An Almighty Alpha: How Our Primate Heritage Contributes to Belief in Gods

360 Degree Skeptic: Thinking Critically Without Limit

“Egalitarianism is not based on mutual love and even less on passivity. It’s an actively maintained condition that recognizes the universal human desire to control and dominate. Instead of denying the will to power, egalitarians know it all too well. They deal with it every day….In egalitarian societies, men tying to dominate others are systematically undermined, and male pride is frowned upon.” – Franz de Wall (8)

While social groups with a power structure categorizable as egalitarian may attain and benefit from a relatively harmonious state of social relationships lacking in physical violence and resource inequity (in access or possession), it would be naive to conclude that these social groups rely on completely different psychological elements from which they the structure is built. Certainly, in more egalitarian societies non-paternalistic philanthropic feelings can florish. Goodwill towards all mankind and all that. But are the building blocks of such societies different, or is just the end result?

My guess is just the end result. For even today people endowed with the same social propensities can build and function within a full range of social structures, from brutally despotic to pervasively empathic and compassionate. What determines the social structure individuals build? A number of key things, as we will see. However, at this point it may be advantageous to identify how human psycho-social building blocks can be differently employed.

While it may appear that in egalitarian societies people care more about one another, what makes the structure it is may consist of an effective group monitoring and disapproval of individuals with hierarchical strivings. As the lead quote maintains. Despots, in effect, are nipped in the bud. Exclusively selfish, violent strivings are governed down by tacit group rule. Rather than social power not being an issue in these societies, the power is spread much thinner. And so it is more difficult to recognize.

Rather than a society of “all roses and lute music,” more egalitarian structures are those in which individual vigilance and striving remain, but are put to the task of keeping others from dominating. Rather than an attitude of “who might beat me?” and “who might I beat?” there is one of “who might cheat the system?” and perhaps, “how might I cheat?”

It is, of course, fully possible if not likely that egalitarian societies contain happier citizens, on average. Some roses and lute music. My guess is that there might even be measurably lower average cortisol levels (9) in members due to the lesser threat of violence breaking out. That said, however, no social system is stress-free.

Of course, some of the satisfaction provided by more egalitarian societies might come not from perceptions that “we are all equal” but from the comfort that “few or none are better than me, and can thus boss me around.”

Consider the contemporary relationship between status and social esteem. Sure, owning a house is nice, but how nice is it when compared to the neighbors’? To your cohorts’? 1500 square feet may have been luxuriant in some other time, but don’t think a home that small is going to win you any wows today.

We are social animals. Not only do our social groups and the structure of these change, but the thinking and values of group members can change. One thing that doesn’t appear to change, however, is the our social nature, our inborn concern about what our groupmates are doing, how much they are esteemed by others. Relationships and coalitions are instinctively valued resource, even when food and mates are plentiful and/or can’t be hoarded by others.

—

(8) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 74
(9) Cortisol is a stress hormone.

Technorati Links: sociology, status

In this coming series of posts (in this category — what will become a chapter in my Almighty Alpha book) I will examine the line between hierarchical social organizations (power progressively concentrated in the few or one at the top) and egalitarian (power more equitably shared by all).

Boehm himself concluded that whether or not Homo sapiens is a hierarchical species is a controversial issue. (2) And there are certainly those who argue that we are not, not by nature, anyway. Eight years before Boehm’s book appeared, Margaret Power released, The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee. She wrote:

“In most gathering-hunting societies the woman occupies a position of prestige equal to that of the man and is recognized as being equally important.” (3)

While I might argue with the qualifier “most,” there are other, perhaps more important, issues raised by her statement. Two immediately come to mind: 1) How do we determine whether or not a society is egalitarian? Just knowing one by seeing one? That’s not very scientific. 2) Are there perhaps many shades of gray–social groups that are neither outright egalitarian nor outright hierarchical, but some hybrid of the two?

