← Back to home

Sociobiology

Subdiscipline of biology regarding social behavior

For the book by E. O. Wilson, see Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.

Processes and outcomes

Natural history

History of evolutionary theory

Fields and applications

Social implications

Sociobiology, for those who haven't yet grasped the obvious, is a specialized field within biology that attempts to explain the intricate tapestry of social behavior through the rather inconvenient lens of evolution. It’s not some isolated academic bubble, mind you; it shamelessly draws its foundational theories and observational data from a rather eclectic mix of other disciplines. This intellectual melting pot includes the likes of psychology, the study of animal behavior known as ethology, the sprawling investigation of human cultures in anthropology, the grand narrative of evolution itself, the classification and study of animals in zoology, the dusty relics of archaeology, and the mathematical precision of population genetics. When applied specifically to the labyrinthine structures of human societies, sociobiology finds itself in rather close company with evolutionary anthropology, the somewhat less contentious human behavioral ecology, the often-misunderstood evolutionary psychology (which, frankly, seems to attract more ire than a tax auditor), and even, surprisingly enough, sociology.

At its core, sociobiology doesn't just ponder; it actively investigates the myriad ways organisms interact within their groups. This includes everything from the often-dramatic intricacies of mating patterns, the brutal realities of territorial fights over resources, the coordinated efficiency of pack hunting strategies, and the almost alien complexity of the hive societies found among social insects. The central tenet, the inconvenient truth it posits, is that just as relentless selection pressure has sculpted organisms to develop advantageous anatomical features and physiological processes for surviving and thriving in the natural environment, so too has it driven the genetic evolution of specific social behaviors that confer a reproductive advantage. It's not magic; it's just biology doing what biology does: optimizing for survival and propagation, even if the results aren't always pretty.

While the rather clinical term "sociobiology" might have been bandied about in academic circles as early as the 1940s, it truly burst into the mainstream consciousness—and, predictably, into a maelstrom of scientific controversy—with the monumental publication of E. O. Wilson's seminal work, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, in 1975. This book, a sprawling compendium of biological knowledge, dared to bridge the gap between animal and human social behavior, and the ensuing uproar was, shall we say, predictable. Leading the charge against what they perceived as biological overreach were prominent critics like Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould. Their primary objection revolved around the notion that while genes undeniably play a role in shaping human behavior, complex traits such as aggressiveness could be more adequately explained by the pervasive influence of the social environment, rather than being rigidly determined by underlying biology. Sociobiologists, in a move that should surprise precisely no one familiar with scientific discourse, responded by emphasizing the undeniably complex and often subtle interplay between nature and nurture, a relationship that is far from a simple either/or proposition. In a somewhat less publicized but equally significant development within the sociobiological community, the long-standing debate regarding the relative importance of different levels of selection—individual versus group—was reportedly settled between D.S. Wilson and E.O. Wilson in 2007, though one suspects such settlements are often more truce than permanent peace.

Definition

E. O. Wilson, the figurehead of the modern sociobiology movement, succinctly defined the field as "the extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to social organization." A rather dry definition for a concept that ignited such academic fireworks, wouldn't you agree? It suggests a logical progression, an application of established principles to a new domain, rather than a radical departure.

At its fundamental level, sociobiology operates on the premise that a significant portion of observed behaviors—both those exhibited by individuals and those that characterize social interactions—are at least partially inherited and, crucially, are subject to the molding forces of natural selection. This isn't to say that environment is irrelevant, merely that the biological blueprint provides the initial scaffolding.

The discipline, therefore, embarks on a quest to explain behavior as a direct product of natural selection. From this perspective, every action, every interaction, is implicitly viewed as an adaptive strategy, an effort—conscious or otherwise—to ensure the preservation and propagation of an organism's genetic material within the larger population. Central to this sociobiological line of reasoning is the idea that specific genes or intricate combinations of genes that influence particular behavioral traits can, and indeed do, pass down from one generation to the next. This creates a feedback loop where advantageous behaviors, encoded in the genome, are preferentially selected for, increasing their frequency over time.

