MENin GROUPS
MENin GROUPS Lionel Tiger
With a new introduction by the author
Q Routledge Taylor & Francis Group
LONDON AND NEW YORK Originally published in 1969 by Random House
Published 2005 by Transaction Publishers
Published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
New material this edition copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Catalog Number: 2004049797
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tiger, Lionel, 1937- Men in groups / Lionel Tiger ; with a new introduction by the author. p. cm. "Third edition"—P. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7658-0598-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Men—psychology. 2. Sex differences. 3. Sex role. 4. Social groups. 5. Sociobiology. I. Title.
HQ1090.T53 2005 305.31— dc22 2004049797
ISBN 13: 978-0-7658-00598-0 (pbk) Contents
Transaction Introduction: Third Time Lucky vii Acknowledgements xxv Introduction xxix
CHAPTER ONE Biology and the Study of Human Behaviour i
CHAPTER TWO The Male Bond in Animal Communities 18
CHAPTER THREE The Male Bond and Human Evolution 41
CHAPTER FOUR The Male Bond in Human Communities: Politics and War $5
CHAPTER FIVE Work and Play 93
CHAPTER SIX Men Court Men: Initiations and Secret Societies 126
CHAPTER SEVEN Man, Aggression, and Men
CHAPTER EIGHT Some Concluding Remarks 194
Bibliography 2 18
Index 246 To Harry Hawthorn Transaction Introduction: Third Time Lucky
Surely no author can approach with any ambiguity the pleasure of writing an introduction to the third edition of a book that was first published thirty-five years ago. It gratifies and reassures that my first book has stood the test of its now-middle age during a period when the lives of too many books are as fleeting as September's magazine and February's too. It appears to continue to generate some value for folk trying to understand the inner story of hominid behavior, of sex differences, and also more recently of how to try to meld the disci plined study of social behavior with the startling genomic discover ies about the intricate coded mechanisms that may affect and underlie that complicated story. At least the book insisted these would be found to exist. Then why the ambiguity? Because the perfect form of male bonding - the social relation ships that are the basis of men in groups - which is the core subject of the book, has just accomplished a strikingly effective attack on the Spanish people. It killed hundreds and wounded thousands and prob ably affected a serious election. I write this in London about four days later. The grimly but plausibly realistic UK afternoon tabloids run headlines such as "Our trains, pubs, can be next." The Al Qaeda operation, or whatever consortium of ambitious middle managers of savage mayhem created the event, is a paradigmatic example of men in groups. For one thing, they operate without and even despite and against females. The leader of the September 11 bombings in the United States, Muhammad Atta, left a will that demanded that no woman touch his dead martyr's body - as if bits of it large enough remained for such defilement. This growing and energetic group is engaged in drastic and predatory aggressive behavior with the certainty, self- righteousness, and secrecy in which skilled male groups specialize. Such effectiveness is dangerous enough located in criminal gangs, mercenary troops, self-absorbed secret societies, reckless sports teams, cynical political cabals - the list is long. But this current rendition of male bonding is animated by a religious scheme that takes comfort viii TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION and pride and finds reward in the stark and unlamented death of non- believers. It succeeds in marrying the relatively recent evolutionary triumph of Homo sapiens - contemplative, symbolic, often elegant thought - with the utterly primordial knack for cooperative hunting, killing, defending, politicking, etc. This new merger of two forces facilitated by instant electronic communication and air travel has and will produce as much explo- siveness as unleashed by the splitting of the atom. Bomb Hiroshima totally? Level Nagasaki? Kill Madrilefios who live in suburbs? Barbeque bond traders and managers of bills of lading in the World Trade Center? Does social technology equal or surpass the power of nuclear physics in general lethality over time? Can it prevail in a miscellany of places? But let's set aside if we can the violent assertions of men bonded in religion. Perhaps they are confirmed in their actions by the sup portive joys of secrecy. Perhaps they are bitter about those with lives different than their own - perhaps if only because they are relaxed lives, more sensually interesting and economically powerful. As Ber nard Lewis has pointed out, "The Great Satan" translates precisely as "The Great Tempter." Now, second, in addition to this, we have added the power of grandly symbolic thought to the potency of cooperative hunting and killing. Not much could be worse than this alloy. Thus, again, my despair at the too-often destructive efficacy of the unruly colorful brilliant ape we were, became, and are. We are very talented in the lethal arts of now-planetary bellicosity. It's possible to understand readily and even sympathize with fea tures of the plight of these willful nihilists bemused by heaven. But they have defined themselves as enemies presumably to be faced and fought and if necessary killed. Otherwise, they will try to destroy those they consider their ungodly enemies whose lives intrinsically rebuke the piety they claim. They are not alone in defining their human value in terms of a superhuman God - they are players in an old story. However, the structure within which they are embedded and the dramatic clarity of their solution to the defiling existence of other faiths sharply leverage the gravity of their actions. Another feature of this particular event, and the larger pageant within which it is an episode, is the role of immigration in facilitat- TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION Ix ing the process. The protagonists of the Madrid bombings were pre dominantly Moroccan; on 9/11 they were Saudi. They were in their target countries because of a pattern of movement especially of young men from poor countries as immigrants or students to the wealthy. In Europe, their freedom of movement is enhanced because of the feck less Schengen agreements of the European Union that made it pos sible for any who entered one member of the Union to have passport-less access to all the others. But this is not a new pattern, of movement of young men from their difficult home nations to the plausibly easier or more lush ones elsewhere. For example, economist Jeffrey Williamson of Harvard and Essex University economist Timothy Hatton have indicated that between 1870 and 1910, 60 million mostly young European males emigrated to the United States, Canada, Australia, and Argentina. Labor forces in Europe were reduced by 45 percent in Ireland and 39 percent in Italy. In 1870, wages were 136 percent higher in the United States and the New World than in Europe.1 The current differential income situation is, if anything, more dramatic, especially since un employment rather than low-paid work is very common among young men. For example, at least 30 percent of Moroccans are unemployed. Presumably they see no empirically plausible remedy for the static lives they lead. Perhaps colorful symbolic solutions animated by theology such as bombing trains or gray American warships are as gratifying as anything else. Given the sharply reduced overall populations of that time a cen tury ago, immigration numbers recounted here are substantial in deed. They suggest the potency of the forces driving young men from homes they perceive as hopeless but whose memory they will cherish and whose inequality they may try to crush from afar. The same pattern has obviously repeated itself in the present time, though with less statistical drama. The fact is that at least some of the male factors - the Takfiris especially - who have come to the surface immi grate deliberately to populate sleeper cells that will erupt at some point against their hosts.2 Of course, this differs from the turn of the century, in 1900, in a basic manner. And yet it is instructive to be aware that the population movements animating the struggle have similar roots to other histo ries, though with far less traumatic results. The situation is an utterly grim one. But one humble redeeming factor that may be the work of a book such as this is that it may be x TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION somewhat easier to anticipate and manage or at least tolerate if its deep and durable roots in human nature are understood. This is nei ther to excuse or support the miserable behavior but to try to compre hend it. To change a system it is obviously best to understand it first. This is essential in dealing with the material world, as engineers do. The same is true in the social world. There is in fact an emerging literature on the possible responsible links between biosocial analysis and social policy, and it is likely such links will strengthen and become more interestingly complex over time.3 There is of course no reason for the introduction of bio logical materials into the social realm to be anything other than a bracing advantage to those seeking useful ways of helping organize human behavior. Now we have to return to the central intellectual issue that is the spinal chord of the book you have in your hands. In Men in Groups I proposed that the pattern of male bonding was at the early core of our evolutionary success. If I may say so, I may have been the first to highlight the pattern and suggest how it could be generalized to a host of human cultures. One of my teachers at the London School of Economics mentioned that the last discussion of male/male behavior as such had last been published in Annees Sociologique in 1904. Males were discussed doing other things - working, playing, gam bling, fighting, and the like. They filled slots first and were males only in the distance and as an afterthought. One of the contributions of femi nist social science was to forever change this confusion of "men" with "people." Suddenly sex took on a new salience scientifically. Male bonding had been identified somewhat tentatively but irre- placeably by other scholars, especially in primatology. They pro vided the perspective, the information, the boldness. Because the pattern was associated with ancient events in our evolution, the con cept provided the comfort of presuming that because nature is con servative, a serviceable pattern in our history and among other primates was likely to be shared and retained. I argue it has. Men in Groups was accused by some colleagues of having "popu larized" the concept of male bonding. But my puzzled reply always was, what was it a popularization of? In fact, this edition was sup posed to be the academic version of a popular book that the publish ers Thomas Nelson of the UK had contracted to follow it in a year or TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION xi two. But this version was published in eight languages, in the United States by Random House, and it enjoyed good sales and reviews in places as various as Playboy, Redbook (from Margaret Mead), Sci ence, Nature, UExpress, and a host of others. Life magazine provided the delicious and wholly unexpected opinion that the book was "the most creative contribution to social science since David Reisman's The Lonely Crowd" Its publishers then sensibly abandoned the project to "popularize" something well circulated enough.
THERE WAS A REAL WORLD OUTTHERE But I shouldn't and don't want to provide the impression that I was the central feature of the matter. The argument, and the role it as sumed, was in a world that will be quite unfamiliar to current stu dents. Even to this day it is not fully comprehended for the oddity it was (every world is of course an oddity.) It appeared twenty-five years after the end of the Second World War, which had both ex hausted and rejuvenated economies, and may have been to some substantial extent the cause of an unprecedented baby boom. Count less families bore and raised four or five children and some, more. This was not to happen for long or, so far, again. Raising so many children to the new standards of orthodontics, nutrition, cleanliness, and educational preparation demanded a huge amount of work and unremitting effort. Nearly all of it at home was women's, largely unaided by the regiments of foreign servant women who now inhabit the middle class world. Except for a few, family was do-it-yourself. And while they did some of the domestic chores, the men involved were working hard and long, many at ever-increasing commuting distances from home, in order to provide the resources and predictability children consume and parents crave. The Inter state Highway system of the United States and better roads elsewhere made some driving easier. But they separated home and work with the implacability of miles and traffic jams and countless women were stranded largely on their own at the end point of Hubby's train ride or primetime drive. Both the man in the gray flannel suit and the blue collar had no alternative choices in life than to work, and as effectively as they could. On balance, the sexual deal was that men and women would get as much education as they could afford or master. Women would work xii TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION for a few years then marry a man fortunate to secure their affections - women would select mates rather carefully but subtly. The rules they followed were tacit and not part of general public discourse, at least among men. In the sciences too there was scant attention to the criti cal significance of mate selection by females. Together men and women would feather the nest and operate its various cycles. Women didn't think it was wrong not to work and men didn't think it was wrong to work. How different from now. The social activism generally described as feminism was one large-scale tectonic response to the assumptions that had prevailed for so long. They were to be challenged legally, aesthetically, viscerally, actu ally, and every which way but casual. Then almost suddenly a man who worked aggressively or even merely dutifully was in danger of displaying unsavory machismo and exploiting women because he had a job however desirable or not. Women who didn't work began to endure the same disapproba tion as their older sisters who didn't marry. Every pattern that had been sanctified by practicality or religion or custom had now to be challenged. If it existed, the presumption was - it shouldn't. Into this milieu the argument of Men in Groups emerged. Appar ently to some it implied that the existing state of sexual arrangement was not only normal but, even more seriously, natural. The word "natural" had not yet achieved iconic status in advertising but there was nevertheless understandable suspicion of any assertion that ap peared to associate what was to what should be. The old "is/ought" argument of Greek philosophy took a modern and clattery international form. Any claim from nature was either stonily conservative or simply wrong. And so this book, which sought to account for the pervasiveness of a human pattern across cultures and time, was seen as a sour claim about the hopelessness of change and the necessary rigidity of sex roles as traditional as Tuscan cathe drals. Not only that. It did so at a time when some of the most skillful and ardent of scholars and commentators were claiming that sex roles were the result of patterns of learning, the curriculum of which was the working manual of a stony all-too-evident "patriarchy." In fact, any evidence about sex differences was defined as a demonstration of the power of the conspiracy to turn a completely malleable sexual species into a two-class community, one better, one worse. TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION xiii
The deeper the difference the more skillful the conspiracy. An drogyny actually became a desirable virtue in the eyes of the more enthusiastic proponents of the sexual renovation. Masculinity and femininity were claimed to be almost wholly socio-psychological constructs.4 Better and different teaching, magazines, films, parenting, and the like would lead to their ebb and end. There was even a psy chological test contrived at Cornell University in which the highest scores were given to those who were most like neither males nor females according to a set of paper-and-pencil questions.5 Even IQ and SAT questions that distinguished between males and females were removed from those centrally important tests on the grounds that the questions were imperfect rather than that there were actu ally differences out there in the world. (It's possible that some differ ences between various groups in their collective scores on such tests reflect the fact that communities with strongly defined sex roles will produce test takers who provide the "wrong" answers to questions predicated on an androgynous norm.) There was even a fashion for performing sex change operations that, accompanied by suitable doses of hormones and other manipu lations, could overcome the fateful arbitrariness of birth. At long last, the bitter truth about this desperate procedure emerged from the pain of the victims of an ideological theory turned into surgical reality.