As for the most–really? For a single counter-point, there is this group of Amazon hunter-gatherers:

The Matses are polygamists with each man having one or more wives. Until recently, the Matses men commonly kidnapped and assimilated women from other tribes (or Peruvian and Brazilian women) into Matsés society. (4)

Okay, so maybe that is one exception to what is otherwise the rule. But what is the rule?

The Wikipedia entry on the subject has this:

Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. This might have been more pronounced in the more mobile societies, which generally are not able to store surplus food. Thus, full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by these societies. [bold mine] (5)

Are hunter-gatherer societies remarkably egalitarian? Some of them no doubt are, perhaps most. Apparently. I say apparently for two reasons. First, because a social group is not overtly hierarchical does not mean it is thus purely egalitarian. There can be types and degrees of both: more-hierarchical social structures and more-egalitarian. Second, because we don’t readily perceive the dynamics of power attainment, signaling and protection, for they could be quite subtle, doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

The previously mentioned Christopher Boehm expressed an interesting perception of egalitarian social structures. He described them as “inverted hierarchies.” (6) In a traditional hierarchy, there is one individual at the top, keeping others down, so to speak. He or she may form coalitions to help fortify his/her position, but the top-most position is singular. In an egalitarian society, it is the “others,” functioning as a group or loose-knit coalition, that have the power and work to keep single, aspiring despots down. If the do have rulers and/or figureheads, they serve at the groups’ pleasure. (Much more on this later.)

We can see that even within more egalitarian social structures, power is an issue. Yes, power is more equably spread, but it is still a socially important and behavior-organizing feature. Additionally, coalitions tend to play an even larger role in more egalitarian societies. There is strength in numbers.

In more egalitarian societies power lies in the hands of many group members; in hierarchical societies the power lies in fewer hands, with a clearer delineations of rank. But just how different is a coalition holding power over individuals from an individual holding power over a social group? An inverted hierarchy, indeed.

Perhaps in egalitarian societies we see manifest the informal politics of coalitions.

The following quote by Paul Ehrlich says a lot -

“Thus, in the transition to modern hunting and gathering Homo sapiens, there must have been a general trend toward softening of chimp-like dominance hierarchies, enabling evolution of the increasingly egalitarian, nonstratified societies that many scholars believe were characteristic of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. In them, coalitions presumably would have limited the power of otherwise dominant individuals. Furthermore, given that early hunting and gathering societies rarely had surpluses of food, the advantage of dominance would have been less than in agricultural societies. In the latter, as we will see, dominant individuals could appropriate the surpluses for themselves and begin the process of stratification and specialization that led to political states.”
(7)

In this quote we can see that progress toward or away from more hierarchical toward more egalitarian social structures did not occur in a vacuum. No, it was not some inevitable moral progress that led to the decline of strict hierarchies. Other factors were involved. Which we will explore.

—

(1) See de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001 & Maestripieri, D., Macachiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and Humans Have Conquered the World, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007
(2) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
(3) Power, M. The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1991, p.197
(4) http://www.matses.info/
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
(6) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
(7) Ehrlich, P. R., Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2000. p.209

Technorati Links: evolution, psychology

“The consensus is much as Wood concluded, ‘it is at present unclear with which of the two extant species of Pan the modern H. sapiens should be compared.’” Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D (35)

A number of people have argued that the bonobo is better suited for designation as the early human prototype. If that is the case, why is it that chimpanzees are documented tool-users, but not bonobos? That alone nearly bumps the bonobo from contention. Of course, the either/or reasoning is mistaken. Either the chimpanzee is our behavioral precursor, or the bonobo.

