Nature-Nurture and the Debates Surrounding Ethology and Sociobiology1

AMER. ZOOL., 31:286-296 (1991) Nature-Nurture and the Debates Surrounding Ethology and Sociobiology1 GEORGE W. BARLOW Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720 SYNOPSIS. The central problem in the history of animal behavior has been the inability Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icb/article-abstract/31/2/286/1992173 by guest on 19 January 2019 to perceive the phenotype as the result of an interaction between genome and environment, despite the considerable lip service paid to the interaction. In North America the comparative study of animal behavior was overshadowed by the growth of an experimental psychology that produced the general-process view of learning, holding that the mecha- nisms underlying learning are much the same in all species. That made evolution irrelevant. During the same period ethology emerged in Europe as the study of naturally occurring behavior in an evolutionary context. Because evolution is fundamental to ethology, the genetic basis of behavior was a central precept. Ethology and psychology collided after World War II. After a vigorous exchange on the issues, a synthesis by Robert Hinde materialized, one that advanced the study of behavior and produced a sophisticated under- standing of nature and nurture. A few decades later sociobiology appeared and was immediately assailed for making what were seen as unwarranted extensions from animal to human behavior, and for emphasizing genetic control of behavior. Much of the debate that ensued was distractingly political and threw little light on the scientific merits of the issues although it moderated the stance of sociobiologists; on the other hand, the politically inspired debates may have harmed the field of animal behavior. INTRODUCTION nant recurrent theme that has generated acrimony and misunderstanding. The "The yin-yang principle is not . what ethology debate was potentially highly per- we would ordinarily call a dualism, but sonal and political, but a rapprochement rather an explicit duality expressing an produced a productive resolution (Hinde, implicit unity" (Capra, 1983, p. 26). 1966). In contrast, the controversy sur- To what extent is the development of rounding sociobiology yielded a less posi- behavior molded by its genetic substrate as tive outcome because the scientific issues opposed to the pervasive effects of the were so clouded by the political nature of environment? That question has engaged the debate. natural historians and philosophers for I am not a historian. I merely offer a centuries (Richards, 1987), perhaps because perspective, one appropriate for an audi- of society's fascination with the inheritance ence of biologists. It is a personal, and will of behavior, whether cultural or genetic be to some a provocative view but one that (e.g., Twain, 1894). Why does the issue so is meant to cause readers to examine both intrigue people, even in the seemingly sides of the issues. innocuous framework of animal behavior? And why do people have such great diffi- EVENTS LEADING UP TO ETHOLOGY culty admitting that nature and nurture Many date the start of the modern study are inseparable, even though they can be of animal behavior with Darwin's (1872) analyzed separately? Recent events in the book, The Expression of the Emotions in Man study of animal behavior provide some and Animals. More relevant to this essay, insight. however, was that Darwin (1871) treated The nature-nurture issue is the domi- human and animal behavior on a contin- uum. Biologists long before him, and even some noted theologians, had commonly 1 assumed such a continuity (Richards, 1987). From the Symposium on Animal Behavior: Past, But now, together with his persuasive pro- Present, and Future presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Zoologists, 27-30 Decem- motion of the principles of natural selec- ber 1989, at Boston, Massachusetts. tion, biology impinged on the realm of 286 NATURE-NURTURE: ETHOLOGY AND SOCIOBIOLOGY 287 morals and ethics in a way that alarmed gists to the study of animal behavior in the theologians and others. Many notable biol- period preceding and following the turn of ogists attacked Darwin because of the the century. The picture that surfaces is a inference that even the moral sensitivities rich mixture of field and laboratory inves- of humans resulted from organic evolution tigations on a remarkable variety of ani- (Richards, 1987). mals, vertebrate and invertebrate. One Less familiar to biologists was the largely leading group was the Allee school at the independent formulation and advocacy by University of Chicago; they became Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icb/article-abstract/31/2/286/1992173 by guest on 19 January 2019 Herbert Spencer