Consider, for a moment, the rather brutal example of newly dominant male lions. Upon taking over a pride, these males frequently engage in the infanticidal act of killing cubs they did not sire. From a purely sociobiological standpoint, this seemingly cruel behavior is adaptive. By eliminating the existing cubs, the new male effectively removes competition for his own future offspring, ensuring more resources and attention for his genetic legacy. Furthermore, this grim act often causes the nursing females to cease lactation and come into estrus (heat) much faster, thereby accelerating the timeline for the male to introduce his own genes into the pride's lineage. Sociobiologists would interpret this instinctual cub-killing behavior as a trait that has been inherited through the genes of successfully reproducing male lions. Conversely, any males exhibiting a non-killing behavior, while perhaps more morally palatable to human observers, would likely have been less successful in reproductive terms, and thus their genetic predisposition for non-violence would, over generations, have been selected against, potentially dying out entirely. It's a stark reminder that evolution isn't concerned with sentimentality.

History

The narrative of sociobiology, like most compelling stories, has its share of influential figures and pivotal moments. E. O. Wilson, with his monumental 1975 publication of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, undoubtedly stands as a central, if somewhat polarizing, figure in the modern history of the field.

However, the roots of sociobiological thought stretch back further than many might assume. The philosopher of biology, Daniel Dennett, for instance, proposed that the 17th-century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes could be considered an early, proto-sociobiologist. Dennett argued that in his 1651 magnum opus, Leviathan, Hobbes laid out an explanation for the origins of morals and social order within human society from an inherently amoral, yet distinctly sociobiological, perspective. Hobbes, it seems, understood the raw, self-interested motivations that underpin collective existence long before the double helix was even a glimmer in anyone's eye.

The actual coinage of the term "sociobiology" is attributed to the geneticist specializing in animal behavior, John Paul Scott. He introduced the word at a 1948 conference focused on the intersection of genetics and social behavior. This gathering was notable for its call to integrate both field observations and laboratory studies in the burgeoning research of animal behavior. Scott’s organizational prowess led to the establishment of a "Section of Animal Behavior and Sociobiology" within the Ecological Society of America in 1956, which subsequently evolved into a Division of Animal Behavior of the American Society of Zoology by 1958. It was in 1956 that E. O. Wilson himself first encountered this nascent field of sociobiology, through his PhD student, Stuart A. Altmann. Altmann, who had maintained close ties with the participants of that pivotal 1948 conference, developed his own distinct brand of sociobiology. He applied statistical methods to study the complex social behavior of rhesus macaques and was eventually hired as a "sociobiologist" at the Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center in 1965.

It's important to note that Wilson's particular vision of sociobiology diverged somewhat from the earlier iterations proposed by John Paul Scott or Altmann. Wilson’s approach notably incorporated mathematical models of social behavior, which were heavily influenced by the groundbreaking work of theorists like W. D. Hamilton, Robert Trivers, John Maynard Smith, and George R. Price. These models centered on the concept of maximizing genetic fitness, providing a quantitative framework for understanding altruism and other complex social strategies. What these three distinct sociobiological perspectives—Scott's, Altmann's, and Wilson's—shared in common, however, was a resolute commitment to placing naturalistic studies at the very core of research into animal social behavior. They also actively forged alliances with emerging research methodologies, a critical move at a time when "biology in the field" faced the very real threat of being rendered obsolete by the perceived "modernity" of laboratory studies, mathematical biology, and the then-ascendant field of molecular biology. This was, after all, a battle for scientific relevance, and the stakes were, for some, quite high.

