no longer tied to genetic controls. All that the genes canprescribe is the construction of the liberated brain.

But the relation between genes, the brain, and the mind isonly a practical difficulty, not a theoretical one. Models hav ealready been produced in neurobiology and cognit ivepsychology that allow at least the possibility of mind as anepiphenomenon of complex but essential ly conventionalneuronal circuitry. Conscio usness might well consist of largenumbers of coded abstractions, some fed stepwise through ahierarchy of integrating centers whose lowest array consistsof the primary sense cells, others originating internally tosimulate these hierarchies. The brain-- in Charles Sher-r ington's (1940) metaphor the "encha nted loom w here mil-

l ions of f lashing shuttles weave a dissolving pa t te rn" --n otonly exper iences scenarios fed to it by the sensory channels;it creates them by recall and fantasy. In sustaining this activ-ity, the brain depends substantially on the triggering effec t ofverbal symbols. It also relies on what have b een called plansor schemata, configurations within the brain, either innate or

experiential in origin, against which the input of the nervecells is compared. The matching of the real or expectedpatterns can have one or more of several effects. It cancontribute to mental " se t , " the favoring of certain kinds ofsensory information ove r others. It can generate the remarka-ble phenomena of Gestal t perception, in which the mindsupplies missing details from the actual sensory informa tionin order to comp lete a pattern and make a classification. A ndit can serve as the physical basis of will: the mind can beguided in its actions by feedback loops that lead from thesense organs to the brain schemata to the neuromuscularmachinery and sense organs and back again until the

schemata "sat isfy" themselves that the correct act ion hasbeen taken. The mind could be a republic of alternativeschemata, programm ed to compete fo r control of the decisioncenters , individually waxing and waning in powe r accordingto the relative urgency of the body's needs being signalledthrough other nervous pathways passing upw ard through thelower brain centers . The mind might or might not workapproxim ately in such a manner. My point is that it is entirelypossible for all known components of the mind, includingwill, to have a neurophysiological basis subject to geneticevolution by natural selection. There is no a priori reasonwhy any port ion of the foundation of human social behavior

September/October 1978 13


5/5

must be exc luded f rom the domain of soc iob io log ica l ana l -ys i s .

Convergence

Some cr i t i cs have ob jec ted to the d rawing of ana log iesbe tween an imal and h uman behav ior, espec ia l ly as it en ta i l sthe same te rminology to descr ibe pheno men a across spec ies .

This rese rva t ion has a lways s t ruck me as insubs tan t ia l . Thedef in i t ions and l imi ta t ions o f the concepts o f ana logy andh o m o l o g y h a v e b e e n w e l l w o r k e d o u t b y e v o l u t i o n a r yb io log is t s , and i t i s d i ff i cu l t to imagine why the same reason-ing cannot be ex tended wi th p roper ca re to the humanspec ies . We a l ready speak of the eye of the oc topus and the

So ciob iology can be the br idging disc ip l inebetw een the natura l sc ien ces and the socia l

sc iences and humani t i e s

e y e o f m a n , c o p u l a ti o n i n a n i n se c t a n d c o p u l at i o n i n m a n ,and lea rn ing in the ea r thworm and lea rn ing in man , eventhough in each o f these cases the two spec ies a re in d i ffe ren tsuperphy la and the t ra it s l is t ed were independ ent ly evo lv ed .The ques t ions o f in te res t a re in fac t the degrees o f con-vergenc e and the p rocesse s o f na tura l se lec tion tha t made theconvergence so c lose . When b io log is t s compare a l t ru i sm inthe honeybee worker wi th human a l t ru i sm, no one se r ious lybe l ieves tha t they a re based on ho mo logous g enes o r tha t theyare iden t ica l in de ta i l . S lavery prac t iced byP o l y e r g u s an dS t r o n g y l o g n a t h u s an ts resembles human s lavery in somebroad fea tures and d i ffe r s f rom i t in o thers , as wel l as in mos t

de ta i l s o f i t s execu t ion . By us ing the same te rm for suchcom par i son s , the b io log is t ca l l s a tt en t ion to the fac t tha t somedegree of converg ence has occur red , and he inv i tes an ana l -ys i s o f a l l the causes o f s imi la r i ty and d i ffe rence . T here i s ahe l len i s t i c t e rm for insec t s lavery- - -du los i s - -bu t i t s usageo u t si d e e n t o m o l o g y w o u l d n o t o n l y c o m p l i c a t e l a ng u a g e b u ts low the very compara t ive ana lys i s which i s o f g rea tes tinterest .