WOMEN IN GROUPS1 Were this book being written again for the first time, the intensity and breadth of the review of the assumptions surrounding sexual roles would certainly have to be reported far more thoroughly and directly than it was here. The outlines were faint - at least to me - of what was about to emerge in sexual study. Furthermore, while I had a plan to write a companion volume called Women in Groups, I had no idea how rich and innovative the ethnographic and other work pro duced by women in the field would be. As a male, there would be no way I would either have access to many situations or possess the skills to elicit the trust and durable connections that have marked so much contemporary work on sex roles produced by women. So of course this plan was rapidly abandoned, and a good thing too. In the central casting scenario that governs media culture, the hypothesis presented in Men in Groups was given a certain role to play. There was hardly anything I could do to articulate the more xiv TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION complex position it seemed to me any effort required to add biologi cal science to the complexity of social science. An enthusiastic aca demic movement deemed as "reactionary" and even neo-nazi any effort to embrace the biology profoundly changed by the discovery of DNA, the swoop of new primatological data about animals in their native habitats, and the new insights into the complex biosocial nature of physiological process. A consummately self-righteous group operating out of Cambridge, Massachusetts proudly chose as its t- shirt slogan "Science for the People." Lysenko would have been proud. The reality of historical Nazism was of course a legitimate and major source of intellectual terror about the use of biology in social science. That had to be faced and many did so with candor and skill. This was all embedded in a genuine culture war, or rather on one side, an uncultured war. But one of the various reasons this book is being reissued in a new edition is that it was once a cur in a dogfight. Yet something has happened from the marinade of time. Now a surprising number of film reviewers and sports writers among many others use the term "male bonding" and it has in effect passed into the language. It refers to a real behavior of real people. No one can miss it when it happens. Women talk about the process frequently. Men are dimly but somewhat firmly aware of its role in their lives. There is now greater attention to the conditionality of modern sexual roles as well as more familiarity with social science in the popu lar media. As a result both men and women have some inkling of the intellectual issues that surround their own socio-sexual experience. They are no longer alone in the bubble of their consternation and ecstasy.
CHANGES IN THE WEATHER The dogfight to which I referred has changed its character. The bur den of uncluttered certainty has become heavier to carry. A somewhat strange dual process seems underway. At the same time that there is in the United States some especially severe disagreement with the le gitimacy of evolutionary theory, there is also greater familiarity than ever with the lives of other primates. There is much evidence about the potential genotypical connections between our species and oth ers. Creationists and scientists continue their chronic battle almost TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION xv despite the ongoing torrent of new information about a host of mat ters such as paleoarcheology, the genome, and the patterned intri cacy of bodily activity. At the level of banal daily life, there is greater awareness than ever of the links between our primate natures, the genetics of diet and medicine, and the vast size and ancientness of the universe in which the human event nestles with decisive modesty. At the same time, perhaps because of the very fact of the process of intellectual secular ization, a countervailing impulse to religious fundamentalism fuels the creationist assertion. Especially in the United States, the associa tion of religion with politics not only threatens the heretofore durable divide between church and state, which is an avowed principle of Ameri can public life. It also lends sentimental legitimacy to attacks on a scien tific community willing and able to probe the secrets of life. Confessed atheism as a personal principle is sufficient to doom the political future of virtually any candidate for significant public office. Con troversies about faith-based this and that roil the commonwealth. But back to the anthropology of the matter. The steps of the argu ment are: Some male bonding behavior we share with a number of other primate species. But we developed the pattern more elabo rately than they. A prime example is that we share the general primate male bonding for political and defensive/aggressive behavior. But we added the critical development of cooperative hunting. In the other primates there is little division of labor between males and females in how they gain the food to feed their faces. Humans added an all-important division between male and female economic work. It involved a major ratcheted-up change in the allocation of time, energy, and loyalty in social behavior. Only in a few recent years has this sexual division of labor begun to change in some communities. The overwhelming majority of the world's billions of people still live under the antique dictates of centuries. Even in massively industrialized societies there remains extraordinary confusion if not uncertainty about the appropriate di vision between men and women in caring for children and working for money in the labor force. Broad societal dilemmas end up being faced in the private swirl of domestic existence. Everyone understandably feels very strongly about the matter. As they should - because it mobilizes such fundamental and critical human impulses and needs. In reality the controversies are probably xvi TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION more fully defined by biology than ideology. However the latter is the easier and more attractive form of discourse to pursue. After all, complex facts about human biological nature are unnecessary to an earnest colloquy about "what if?" Facts may disturb the enjoyment of the conversation.
DANGEROUS WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT As I've already indicated, my 1969 recital of these matters was rather decisively controversial, unexpectedly so from my point of view. Perhaps too naively, I thought I was simply doing my academic job in a responsible manner. I was publishing but should I also have to fear perishing? Among others things I endured bomb threats at lec tures in Vancouver and Montreal. I was warned of a "knee-capping" should I persist in giving an invited lecture at the New School Uni versity for Social Research in New York - a large security guard accompanied me during my entire visit there. There was nearly a riot when I appeared on the David Frost show in New York in l969 and Frost later told a friend that was the most tempestuous show he ever directed. A cover story about the book in Maclean's magazine in Toronto generated a raucous demonstration by outraged feminists and became national news. Canadian feminists have been especially unforgiving and narrowly harsh ever since and reviewers of my books there appear to reanimate their post-adolescent sociopolitical zeal of thirty-five years ago. A new study by a feminist Canadian professor laments the ongoing dominance of public discourse on the subject by radical proponents of the notion of automatic female virtue and generic male malefaction.6 When I entered elevators at the meeting hotels of the American Anthropological Association, conversation would stop once folk read my nametag. Robin Fox and I were the subjects of a BBC television program at the Royal Institution in London about our book The Imperial Animal, published two years after this one, and we found ourselves walked-out-on mid-show by a group of angry male trans- vestites. Evidently the BBC had invited a typical cross-section of the British public to the taping, which included the group of transves- tites who were engaged in a bitter squabble with another large cohort at the event - some version of Trotskyites who seemed to object to the notion that sex roles could have some biosocial bases. When the men walked out, I happened to be on camera and commented that the TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION xvii episode showed how important sex roles were to people and that therefore it was necessary to understand sympathetically the com plex reasons for the strange demonstration. I thought I had handled the matter sympathetically and, if I may say so, somewhat adroitly. However, the producers cut out my re sponse from the broadcast version because I was told, "the British public would never believe that those weren't real women." Televi sion critics of the show remarked on how inflammatory our com ments must have been when decent well-dressed British ladies were forced to break decorum with such a sharp rebuke. One feminist re viewer compared Robin's and my book to Me in Kampf. An anthropo logical reviewer of Men in Groups in Science compared the notion of male bonding to the classical scientific fantasy, phlogiston. Marga ret Mead acknowledged that something like bonding seemed to ex ist but chastised me for failing to identify the underlying physiological mechanisms for it. She was quite right in that, and subsequent work on the endocrines and substances such as testosterone has begun to provide a sense of the inner processes that underlie the overt social behavior. But none of that affects the implication of the basic argument about the sources of human behavior and the role of male bonding in contemporary militancy. Recall the seriousness of the steps in the process. First in our evolution we added the vital daily imperatives of food gathering and sharing - an enormous budget of time and energy - to the primate baseline of ongoing sex differences in reproductive and political behavior. That major change substantially widened the differences between the sexes, which had formerly focused mainly on politics and reproduction. That is to say, to the existing baseline of sex differences in primate behavior we added nothing less than economics. In retrospect, I realize this was one of the largest assertions in the book. While it was rarely explicitly challenged or even addressed, nevertheless it delivered a fair jolt to extant notions of sex differ ences, which depended in large measure on notions such as "patriar chy" and other forms of crude male repression of somewhat endlessly hapless and victimized females. Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex was the programmatic icon of this position, later joined by a host of essays such as Friedan's The Feminine Mystique and Millett's Sexual Politics (which is out of print and should be in). These were xviii TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION all authors who were avidly read by the women and men emerging from the childcare years that brought the baby boomers to graduate school.
THAT OLD REAL WORLD AGAIN It may be helpful to discuss developments in the spheres of concern of this book in both the practical realm of social affairs and also in the somewhat more nuanced world of academic work. Since Men in Groups was first published, there has been phenom enal change in the relations between men and women, girls and boys, and in the public sphere. One of the most consequential, which is still gathering steam, is in education. In 1969 some important institutions such as the Ivy League colleges in the United States were still male- only. By the year 2003, the numbers of men and women had not only evened out but in many cases women outnumbered men not only in their entrance to university but, more revealingly, in their gradua tion. For example, in 2003 in the large and significant Canadian university, York in Toronto, 68 percent of undergraduate degrees went to women and so did the majority of academic prizes.7 From 1970 to 2000 the number of women in America going to college increased by 136 percent, to graduate school by 168 percent, and to professional schools by 853 percent.8 In 2004, for the first time, Harvard University offered undergraduate admissions to more women than men, compared with a 4 to 1 male preference in the 1960s. In 1964, no Saudi women attended university and now 55 percent of the country's university students are female. In Kuwait and Qatar, women occupy 70 percent of spots in colleges.9 While there has been extensive and influential lobbying on be half of female affirmative action, especially in science and engineer ing,10 there is only belated understanding and scant complaint that it means something that the publicly-supported institutions of educa tion are so clearly failing half their clientele - just as they had for merly failed their female clients, which they set about to remedy under pressure or with thoughtful will and usually a combination of both. But now, a simple-minded legal statisticism promotes policies that define any deviation from an expected distribution in enroll ments in, say, engineering as an index of prejudice or lack of concern about female success. At the same time, the broad situation of males and females is accorded far less precise attention. There is specific TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION xix affirmative action for females in specific educational occupations but none for males overall. Heretofore, the fuzzy assumption has been that the responsibility for the failure has been the males' - they are just not up to the task and quite troublesome to boot. It has barely occurred to any policymakers that perhaps the educational system as a whole favors females11 - often vigorously and with some partisanship, as in many women's studies programs. (I gather from my own students that these are often hostile to and pejorative about males as a class and even male students in the classroom. They apparently suffer from what The Decline of Males called "male original sin.") Few educational lead ers have confronted the various complex but clearly important rea sons the main path to social mobility and occupational security is increasingly smoother for women than for men. The situation is especially acute for Americans with dark skin among whom the gender gap is "widening dramatically."12 An arrest ing finding about possible causes for this among the high school students who should feed into colleges is that dark-skinned women who performed well at school were accused by less successful fellow students of becoming white. Men who did well were charged with becoming female. Given the difficulties men with dark skin encoun ter under the best of circumstances, this was clearly an extraordinary burden to bear.13 Perhaps one clue to deep-seated systematic bias is that some 90 percent of students administered Ritalin, for so-called attention defi cit disorder, are boys. Three-quarters of all special education stu dents are boys who are labeled as learning-disabled. If boys and girls are exactly the same as many critics of the position I took in Men in Groups claimed then they should perform equally well or badly. But they don't. That the system is calibrated for women is surely a possi bility. And if that's the case, what is the responsibility of those who administer public funds in a manner evidently less helpful to one group, males, than to another, females? There is another long-term reverberation of this youthful dispro portion. Women tend to prefer - if they marry - to marry men who are somewhat older and wealthier than they are. This makes good repro ductive sense if they bear children, as most will, since they will usu ally withdraw from the labor force at least to some extent. Then with whom will they link up when there is such an appreciable shortage of xx TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION
suitable candidates? It should be no surprise that (for this and other reasons) some third of babies in the industrial world are born to un married women while birth rates themselves continue to fall overall in the industrial societies. The matter is complex, significant, and the surprising outcome of a foundry of unexpected factors. In The Decline of Males: A Surprising New Look at the Roles of Men and Women14 I dealt with many of these issues. In a sense that book which appeared thirty years after Men in Groups is also a book- end to the argument. In it, I tried to describe and account for a variety of significant changes, especially because of the huge impact of fe male-controlled contraception, especially the contraceptive pill, which I suggested produced the first time in natural history when one sex, the female, could control the tactics of reproduction alone. Don't underestimate the significance of this seemingly modest medical augmentation. It involved an alteration of the core process of our or any species, sexual selection. The result I surmised was that "males were alienated from the means of reproduction." Certainly when Men in Groups was published I had little sense of the potential enormity of the impact of the Pill. In a real sense Decline is the volume that follows on this one but attends both to the inner envi ronment of men and women affected by chemistry and the outer environment composed of the myriad social and economic changes that constitute the current world. Since the material has been published elsewhere it is needless to go through the steps of the consequences of this major innovation. Suffice it to say that whereas we know (from such data as parish records) that for decades some 30-50 percent of marriages occurred with a pregnancy, we can conjecture that once the condom - a social contraceptive - was no longer the main barrier, things changed. The condom was replaced by the Pill, which only females need know about and over which males have no control. Whereas men used to marry, at least sometimes, their companions who became pregnant, after the Pill it appears they did so less often. One counter-intuitive macrosocial effect of this was Roe v. Wade, the famous Supreme Court case concerning liberal abortion (de cided 1973). This hugely controversial judicial decision happened just ten years after the pill was widely available and thus when there were inexpensive and effective ways of making abortion unnecessary. A second unexpected result was that as many TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION xxi as a third of babies were born to unmarried women - the general number in most of the industrial societies. Astonishing enough, this, in private life. But in addition this helped stimulate the augmentation of public welfare systems to help out women who needed it and induced women to enter the labor force more fully and ambitiously. Governments were expanded espe cially in Europe and changed with enormous impact on political and commercial conduct. The expansion in the number and success of female students may be linked to the practical reality that many were, whether they knew it or not, not only studying for themselves, but were studying possibly for two - to support themselves and perhaps a child. And the labor force changed too in major ways. Men and women interacted not only potentially cooperatively as mates but competi tively as workers. Intense and intricate negotiation ensued about sexual harassment and other features of even atmospheric eroticism. Norms about affirmative action for salary and promotion on sexual grounds extended those already in legal force for distinctions based on skin color, ethnicity, and other categories of claimants. As it hap pened, the concatenation of these various impulses gave firm boosts to the efforts of middle-class white women who seemed to benefit disproportionately from the affirmative pattern. Ironically, they were often dependent on the domestic labor of immigrant women from other countries who may well have left their own children in care of still-poorer women in poor countries.15 Women with dark skin out paced men with dark skin in securing their places in the world of work. Overall, the income of men fell as a piece of the economic pie while that of women rose. Again, nothing wrong with that, if in fact, as they obviously do, women provide work appreciated by the mar ketplace. However, long-term issues will remain. For example, crucially, about the ability of populations to replace themselves - as in Italy with its birth rate of 1.3 children per female or Japan with 1.2, when an average of 2.2 is necessary to maintain population numbers. Pro duction is profitable for both men and women whereas reproduction is costly, especially for women. Unmarried women who have no chil dren earn some 98 percent of what men earn. However, when they do marry and have children they are liable to receive the 77 cents on the male dollar of income that reflects their withdrawal from the labor xxii TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION force for some five to eight years on average. This causes them to lose out on the average annual increase of some 3-5 percent, which pro duces their shortfall over the years. There are other subtler results of the large changes we have been negotiating, such as in the nature and impact of family life on con temporary children and on how they raise their own if and when they have them - as most will. This is not to suggest that change in itself involves a decrement of life's quality or enjoyment. But obvious changes produce consequences, whether or not they are apparent to those in their midst. For one thing, we know that people from small families have still smaller ones themselves, an obvious fac tor in demographic changes in the wealthier countries. If the size of families can be so discernibly affected, so may be the character of families. And while it's scarcely my competence or mandate to discuss such matters, nonetheless it seems prudent to expect that family size mat ters and that while small may be beautiful or plain, it is likely to be different as a family form. And there is also a broader implication for communities in which groups of extended relatives are ever smaller while occupational, religious, or other less defined or automatic loy alties loom ever larger. It is also possible that - as we have seen in the jihadist example - male bonds will somewhat supplant or at least augment familial ones, while loyalties to sports teams may as well provide some additional intricacy to men's lives. In any event, the world in which this book first appeared has disappeared, as worlds do, and there are new situations to challenge analysts and citizens. Nevertheless there remains an enduring feature in this novelty: male bonds. There could easily be an entirely new version of the book that would embrace legitimate and pertinent new materials. However the advantage of such an effort is outweighed by the ease of turning the page and beginning the story that follows.