Despite its earlier, more specialized usage, "sociobiology" truly became a household (or at least, a university-hall) term in 1975 with Wilson's aforementioned publication, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. This book, rather than simply introducing a concept, ignited a firestorm of intense public and academic controversy, effectively ensuring that from that point forward, the term "sociobiology" became largely synonymous with Wilson's expansive vision. The book wasn't just a summary; it pioneered and popularized the ambitious endeavor to explain the evolutionary mechanics underpinning a wide array of social behaviors. These included seemingly paradoxical phenomena like altruism, the ever-present reality of aggression, and the fundamental drive of nurturance. Wilson's primary focus, given his own research specialization, was initially on ants and other Hymenoptera, but his scope quickly broadened to encompass other animal species. However, the intellectual current exploring the influence of evolution on behavior was hardly new; it had captivated biologists and philosophers alike from the 19th century onward. Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, penned in the early 1890s, serves as a popular and enduring example of this earlier intellectual lineage, emphasizing cooperation over competition. Notably, the final chapter of Wilson's Sociobiology was devoted to sociobiological explanations of human behavior, a section that proved to be particularly contentious. Wilson later expanded on this human-centric exploration in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, On Human Nature, which directly addressed the thorny issue of human behavior through an evolutionary lens.

Edward H. Hagen, writing in The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, rather boldly declares that sociobiology, despite the persistent public controversy surrounding its application to humans, stands as "one of the scientific triumphs of the twentieth century." He further asserts that "Sociobiology is now part of the core research and curriculum of virtually all biology departments, and it is a foundation of the work of almost all field biologists." One might wonder if the general public has quite caught up with this assessment. Hagen points to the dramatic and continuous increase in sociobiological research on nonhuman organisms, frequently published in the world's most prestigious scientific journals, such as Nature and Science. It seems the science itself is thriving, even if the label remains radioactive in some circles. Indeed, to sidestep the lingering public controversy, the more general and arguably less loaded term behavioral ecology is now commonly substituted, a testament to the enduring human tendency to rename rather than resolve.

Theory

Sociobiology, at its core, is less a collection of disparate observations and more a cohesive theoretical framework built upon the bedrock of evolutionary biology. It posits that behavior, much like physical traits, is a product of deep evolutionary history.

Natural selection

Nikolaas Tinbergen, whose seminal work on animal behavior profoundly influenced the development of sociobiology, provided a framework that remains central to understanding this field.

Sociobiologists steadfastly maintain that the bewildering array of behaviors observed in both humans and other animals can be, at least in part, deciphered and explained as the direct outcome of natural selection. Their contention is clear: to genuinely understand any behavior, it must be subjected to an evolutionary analysis, primarily through the powerful mechanism of natural selection. This isn't merely an academic preference; it's considered an essential prerequisite for any comprehensive understanding. Sociobiology rests upon two foundational premises, which, if you consider them for more than a fleeting moment, are rather difficult to argue against in principle:

  • First, certain behavioral traits are indeed inherited. This implies a genetic component, a blueprint that guides, though perhaps does not absolutely dictate, an organism's behavioral repertoire.
  • Second, these inherited behavioral traits have not simply appeared by chance; rather, they have been meticulously honed and refined over countless generations by the relentless forces of natural selection. This process ensures that behaviors which were adaptive—meaning they conferred a survival or reproductive advantage—in the specific environment where they evolved, are more likely to persist and spread throughout a population.

To systematically investigate animal behavior, sociobiology frequently employs Nikolaas Tinbergen's insightful four questions. These questions serve as a robust framework for seeking comprehensive explanations for any given behavior. The categories of inquiry are neatly divided into two levels: two questions operate at the species level, seeking "ultimate explanations," and two delve into the individual level, providing "proximate explanations."

The species-level categories, often referred to as "ultimate explanations," address the grand evolutionary narrative:

  • What is the adaptive function that a particular behavior serves? In other words, how does this behavior enhance an organism's survival or reproductive success within its ecological niche?
  • What is the historical evolutionary process that, over deep time, led to the development and refinement of this specific functionality? This involves tracing the lineage and selective pressures that shaped the behavior across generations.