Frans de Waal writes,

“We have the fortune of having not one but two inner apes, which together allow us to construct an image of ourselves that is considerably more complex than what we have heard coming out of biology for the past twenty-five years.”(36)

In the least, the early ancestry of our kind is still in unclear. Will Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus) and other yet uncovered ancient primate remains come to our rescue? For now, the issue remains a puzzle with few pieces from which to construct a bigger picture. As this passage from essay “African Apes As Time Machines” illustrated:

“‘About 5 million years ago forest-ranging, knuckle-walking apes–much like the living chimpanzees–evolved…into the earliest humans…(A. L. Zihlman, 1978)’. This view has successfully challenged alternatives such as the prebrachiatrionist model (descent from a generalized terrestrial quadrupedal ape), the gibbon model (descent from a terrestrial gibbon), and the Miocene fossil model (descent from a thick-enameled magadont). Increasingly strong support has come from our growing confidence in the molecular evidence that human and chimpanzee lineages diverged after the split with gorillas; the recognition that Pan is little changed phenotypically from the African ape ancestor; and the discovery that the earliest known australopithecine fossils (probably within 1-2 million years of their likely split from the chimpanzee lineage) have more chimpanzee-like features than do later species. For such reasons, “the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees was probably chimpanzee-like, a knuckle-walker with small thin-enameled cheek teeth.” (37)

Again, Frans de Waal approaches the question of the human ancestral prototype, as seen through current cousin species, with an informed reasonableness -

“Instead of inquiring which species, the bonobo or the chimpanzee, most resembles us humans, we can more fruitfully ask which elements of our social life are shared with one or the other and which elements are uniquely ours.”
(38)

From within that quote we can extract this essential point: we are bags of genes (so to speak). We have inherited not one monolithic genetic package from the past, but individual genes and gene-strings, no doubt. From many diverse sources. We are not the fruit of a single tree of life, but of a bush. Sure, our lineage can seem neat and clean when we follow a line of paternity (usually) backwards. But really. Each of us has two parents, four grandparents, 16 great-grandparents, etc. A clean line of descent is surely a handy illusion.

We share genes with many cousin species. In the end, a piecemeal approach to speculations of the origin of human nature might be wiser. Thanks to the cut and splice nature of chromosomal reproduction, we arrive at this insight: Each individual, each species, that ever lifted itself off the table of creation could be named “Frankenstein.”

—–

(35) Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D., “African Apes As Time Machines,” in Galdikas, B. M. F., Briggs, N. E., Sheeran, L.K., Shapiro, G. L. & Goodall, J. (Eds.), All Apes Great and Small, Volume I: African Apes, Kluwer Academic / Plenum, New York, 2001, p. 6
(36) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 237
(37) Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D., 2001, p. 5
(38) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989
p.227

Technorati Links: evolution, psychology

“When relations between human societies are bad, they are worse than between chimps, but when they are good, they are better than between bonobos.”
- Franz de Waal (27)

Human beings are not “just” another, albeit naked, chimpanzee-like primate. We’ve got cognitive abilities and social habits that, if not fully unique to our kind, then are at least developed to a degree well beyond that of chimps and bonobos. Perhaps the flexibility/variability of our behavior is the most startling and important divergence of all.

As Paul Ehrlich described the situation, there seems to be greater variation among human group and human group (and individual/individual) than there is between any two primate species.(28) Of course, my skeptical self wonders just how sensitive/perceptive we are to the many-hued spectrum of animal behavior, particularly that are beyond the most visible part of the spectrum — to us.

Many human intellectuals (is there such a thing as a chimp, bonobo or orangutan intellectual?) have claimed that what separates us from the relatively slacking pack of the rest of the animal kingdom is language. No other species, after all, spends as much time thinking up lyrics to a song on this theme: “Oh baby, I really, really want you.”

Kidding aside — the use of fire, at least when viewed from a distance, ranks somewhere high on the list of special, and truly unique, human behaviors. Fire allows for the cooking of food, and cooked foodstuffs tend to be much more digestible than raw.(29) An added benefit would be burning away infectious microbes. Equipped with fire, our kind can not only digest more of the food we collect, but we can also expand our pantry, so to speak, to include otherwise less-edible foods.

