The social and behavioral sciences should be seriously studied, not only for their intrinsic interest, but so that the student can be made quite aware of exactly how little they have to say about the problems of man and society that really matter.
—Noam Chomsky

   Every mature field of science has its unifying idea, yet some unifying ideas are so powerful that they extend their influence beyond their field of origin. Evolution is such an idea, and second only to atomic theory in importance. Darwin's seminal work not only revolutionized biology, but affected almost all spheres of human thought. To use the terminology of the late philosopher Thomas Kuhn, evolution brought about one of the greatest paradigm shifts in human history. The other great scientific achievement of the 19th century, Maxwell's equations, pales by comparison of its direct impact on humanity.

   Evolution dealt a particularly powerful blow to the religions, philosophies and world-views of many societies around the globe. No longer was it tenable to view humanity as separate or superior to the natural world. The geological and physiological evidence for our primate origins was very strong in Darwin's time, and with the advances of molecular biology, anthropology, and astronomy a century later, our humble origins have been firmly established. We are but one young branch in the wondrous and ancient tree of life.

   What, then, can evolutionary theory tell us about ourselves, surely one of the most interesting and urgent questions? Since the mind is seated in the brain, and the brain is physical and organic, it must have been subject to the same overall processes of natural selection as any other product of evolution, i.e. its present form developed as an adaptation to the environment. It must have aided in our ancestor's ability to survive to have endured through the ages. Thus some biologists and social scientists, representing hybrid fields such as sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, hold that we can fruitfully analyze human behavior within the framework of evolutionary principles, as is done for other animals.

   E.O. Wilson, the famed naturalist and writer of the controversial and definitive books Sociobiology and On Human Nature, greatly expounded the sociobiological approach to understanding humanity. He begins the latter work with a discussion of biological attributes and behaviors common to all human beings and societies (such as language acquisition and incest taboos), along with evidence for genetically transmitted tendencies in behavior, as revealed through twin studies. Explanations for what we observe are correlated with what we know about early prehistoric human existence, and by their evolutionary fitness value. So, for example, we find that most cultures have an insular and self-important view of themselves, readily dividing the world into friends and enemies; a result consistent with the localized social structure of hunter-gatherers, by far the oldest social organization for humans. Another example would be how the superiority in strength and speed of males versus females, on average, is reflected in social roles adopted, even in some remarkably egalitarian cultures such as the !Kung bushmen of the Kalahari, who raise their male and female children in identical manners. Without any significant differences in upbringing, sex roles still emerge in time: men tend to hunt and roam afar, while women take responsibility for more sedentary tasks.

   After considerable discussion of the biological heritage and corresponding biological constraints on individuals and society, Wilson goes on to analyze four significant features of humanity: aggression, sex, altruism, and religion, using supposedly universal traits to deduce what our ultimate nature might be. Perhaps in a depressingly predictable fashion, he observes that we are innately aggressive, sexually selfish, limited in our altruism, and practice religion for social stability and individual gratification.

   Throughout Wilson's book and in similar works by others, two principal questions are raised. What is human nature, as evolutionary biology dictates it? And, how far can our nature be changed? But it is interesting to ask if these questions are even appropriate, as several factors complicate the analysis of human beings that do not significantly complicate the analysis of animals and their social structures. Two of these are culture and social context.

   The development of human language and consequently culture is among the most significant in the history of life on Earth, for it permitted a new channel for learned behaviors and knowledge to be transmitted from generation to generation. With culture, the social structure of humanity could be modified at incredible speed. Unlike the glacially slow and uncertain manner of Darwinian evolution, cultural change takes place in a Lamarckian fashion whereby changes (or knowledge) can be immediately transmitted to the next generation.

   Sociobiologists argue that “…the genes hold culture on a leash.” (Wilson, On Human Nature). Culture is not infinitely malleable, and we can indeed find many common traits in a global survey. But specifying the constraints still leaves enormous regions of uncharted territory where Darwinian evolution can shed no light on human behavior or society. Phenomena such as the economy, complex political structures, the arts, and mass movements such as revolutions do not yield to analyses of their genetic fitness. The many phenomena of culture and advanced civilization are beyond the realms of biology to sensibly explain or predict.

