Sociobiology

SIGNIFICANCE: Sociobiology attempts to explain social interactions among members of animal species from an evolutionary perspective. The application of the principles of sociobiology to human social behavior initiated severe criticism and accusations of racism and sexism.

History

Sociobiology is best known from the works of Edward O. Wilson, especially his 1975 book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. This work both synthesized the concepts of the field and initiated the controversy over the application of sociobiological ideas to humans. However, the concepts and methods of sociobiology did not start with Wilson; they can be traced to Charles Darwin and others who studied the influence of genetics and evolution on behavior. Sociobiologists attempt to explain the genetics and evolution of social activity of all types, ranging from flocking in birds and herd formation in mammals to more complex social systems such as eusociality. “The new synthesis” attempted to apply genetics, population biology, and evolutionary theory to the study of social systems.

When sociobiological concepts were applied to human sociality, many scientists, especially social scientists, feared a return to scientific theories of racial and gender superiority. They rebelled vigorously against such ideas. Wilson was vilified by many of these scientists, and some observers asserted that the term “sociobiology” generated such negative responses that scientists who studied in the field began using other names for it. At least one scientific journal dropped the word “sociobiology” from its title, perhaps in response to its negative connotations. However, the study of sociobiological phenomena existed in the social branches of animal behavior and ethology long before the term was coined. Despite the criticism, research has continued under the name sociobiology as well as other names, such as “behavioral ecology.” The study of sociobiology also led to the field of evolutionary psychology, a theoretical psychology that examines the evolutionary reasons and advantages to the development of the way that humans think and behave.

Sociobiology and the Understanding of Altruism

Sociobiologists have contributed to the understanding of a number of aspects of social behavior, such as altruism. Illogical in the face of evolutionary theory, apparently altruistic acts can be observed in humans and other animal groups. Darwinian evolution holds that the organism that leaves the largest number of mature offspring will have the greatest influence on the characteristics of the next generation. Under this assumption, should disappear from the population as each individual seeks to maximize its own offspring production. If an individual assists another, it uses energy, time, and material it might have used for its own survival and reproduction and simultaneously contributes energy, time, and material to the survival and reproductive effort of the recipient. As a result, more members of the next generation should be like the assisted organism than like the altruistic one. Should this continue generation after generation, altruism would decrease in the population and selfishness would increase. Yet biologists have cataloged a number of altruistic behaviors.

When a prairie dog “barks,” thus warning others of the presence of a hawk, the prairie dog draws the hawk’s attention. Should it not just slip into its burrow, out of the hawk’s reach? When a reproductively mature acorn woodpecker stays with its parents to help raise the next generation, the woodpecker is bypassing its own reproduction for one or more years. Should it not leave home and attempt to set up its own nest and hatch its own young? Eusocial species, such as honeybees and naked mole rats, actually have many members who never reproduce; they work their entire lives to support and protect a single queen, several reproductive males, and their offspring. It would seem that all these altruistic situations should produce a decrease in the number of members of the next generation carrying altruistic genes in favor of more members with “selfish” genes.

Sociobiologists have reinterpreted some of these apparently altruistic acts as camouflaged selfishness. The barking prairie dog, for example, may be notifying the hawk that it sees the predator and that it is close to its burrow and cannot be caught; therefore, the hawk would be better off hunting someone else. Perhaps the young acorn woodpecker learns enough from the years of helping to make its fewer reproductive years more successful than its total reproductive success without the training period.

It is difficult, however, to explain the worker honeybee this way. The worker bee never gets an opportunity to reproduce. Sociobiologists explain this and other phenomena by invoking kin selection. Since the worker bees are closely related to the queen (as sisters or daughters), to reproductive males, and to other workers they help feed and protect, they share many genes with them. If they help raise enough brothers and sisters (especially males and queens) to more than make up for the offspring they do not produce themselves, they will actually increase the proportion of individuals similar to themselves more than if they “selfishly” reproduced.