“Because cooking caused the diet to be softer and more readily digested, it can readily account for the reduction in tooth area and gut size, as well as the increased energy needed for fueling a larger brain.” (30)

The use of fire for cooking is certainly a hallmark of the human. How else might we be distinctly different? (Beyond language and tool use.)

What about this class of behaviors as a potentially defining hallmark of humanity: insubordination? Yes, insubordination. No species is so good at circumventing and even toppling authority than our own.

As Christopher Boehm has discussed at length in his book, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, we are an uppity lot. As I will more completely explore in the next series of posts for my Almighty Alpha project (chapter title: “The Egalitarian Ape: All for All and None for One”), humans are cleverly capable coalition-builders. By acting collectively, the lessers can rise in power and/or reduce the power of others.(31)

Call it teamwork. That might just be the sine qua non of human uniqueness.

The power of coalitions is simple math: two males are twice the male as one. Additionally, with two agents the number of potential strategies increases. And while chimpanzees and bonobos manifest the social smarts necessary to create advantageous alliances, none come close to developing that set of skills to the extent we do. As a tool, perhaps this category of social behavior is unparalleled in its potential power. It is certainly unequaled among primates.(32) Was Homo habilis as handy, or more, with his and her social relationships?

Of course, that social “handiness” can manifest itself in ways we tend to view as “unseemly.” Perhaps we have simply excelled at behavioral avenues first paved by chimpanzees, including “lethal raiding, traditions of material culture, group hunting, intense male-bonding, male dominance over females.”(33) Any tool can be used numerous ways.

Granted, compared to us, the chimpanzee is a brutish creature. Yet perhaps even the chimp and/or the bonobo represent a step in the more “civilized” direction (socially crafty?). The chimpanzee is actually quite a remarkable creature in its own right. “More evolved,” one might argue, than other primate species. (34)

As for human beings, it is my opinion that even at our most emotionally sophisticated, our most socially . . . servile(?), we retain if not hair, figuratively speaking, then at least goose bumps — the remnants of a social piloerection system we still carry today.

It is also my opinion that many religious beliefs manifest not divine nature, but that of the primate. Concerns about sex, group violence, social strivings . . . it’s all there. When will we clearly see it?

—

(27) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p.141
(28) Ehrlich, P. R., Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2000, p.12
(29) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p. 137
(30) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), 2001, p. 138
(31) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 170
(32) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p. 232
(33) Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D., “African Apes As Time Machines,” in Galdikas, B. M. F., Briggs, N. E., Sheeran, L.K., Shapiro, G. L. & Goodall, J. (Eds.), All Apes Great and Small, Volume I: African Apes, Kluwer Academic / Plenum, New York, 2001.
(34) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986 , p. 442

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, primates

“The behavior of bonobos, unfortunately, is much less well known than that of chimps, and further study might reveal a darker side to their natures.” – Paul Ehrlich (19)

Compared to gorillas and chimpanzees, bonobos have some physical proportions that suggest movement toward the human. For example, their skulls are smaller to overall body size.(20) Do bonobos likewise have behavioral traits that suggest movement away from the more ‘barbarian’ ape toward the more ‘civilized’ human? While a number of people have described the bonobo as a relatively egalitarian ape (an early form of the liberal democrat?), many recognize some of the factors, rather than an innate goodness, that contribute to the behavioral differences we describe as more egalitarian.

Frans de Waal, in Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, says this about the bonobo: “They are better described as tolerant than egalitarian.”(21) In his book about the roots of human egalitarian behavior, USC biological anthropologist Christopher Boehm recognizes that the strength of female coalitions ‘puts a lid on’ the heirarchical strivings of male bonobos.(22) Lacking the strong female coalitions, how would the males behave?