Lionel Tiger
NOTES 1. Bob Davis, "Finding Lessons of Outsourcing in 4 Historical Tales," Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2004. 2. Keith Johnson and David Crawford, "New Breed of Islamic Warrior is Emerging; Evidence in Madrid Attack Points to Takfiris, Who Use Immigration as a Weapon," Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2004. TRANSACTION INTRODUCTION xxiii
3. For example, a good account is in Albert Somit and Steven Peterson (eds.), Human Nature and Public Policy: An Evolutionary Approach, Pal grave MacMillan, New York, 2003. There is also consideration of these matters in the Introduction by Robin Fox and me in the Transaction edition of our The Imperial Animal, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1998. 4. Kay Deaux, "Psychological Constructions of Masculinity and Femininity," in June Reinisch, Leonard Rosenblum, and Stephanie Sanders (eds.), Masculinity/Feminin ity: Basic Perspectives, Oxford University Press, New York, 1987. 5. Sandra Lipsitz Bern, "Masculinity and Femininity Exist Only in the Mind of the Perceiver," in ibid. 6. Neil Boyd, Big Sister: How Extreme Feminism has Betrayed the Fight for Sexual Equality, Greystone Books, 2004. 7. Heather Sokoloff, "Why aren't Men Going to University: 60-40 Female-Male Splits are Typical across Canada," National Post, March 6, 2004. 8. Marshall Poe, "The Other Gender Gap: Maybe Boys were Just not Meant for the Classroom," The Atlantic Monthly, April 2004. 9. The Economist, June 19, 2004. 10. See the 2003 Kill am Annual Lecture "The Challenges of Educating the Next Genera tion of the Professoriate," by Princeton University President Shirley Tilghman (Pub lished by the Killam Trusts, November 2003). She is concerned with the greater participation of men than women in some fields of science while paying little attention to the sharply disproportionate absence of men from fields such as literature and psychology. Who decided that science was more important than literature? Is something more significant if more males do it than females? 11. See Christina Hoff Sommers's The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is Harming Our Young Men, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000, for a strong assertion along these lines. 12. James J. Heckman and Amy L. Wax, "Home Alone," Wall Street Journal, January 23, 2004. 13. I am grateful to Professor Signithia Fordham for this datum, which derived from her research on a Baltimore Maryland high school. 14. Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males: A Surprising New Look at Men and Women, Golden Books, New York, 1999; Palgrave MacMillan, 2000. 15. Caitlin Flanagan, "Dispatches from the Nanny Wars: How Serfdom Saved the Women's Movement," The Atlantic, March 2004.
Acknowledgements
Though it is a pleasure, it is also almost disconcerting to take the opportunity to acknowledge the help, encouragement, and guidance of the people and organizations who have been associated with this project. But the disconcertedness is fleeting. Any book which tries exploring the area between the social and the biological sciences must depend upon the work, judgement, and time of many people. I owe a great debt to several organizations, kind friends, and col leagues. I wish to note the names of some of these, not to involve them in responsibility for what I have written - that is mine for better or worse - but to record their role in what one researcher considered the improvement of understanding. First I must thank the organizations wrhich provided the money and the support implied by money. I owe the greatest debt to the Canada Council, to M. Jean Boucher, its Director, and to Messrs Milligan and Cournoyer. On three occasions the council has, simply, made it possible for the project to proceed. On one of these occasions, it inventively surpassed its own rules to give the decisive help which led to the first draft of this book. More recently, a grant under its new Killam programme made longer-term interdisciplinary work possible. The National Research Council of Canada, through its Subcommittee on Experimental Psychology, provided assistance for travel in the early stages of the project. The President's Research Fund of the University of British Columbia was generous and helpful; so was the university in interpreting its regulations governing leave of absence. Rutgers University facilitated my arrangements for leave of absence in 1968-9. Finally, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation awarded me a Fellowship during the same year. Much of my work happened in libraries. In particular, I want to thank the staffs of the University of British Columbia Library, of the library of the London School of Economics and Political Science, of the Goldsmiths' Library at the University of London, and of the British Museum Reading Room. To these latter unusually helpful and skilled people I offer a confession. On Christmas Eve 1966, before the Reading Room closed, my sole and grateful impulse was to endow the whole staff with a case of whisky. But I was too shy; and - its xxvi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS imaginativeness notwithstanding — the Canada Council could not have happily disbursed public money on this account. People: one's debt to people cannot be calculated in gold or sterling. These are the best kind of bad debts - they do not really have to be paid back. Walter Pople introduced me to ethology and to the data out of which grew the concept of male bonding among human males. His demanding and tough critique of the manuscript was only equalled in its contribution to the project by Pople's encouragement and unselfish donation of understanding. Robin Fox has always shared my perturbed wonder at the eccentric business of trying to understand the curious beast qua beast that humans are, and has demanded the best of everything he could muster to help in all this work. Robert Bierstedt crisply and wisely linked me again to the sociologists who are my peers after I had strayed to other districts of the campus. There are others whose help I want to document fully and exactly, if only for my own record. But it would take another chapter, so I will, helplessly, just list their names: Anthony Ambrose, Steven Aronson, Cyril Belshaw, Nicholas Blurton-Jones, Elizabeth Bott, Michael Chance, Mel Charney, Werner Colin, Alex Comfort, John Eisenberg, Peter Ford, Peter Fryer, Geoffrey Gorer, Anthony Grey, Antony Isaacs, Devra Kleiman, Jean Laponce, Ray Larsen, Caroline Loizos, Robin Lyley, Stanford Lyman, Ernest Lynton, Roger B. Masters, Henri Methorst, James Mitchell, Desmond Morris, Lynn Nesbit, Ilya Neustadt, Gordon Orians, John Pfeiffer, Vernon Rey nolds, Jonathan Rubenstein, John Simon, Kenneth Stoddart, Richard Tees, Niko Tinbergen, J. S. Weiner. Pat Allen cheerfully kept me in contact with the reality of my employment while I worked abroad. Gale LePitre worked magic to make order out of a first draft. Beverley Weynton confidently nulli fied the pressure of the printers' deadline and the author's vapours. I am grateful to Elizabeth Fox for preparing the index of a rambling book despite many claims on her time. I am indebted to Thelma Pressman for use of her elegant London garret and for her friendly tea at io.ir, To Virginia Tiger, that lavish exact lady, I am grateful for a pungent extended lesson on the perils of poorly written lan guage, for her freshly insightful and searching comments on the book in its various stages, and for a smiling welcome back from many merry disturbing rides on the cortical merry-go-round. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xxvii
The book is dedicated to the former Head of my Department at British Columbia, Harry Hawthorn, who was the person most astute and constructive with advice, foresight and support, He must know the sense I and others have of the rich scope of his endeavour.