The individual-level categories, conversely, are typically labeled "proximate explanations," focusing on the immediate mechanisms and developmental trajectories:

  • How does the behavior develop over the ontogeny of the individual organism? This involves examining the interplay of genetics and environmental influences from conception to maturity.
  • What are the immediate, proximate mechanisms—the underlying physiological and neurological machinery—that drive the behavior? This can include factors such as specific brain anatomy, the intricate dance of hormones, or the firing patterns of neural circuits.

By addressing all four of Tinbergen's questions, sociobiologists aim to construct a holistic understanding of behavior, moving beyond mere description to a deeper appreciation of its evolutionary origins and current manifestations.

In humans

When the conversation inevitably turns to humans, the waters of sociobiology become considerably choppier, as if our species somehow believes itself exempt from the biological rules that govern everything else. Nevertheless, studies in human behavior genetics have consistently revealed that numerous behavioral traits—such as creativity, extroversion, levels of aggressiveness, and even IQ—demonstrate a measurable degree of heritability. This means there's a genetic component contributing to the variation observed in these traits within a population. However, researchers are typically meticulous in pointing out that "heritability" is not synonymous with "immutability." A high heritability estimate does not imply that environmental or cultural factors are irrelevant or that the trait cannot be influenced. It simply quantifies the proportion of variation in a trait within a specific population that can be attributed to genetic differences, under a given set of environmental conditions. To suggest otherwise is a misinterpretation of the highest order, and yet, it persists.

Various theorists, with varying degrees of controversy, have posited that in certain historical or environmental contexts, even behaviors we label as criminal behavior might, in a twisted evolutionary sense, have been adaptive. The evolutionary neuroandrogenic (ENA) theory, proposed by sociologist and criminologist Lee Ellis, offers one such explanation. It suggests that female sexual selection pressures have historically favored and subsequently led to an increase in competitive behaviors among men, which, in some extreme cases, can manifest as criminality. In a related vein, Mark van Vugt argues that a long history of intergroup conflict over resources, particularly among men, has contributed to the observed differences in patterns of violence and aggression between the sexes. The novelist Elias Canetti, a keen observer of human nature, also noted the potential applications of sociobiological theory to cultural practices as deeply ingrained and historically pervasive as slavery and autocracy, suggesting that these power structures might tap into innate human predispositions for dominance and submission. These are not comfortable ideas, but then, truth rarely is.

Genetics

The sheer power that genes wield over behavior is vividly illustrated by studies involving genetic mouse mutants. Take, for example, the transcription factor FEV (also known as Pet1). This particular gene plays a critical role in maintaining the integrity and function of the serotonergic system in the brain, a system intimately involved in regulating mood, impulse control, and, yes, aggressive and anxiety-like behaviors. The experimental evidence is rather compelling: when FEV is genetically deleted from the mouse genome—an intervention that sounds rather dramatic because it is—male mice exhibit an immediate and pronounced propensity to attack other males. This stands in stark contrast to their wild-type counterparts, who typically require a significantly longer period before initiating violent behavior. Furthermore, FEV has been demonstrated to be absolutely essential for the exhibition of correct maternal behavior in mice. In a rather heartbreaking illustration of its importance, offspring of mothers lacking the FEV factor simply do not survive unless they are cross-fostered and raised by other wild-type female mice. It’s a clear, if unsettling, demonstration of how a single gene can orchestrate complex, fundamental behaviors.

While the genetic basis for such instinctive behavioral traits in non-human species, as exemplified by the FEV mouse model, is largely accepted and understood among the vast majority of biologists, the attempt to extend this genetic determinism to explain complex behaviors within human societies has remained, to put it mildly, extraordinarily controversial. The very suggestion often triggers a Pavlovian response of outrage, as if acknowledging a biological component somehow negates human agency or cultural influence. It appears some truths are simply too uncomfortable for general consumption.