Besides the above question, and pertinent to it, is it possible that our limited understanding of bonobos has misled us? In Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Ehrlich noted,

“Although bonobos are not as well studied as chimpanzees, we do known that there are also many aggressive interactions among males of that species. Individuals hit, bite, slap, shove, grab, and otherwise abuse one another and use a variety of bluffing and charging displays. Aggression by a dominant male is countered with various submissive reactions by lower-ranking males, including appeasing the aggressor by permitting him to mount.” (23)

Hmm. Maybe bonobos aren’t all that different from chimpanzees. Has the positive been accentuated to a degree that distorts? Besides all the seemingly friendly sex and lack of a preeminent male dominance structure, bonobo males do threaten one another by glaring and gesturing, as they also make submissive signs via hand-extension and prostrations. (24)

Perhaps the observed behavioral differences between chimpanzees and bonobos is not so much about their innate nature as it is about differing environments. Maybe both the chimp and the bonobo are somewhat like Swiss Army knives (less so than humans, of course), and their evident “nature” will change along with local conditions. Two naturally manipulated variables that confront the bonobo, and likely shape its behavior, are likely key to their relatively placid demeanor.

In bonobos, female ovulation is more concealed. (Is this an environmental factor? For the males it is.) Does this fact play a role in an equalizing of the power dynamics between the sexes? Is this one of the reasons why a bonobo alpha female is apparently as dominant as the alpha male? It very well could be. For, as Freud speculated in his theorizing about the centrality of libido to human behavior — for without procreation and the desire for it, this is no human — sex is extremely important to animals. With concealed ovulation comes lesser opportunity and incentive for males to fight over, guard, and “possess” females as a resource when they are visibly fertile.

Yet even with sex relatively crossed out of the equation, bonobos do display hierarchical behaviors. In fact, bonobos display more fighting and dominance behaviors than chimps around food.(25)

Besides reproduction, what resources do primates fight over? Food might be the second most important resource and something worth battling for. Robert Wrangham speculates that a key environmental difference for the bonobo — one that has shaped their behavior in the short and long terms — is the absence of gorillas in bonobo forests. This absence may have made foraging for foliage foods easier and less dangerous. Is this, too, partly responsible for the seeming diminished aggressiveness of male bonobos? But what of the “more fighting” around food mentioned above? Are in-group skirmishes something distinct from out-group aggressiveness?

Wrangham writes, “The idea that selection for reduced male aggressiveness produces bonobo-like features is supported by data on domesticated mammals.”(26) The bonobo male: more puppy-like than the chimpanzee?

Aha! What are humans but upright apes that retain many juvenile characteristics? (It’s called neotony.) Good question. There is one thing I think we can be fairly confident about, however. Neither the chimpanzee nor the bonobo provides a perfect glimpse into our behavioral past.

—

(19) Ehrlich, P. R., Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2000, p. 210
(20) Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D., “African Apes As Time Machines,” in Galdikas, B. M. F., Briggs, N. E., Sheeran, L.K., Shapiro, G. L. & Goodall, J. (Eds.), All Apes Great and Small, Volume I: African Apes, Kluwer Academic / Plenum, New York, 2001, p.13
(21) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 84
(22) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.30
(23) Ehrlich, P. R., 2000, p. 206
(24) King, Barabara, The Dynamic Dance: Nonvocal Communication in African Great Apes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004, p.163
(25) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999
(26) Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D., 2001, p.12

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, primates

By definition human beings are the most civilized species. The online dictionary, thefreedictionary.com, provides this on civilized:

Having a highly developed society and culture.

“Highly” is certainly the operative word here. Chimps do live in implicitly organized, social groups that pass on behavioral habits (customs) to their offspring. So the difference is one of degree. At least beyond the gadgets, goods and tools provided by high technology that the vast majority of us own and use but in no way deserve credit for developing.

Still, chimps can be quite brutish, indeed. Is the bonobo a “more civilized” cousin better suited to be first-in-line for comparison to our kind? Consider sexual behavior. (Sexual behavior and civility? Yes. Hang with me.) Female bonobos are in a sexual attractive state for 3/4 of their cycle (chimps – 1/2); they have more forward-facing openings to their vagina and, not surprisingly, engage in frequent face-to-face sexual intercourse. (11)

How does this pertain to being more civil, more community-friendly? It is believed that frequent, face-to-face sexual activity can help establish and maintain a pair bond. And pair bonds (monogamous behavior) leads to family-friendly, less strife-filled communities.