37 Chesham Place, L.T.
Londony England
September 1Q68
Introduction
This book is about two main things. First, I want to discuss the relationship between biology and sociology as sciences and between biological processes and social processes as realities. Second, I want to try to answer the questions: Why do human males form all-male groups? What do they do in their groups? And, what are the groups for? The connecting link between the two areas of concern is a hypothesis which will be described, discussed, and evaluated (not tested) — though I hope that the treatments of the two separate major areas should be able to stand independently of the hypothesis and of each other. The hypothesis is that the behaviour of men in groups in part reflects an underlying biologically transmitted 'propensity' with roots in human evolutionary history (or phylogeny). This propensity or tendency finds expression in a wide variety of cultural forms con taining a common irreducible predetermined factor. I will discuss the possible existence of this predetermined or biological factor, some of the reasons for its evolution, how it may operate, and how it may affect the lives of people in any society and the very structure of society itself. These are ambitious questions. A wide assortment of data and theory are useful in beginning to answer them, and I will draw from a range of academic disciplines - chiefly sociology, anthropology, social psychology and psychiatry, ethology (the study of animal social behaviour), political science, and human biology. Deficiencies are inevitable in a relatively catholic and eclectic study of work from different disciplines. However, I hope that such lapses will be largely outweighed by the possibility of uncovering and defining new but useful interrelationships of otherwise isolated sets of academic and factual material. At best, the book should contribute to better xxx INTRODUCTION understanding of a particular aspect of human behaviour. It should also help lead to the development of a multi-disciplinary social science so that it becomes not only desirable but necessary to use a wider range of theory and data than are commonly employed now. So that, in other words, it becomes necessary to see human behaviour as the multi-faceted result of more internal and external stimuli than have so far been taken into real account by many workers in the separate clusters of the human sciences. There are two broad kinds of justification for this project. The first is straightforward and reflects the obvious importance of better classifying and understanding the groups men form, and of defining the relationship between all-male activities and heterosexual ones. The second and more stimulating justification is that there is now a a greater amount of data than ever before from biology, archaeology, neurophysiology, genetics, and related biological sciences which may be directly relevant to the study of such a broad phenomenon as male association. It is very important to try to assess if, how, and why this data should be regarded as having effect for social scientists. The latter justification is really a very traditional one. We know from many studies how important male groups are in virtually all known communities; the division of labour along sexual lines is one of the most important recurrent cross-cultural regularities which social scientists have identified.1 A self-evident concomitant of such division of labour is the existence of all-male groups and all-female ones. I will argue later that the exclusion of females from certain categories of all-male group reflects not only a formalized hostility to females but a positive valence, or 'attraction', between males. 2 For example, political power is typically associated with males, and politics is a group phenomenon. Given this, it will be proposed that
1. For example, on the latter point see Marion J. Levy, Jr, The Structures of Society, Princeton University Press, 195-1, p. 330; George P. Murdock, Social Structure, Macmillan, New York, 1949, p. 7, and 'Comparative Data on the Division of Labour by Sex', Social Forces, 15, 4 (1937); Talcott Parsons, 'The American Family, Its Relation to Personality and the Social Structure', in Talcott Parsons and R. F. Bales, Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 19£6, pp. 22-c. 2. In a subsequent publication it will be suggested that all-female groups differ structurally from all-male groups, are generally less stable over time, and con siderably less common for a variety of reasons. A serious deficiency of the present project is its relative inattention to the phenomenon of female aggregation. While I accept this as an omission, I am not convinced that more study would tend to invalidate the discussion of the hypothesis about male bonding. INTRODUCTION xxxi
better understanding of male bonding and the sexual (non-erotie) bases of politics must result in increased and superior understanding of political process and patterns of dominance, submission, and the division of authority in human communities. Another general cross-cultural concern is with the multiplicity of rather formal male groups of the secret society or fraternity type and their relationship to the religious and recreative behaviour of males. There is an astonishingly extensive anecdotal literature on such male aggregations (several bookshops I know deal in little else but publications about Masonry and similar men's groups, almost in the way religious bookstores will focus mainly on theological items). But an equally surprising paucity of analytical studies confronts the scholar and explorer of this field and there may be profit in looking at such organizations in a cross-cultural way. An indication of the usefulness of the cross-cultural approach in the study of initiation ceremonies - a rather closely allied phenomenon - is a number of important recent studies.1 There is an enormous and justified body of study and anecdote on the male-female relationship. But much less is available on the male-male relationship as a relationship in itself. Usually, male re lationships are viewed in the context of some formal pattern such as politics, work, or play. The male-female relationship has been seen as a discrete bond which can be studied both in itself as well as in the context of reproductive, kinship, economic, and other patterns. But not, curiously enough, the male bond. The most signifi cant tradition of work on male bonding in humans has been limited to the psychoanalytic method, and this has been primarily concerned with homosexual (homoerotic) behaviour as a consequence of un conscious or situational aberration. Even in this area there is 'sur prisingly little serious work'.2 What work there has been is biased
1. See S. M. Eisenstadt, From Generation to Generation, Free Press of Glencoe, 111., 19SS'* Judith K. Brown, 'Adolescent Initiation Rites Among Preliterate Peoples', in Robert E. Grinder (ed.), Studies in Adolescence, Macmillan, New York, 1963; Robert V. Burton and John W. M. Whiting, 'The Absent Father and Cross-Sex Identity', in ibid.; Yehudi A. Cohen, The Transition from Childhood to Adolescence, Aldine Books, Chicago, 1964; Frank Young, Initiation Ceremonies, Bobbs-Merrill, New York, 196^; Michael Allen, Rites de Passage, Melbourne University Press (in press); J. W. M. Whiting, R. Kluckhohn, and A. Anthony, 'The Function of Male Initiation Ceremonies at Puberty', in E. E. Maccoby, et. ah, Readings in Social Psychology, Holt, New York, 195-8. 2. Bryan Magee, One in Twenty: A Study of Homosexuality in Men and Women, Seeker & Warburg, London, 1966, p. 8. xxxii INTRODUCTION
in as much as it is based on the notion that homoerotic encounter is deviant. In many societies it is undoubtedly deviant, in the statistical sense. But there may be a profit in seeing homoeroticism as just a special feature of the general phenomenon of male bonding. I will stress the fact of maleness (perhaps as distinct from general 'peopleness') to review the relations between males who are poli ticians, businessmen, factory workers, football players, etc. I will treat them as interactions between males rather than between people. Of course, being a male is part of being a person - our concern here is with matters of emphasis. At this point in my argument let me simply say that I will try to look at the relations between males, in politics for example, as involving some partly sexual (though not necessarily erotic) basis in much the way that studies of male-female political relations have taken sexual differences into account. In politics, as in many other spheres of life, females are treated almost as a 'minority group' and the relations between males and females in these spheres are held to be more or less explicitly sexual if not actively erotic. For example, Seymour M. Lipset's influential book Political Man really does deal with political man, and not woman. Women are a minority in analytical terms, like Negroes, Jews, and immigrants; the fact that they constitute a numerical majority of voters is of interest but does not alter the basic conception of politics as a primarily male enterprise.1 It is enough to say here that there are indications that an extremely significant factor in male-male re lationships in politics and elsewhere has been overlooked by social scientists, and that fuller awareness of the role of biological sex and its social manifestations will decisively improve the accuracy of sociological analysis. Let me softly blow my sheepish horn and say that it will become clear that for useful analyses it is not merely desirable but essential to pay to the male-male interaction the kind of attention I have given in this study. The second justification for the study is that it is an effort to see a social phenomenon - the male bond - in terms of a speculative reconstruction of human evolution. More significantly, the book now becomes a test of the utility of the biologically oriented approach to human behaviour which many recent writers and readers have been i. Seymour M. Lipset, Political Man, Doubleday, New York, 1963. A typical and common expression of the same attitude is a brochure on my desk advertising a bibliographical reference service in African studies; among categories such as 'External Relations', 'Botany', 'Constitutional Patterns', etc. is the category 'Women'. There is no category 'Men'; there are many such examples. INTRODUCTION xxxiii
considering but which has not yet really been taken into account by most social scientists. Konrad Lorenz has stated, 'The least variable part of a system is always the best one to examine first; in the complex interaction of all parts, it must appear most frequently as a cause and least fre quently as an effect.'1 I will try to show that in human communities the male group in its various forms is one of the 'least variable parts'. Conventionally, the male group is seen as an effect of certain tradi tions and needs (or 'functional prerequisites', to use the technical term). The fact that there are male groups (when this is recognized at all clearly) is explained by the persistence of historical and cultural patterns, and by the needs of communities for action, work, or aggres sive groups involving males. But here I will argue precisely the reverse: that male bonding as a biological propensity is not only a phenomenon unto itself, but that in part it is the very cause of the formation of those various male groups observable around us. I do not mean by 'cause' that there is a one-to-one correspondence between an instinct for male bonding and the army, the Freemasons, King's College, Cambridge, or any other male group. There may indeed be a bonding predisposition which preceded the group in time. It may in fact be a cause in the mechanical cause-effect sense; but all that can be said legitimately with present knowledge is that the recurrent though formally varied pattern of male bonding may depend upon or is a function of a biologically transmitted and socially learned com ponent of the male life cycle. For the moment I do not wish to deal with the vexatious question of the existence or character of 'instincts' or to indulge in the nature- nurture controversy. But there is now ample evidence of both the sophistication of genetic control of complex biological processes - of which the relatively poorly understood life-cycle is the most dramatic - and the importance of learning in maintaining the social systems of many animals, particularly primates. Hence it seems legitimate to hypothesize that there is a biological substratum for even complex social behaviour among many animals including man, just in the same way that psychiatric work demonstrates the important social sub stratum of much physical illness. A working rule of anthropological research is that 'the most im portant thing to know about a society is what it takes for granted'.
i. Konrad Lorenz, 'The Evolution of Behaviour', Scientific American (December xxxiv INTRODUCTION
Let us generously apply the same rule to a species: the most im portant thing to know about a species is what it takes for granted. I mean by this, of course, that it is an assumption of human beings that males and females are different, that they behave differently in a variety of circumstances, that they possess different responsibilities and privileges, and that males treat males differently from females. I want to know, and it is important to know, why this assumption exists so widely, what its definition and variety of forms are, and to what extent if any it reflects the same 'natural' principles which govern differences in behaviour between male and female baboons, between turtles and geese, and between puppies and adult dogs. If only in the interest of a genuinely comparative cross-cultural, cross-specific science of social systems, and hence of better under standing of our own society, it is appropriate to ask some of the broad questions which students of species-specific behaviour com monly ask. This helps us determine if and how the answers to such broad and self-consciously naive questions may sensitize scientists to new or differently formulated ways of seeing and understanding. By analogy, the question Newton asked was 'Which way is up?'; Darwin wanted to know 'Why is an elephant?' Perhaps asking similar questions about humans will be profitable too. Since biological male- ness is such a grossly definable characteristic and male groups are so pervasive in human society, a study of the interrelations between these factors seems one good point of departure. So what I will be asking is: Why are there males and females ? What do they do ? And (in addition to differences in matters of reproduction) what differ ences are there in the social behaviour of males and females ? Perhaps nothing more will emerge from this than 'rediscovery of the obvious'.1 But even this may be useful in the programme in which a number of scientists are now engaged - an effort to speculate about a new 'paradigm' for social-scientific study. Here I have been guided by the fine book of Thomas Kuhn2 and by Kuhn's ethnography of the development of scientific positions. Though there has been concern expressed about Kuhn's several apparent uses of the term 'paradigm', it broadly refers to the picture of the world, the concep tual tools, and their interrelationships which scientists in a discipline
1. Sandor Rado, 'An Adaptational View of Sexual Behaviour', in H. D. Ruitenbeck (ed.), The Problem of Homosexuality in Modern Society, Dutton, New York, 1963, p. 94. 2. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1962. INTRODUCTION xxxv have at any one time. For social science, my concern is with that part of the paradigm which has for a number of years contained the proposition that human behaviour is far less constrained by factors of nature than factors of society. Of course, many scientists have not held this view, and it is necessarily oversimplified here. Chapter One deals with this general subject at some length. I am thus constrained to see this book as a modest participant in what may become an important controversy about the analysis of society and nature. To quote Kuhn, . . the early developmental stages of most sciences have been characterized by continual com petition between a number of distinct views of nature, each partially derived from, and all roughly compatible with, the dictates of scientific observation and method1.1 Further, 'The pre-paradigm period ... is regularly marked by frequent and deep debates over legitimate methods, problems, and standards of solution, though these serve rather to define schools that to produce agreement.32 Hopefully, more than partisanship will result from this effort. This book would have to be less than successful if it succeeded in helping only to draw boundaries rather than suggest routes of inter change. While Kuhn may be correct to say that, 'Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm's defense/3 the intention here is to indicate how the disparity in paradigm is unfortunate and scientifically unnecessary, and how the distinctions commonly made in practice if not in theory between the (curiously described) natural and social sciences are scientifically impractical and probably even malignant. This is not an empirical study in as much as it is not based on an explicit piece of field research. It is the record and synthetic analysis of a body of literature and numerous pertinent discussions and visits in a number of countries in Europe and America over a five-year period: this work has been both the basis and the consequence of an attempt to develop a theoretical position. Of course, there is no need for apology for being unable to boast a field research project, both in general and in this case. It is self-defeating (if not preposterous) to argue that only research based on field or experimental activity is valid. Were this so, for whom is research written up and published if not for those who think highly enough of publications to accept them as valid factors in any attempt to review current scientific assumptions and conclusions ?
i. ibid., p. 4. 2. ibid., p. 47. 3. ibid., p. 93. xxxvi INTRODUCTION
But there is a more pertinent justification for the approach used here. It was not, and still is not, wrholly clear what field research could and should have been done to understand better how males relate to each other and what this means for their communities. Though the term 'ethology5 was first used by John Stuart Mill in Book Six of his System of Logic,1 the major work in ethology first appeared in the 19 c/os and there are so far no clear-cut research guides for students attempting to straddle sociology and ethology. So instead of perhaps committing the fallacy of misplaced concreteness and of setting up problems to solve which were not the best ones, promiscuous eclecticism was chosen as the preferable and more in triguing orientation. Promiscuity was not wholly a matter of policy. Where the study of nature attracted the call was heard, though some conscientious if flexible scheme of consultation of authoritative works in several fields was generally followed. I am very much aware of the considerable number of additional works which should have been examined, particularly in psychoanalysis and ethnography. But practical limits of time and the suspicion that a point of diminishing returns was near or perhaps had been reached coerced a cut-off date. This day was more resented because it signalled the end of my full- time assimilation of information on the subject than because it plainly meant that the trying matter of wrriting was unavoidably at hand.