of what was to be called increasingly occupied with two issues, social Darwinism. According to Kalikow dominance hierarchies and cooperation (1980) and Stein (1988) the biologist Ernst (Banks, 1985); their conception of coop- Haeckel elaborated a particularly perni- eration, however, differed from our cur- cious expression of this doctrine, though rent image, was organized around group Richards (1987) presented a gentler inter- selection, and died out. pretation of Haeckel's world view. Haeck- Psychologists followed a different path. el's conception, based on genetic deter- Some continued to be comparative in the minism and natural selection, was seen by best sense of the word (Dewsbury, 1989). Stein (1988) as advocating adherence to And some were homing in on concepts that the dictates of society and as good stuff for later emerged as central tenets in ethology totalitarian governments. Haeckel was said (Glickman, 1985; Thorpe, 1979). to espouse eugenics, racism (Kalikow, Those contributions of comparative pys- 1980), and the inherent inequality of indi- chologists, however, were overshadowed viduals and the sexes (Richards, 1987). by the proliferation of experimental psy- Stein (1988) perceived Haeckel's main chologists pursuing learned behavior. The themes in Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf. main thrust of that school was that the basic The Zeitgeist of the nineteenth century, processes of learning are common to all however, was that socioeconomic status vertebrates. This became known as the resulted from superior "blood"; racism and general-process model of learning, as pio- sexism were rampant, even in the writings neered by Thorndike (1911; see Glickman, of Darwin (e.g., 1871). Lamentably, a num- 1985). Because learning is general, it was ber of biologists in the early part of the reasoned, one need not consider phyletic twentieth century favored eugenics, and relationships, hence also not evolution. some of them worked in animal behavior This perspective underlies the publica- in North America (Dewsbury, 1989). tions of a substantial literature involving I mention this extension of Darwin's the- famous experimental psychologists (see ory to political philosophy because that Lehrman, 1971), culminating in the per- philosophy became anathema in North suasive papers and books of B. F. Skinner America during the twentieth century, (e.g., 1959): "Pigeon, rat, monkey, which especially among experimental psycholo- is which? It doesn't matter." gists. Consequently, it was a powerful com- Psychologists were not entirely content ponent underlying the altercation that with this view, however. Lehrman (1971) developed after World War II (WW II) faulted the experimental psychologists for between the ethologists and American psy- feeling that the laboratory rat and humans chologists. It also makes understandable were fundamentally the same with regard some of the heated rhetoric during the to "learning, motivation, sensation, social sociobiology quarrel, especially that dominance, etc." (p. 462). Earlier, Frank involving biological determinism. Now let Beach (1950, p. 119) had written: us turn to the situation in the field of animal behavior in North America before the "From its inception, American psy- advent of ethology. chology has been strongly anthropocen- Dewsbury (1989) painstakingly docu- tric. Human behavior has been accepted mented the important contributions of sev- as the primary object of study and the eral biologists and comparative psycholo- reactions of other animals have been of 288 GEORGE W. BARLOW interest only insofar as they seemed to winism has unpalatable ramifications (see throw light upon the psychology of our also Crawford, 1987; Hodos and Camp- own species. There has been no con- bell, 1969). certed effort to establish a genuine comparative psychology in this country for THE RISE OF ETHOLOGY the simple reason that with few excep- Shortly after the close of WWII, Konrad tions American psychologists have no Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen together interest in animal behavior per se." advanced an approach to thinking about, Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icb/article-abstract/31/2/286/1992173 by guest on 19 January 2019 and studying, animal behavior, called The overshadowed branch of compara- ethology, that was new to North America. tive psychology most relevant to the ethol- In part, ethology was a reaction against the ogy controversy was the one inspired by subjective interpretations of behavior that Z.-Y. Kuo. He emphasized the importance characterized one school in Europe as well of development, including embryogenesis. as unorthodox interpretations of" Darwin- In his early papers (e.g., Kuo, 1922, 1929) ian evolution (Richards, 1987). Lorenz and he rejected any

Load more