In a sense, political conservatives have it right. Strong pair bonds can play a role in a more tranquil society. Of course, their insistence on procreation-only sex is ludicrous. In humans and in bonobos, they idea is frequent sex for the sake of social relations.

But here’s the thing. Bonobos don’t form long-lasting male-female pair bonds. In a sense, they extend their sexuality further into their social group. At times they seem to use it as the equivalent of the human handshake. And, brace yourself, female-to-female clitoral rubbing is fairly common.

So while both the bonobo and human appear to use sexuality as a sort of social glue (lubricant?), with humans the sphere of seeming recreational sexual activity is at least overtly constrained to the pair bond (or pre-pair bond).

Relevantly, primatologist Frans de Waal includes discussion of bonobo sexuality in his book, Peacemaking Among Primates. If humans engage in “make-up” sex, bonobos are masters at it.

The “free love” aspect of bonobo behavior does have this additional consequence (and a very socially significant consequence it is): when females are freely polyamorous, it removes male sexual possessiveness from dominance disputes.(12) And, judging by bonobo male behavior, subtracting the resource of wombs (as the only way to bring progeny to fruition) from the equation of hierarchical motivations substantial deflates its importance. Without sex as a motive for males to squabble about, battle, posture, etc., what other reasons are there? Food maybe, better nesting sites, I guess. It seems that males just don’t get all that riled up about climbing a ladder of dominance if all it leads to is a better night’s rest.

As a direct result of sexual access to females being largely removed from group dynamics, the bonobo has been called the “egalitarian ape.” Funny, subtract sexual possessiveness and jealousy, etc., from a social group and it’s amazing how well everyone can get along. Of course, easier said than done, especially for some species more than others.

Female human beings, of course, do not display the same degree of polyamorous behavior. Does their potential merely lie latent? What about human males — are they sexually possessive? The answer to this question will help us determine whether or not the bonobo is a closer behavioral cousin to our kind than the chimpanzee.

Beyond the male bonobo being individually less despotic in behavior — attempting to rule by brute force — than the male chimp, “adult male-male bonds are not as pronounced in any known bonobo population as they are among chimpanzees.” (13)

As a number primatologists have hinted, the subtraction of male sexual possessiveness (of female wombs as a resource that can be successfully hoarded and guarded) can explain a lot of the bonobo’s apparent pacifism. Other resources instead become the focus of bonobo political behavior (the investment-in and protection-of social relations for ultimately pragmatic reasons).

A number of writers have pointed to the bonobo as a more “feminist” primate. And, indeed,

“As a result of such maternal interventions, the highest-ranking males in a bonobo community tend to be the sons of the highest-ranking females. Male alliances are little developed, which allows females to exert considerable influence.” (14)

But this has nothing to do with any inherent value or worth of females, or males for that matter. Ultimate male/female status or worth is a narrow-minded human concern. Are males better? Better for what? Are females better? Better for what?

As for a maternalistic social organization (hierarchy), while this is a fascinating difference from what you find in chimpanzee social groups, the structure nonetheless serves a purpose. The important question is: what purpose is that? Behind supposedly more or less virtuous behavior and social relations we will find important, pragmatic consequences. At least historically so.

Consider this test case: bonobos seem to have more “relaxed” inter-group interactions.(15) Is this because the bonobos are a more highly evolved creature? What’s the advantage, in terms of natural selection, for that? Is it possible that the more placid inter-group interactions are primarily the result of such things as less sexual conflict between groups and other things, such as abundance of food, hence a reduced incentive to view others as a threat to valued resources?