1. For a discussion of Mill's usage of the term (and of many matters germane to this discussion), see Ronald Fletcher, Instinct in Man: In the Light of Recent Work in Comparative Psychology, Allen & Unwin, London, 19^7, pp. 327—9. CHAPTER ONE
Biology and the Study of Human Behaviour
It is no new idea to use biological ideas for the analysis of human behaviour - a study of the history of notions of human animality would be an investigation of one of the central themes of folk and professional thought. Most influentially stated early in the Western intellectual tradition by Aristotle,1 a classification of species or systems of living being has given man a special position with respect to animals; his paramount place in the scheme of things has meant at various times that he was different from other animals either in degree or in kind. At some historical points, for example in the Victorian period, it was widely thought that social evolution was an evolution away from the purely animal to the purely human. Ex tant 'primitive' societies were supposed to be modern representatives of the stages through which the ancestors of Europe must have passed.2 Racial differences have for a long time been explained in terms of some general idea of greater and lesser animality. For example, Thomas Jefferson believed there was a general process in which beings sought to be Tess animal'. Apes wished to breed with Negroes and the latter strove to mate with whites.3 In the sixteenth century, it was thought that man was between God and woman in the scheme of things and woman linked man with pygmies and apes.4 There is a
1. Kenneth E. Bock, 'The Comparative Method of Anthropology', Comparative Studies in Society and History, 8, 3 (April 1966), p. 277. 2. ibid., p. 272. Also see J. W. Burrow, Evolution and Society; A Study in Victorian Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1966, p. 14. 3. H. W. Janson, Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Warburg Institute, London, 19 £ 2, p. 276. 4. ibid., p. 155. 2 MEN IN ROUPS long and absorbingly curious history of the conceptions people have had about their various physical and behavioural relationships to the animal kingdom.1 Despite the vagaries of scientific and moral fashion, the concern with human animality has persisted. During the first half of the 1900s instinct theory was regarded as disreputable and far less pertinent than behaviourist learning theory. None the less Fletcher suggests that 'there was . , , fundamental agreement about the elements of human experience and behaviour and . . . this basic agreement had been hidden or vitiated by the polemical defence of extremes'.2 And throughout the history of the expression, refine ment, and exegesis of Freud's theory, the matter of man's primate nature was necessarily under constant review. But despite what may indeed be an underlying community of views about human animality, there were and are overt differences of opinion which yield scientific and practical consequences of great importance. 'Human animality' here refers simply to the notion that human behaviour is in a significant way subject to some of the same principles as animal behaviour. This is not to say that human be haviour is the same as animal behaviour, that one can necessarily make cross-specific comparisons that are prima facie acceptable, and that there is no difference In the importance of culture and tradition between humans and animals. The case will be developed that there Is more similarity both structurally and processually between human and animal society than social scientists have allowed in this century. Le Gros Clark observes, 'In his bodily structure Man shows such remarkable resemblances to the lower animals that It now seems astonishing to us that his kinship with them should ever have been seriously controverted.'3 While this need not follow logically, it may be equally astonishing to future historians of the present time that it was doubted that not only were there important physical affinities between humans and other primates but that there were also behavioural ones. To accept the existence of physical similarities in fact but to deny in principle the behavioural ones involves an un justified divorce of physical structure from behavioural function. A powerful source of opposition to the idea that man is but one
1. Of course, this is not a matter of concern solely to 'scientific' intellectual tradi tions. See Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1966. 2. Fletcher, Instinct in Man, op. cit., p. 9. 3. Walter Le Gros Clark, History of the Primates, British Museum of Natural History, London, i960, p. 1. BIOLOGY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 3 among many animal species has long come from some religious groups which advance, in one form or another, the proposition that man is the result of special creation by God and thus subject neither to the same rules of behaviour and morality nor to analysis by similar methods and concepts. While it may be true that the furore following Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species was perhaps the most heated and probably the most important, the social relevance of evolutionary theory remains an issue with as much meaning to many in the 1960s as it was in the 1860s. Of the persons who intellectually accept the theory of human evolution, many cannot or do not accept its full emotional and even moral implications. Despite his extra ordinary brilliance and inventiveness in the context of the natural order, there remains a widespread idea that placing man directly into the natural order is implicitly belittling and derogatory. No doubt attitudes to evolution reflect psychologically profound attitudes to the self, to the body, to its sensual activity, and to its mortality. The Judeo-Christian culture (within which, ironically, the theory of evolution formally developed) is one in which calling a person an. animal or a beast has always been insulting, in which in many circles mortification of the flesh has been highly valued, and in which animality has been effortfully and expensively concealed.1 This cultural tradition demands explicit control of erotic transaction - a great deal of the authority of churches appears to have derived from the ability of churchmen to enforce their claim of moral priority in deciding what sexual standards communities must follow. There is also a tenacious idea which some sections of many communi ties adhere to that persons, particularly young ones, should wear more rather than less clothing. I write this within whistling distance of the King's Road, Chelsea, in London, currently famous or no torious for the congregation at week-ends of nubile young women showing off very short skirts and corresponding lengths of their legs to their attentive males and the gathered onlookers. Criticism of this fashion and the expression of horror at the decline of morality in the world are very similar to the expressions of dismay of fourteenth- century French moralists and priests on the adoption of the tight- fitting coat rather than the tunic as the style of dress.2 This moral concern embodies a fundamentally important aspect of the cultural
1. Philip E. Slater, 'On Social Regression', American Sociological Review, 28, 3 (June 1963), p. 339. 2. Philippe Aries, Centuries of Childhood, Jonathan Cape, London, 1962, p. rr. 4 MEN IN GROUPS control of sexual-biological stimuli which cannot be dealt with in this study. Of course, all cultures attribute some special significance to aspects of sexual behaviour - as they do to a variety of other behaviours such as childbirth, death, the enforcement of social hierarchies, etc. What is of particular interest in the study of the social consequence of the evolution theory is that it should have been developed to its fullest in just those cultural milieux which also sustained energetic corps of puritan and religious opponents. Given the frequently dialectic character which scientific and moral discussions assume, perhaps the strength of the opposition helped to test and improve statements of the new evolutionary theory. Furthermore, as Burrow notes, Dar win's wrork continued in an earlier scientific tradition:
Evolution as a social theory arose, not only from a desire to emulate in the study of society the achievements of biology, geology, and philosophy, but as a reaction against the collapse of systematic utilitarianism and the weakening of traditional religious beliefs. . . . Mankind was one not because it was everywhere the same, but because the differences represented different stages in the same process. And by agreeing to call process progress one could convert the social theory into a moral and political one.1
Indeed, as Donald MacRae has said, 'Darwinism is one of the rare cases of a theory in natural science being derived very largely from work done earlier in the social sciences.' Mai thus's work in particular was influential as a background to Darwin's and others' work.2 Burrow describes how Darwinism arose in the context of a series of intellectual and moral crises and the enthusiastic reception of the theory — once the major controversies had somewhat quietened — reflected not only approbation of its evident scientific merits but also its usefulness as a political and moral view of social reality. 'Darwin ism and the imperial urge were bound to be fused.'3 It is important that Darwinian theory per se need not have led to Social Darwinism: 'There was nothing in Darwinism that inevitably made it an apology for competition or force. Kropotkin's interpre-
1. Burrow, op. cit., pp. 97—9. 2. Donald G. MacRae, 'Darwinism and the Social Sciences', in S. A. Barnett (ed.), A Century of Darwin, Heinemann, London, 19^8, p. 296. 3. Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought: i 860—1915, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1945-, p. 148. BIOLOGY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 5 tation of Darwinism was as logical as Sumner's.'1 'The history of Darwinian individualism is a clear example of the rule that changes in the structure of social ideas wait on general changes in economic and political life.' 2 Though writers such as Kropotkin and Lester Ward sought to identify the Social Darwinists with reactionary politics and accused them of untenable extrapolations from Darwinian theory, Social Darwinist views more or less prevailed for the time being. With their concern for evolution and 'progress' they launched a style of enquiry which remains influential in some quarters to this day. At the same time, particularly in England, a number of writers on social affairs used Darwinian concepts and such biological information as there was without being Social Darwinists. Hobhouse, Trotter, Carveth Read, and Graham Wallas were among a group concerned with the working out of Darwinian ideas for social-communal as well as individual action. Morris Ginsburg and Fletcher are two recent exponents of this tradition, though Fletcher has been more con cerned than Ginsburg with biological and ethological work.3 (The history of the London School of Economics reflects some of the trends of fashion and academic achievement in this area. At one stage of its planning, the intention was that Social Biology, comprising genetics, demography, eugenics, behavioural biology, etc., should constitute one of the three major foci of activity. The other two were Economics and Sociology-Politics. In part because of the resistance to Eugenics, which was feared to be potentially racist, the Social Biology section lapsed. A Chair in Social Biology was not filled when its last incumbent, Lancelot Hogben, left it before the Second World War.) It would be interesting and worthwhile to learn more about when, how, and for what reasons the social sciences became isolated from the natural sciences within academic communities. In this his tory must in part lie the basis for the development of the extant paradigms in the social sciences. This is all the more interesting because of the resilience of some authorities' belief that the social sciences must consider biological matters. Further discussion follows in this chapter. From all this, predictable consequences of the use of Darwinian theory occurred: 'A peculiarity of Darwinism, both in biology and
1. ibid., p. 174. 2. ibid., p. 176. 3. For a recent statement of Ginsburg's views on innate behaviour, see Introduction to the Ninth Edition, The Psychology of Society, Methuen, London, 1964. 6 MEN IN GROUPS in other fields, Is that it explains too much.'1 To quote MacRae's assessment again: 'The tendency of social scientists to whore after theories drawn from natural science - physical or biological - has a long history . . , the price may well have been too high.'2 A reaction set in against the use of biological analogy in social science. In psy chology particularly the emphasis on behaviourism and learning theory overwhelmed any efforts to determine what if any innate patterns of behaviour existed for any animal. Frank Beach has made the explicit and devastating assertion that American psychology has been unduly behaviouristic and concerned with few species — mainly the Norway rat - and few behaviours - mainly conditioning and learning - and thus unable to make soundly based comparative psycho logical generalizations. 3 (In addition, as Michael Chance has observed, these studies were not only limited to begin with, but also were performed on sleepy rats. Rats are nocturnal animals. A whole generation of pedagogues, learning theorists, and other commentators on behaviour developed their stock in trade on the basis of principles derived from the narrowly circumscribed behaviour of a highly selected group of groggy animals. More recently, light cycles of laboratory rats are reversed. It is very curious that many scientists discard the relevance of primate studies for understanding human behaviour who at the same time accept the transferability of notions derived from the activities of an animal zoologically much farther removed from human beings.) No doubt an emphasis on the precision and quantification which could be achieved in laboratory study and formal questionnaire testing was partly responsible for a decline in the study of human and animal behaviour in situ. Correspondingly, emerging theories of behaviour reflected the relatively limited range of data upon which they were based. Among zoologists themselves the evolutionary questions posed by Darwinian theory were and are, apparently even now, infrequently addressed directly.4 In sociology and anthropology, interest in evolution declined rapidly as the first assessments were unfavourable of the permanent worth of Social Darwinism and its proponents' arguments. On the other hand, there was evident and ready utility in the developing methods of field study and analysis. A fruitful yield of apparently
1. MacRae, 'Darwinism and the Social Sciences', in Barnett, op. cit., p. 304. 2. ibid., p. 298. 3. Frank Beach, 'The Snark was a Boojum', American Psychologist, 5 (1950), pp. 11 g—24. 4. Gordon Orians, 'Natural Selection and Ecological Theory', American Naturalist, 96, 890, p. 262. BlOiOGY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 7 reliable and intriguing monographs and empirical studies was the basis for the construction of new theory, and this overcame any lingering questions about innate behavioural propensities and their social consequences. Physical anthropology's isolation from social or cultural anthropology increased; even among physical anthro pologists, only a relative few concerned themselves with questions of human and animal evolution rather than the archaeology of artifact, racial distribution, blood types, etc. Apart from Freudian and Jungian analysis, no major tradition of concern for 'innate behaviour' was in close contact with sociology and anthropology, either formally or fruitfully. Even historians - for the study of evolution is after all a form of historical study — have been recently chastised for failing to deal with human prehistory and for unwisely ignoring non-verbal records of ancient societies in the writing of history.1 This kind of response was probably Inevitable so long as the nature-nurture dichotomy wras thought to be realistic, so long as the notion persisted that there was a 'critical point' below which pre-human animals lived and above which man created culture, and so long as the new ways of studying Euro-American and other societies' culture and behaviour continued to produce Impressive data and defensible theory. But it is now reasonably clear that the nature—nurture, instinct- learning, innate—acquired dichotomy represents a profound mis conception of the motivation, cycling, and control of behavioural processes. As Fuller and Thompson have said, 'The dichotomy, carried to Its logical conclusion, would define innate behaviour as that which appeared in the absence of environment, and learning behaviour as that which required no organism.'2 The controversy surrounding the matter was a response to a pseudo-problem,3 at least in that sharply polarized rendition of the problem wrhich re ceived the most attention (possibly for the very reason of its formal simplicity). Not only was the problem rigidly and profitlessly formu lated ; it has even been described as one which divided thinkers not
1. Robert Erwin, 'Civilization as a Phase of World History', American Historical Review, 71, 4 (July 1966). On the study of evolution as history, see M. T. Ghiselin, 'On Semantic Pitfalls of Biological Adaptation', Philosophy of Science, 33, 1-2 (March-June 1966), p. i^o. 2. Quoted in Thomas E. McGill (ed.), Readings in Animal Behavior, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1965-, p. 1. 3. ibid., p. 1 ; Fletcher, Introduction, op. cit.; Clifford Geertz, 'The Growth of Culture and the Evolution of Mind', in Jordan N. Sher (ed.), Theories of the Mind, Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1962, pp. 72—3 ; Gardner Murphy, Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure, Harper, New York, 1947, p. 46. 8 MEN IN GROUPS as much for scientific reasons as for essentially political ones : '. . . it would be as reasonable to classify the nature-nurture controversy as sociological in nature as it is to classify it as scientific in nature'.1 Socialists and other reformers maintained that human behaviour differed in kind from animal behaviour in that changes in environ ment could induce virtually any changes in personal and social behaviour; the perverted uses to which Lysenko's work was put in the U.S.S.R. can be treated as an extreme case of this position. Conservatives claimed that racial and social differences reflected genetic endowment; to attempt major social reform would involve tampering with the basic bio-genetic mechanisms which ensured the survival and improvement of the species. Reform, the conservatives claimed, wras unnatural. The hard but real truth was that things were as they were because it was determined and necessary that they be so. Though Darwin's notion of selection had to do mainly with success in leaving progeny, the anti-environmentalists interpreted him to mean that contemporary inequities and other social hierarchies were inevitable and even desirable. The predictable reaction set in. One may explain the eclipse of the study of innate behaviour propensities by the growing sophistication of welfare economics, the democratization of politics, the reduction of inequities in privilege, and a world-wide antipathy to the effects of racism and imperialism on non-European societies. Aggression be came defined as a response to various kinds of frustration. It was not innate; the careful provision of social conditions which minimized peoples' frustration would minimize the expression of hostility. For non-conservative thinkers, social hierarchies were the result of exploitation by leaders and the apathy or powerlessness of the masses. Socialist visionaries created — on paper or in practice - communities in which there were no social hierarchical differences; many govern ments passed pro-egalitarian measures. There was movement from a group-based scheme of social selection, in which classes or races were held to possess or lack desirable qualities of leadership, intelligence, artistic awareness, etc., to an individual-based theory that all persons should have equal rights to develop their 'potential'.2
1. Nicholas Pastore, The Nature-Nurture Controversy, King's Crown Press, New York, 1949, p. 177. The argument is based on the study of lives, work, and views on the controversy of a selection of leading scientific figures. 2. In practice, the development of 'potential' appears to refer mainly to the facili tation of upward social mobility, normally in the enjoyment of and acceptance of middle-class patterns of life. Sometimes this is explicitly stated; for example, see BIOLOGY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 9
In principle, this culminates in America's War on Poverty and the Plowden proposals on Primary Education in the United Kingdom.1 These community schemes actively favour the disadvantaged. No longer Is an analysis possible, which '. . .is both an explanation of the social order and a justification of it'.2 Explanation is now frequently associated with transformation, but certainly not with justification. The dilemma of sociologists, who are expected to provide remedies for those social pathologies which they have studied, is a case in point. (Conversely, sociologists are also criticized when they are thought to spend a disproportionate effort on allegedly melioristic writing. English sociologists are commonly so accused on the subject of social class.) Psychoanalysis's therapeutic basis and its emphasis on the decisive importance of early learning hastened waning interest in innate behaviour, even though there was a continuing theoretical concern with the id or some similar force, and despite Freud's own view of the matter that:
We must bear in mind that someday all our provisional formulation in psychology will have to be based on an organic foundation. It will then probably be seen that it is special chemical substances and processes which achieve the effects of sexuality and the per petuation of individual life in the life of the species.3
In sum, the proposal that human social life was manageable and changeable in terms of moral theories, and that private psychological experience was also manipulable, discredited the conception of a human nature which was definable and unchangeable. Thus there was very little study of this nature.