Speaking the Comm on Language

I am mos t puzz led by the occas iona l demurra l tha tsoc iob io log y d i s t rac ts our a t t en tion f ro m the rea l r~eeds of the

wor ld , The ques t ion i s ra i sed : How can we worry about theor ig ins o f human na ture when the nuc lear sword hangs overus? When people a re s ta rv ing in the Sahe l and Bangladesh ,and poli t ical pr isoners are rot t ing in Argentinian jai ls? Inresponse one can answer : Do we w ant to know, in dep th andw i t h a n y d e g r e e o f c o n f i d e n c e , w h y w e c a r e ? A n d a f t er t he s ep r o b l e m s h a v e b e e n s o l v e d , w h a t t h e n ? T h e h i g h e s t g o a l sp r o f e s s ed b y g o v e r n m e n t s e v e r y w h e r e a r e h u m a n f u l fi l lm e n tabov e the an imal l eve l and the rea l iza t ion of ind iv idua l po ten-t i a l. But what i s fu l f i l lment , and to what en ds can po ten t ia l beexpan ded? 1 sugges t tha t on ly a deepe r unders tand ing ofh u m a n n a t u re , w h i c h m u s t b e d e v e l o p e d f r o m n e u r o b i o l o g i-

ca l inves t iga t ions o f the b ra in and the phy logene t ic recon-s t ruc t ion of the spec ies -spec i f ic p roper t i es o f human be-hav ior, can prov ide h umani ty wi th the perspec t ive i t r equ i resto formulate i ts highest social goals .

T h e e x c i t e m e n t o f s o c i o b i o l o g y c o m e s f r o m t h e p r o m i s e o fthe role i t wil l play in this new humanist ic invest igat ion. I tspo ten t ia l impo r tance bey ond zoolog y l i es in i t s log ica l pos i -t ion as the b r idg ing d i sc ip line be tw een the na tura l sc iences onthe one s ide and soc ia l sc iences and hum ani t i es on the o ther.For years the ch ie f spokesmen of the na tura l sc iences toWes te rn h igh cu l tu re have been phys ic i s t s , a s t ronomers ,gene t ic i s ts , and mo lecu la r b io log is t s , a r t icu la te and persua-s ive schola rs whose unders tand ing of the evo lu t ion of thebra in and of soc ia l behavior was unfor tuna te ly min imal .The i r percep t ion of va lues and the human .condit ion wasa lmo s t en t ire ly in tu i t ive , and h ence scarce ly be t te r than tha tof o ther in te l ligen t l aymen. Bio logy has been emp loyed as asc ience tha t accounts fo r the body o f man; i t concerns i t se l fwi th t echnolog ica l mani fes ta t ions such as the conques t o fd i sease , the g reen revo lu t ion , energy f low in ecosys tem s and

the cost-benef i t analy sis of gen e spl icing. Natural scient is tshave by and la rge conceded soc ia l behavior to beb i o l o g i c a l l yuns t ruc tured , and there fore the undispu ted dom ain of thesoc ia l sc iences . For the i r par t , mos t soc ia l sc ien t i s t s havegran ted tha t human na ture has a b io log ica l founda t ion , bu tthey hav e regarded i t a s o f marg ina l in te res t to the resp len-dent variat ions in cul ture that hold their professional at ten-t ion.

In o rder fo r the fab led gap b e tween the two cu l tu res to bet ru ly b r idged , soc ia l theory mus t incorpora te the na tura lsc iences in to i ts founda t ions , and for tha t to occur, b io logymust dea l sys temat ica l ly wi th soc ia l behavior. Th is compe-tence i s now be ing approached th rough the two-prongedadvance of neurob io logy, which bo ld ly hopes to exp la in thephys ica l bas i s o f mind , and soc iob io logy, which a ims torecons t ruc t the evo lu t ionary h i s to ry of human na ture .Sociobiology in part icular is s t i l l a rudimentary science. I tsre levance to hu man soc ia l sys tems i s s t il l l a rge ly unexplored .But in the ga ther ing assem bly of d i sc ip l ines , i t ho lds thegrea tes t p romise of speak ing the common language . IS]

R E A D I N G S S U G G E S T E D B Y T H E A U T H O R :Wilson, EdwardO. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis .Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975.Wilson, Edward O. "B iolog y and the Social Scien ces."Daeda lus

106 (Fall 1977): 127-140.Wilson, Edward O.On Human Na tu re .Cambridge, Mass.:

Harvard University Press, 1978.

Edward O. Wilson is Tamer Lecturer a t Kings Col lege, Cam-br idge U nivers i ty and professor of sc ience a t Harvard Univers i ty.He is the author of man y technical publ icat ions and seve ral books ,including Sociobiology: The NewSyn thes i sandOn Hum an Nature.He h as received several sc ience awards including the Nat ionalMeda l o f Sc i ence (1976).

14 S O C I E T Y

what is sociobiology

Documents