The prairie dog’s behavior might be explained this way as well. The organisms the prairie dog is warning are primarily relatives. By warning them, the prairie dog helps preserve copies of its own genes in its relatives. If the cost of the behavior (an occasional barking prairie dog being captured by a hawk because the warning call drew the hawk’s attention) is more than compensated for by the number of relatives saved from the hawk by the warning, kin selection will preserve the behavior. The helper acorn woodpecker’s behavior may be explained in similar ways, not as an altruistic act but as a selfish act to favor copies of the helper’s genes in its relatives. Another explanation of altruism set forth by sociobiologists is reciprocity or reciprocal altruism: If the prairie dog is sometimes warned by others and returns the favor by calling out a warning when it sees a predator, the prairie dog town will be safer for all prairie dogs.

Opposition to the Application of Sociobiology to Humans

Wilson’s new synthesis attempted to incorporate biology, genetics, population biology, and evolution into the study and explanation of social behavior. When the analyses turned to human sociality, critics feared that they would lead back to the sexist, racist, and determinist viewpoints of the early twentieth century. The argument over the relative importance of heredity or environment (nature or nurture) in determining individual success had been more or less decided in favor of the environment, at least by social scientists. Poor people were not poor because they were inherently inferior but because the environment they lived in did not give them an equal chance. Black, Hispanic, and other minority people were not inordinately represented among the poor because they were genetically inferior but because their environment kept them from using their genetic capabilities.

Sociobiologists entered the fray squarely on the side of an appreciable contribution from genetic and evolutionary factors. Few, if any, said that the environment was unimportant in the molding of racial, gender, and individual characteristics; rather, sociobiologists claimed that the genetic and evolutionary history of human individuals and groups played an important role in determining their capabilities, just as they do in other animals. Few, if any, claimed that this meant that one race, gender, or group was superior to another. However, many (if not all) sociobiologists were accused of promoting racist, sexist, and determinist ideas with their application of sociobiological concepts to humans.

Extremists on both sides of the question have confused the issues. Such extremists range from opponents of sociobiological ideas who minimize genetic or evolutionary influence on the human cultural condition to sociobiologists who minimize the role of environmental influences. In at least some minds, extremists in the sociobiological camp have done as much damage to sociobiology as its most ardent opponents. Sociobiology (by that or another name) will continue to contribute to the understanding of the social systems of animals and humans. The biological, genetic, and evolutionary bases of human social systems must be studied. The knowledge obtained may prove to be as enlightening as has sociobiology’s contribution to the understanding of social systems in other animals.

Bibliography

Alcock, John. The Triumph of Sociobiology. 2001. New York: Oxford UP, 2003. Print.

Baxter, Brian. A Darwinian Worldview: Sociobiology, Environmental Ethics, and the Work of Edward O. Wilson. Burlington: Ashgate, 2007. Print.

Blackmore, Susan J. The Meme Machine. Foreword by Richard Dawkins. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.

Cartwright, John. Evolution and Human Behavior: Darwinian Perspectives on Human Nature. 2d ed., updated and expanded ed. Cambridge: MIT P, 2008. Print.

Cronk, Lee. That Complex Whole: Culture and the Evolution of Human Behavior. Boulder: Westview, 1999. Print.

Cziko, Gary. The Things We Do: Using the Lessons of Bernard and Darwin to Understand the What, How, and Why of Our Behavior. Cambridge: MIT, 2000. Print.

Powell, Alvin. "'Search until You Find a Passion and Go All out to Excel in Its Expression;' For E. O. Wilson, Wonders Never Cease." Harvard Gazette. Harvard U, 15 Apr. 2014. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.

Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2005. Print.

Segerstrale, Ullica. Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond. New York: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.

Van der Dennen, Johan M. G., David Smillie, and Daniel R. Wilson, eds. The Darwinian Heritage and Sociobiology. Westport: Praeger, 1999. Print.

Weikart, Richard. "Remembering E. O. Wilson and Sociobiology." Evolution News, 4 Jan. 2022, evolutionnews.org/2022/01/remembering-e-o-wilson-and-sociobiology/. Accessed 4 Sept. 2024.

Wilson, Edward O. “The Biological Basis of Morality.” Atlantic Monthly Apr. 1998: 53–70. Print.

Wilson, Edward O. On Human Nature. 1978. Cambridge.: Harvard UP, 2004. Print.

Wilson, Edward O. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. 1975. Cambridge: Belknap , 2000. Print.