Reception

The saga of sociobiology's reception is less a gentle academic discourse and more a protracted intellectual brawl, replete with accusations and counter-accusations. Steven Pinker, ever the provocateur, has argued with characteristic bluntness that many critics have been unduly swayed by political ideologies and an almost visceral fear of biological determinism. He didn't pull punches, accusing figures like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin of being "radical scientists" whose positions on human nature were, in his estimation, more influenced by their political convictions than by rigorous scientific inquiry.

Conversely, Lewontin, alongside Steven Rose and Leon Kamin, drew a crucial distinction between the political and historical context of an idea and its inherent scientific validity. They argued that sociobiology, particularly in its human applications, often faltered on purely scientific grounds, regardless of any ideological baggage. Gould, for his part, was particularly scathing, grouping sociobiology with the morally reprehensible historical movements like eugenics, and dedicating significant portions of his influential book, The Mismeasure of Man, to criticizing both. The animosity was palpable. When Napoleon Chagnon attempted to schedule sessions on sociobiology at the 1976 American Anthropological Association convention, other scholars reportedly attempted to cancel them with what Chagnon later described as "Impassioned accusations of racism, fascism and Nazism." It was only the intervention and support of the esteemed Margaret Mead that allowed the sessions to proceed as planned, a small victory in a larger ideological war.

Even the famously sharp intellect of Noam Chomsky weighed in on sociobiology on several occasions. During a 1976 meeting of the Sociobiology Study Group, as documented by Ullica Segerstråle, Chomsky rather unexpectedly argued for the profound importance of a sociobiologically informed understanding of human nature. He maintained that human beings are, first and foremost, biological organisms and should be studied as such, a stance that directly challenged the prevailing "blank slate" doctrine prevalent in the social sciences at the time. This critique of the blank slate, articulated in his 1975 work Reflections on Language, would later serve as a significant inspiration for much of Steven Pinker's work in evolutionary psychology. Chomsky even went so far as to hint at a possible reconciliation between his own anarchist political views and sociobiology during a discussion of Peter Kropotkin's Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. Kropotkin's work, which emphasized altruism and cooperation over aggression, suggested to Chomsky that anarchist societies might indeed be feasible, precisely because of an innate human tendency towards cooperation. A rather optimistic take, coming from him.

Wilson himself consistently maintained that his intention was never to prescribe what ought to be, but merely to describe what is. However, some critics have, with considerable justification, argued that the language employed in sociobiology often subtly, almost imperceptibly, slips from descriptive "is" statements to prescriptive "ought" statements, thereby committing the classic naturalistic fallacy. It’s a common intellectual trap, and one that is particularly easy to fall into when discussing human behavior. Pinker, in defense of evolutionary perspectives, has argued that opposition to stances perceived as anti-social—such as the concept of ethnic nepotism, a notion that understandably makes many uncomfortable—is ultimately rooted in deeply held moral assumptions. This, he contends, means such opposition is not truly falsifiable by scientific advancement, as it rests on a moral rather than empirical foundation. The complex, often acrimonious, history of this debate and others like it are meticulously chronicled in works by Cronin (1993), Segerstråle (2000), and Alcock (2001), for those who enjoy watching intellectual gladiators clash.

See also

For those who wish to delve deeper into the intricate web of disciplines that intersect with, or have sprung from, the sociobiological paradigm, consider exploring the following related fields. Each offers a unique perspective on the biological underpinnings of social and psychological phenomena, often with their own distinct controversies and insights.

Notes

  • ^ Biological determinism was a philosophical stance that underpinned the often-problematic social Darwinian and eugenics movements of the early 20th century. It also played a significant, and often controversial, role in historical debates surrounding intelligence testing. The fear of its resurgence often fuels much of the resistance to sociobiological explanations of human behavior.