So sure, there is a notable “lack of male-female aggression and inter-community violence” in bonobos, relative to chimps. (16) Still, as Christopher Boehm, author of Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, has argued, it is possible that the Swiss-Army blade of potential bonobo male hierarchical strivings is not wholly absent, but successfully “counterbalanced by coalitions of females.” (17)

Once again, we should wonder what political purpose these female coalitions serve. For evolution cares not a whit about virtue in a vacuum.

As it turns out, bonobos may not be so fully peace-love-and-equality primates after all. In his book on human evolution, Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Frans de Wall makes these somewhat contrarian points about the bonobo:

1. Female bonobos do seem to establish hierarchies, though these are more loosely guarded and appear to be based on age and residency.

2. Males do compete for rank, sometimes fiercely at times. Their overall status, however, seems strongly influenced by the status of the individual’s mother.

3. In a turn of the tables, females will hoard and guard prized foods — a valued resource. They will freely fend off males and thus “dominate” them. (18)

My guess is that if you were to place chimpanzees in physical and social environments similar to the bonobo . . . they would become more bonobo-like in behavior. Over time.

What is the nature of human beings in our own time? Good question.

These words of another blues song just caught my attention: “I’m going to kill my old lady, I caught her messing with another man.”

Sexual possessiveness anyone?

Chimpanzee, bonobo: does one primate represent the worst of human behavior, the other the better? Maybe. At least at first glance. We’ll be taking a second glance at the bonobo next.

—

(11) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989
(12) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
(13) King, B., The Dynamic Dance: Nonvocal Communication in African Great Apes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004, p. 33
(14) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p. 58
(15) Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D., “African Apes As Time Machines,” in Galdikas, B. M. F., Briggs, N. E., Sheeran, L.K., Shapiro, G. L. & Goodall, J. (Eds.), All Apes Great and Small, Volume I: African Apes, Kluwer Academic / Plenum, New York, 2001, p.13
(16) King, B., 2004, p. 31
(17) Boehm, C., 1999, p. 30
(18) de Waal, F. B. M., 2001, “Apes from Venus: Bonobos and Human Social Evolution,” page 56.

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, primates

In their monograph, “African Apes As Time Machines,” (7) R. Wrangham and D. Pilbeam point out distinctive bonobo traits, features seemingly shared with our kind, including these five:

1. extensive non-conceptive sexuality

Bonobos “do it” even when offspring will not be the result. Females remain sexually active when not ovulating.

Humans? Ditto.

2. friendship among adult females

Female bonobos have relatively extensive, non-direct-kin social relations.

Human females? One need not tune in to The View to find evidence of this.

3. relatively egalitarian males

While male chimps are clearly hyper-attuned to individual status within the troop — the pecking order and all that — male bonobos don’t show the same preoccupation, at least not to the same degree. The difference between the big male of their patch of jungle and the lesser males is not as great.

Human males? Under many conditions that is definitely the case.

4. sexual conciliatory behavior

Two bonobos, even same-sex females via clitoral-rubbing, will use sex as a means of patching up a temporarily torn relationship.

Humans? Already established couples certainly seem to engage in what has been called “make-up sex.” But casual sex for the purpose of relationship repair?

5. potentially relaxed intergroup interactions

When two chimpanzee groups meet, the males typically go apoplectic. There is a great ruckus, with threat displays breaking out. Bonobo males are not equally xenophobic.

Human males? I suppose it depends upon the circumstance.

Besides behavioral traits, are bonobos more human-like than chimpanzees in terms of any physiological characteristics? Actually, the bonobo does have some physical traits that suggest closer kinship to our kind.

In her monograph, “Reconstructions reconsidered: chimpanzee models and human evolution,” Adrienne Zihlman points out these three (8):

1. smaller facial and canine measures

Bonobos have smaller canines than chimpanzees. And those of humans are even smaller.

2. smaller body size

Relative to chimps, human bodies are proportionately long on limbs. Same with bonobos.