Psychologists have become very unwilling to discuss the inherent psychic nature of man. It is definitely unfashionable to do so. When the subject is faced at all, it is usually only to explain human nature away as fast as possible and to pass on to less uneasy and more specific topics.4
Indeed, a certain vindictiveness appeared about whatever efforts 'Doing Away with Grades in Toronto', The Times Educational Supplement (13 January 1967). 1. Children and Their Primary Schools (the Plowden Report), H.M.S.O., London, 1967. 2. Burrow, op. cit. p. 102. 3. Sigmund Freud, quoted in Rado, 'An Adaptational View of Sexual Behaviour', in Ruitenbeck (ed.), The Problem of Homosexuality in Modern Society, Dutton, New York, 1963, p. 94. 4. A. L. Kroeber, Anthropology, Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1948, p. 61. 10 MEN IN GROUPS were made; Talcott Parsons places a special burden of proof on scholars who would . . . assert that what has been considered an action theory problem is adequately solved by invoking the role of . , . sub-action de terminants of behaviour. This will often turn out to be the case, but resort to ad hoc hypotheses on this level which have failed to stand up under criticism and further investigation has been so prominent in the history of social science that we must insist on this burden of proof maxim.1 I do not imply that the antipathy to biologically linked explanations resulted only from fashion and Zeitgeist rather than good scientific thinking. It was not just that many saw' human biology linked to racist, eugenic, or similar theories.2 But with inadequate data, un tenable conclusions were frequently drawn about large issues, to the despair and anger of scientists who sought answers to less ambitious questions with greater precision and discomfirmabi 1 ity. In addition, technical, methodological, and empirical improvements in the social sciences buttressed the conviction that the range of useful conceptual tools was wide enough. Therefore it seemed umvorthwhile to try to assimilate biological concepts which had already revealed their apparent unreliability, Understandably, scientists tend to emulate successful work, and the achievements of the physical scientists and economists provided models for social scientists who moved further and further away from a biological framework.3 Though there was an effort to keep the issue open, it was widely felt that in the absence of better biological data little could be expected from human biologists. There seemed no threat that biological findings would disturb the progress of unbiological social science. With almost total prudence, Sorokin was able to say: 'The greater and more accurate are the findings of biology, the more accurate are going to be the biological interpretations of social phenomena, and the more powerful influence they are likely to exert on sociology in the future.'4 1. Talcott Parsons, The Social System, Tavistock Publications, London, 195-2, p. 32. 2. For a very useful discussion, see Richard L. Means, 'Sociology, Biology, and the Analysis of Social Problems', Social Problems, 15, 2 (Fall 1967). 3. Burrow observes that anthropology had its roots elsewhere than in biology: '. . . the subjects which combine to form modern anthropology owed more, methodo logically, to geology and comparative philology than to evolutionary biology' — op. cit., p. 110. For a general statement, see H. L. Shapiro, 'Society and Biological Man', in R. Linton (ed.), The Science of Man in the World Crisis, Columbia Univer sity Press, 1945-, P- I9' 4. Pitirim Sorokin, Contemporary Sociological Theories, Harper, New York, 1927, p. 3^5. BiOLOGY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 11
1 Have we now the 'greater and more accurate' findings of biology on which can be based a biological or zoological view of man? We have. It Is the burden and argument of this book to sketch broadly the range and quality of useful data and conceptualizations. It should be noted, however, that our problem is not only to deal with the accumu lation of material but to consider the paradigm or analytical approach which gives coherence and explanatory power to the body of know ledge and theory. This may have more to do with extending the boundaries of the scientific disciplines concerned - or even their elimination for some purposes - than with radically disrupting the existing structure and replacing it with a wholly new one. Elsewhere, Fox and I have commented: 'The relevance to a science of new data is not always immediately obvious to its practitioners. This is particularly so when these data derive primarily from other sciences and when an admission of their relevance to the science may j require a fundamental critique of its working assumptions.'1 So far, in relatively few places have the new data and theories of zoologists, geneticists, palaeo-anthropologists, etc., penetrated the methodo logical array and graduate school catechisms of the dominant tradi tions of sociology and anthropology. In the classical tradition of sociology the distinction between 'human action* and 'social action." Is seen as crucial to the study of behaviour. In a real sense, this dis tinction presumes a basic difference between 'biological' and socially 'learned' behaviour. Thus, it implies a systematic rejection of the hypothesis of ethologists that the strict Instinct-learning dichotomy is misconceived and scientifically dysfunctional. Even some zoologists assert (in a limited sense quite correctly) that human behaviour is too complex and too dependent on culture for the notions of biology to be properly applied. In a true-false question which appears in the teachers' manual accompanying a current sociology introductory text, we are told it is true that, 'One quite certain principle of sociology is that very little, if any human behaviour is inherited.'2 Michael Ban ton notes that 'sociological problems are independent of
1. Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox, 'The Zoological Perspective in Social Science', Man, i, i (n.s.), (March 1966), p. 75. This article provides a rather more detailed outline of the state of work in this area than is possible here (though it is somewhat superseded by now). 2. Earl H. Bell and John Sirjamaki, Instructor's Manual to Accompany Social Foundations of Human Behavior (2nd edition), Harper & Row, New York, 196c, p. c. 12 MEN IN GROUPS biological problems'.1 A relatively informal study of American socio logy indicates that of thirty outstanding sociologists interviewed about their perceptions of their discipline, there was no respondent who described the study of the biological factors in social life as being of importance.2 Nineteen sixty-six was the first year in which a sub section of bio-sociology met during the convention of the American Sociological Association. It remains uncommon for books reporting studies of the social systems of other animals to be reviewed in sociological journals (though this will change rapidly in the next few years). Students of sociology in North America will normally take minor sequences of courses in mathematics, psychology, economics, etc., rather than biology. All this must obviously affect 'the pictures in our heads' of our own behaviour and society. Are the pictures old- fashioned? In anthropology the situation is quite different. The success of some physical anthropologists in gathering evidence about human phylogeny and early human social life has led to wide acceptance of the notion that study of the historical evolution of man and his behaviour is important and possible.3 Studies of primates in natural and experi mental settings have multiplied explosively in a decade;4 the use of sophisticated anthropological techniques for the study of primate social systems has revealed the complexity of these systems. We know far more about the importance of learning and culture in creating differences of behaviour and social structure in primates of the same species. The full realization that animals have 'culture' just
1. Michael Ban ton (ed.), Darwin and the Study of Society, Tavistock Publications, Lon don, 196i, p. 178. 2. Mihailo Popovich, 'What the American Sociologists Think About Their Science and its Problems', American Sociologist, 1 (May 1966), p. 134. Popovich describes also the findings that more than two thirds of the group of scientists interviewed could see no 'dominating general theory' in sociology. 3. There is now a very extensive literature in this field. Several recent and repre sentative collections of papers are Paul L. DeVore (ed.), The Origins of Man, tran script of a symposium sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation, Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York, 1965; S. L. Washburn (ed.),The Social Life of Early Man, Aldine Books, Chicago, 1961; F. C. Howell and F. Bourliere (eds.), African Ecology and Human Evolution, Methuen, London, 1964; Sol Tax (ed.), The Evolution of Man, University of Chicago Press, i960. 4. S. L. Washburn, Phyllis C. Jay, and Jane B. Lancaster, 'Field Studies of Old World Monkeys and Apes', Science, 15, 370 (1966), pp. 15-41-7. The best review of the studies available is Irven DeVore (ed.), Primate Behavior: Field Studies of Monkeys and Apes, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 196^. See also Desmond Morris (ed.), Primate Ethology, Methuen, London, 1967; Stuart Altmann (ed.), Social Communication among Primates, University of Chicago Press, 196c. BIOLOGY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 13 as humans have 'instinct' has expanded the conceptual schemes of both anthropologists and biologists. It becomes clear that the latter must be assisted in their study of the social systems of animals by those skilled in study of man, the most complex of social animals.1 But not even in sociology is there outright formal resistance to the use of biological theory and data. Antipathy has been chiefly to the results claimed by biologically oriented writers - to the unjustified assurance of earlier writers in the field and to the political and social effects of Social Darwinism. For example, Parsons predicts that 'it is . . . probable that with more recent developments of biology the subject of instinct is likely to have considerably more attention paid to it again than in the recent past'.2 Again,
the sciences of action had to emancipate themselves from the biological sciences of co years ago. ... It seems altogether possible that as both reach higher levels it will become increasingly clear that a common conceptual scheme underlies theory in both of them. This is logical if we assume, as I think we must, that human personality and society are best conceived as in the broadest sense 'in nature' as not as set 'over against' nature. Biology is our nearest neighbour in the community of sciences and such substantive relations should be expected.3
Levi-Strauss stresses the importance of basing the discussion of social anthropology on the biological reality of the organism; inherent in this is the need to link physical and social anthropology.4 Ernest Gellner observes that 'the social sciences and notably social anthro pology must necessarily be concerned with the physical environment of the societies investigated (which includes the biological nature of its members) and not only with the social reality which is at the center of their concern'.5 The similarity of method employed by social scientists and natural scientists has been frequently commented
1. Tiger and Fox, 'The Zoological Perspective in Social Science', in op. cit., p. 80. 2. Talcott Parsons, 'Psychology and Sociology', in John Gillen (ed.), For a Science of Social Man: Convergences in Anthropology, Psychology and Sociology, Macmillan, New York, 19^4, p. 87. 3. Parsons and Bales, 'Appendix A', Family, Socialization, and Interaction Process, op. cit., p. 399. 4. Claude Levi-Strauss, 'The Scope of Anthropology', Current Anthropology, 7, 2 (April 1966), p. 116. $. Ernest Gellner, 'Nature and Society in Social Anthropology', Philosophy of Science, 30, 3 (July 1963), p. 236. 14 MEN IN GROUPS upon.1 While he accepts the distinction between human and social action, Marion Levy, Jr, recognizes the dependence of sociological enquiry on what we know about the limits of human plasticity - and this biologists can provide (though at the time of writing his book, he notes that the available evidence was not persuasive and that further interdisciplinary work was essential).2 In his remarks to the Plenary Session of the International Sociological Congress in 1966, Jean Piaget stressed the importance of the biological perspective in helping social scientists to determine within what context of possibility the human organism functions.3 Derek Freeman,4 Vernon Reynolds,5 and Alexander Alland6 indicate specific ways to assimilate profitably biological material into the social sciences, while Crook and Gartlan make generalizations about social structures of various species in terms of ecological factors which they try to isolate.7 Ambrose offers an excellent review of the general literature in this field and that relating specifically to the behaviour of children.8 But a comprehensive study of the relationships between biology and the various social sciences would require at least one large book.