   In his famous work The Two Cultures, C.P. Snow observed that the physical sciences posses an internal discipline lacking in the social sciences and humanities, even if the latter use the tools of the former. The physical and natural sciences have Nature as both taskmaster and fixed subject matter, and it is difficult to propagate experimental error for very long before other scientists take notice. The social sciences often have no such discipline and thus are inherently less rigorous in weeding out falsities; ideas that are popular or enjoy the patronage of society's powerful can survive regardless of their factual merit or lack thereof. Unpopular ideas, no matter their merit, are more easily ignored than in the physical sciences, where concrete consequences result. You cannot design a rocket without accounting for gravity, but you can run an economy or propose an ideology without accounting for reality or even historical facts (such as the lack of a single historical example of a country dveloping successfully through free trade). Without a reality or context check by an agent outside of human existence, there is much greater margin for biased and incomplete sampling in the social sciences.

   Analyzing the analyses of sociobiologists reveals this tendency rather clearly. Wilson did not, for example, try to explain friendship or popular struggles in evolutionary terms. Why make friends at all in the social calculus of human relations, when it would clearly benefit our genes' perpetuation to ally with family and relatives alone? Why is there a persistent, undying tendency for human beings to assert their independence and win their freedom, despite seemingly hopeless odds and vicious oppression? No slave society has lasted long before internal corruption, as Wilson notes in his book, yet he does not dwell on this fascinating and inspiring human trait to be free. Furthermore, why art, music, literature? Of what benefit are they to genetic fitness? Creativity is in fact very useful to survival, but again it is seldom in the samples of the sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists.

   In this light, it is not surprising that so much of what passes for objective and scientific analysis of human society are little more than justifications and alibis for the existing social structures and institutions. Society did not always have as its canon individual material gain at the expense of community, but we can always interpret human nature as demanding nothing else in life, if we wish to. To focus on aggression, sex, and selfish altruism is convenient, but neither complete nor honest. In Wilson's book alone, Marxism, communism and socialism are all seen as counter to “human nature”, but it is never asked if our own system of predatory industrial-state capitalism is congruent with human nature.

   Other logical and knowledge flaws abound with current biological and evolutionary inquires into human nature. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, points out that if aggression is really an innate feature of humanity, we should always see it expressed as continually warlike behavior. But, in fact, cultures change in their attitudes towards violence, sometimes dramatically in as short a time as a single generation. Our understanding of evolution is also far from complete, for there is much evidence to support the importance of cooperative, not competitive, evolutionary mechanisms, particularly in symbiotic relationships. The modern cell is an aggregate of older units that once lived independently (the cellular organelles mitochondria have separate DNA, for example), and it seems that complex multicellular life could not have arisen if simpler units had not joined forces. If and when cooperation is given its rightful importance in evolution, we can expect the focus of “human nature” studies to shift accordingly to more optimistic visions.

   Biology may be ready to take the first steps at defining “human nature,” but little more. Too often, the analyses fail to examine the depth and variety of humanity and, while making the pretense of objective analysis, slip into producing alibis for the prevailing culture. Meanwhile, the problems of man and society that matter, such as the fair and efficient distribution of resources, sustainable development, and the creation of just and meaningful work and societies, can find no solution in simplistic evolutionary analyses. We should cease rationalizing and begin questioning our assumptions of ourselves, and a more complete knowledge of history would be a prerequisite to self-inquiry. To understand our own nature might never be an easy endeavor, but with immense global problems of poverty and pollution already present and growing, it may very well be essential to our survival.

Kai Wu was editor in chief of the SciTech from its founding until last May, when the college adventure ended. He's now a wage-slave in New York City, where his Cornell degree is used to edit science books and chide academics for their lack of clarity and concision. Nevertheless, he reminds our faithful readers that, as was mentioned, no slave society endures forever.

Further Reading:
1. On Human Nature, Sociobiology, and In Search of Nature by E.O. Wilson
2. The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould
3. The Two Cultures by C.P. Snow
4. Declarations on Independence and A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
5. The Awakening of Intelligence and Think on These Things by J. Krishnamurti