3. relative limb length

Bonobos have longer legs relative to their arms than do chimps. Same with humans. Both humans and bonobos, not coincidentally, have greater bone density in their legs (femur and tibia) than do chimpanzees. And relative to chimpanzees, bonobos are much better at bipedal standing and locomotion.

Chimp expert extraordinare, Frans de Waal, has recognized the significant physiological similarities (relative) of the bonobo and human.

“The bonobo’s body proportions, especially its relatively heavy legs, are closer to those of Australopithecus than the proportions of any other living ape. Bonobos stand and walk on two legs more often, and with greater ease, than common chimpanzees, who do not straighten their backs as much.” (10)

But maybe the kinship is only skin-deep. What about behavior?

In upcoming posts we will take a look at the different behaviors of bonobos as they pertain to both sex and ingroup harmony as well as out-group relations (reaction to foreign conspecifics). Finally, we’ll end with reasons for caution and doubt when considering crowning the bonobo as the preeminent proto-human.

—

(7) Wrangham, R. & Pilbeam, D., “African Apes As Time Machines,” in Galdikas, B. M. F., Briggs, N. E., Sheeran, L.K., Shapiro, G. L. & Goodall, J. (Eds.), All Apes Great and Small, Volume I: African Apes, Kluwer Academic / Plenum, New York, 2001, p.13
(8) Zihlman, A., “Reconstructions reconsidered: chimpanzee models and human evolution,” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 297
(10) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989
p. 181

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, primatology

I will develop and discuss this aspect of chimpanzee psychology — and possibly our evolutionary heritage as it pertains to superstitious and religious behavior — in a future series of posts in my Almighty Alpha project. The title to that series: “The Buds of Religious Behavior.”

In the near term, we will continue our examination of whether or not the chimpanzee deserves identification as the truest proto-human and thus legitimate focus of evolutionary psychology. The following three bits of information illustrate why I believe Pan troglodytes is the best candidate for providing clues to the evolution of human behavior, including religious stories and rituals.

1. “Unlike monkeys, who in most cases have a rigid social structure, chimpanzees have a very loose social structure.” (4)

Groups and leaders seem to be temporary. Both chimp and human. Can a I get an “amen” from the congregation? Or will there be an attempted coup instead? But wait! I’m just speaking for the Big Guy.

2. Not only is “Chimpanzee social behavior…the most plastic and human like among that of existing nonhuman primates,” but chimpanzees share the what seems to be the bulk of social emotions that humans display. (5)

Case in point: chimpanzee mothers who experience a death of their infant frequently drag around the lifeless body for days on end. While no human mother does this literally, the figurative equivalent can occur for months and even years on end.

3. “Mutual grooming is interdependent. Moreover, unlike other primates, chimpanzees engage in social grooming cliques and clusters, which is far more complex than the usual grooming dyad [of other primates] (Nakamura, 2003).” (6)

This is noteworthy because simple, uni-directional grooming establishes a relatively straightforward relationship of greater and lesser. But mutual and social grooming? This class of behavior seems to be a blunt instrument next the precise meaning of dominance relations. Okay, you value our relationships, and we are “in this together.” But what do we expect from one another and in what circumstances. How is this an advance? The instrument becomes many-purposed. But this necessitates an intelligence and capacity for learning the appropriate ways to use it.

The incredible brain growth and intelligence in human evolution was first attributed to advanced tool use. Seeing that hominid tool kits, and, presumably, tool use, varied little over hundreds of thousands of years, that idea has pretty much been discredited. Lately the reasoning for human brain growth has focused on social intelligence. Homo sapiens tend to live in not only larger social groups than other primates, but in groups with vastly more complicated relationships. Like chimpanzees, but more so.

Still, we have yet to take a good look at another very close primate relative: the bonobo, or “pygmy chimpanzee.” That’s where we next turn.

—

(4) Bourne, H., The Ape People, Putnam, New York, 1971.
(5) Power, M. The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, p. 7
(6) McCrew, W. C., The Cultured Chimpanzee: Reflections on Cultural Primatology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 135

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, religion