Primate Violence and Culture

One of the biggest misconceptions of natural selection is that it mandates nastiness, that the pressure to survive and multiply requires a ruthless sort of amorality. In other words, we are all Hobbesian brutes, driven to survive by selfish genes.

Fortunately, our psychological reality is much less bleak. We aren't fallen angels, but we also aren't depraved hominids. In fact, it's now becoming clear that evolution lavished lots of attention on what might be called the moral brain, which is really a series of neural circuits enabling social interaction. The end result is that we automatically sympathize with each other, constantly developing a theory of other minds. As Josh Greene notes, "Our primate ancestors had intensely social lives. They evolved mental mechanisms to keep them from doing all the nasty things they might otherwise be interested in doing."

That's why I find this Robert Sapolsky essay on primate culture and non-violence so interesting and optimistic. The fact of the matter is that we've got powerful sympathetic instincts that encourage "moral" behavior and discourage cruelty. (Psychopaths seem to be missing these ancient instincts, which is why they're so much more likely to commit a violent act, especially when the violence is being used to achieve a goal.) The problem, then, isn't some set of hard-wired instincts that make us horrible. Evolution has given us all the tools we need to get along. The problem is culture:

In the early 1980s, "Forest Troop," a group of savanna baboons I had been studying -- virtually living with -- for years, was going about its business in a national park in Kenya when a neighboring baboon group had a stroke of luck: its territory encompassed a tourist lodge that expanded its operations and consequently the amount of food tossed into its garbage dump. Baboons are omnivorous, and "Garbage Dump Troop" was delighted to feast on leftover drumsticks, half-eaten hamburgers, remnants of chocolate cake, and anything else that wound up there. Soon they had shifted to sleeping in the trees immediately above the pit, descending each morning just in time for the day's dumping of garbage. (They soon got quite obese from the rich diet and lack of exercise, but that is another story.)

The development produced nearly as dramatic a shift in the social behavior of Forest Troop. Each morning, approximately half of its adult males would infiltrate Garbage Dump Troop's territory, descending on the pit in time for the day's dumping and battling the resident males for access to the garbage. The Forest Troop males that did this shared two traits: they were particularly combative (which was necessary to get the food away from the other baboons), and they were not very interested in socializing (the raids took place early in the morning, during the hours when the bulk of a savanna baboon's daily communal grooming occurs).

Soon afterward, tuberculosis, a disease that moves with devastating speed and severity in nonhuman primates, broke out in Garbage Dump Troop. Over the next year, most of its members died, as did all of the males from Forest Troop who had foraged at the dump. The results were that Forest Troop was left with males who were less aggressive and more social than average and the troop now had double its previous female-to-male ratio.

The social consequences of these changes were dramatic. There remained a hierarchy among the Forest Troop males, but it was far looser than before: compared with other, more typical savanna baboon groups, high-ranking males rarely harassed subordinates and occasionally even relinquished contested resources to them. Aggression was less frequent, particularly against third parties. And rates of affiliative behaviors, such as males and females grooming each other or sitting together, soared. There were even instances, now and then, of adult males grooming each other -- a behavior nearly as unprecedented as baboons sprouting wings.

This unique social milieu did not arise merely as a function of the skewed sex ratio; other primatologists have occasionally reported on troops with similar ratios but without a comparable social atmosphere. What was key was not just the predominance of females, but the type of male that remained. The demographic disaster -- what evolutionary biologists term a "selective bottleneck" -- had produced a savanna baboon troop quite different from what most experts would have anticipated.

But the largest surprise did not come until some years later. Female savanna baboons spend their lives in the troop into which they are born, whereas males leave their birth troop around puberty; a troop's adult males have thus all grown up elsewhere and immigrated as adolescents. By the early 1990s, none of the original low aggression/high affiliation males of Forest Troop's tuberculosis period was still alive; all of the group's adult males had joined after the epidemic. Despite this, the troop's unique social milieu persisted -- as it does to this day, some 20 years after the selective bottleneck. In other words, adolescent males that enter Forest Troop after having grown up elsewhere wind up adopting the unique behavioral style of the resident males. As defined by both anthropologists and animal behaviorists, "culture" consists of local behavioral variations, occurring for nongenetic and nonecological reasons, that last beyond the time of their originators. Forest Troop's low aggression/high affiliation society constitutes nothing less than a multigenerational benign culture.

Categories

More like this

Isn't that one of the benefits of waging war -- reduce the number of aggressive males and assist in evolving towards a more peaceful society.

By John Norton (not verified) on 10 Jul 2008 #permalink

So it seems that culture is the solution, not the problem.

It's also worth noting that in humans, a lower ratio of males to females reduces testosterone in individual males.

There's something kind of related in "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals" by Frans de Waal. He describes an experiment in which some young monkeys from a fairly combative species were housed with slightly older juveniles from a more congenial species. The behavior of the older animals rubbed off on the younger ones -- and so the researchers managed, just by offering different role models, to rejigger what were previously considered bred-in-the-bone behavioral norms.

This is a really great example of how important the socialization process is on an individual's behavioral repertoire. A simple, yet structured change in the social make up, and every individual socialized in the environment thereafter comes to possess a similar mode of behavior.