1. Among others, by Hans Kelsen, Society and Nature, University of Chicago Press, 1943, P- 266; Kasper D. Naegele, 'Introduction: Social Change', in T. Parsons, E. Schils, K. Naegele, and J. Pitts (eds.), Theories of Society, Free Press of Glencoe, 111., 1962, p. 1 209; G. Sommerhoff, Analytical Biology, Oxford University Press, 1 9£o, p. 147; C. H. Waddington, 'The Human Evolutionary System', in Michael Ban ton (ed.), op. cit., pp. 79—89 : Clifford Geertz, 'The Transition to Humanity', in Sol Tax (ed.), Horizons of Anthropology, Aldine Books, Chicago, p. 47 : F. Barth, 'Anthropological Modes and Social Reality' (the Second Royal Society Nuffield Lecture), Proceedings of the Royal Society, 165, 998 (July, 1966); Llewellyn Gross, 'Theory Construction in Sociology: A Methodological Inquiry', in L. Gross (ed.), Symposium in Sociological Theory, Row, Peterson, Evanston, 111., 195-9 ; Carl G. Hem- pel, 'The Logic of Functional Analysis', in Gros (ed.), op. cit., pp. 272-302 ; George Gay lord Simpson, Behaviour and Evolution, in Anne Roe and George Gay lord Simpson (eds.), Behaviour and Evolution, Yale University Press, 1958 ; Fletcher, op. cit., Chapter IX. 2. Marion J. Levy, Jr, The Structure oj Society, op. cit., pp. 6—16. 3. Jean Piaget, 'Le Probleme des Mechanismes Commune dans les Sciences de 1'Homme', Transactions of the Sixth World Congress of Sociology, vol. 1, International Sociological Association, Geneva, 1966. 4. Derek Freeman, 'Social Anthropology and the Scientific Study of Human Be haviour', Man, 1, 3 (September 1966). g. Vernon Reynolds, 'Open Groups in Hominid Evolution', Man, 1 (n.s.), pp. 441-^2. 6. Alexander Alland, Jr, Evolution and Human Behaviour, American Museum of Natural Flistory, New York, 1967. 7. J. H. Crook and J. S. Gartlan, 'Evolution of Primate Societies', Nature, 210, 5-042 (18 June 1966). 8. Anthony Ambrose, 'The Comparative Approach to Early Child Development', in E. Miller (ed.), Foundations of Child Psychiatry, Longmans, Green, London, 1965. BIOLOGY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR 15
All I have tried to do here is to indicate the richness, complexity, and relative openness of the theoretical background within which this study is both temporally and scholastically placed. It has been anthro pologists and psychologists who have, howrever marginally at various times, chiefly concerned themselves with studies of the biosocial nature of man. This is, of course, no dispensation to sociologists, political scientists, historians, and economists to continue to avoid the issue. A view of man must be at the heart of the operating assump tions of any social science. Presumably the traditional view of man as a relatively unpro- grammed, relatively 'un-animal' creature cannot be sustained in face of the various kinds of evidence from other sciences. For example, it would seem to be a matter of urgency to political scientists to try to determine whether man is intrinsically hierarchical, or not, or what. Aristotle said, 'Man is by nature a political animal,5 but the main emphasis in the study of politics has been on the meaning and forms of 'political'; the most important phrase 'by nature' has not been studied for a long time. It is only superficially acceptable to say, 'it seems logical that men will arrange their impressions of the environment so as to maximize their sense of superiority over others'.1 Of course, it does 'seem logical', just as it seems logical for birds to form territorially based hierarchies or for some primates to develop rank orders of males apparently for the maintenance of social sta bility. 2 At the same time it has been important for the understanding and prediction of the behaviour of animals to know broadly what are likely to be the parameters of their social behaviour, the process of the life cycle, and the interaction between these two apparently programmed phenomena. In principle, there is no reason for students of politics not to study the politics of other animals; the comparative data and enlargement of perspective which must follow this endeavour is very useful. With the benefit of contrasting and comparable data about the other species, from such work could emerge some cross- cultural generalizations about political behaviour. These should be helpful to political scientists who want to develop modes of political analysis which are not culture-bound and which perhaps have pre dictive power. For example, purely from the point of view of this project, it wrould be useful to know if biological sex is a constant
1. Lipset, Political Man, op. cit., p. 248. 2. M. R. A. Chance, 'The Nature and Special Features of the Instinctive Social Bond of Primates', in S. L. Washburn (ed.), op. cit. 16 MEN IN GROUPS
influence on human political systems in the way it is in many other primate species. Presumably because political scientists are not in terested In essentially biological questions, there are very few helpful cross-cultural studies of male—female differences in political be haviour, with the exception of differences in voting patterns; and voting behaviour is a relatively minor factor in the general conduct of politics around the world. For sociologists the whole matter is genuinely perplexing. As I have indicated, the question can be fairly asked: Why, when we have been so successful in finding out things about human social behaviour, should we begin to experiment with the re-use of a tradition of analysis the rejection of which was in part a stimulus of our success? The short answer is, there is new data. The discovery that primates develop cultural forms in addition to species-specific 'programmed' behaviour may be as important for sociologists as the Hawthorn findings were for economists.1 The Hawthorn experiments suggested that industrial workers responded not only to material incentives such as piece-work arrangements, but also to the style and content of managerial behaviour. The economists' 'rational man' was an oversimplification; how economic decisions are made was revealed to be much more complex than the current theoretical models of the period permitted. Should cross-cultural studies suggest that males and females differ concretely in not only reproductive but other kinds of major be haviour, there would be immediate consequences for those theories about social activity which are principally concerned with explaining the structure and process of social systems in social terms. As I remarked above, 'high' sociological theory, or general theory, is structurally receptive to the incorporation of biological data. But such assimilation has not occurred ambitiously or frequently enough for it to have much significance within the profession. Though it is one of the (biologically programmed) characteristics of the human that he is very plastic, it is not enough simply to say so. As Geertz has advised, it is necessary to know to what extent we are plastic, why, when, and so on.2 That this is undoubtedly difficult to do is surely reason for beginning the work as soon as possible - if only in
1. Fritz Roethlisberger, et. al., Management and the Worker, Harvard University Press, 1939- 2. Clifford Geertz, 'Summary: Next Steps in Research', in Paul L. DeVore (ed.), op. cit., p. 139. BIOLOGY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR i / the interests of the development of a mature discipline of sociology which can trade fruitfully with other disciplines. Obviously it is necessary for sociologists to make use of their colleagues' findings where relevant. And when biologists claim that social life is accom panied by an infra-social process sociologists should be in a position to evaluate and test such a claim. Finally, because the study of man's contemporary behaviour Is potentially related to the development of hypotheses about human evolution, it becomes the responsibility of sociologists — who boast special skill in understanding human behaviour - to consider orienting some of their findings to their anthropological, palaeontological, and zoological colleagues. If a firmly grounded paradigm for the study of behaviour becomes available to other disciplines, sociologists should be familiar with it, if not embrace it, to avoid being deprived of the benefits of the division of scientific labour and to avoid depriving their colleagues of sociology's contribution to this labour. August Comte, frequently called the father of sociology, predicted that sociology would not be a fully successful discipline until it could deal with animal societies.1 It would be a graceful if ironic symmetry if this prediction came true because sociologists realized that, like M. Jourdain of Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme who discovered he was speaking prose, biologists have been speaking sociology, at least for a little while. i. August Comte, Coins de Philosophic Positive (cc edition), Paris, i 893, pp. 348-^3. Bibliography
This bibliography contains all the items referred to in the text of the book. There is also a selection of more pertinent books and articles involved In the study, but not directly mentioned In this report.
1. BOOKS
JANE ADDAMS Newer Ideals of Peace, Macmillan, New York, 1907.
ALEXANDER ALLAND, JR Evolution and Human Behavior, American Museum of Natural History, Garden City, New York, 1967.
BRIDGET ALLCHIN The Stone-Tipped Arrow, Phoenix House, London, 1966.
MICHAEL ALLEN Rites de Passage, Melbourne University Press (in press).
STUART ALTMANN (ed.) Social Communication among Primates, University of Chicago Press, 196 c.
STANISLAV ANDRESKI Elements of Comparative Sociology, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1964.
ROBERT ARDREY The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations, Atheneum Press, New York, 1966,
ROBERT ARDREY African Genesis: A Personal Investigation into the Animal Origins and Nature of Man, Collins, London, 1961.
PHILIPPE ARIES Centuries of Childhood, Jonathan Cape, London, 1962.
A. S. ATTEKAR The Position of Women in Hindu Civilization, Motilal Banarsidas, Benares, 1956. BIBLIOGRAPHY 219
D. S. BAILEY Homosexuality and the Western Christian Traditions, Longmans, Green, London, 195$.
ALBERT BANDURA and RICHARD H. WALTERS Adolescent Aggression: A Study of the Influence of Child Training Practices and Family Interrelationships, Ronald Press, New York, 19^9. MICHAEL BANTON (ed.) Darwinism and the Study of Society, Tavistock Publications, London, 196 1.
S. A. BARNETT (ed.) A Century of Darwin, Heinemann, London, 19^8.
FRANK BEACH (ed.) Sex and Behaviour, John Wiley, New York, 1965.
EARL H. BELL and JOHN SIRJAMAKI Instructor's Manual to Accompany Social Foundations of Human Behaviour (2nd edition), Harper & Row, New York, 196^.
REINHARD BENDIX Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, Heinemann, London, i960.
THERESE BENEDEK Psychosexual Function in Women, Ronald Press, New York, 19^2.
JONATHAN BENNETT Rationality: An Essay Towards an Analysis, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1964.
L. BERKOWITZ (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, 196c.
VERA BILSHAI The Status of Women in the Soviet Union, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 19^9.
UNA BIRCH Secret Societies and the French Revolution, Bodley Head, London, 1911.
RAY L. BIRDWHISTELL Introduction to Kinesis: An Annotation Systems for Analysis of Body Motion and Gesture, University of Louisville, n.d.
EUGENE L. BLISS (ed.) Roots of Behavior, Harper & Bros., New York, 1962.
ABBE BREUIL Cave Drawings: catalogue for an exhibition of drawings by the Abbe Breuil, Arts Council, London, 1954. 220 MEN IN GROUPS
J. W. BURROW Evolution and Society; A Study in Victorian Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1966. V. W. BUTT-THOMPSON West African Secret Societies, Witherby, London, 1929. KARL W. BUTZER Environment and Archaeology: An Introduction to Pleistocene Geography, Methuen, London, 196 c. V. F. CALVERTON (ed.) The Making of Man, Modern Library, New York, 193 1. ELIAS CANETTI Crowds and Power, Gollancz, London, 1962. j. D. CARTHY and F. j. EBLING (eds.) The Natural History of Aggression, Academic Press (for the Institute of Biology), London, 1964. WALTER LEGROS CLARK History of the Primates, British Museum (Natural History), London, 1960.
YEHUDI A. COHEN The Transition from Childhood to Adolescence, Aldine Books, Chicago,
1964. NORMAN COHN Warrant for Genocide, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1967. AUGUST COMTE Cours de Philosophie Positive (§e edition), Paris, 1 893. JAMES CRAMER The World's Police, Cassell, London, 1964. ARKON DARAUL Secret Societies Yesterday and Today, Muller, London, 1961. CHARLES DARWIN The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, John Murray, London, 1871 (1st edition) ; 1894 (2nd edition). NORMAN DENNIS, FERNANDO HENRIQUES, and CLIFFORD SLAUGHTER Coal Is Our Life: An Analysis of a Yorkshire Mining Community, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 19 r/6. ALFRED DE VIGNY The Military Condition (translated by M. Barnett), Oxford University Press, 1964. IRVEN DevoRE (ed.) Primate Behaviour: Field Studies of Monkeys and Apes, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 196 c;. BIBLIOGRAPHY 221
PAUL DeVORE (ed.) The Origin of Man, Aldine Books, Chicago, 1968. PAUL L. DeVORE (ed.) The Origins of Man, transcript of symposium sponsored by the Wenner- Gren Foundation, Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York, 196c. THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species (paperback edition), Yale University Press, 1962.
NORTON T. DODGE Women in the Soviet Economy, Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. MAURICE DUVERGER
The Political Role of Women, UNESCO, Paris, 19CC. S. M. EISENSTADT From Generation to Generation, Free Press of Glencoe, Glencoe, 111., 19 cc. £. E. EVANS-PRITCHARD The Position of Women in Primitive Societies, Faber & Faber, London, 196c. JOHANNES FALKENBURG Kin and Totem: Group Relations of Australian Aborigines in the Port Keats District, Oslo University Press, 1962. LESLIE H. FARBER The Ways of the Will: Essays Towards a Psychology and Psycho pathology of Will, Constable, London, 1966.
5. M. FARBER and R. H. WILSON (eds.) The Potential of Women, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963. JAMES C. FARIS Cat Harbour: A Newfoundland Fishing Settlement, Institute of Social and Economic Research, St John's, Newfoundland, 1966. ELIZABETH FAULKNER BAKER Technology and Women s Work, Columbia University Press, 1964. RONALD FLETCHER Instinct in Man: In the Light of Recent Work in Comparative Psychology, Allen & Unwin, London, 1 9 C7.
c. s. FORD and FRANK BEACH Patterns of Sexual Behaviour, Harper & Bros., New York, 19 ci. GILLIAN FREEMAN The Undergrowth of Literature, Thomas Nelson, London, 1967.
SIGMUND FREUD Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (translated and edited by James Strachey), Hogarth Press, London, 1962. 222 MEN IN GROUPS
BETTY FRIEDAN The Feminine Mystique, W. W. Norton, New York, 1963. PETER FRYER Mrs Grundy: Studies in English Prudery, Dennis Dobson, London, 1963, ROGER GARAUDY Femmes du XXe Si eel e: Semaine de la Pensee Marxiste, Presses Universi- taires de France, 1965, PAUL H. GEBHARD, J. H. GAGNON, W. B. POMEROY, and C. V. CHRISTENSON Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types, Heinemann, London, 196c. JOHN GILLEN (ed.) For a Science oj Social Man: Convergences in Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology, Macmillan, New York, 19 C4. MORRIS GINSBURG 'Introduction to the Ninth Edition', The Psychology of Society, Methuen, London, 1964. ELI GINZBURG, et al. Breakdown and Recovery (vol. 2 of The Ineffective Soldier: 3 vols.), Columbia University Press, 195-9. ELI GINZBERG, et al. Life Styles of Educated Women, Columbia University Press, 1966. LOUIS GINZBURG Students, Scholars and Saints, Jewish Publications Society of America, Philadelphia, 1928. CARL GLICK and HONG SHENK HWA Swords of Silence: Chinese Secret Societies — Past and Present, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1947. MAX GLUCKMAN (ed.) Closed Systems and Open Minds: The Limits of Naivety in Social Anthropology, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 1964. MAX GLUCKMAN (ed.) Essays on the Ritual of Social Relations, Manchester University Press, 1962. WILLIAM GOLDING Lord of the Flies, Faber & Faber, London, 19C4. WALTER GOLDSCHMIDT Comparative Functionalism: An Essay in Anthropological Theory, University of California Press, 1966. W. J. GOODE World Revolution and Family Patterns, Free Press of Glencoe, 111., 1963. BIBLIOGRAPHY 223
GEOFFREY GORER Hot Strip Tease and Other Notes on American Culture, Cresset Press, London, 1937. ALAN P. GRIMES The Puritan Ethic and Woman Suffrage, Oxford University Press, 1967. ROBERT E. GRINDER (ed.) Studies in Adolescence, Macmillan, New York, 1963, LLEWELLYN GROSS (ed.) Symposium in Sociological Theory, Row, Peterson, Evanston, III., 19^9. E. T. HALL The Hidden Dimension, Doubleday, New York, 1966. G. A. HARRISON, J. S. WEINER, J. M. TANNER, and N. A. BARNICOT Human Biology, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1964. E. G. MURRAY HAUSNECHT The Joiners: A Sociological Description of Voluntary Association Membership in the United States, Bedminster Press, New York, 1962. TOM HAYDEN Riot in Newark, Random House, New York, 1967. WALTER HEAPE Sex Antagonism, Constable, London, 1913. CHARLES W. HECKETHORN The Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries, George Redway, London, 1897. H. HEDIGER Studies of the Psychology and Behaviour of Captive Animals in Zoos and Circuses, Butterworth, London, 19rr. FERNANDO HENRIQUES Prostitution and Society, vol. 2, Mac Gibbon & Kee, London, 1963. MAGNUS HIRSCHFELD The Sexual History of the World War, Panurge Press, New York, 1934. MAGNUS HIRSCHFELD Sexual Anomalies and Perversions, Encyclopedic Press, London, 1938. E. J. HOBSBAWN Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the lpth and 20th Centuries, Manchester University Press, 19^9. RICHARD HOFSTADTER Social Darwinism in American Thought: 1860-1915, University of Pennsylvania Press, 194c. E. P. HOLLANDER Leaders, Groups and Influence, Oslo University Press, 1964. 224 MEN IN GROUPS
F. c. HOWELL and F. BOURLIERE (eds.) African Ecology and Human Evolution, Methuen, London, 1964.
FRANCIS L. K. HSU Clan, Caste and Club, D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J., 1963.
KINJI IMANISHI and S. H. ALTMANN (eds.) Japanese Monkeys, Yerkes Regional Primate Center, Atlanta, Ga., 196 c.
H. W. JANSON Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Warburg Institute, London, 19c2.
JUSTIN KAPLAN (ed.) With Malice Toward Women: A Handbook for Women-Haters Drawn from the Best Minds of All Time, W. H. Allen, London, 19C3.
A. G. KELLER Societal Evolution: A Study of the Evolutionary Basis of Science and Society, Yale University Press, 193 1.
HANS KELSEN Society and Nature, University of Chicago Press, 1943.
ALFRED KINSEY, et al. Sexual Behaviour in the Human Female, W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia,
CLIFFORD KIRKPATRICK Nazi Germany: Its Women and Family Life, Bobbs-Merrill, New York,
i9388
VIOLA KLEIN Working Wives, Institute of Personnel Management, London, i960.
A. L. KROEBER Anthropology, Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1948.
PETER KROPOTKIN Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Heinemann, London, 1902.
THOMAS S. KUHN The Structure ofScientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, 1962.
WALTER Z. LAQUER Young Germany: A History of the German Youth Movement, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1962.
HAROLD LASSWELL Psychopathology and Politics, Viking Press, New York, i960.
HENRI LE CARON Twenty-five Years in the Secret Service, Heinemann, London, 1892.
GERSHON LEGMAN Love and Death: A Study in Censorship, Breaking Point, New York, 1949. BIBLIOGRAPHY 225
GERSHON LEGMAN, H. C. LEAM, T. WRIGHT, G. WITT, SIR A. TENNANT,
and SIR w. DUGDALE The Guilt of the Templars, Basic Books, New York, 1966.
CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS The Savage Mind, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1966.
MARION J. LEVY, JR The Structure of Society, Princeton University Press, 19 gi.
ROY LEWIS The Evolution Man, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1963.
R. LINTON (ed.) The Science of Man in the World Crisis, Columbia University Press, 1945".
SEYMOUR M. LIPSET Political Man, Doubleday, New York, 1963.
K. L. LITTLE The Mende of Sierra Leone, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 19C1.
KONRAD LORENZ On Aggression, Methuen, London, 1966.
EMERSON H. LOUCKE The Ku Klux Klan in Pennsylvania, Telegraphy Press, New York, 193 c.
ROBERT LOWIE Primitive Society, George Routledge, London, 192 1.
E. E. MACCOBY, et ah (eds.) Readings in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York,
i9c8.
BRYAN MAGEE One in Twenty; A Study of Homosexuality in Men and Women, Seeker & Warburg, London, 1966.
B. MALINOWSKI A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays, University of North Carolina Press, 1944.
MARGARET MEAD Male and Female, Penguin Books, Harmonds worth, 1962.
MARGARET MEAD Continuities in Cultural Evolution, Yale University Press, 1964.
MARGARET MEAD AND FRANCES B. KAPLAN (eds.) American Women: The Report of the President*s Commission on the Status of Women, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 196c.
E. MILLER (ed.) Foundations of Child Psychiatry, Longmans, Green, London, 196c. 226 MEN IN GROUPS
C. WRIGHT MILLS The Power Elite, Oxford University Press, 195:6. JOHN MONEY (ed.) Sex Research: New Developments, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1965-. ASHLEY MONTAGU The Natural Superiority of Women, Allen & Unwin, London, 195-4, ASHLEY MONTAGU The Biosocial Nature of Man, Grove Press, New York, 19 c6. ASHLEY MONTAGU (ed.) Culture and the Evolution of Man, Oxford University Press, 1962. W. P. MORGAN Triad Societies in Hong Kong, Government Press, Hong Kong, i960. RICHARD HOGG ART The Uses of Literacy, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1957. DESMOND MORRIS The Naked Ape, Jonathan Cape, London, 1967. DESMOND MORRIS (ed.) Primate Ethology, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1967. FARLEY MOWAT Never Cry Wolf, Seeker & Warburg, London, 1964. GEORGE P. MURDOCK Social Structure, Macmillan, New York, 1949. GARDNER MURPHY Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure, Harper & Bros., New York, 1947. BURY PALLISER Historic Devices, Badges and War- Cries, Sampson Low & Mars ton, London, 1870. TALCOTT PARSONS The Social System, Tavistock Publications, London, 19C2. T. PARSONS, E. SHILS, K. D. NAEGELE, and J. PITT (eds.) Theories of Society, Free Press of Glencoe, Glencoe, 111., 1962. TALCOTT PARSONS and ROBERT F. BALES Family, Socialization and Interaction Process, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1956. NICHOLAS PASTORE The Nature-Nurture Controversy, King's Crown Press, New York, 1949. DENISE PAULME (ed.) Women of Tropical Africa, University of California Press, 1964. BIBLIOGRAPHY 227
KARL PEARSON Side Lights on the Evolution of Man, Eugenics Laboratory Lecture Series, No. XIV, Cambridge University Press, 192 i.
ROBERT N. PEHRSON The Social Organization of Marri Baluch (compiled and analysed from his notes by Frederick Barth), Viking Fund Publication in Anthro pology, vol. 43, Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York, 1966.
N. W. POLSBY Community Tower and Political Theory, Yale University Press, 1963.
HENRI PIRENNE Early Democracies in the Low Countries, Harper Torchbooks, New York,
1963.
KARL POPPER The Poverty of Elistoricism, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1961,
JOHN PORTER The Vertical Mosaic, University of Toronto Press, 196^.
ADOLF PORTMAN Animals as Social Beings, Hutchinson, London, 1961.
CARVETH READ The Origin of Man, Cambridge University Press, 1925,
ANN ROE and GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON (eds.) Behaviour and Evolution, Yale University Press, 195/8.
FRITZ ROETHLISBERGER, et al. Management and the Worker, Harvard University Press, 1939.
G. ROHEIM Psychoanalysis and Anthropology; Culture, Personality and the Unconscious, International Universities Press, New York, 1950.
ISMOND ROSEN (ed.) The Pathology and Treatment of Sexual Deviation, Oxford University Press, 1964.
H. D. RUITENBECK (ed.) The Problem of Homosexuality in Modern Society, E. P. Dutton, New York, 1963.
JOHN RUSKIN Letters and Advice to Young Girls and Young Ladies, John Wiley, New York, 1879.
BERTRAND RUSSELL Anti-Suffragist Anxieties (pamphlet), People's Suffrage Federation, London, n.d. 228 MEN IN GROUPS
BERTRAND RUSSELL Marriage and Morals, Allen & Unwin, London, 1929.
MARSHALL D. SAHLINS and ELM AN R. SERVICE (eds.) Evolution and Culture, University of Michigan Press, i960.
STANLEY SCHACTER The Psychology of Affiliation: Experimental Studies of Sources of Gregarious- ness, Tavistock Publications, London, 1961.
ADAM SCHAFF A Philosophy of Man, Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1963.
I. SCHAPERA Government and Politics in Tribal Societies, Watts, London, 196 c. c. H. SCHILLER (trans, and ed.) Instinctive Behaviour: The Development of a Modern Concept, Methuen, London, 1957
MICHAEL SCHOFIELD The Sexual Behaviour of Young People, Longmans, Green, London, 196c.
ALVIN L. SCHORR Slums and Social Insecurity, Thomas Nelson, London, 196 c.
ROBERT R. SEARS, et al. Patterns of Child Rearing, Row, Peterson, Evans ton, III., 19 C7.
HEREWARD SENIOR Orangeism in Ireland and Britain, IJ95-1836, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1966.
ELMAN R. SERVICE The Hunters, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1966.
JORDON N. SHER (ed.) Theories of the Mind, Free Press of Glencoe, Glencoe, 111., 1962.
A. and G. SIEVEKING The Caves of France and Northern Spain, Studio Vista, London, 1962.
ANDREW SINCLAIR The Emancipation of the American Woman, Harper & Row, New York, 1966.
E. J. SLIJPER Whales, Hutchinson, London, 1962.
WILLIAM EDWARD SMITH Christianity and Secret Societies, Meador Publishing, Boston, 1936.
W. J. SOLLAS Ancient Hunters and Their Modern Representatives, Macmillan, London, BIBLIOGRAPHY 229
G. SOMMERHOFF Analytical Biology, Oxford University Press, 1950.
PITIRIM SOROKIN Contemporary Sociological Theories, Harper & Bros,, New York, 1927.
C. H. SOUTHWICK (ed.) Primate Social Behaviour, D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J., 1963. NICHOLAS j. SPYKMAN The Social Theory of Georg Simmel, Atherton Press, New York, 1966 (reissue of 1925 publication).
WILLIAM N. STEPHENS The Oedipus Complex: Cross- Cultural Evidence, Free Press of Glencoe, Glencoe, 111., 1962.
ANTHONY STORR Human Aggression, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press, London, 1968.
SAMUEL STOUFFER, et al. The American Soldier, vol. 1, Princeton University Press, 1949.
J. M. TANNER (ed.) Human Growth, Pergamon Press, Oxford, i960.
SOL TAX (ed.) The Evolution of Man, University of Chicago Press, i960.
SOL TAX (ed.) Horizons of Anthropology, Aldine Books, Chicago, 1964.
E. L. THORNDIKE Human Nature and the Social Order, Macmillan, New York, 1940.
VERA TOMICH Education in Yugoslavia and the New Reform, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C, 1963.
J. C. TROTTER Boxing, George Routledge, London, 1901.
WILFRED TROTTER Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War, Ernest Benn, London, 1916.
GRAHAM WALLAS The Great Society: A Psychological Analysis, Macmillan, London, 1914.
GRAHAM WALLAS Human Nature in Politics, Constable, London, 1908.
S. L. WASHBURN (ed.) The Social Life of Early Man, Aldine Books, Chicago, 1961.
MAX WEBER The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Free Press of Glencoe, Glencoe, 111., 1947. 230 MEN IN GROUPS
HUTTON WEBSTER Primitive Secret Societies, Macmillan, New York, 1932.
LESLIE T. WILKINS Social Deviance, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 196c.
RUPERT WILKINSON The Prefects; British Leadership and the Public School Tradition, Oxford University Press, 1964.
PETER WILLMOTT Adolescent Bojs of East London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1966.
KURT H. WOLFF (trans. and ed.) The Sociology of Georg Simmel, Collier-Macmillan, London, 1964 (Free Press paperback edition).
MERVYN L. WYNNE Triad and Tabut: A Survey of the Origin and Diffusion of Chinese and Mohammedan Secret Societies in the Malay Peninsula, A.D. 1800—1935, Government Printing Office, Singapore, 1941.
V. C. WYNNE-EDWARDS Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behaviour, Hafher, New York, 1962.
FRANK YOUNG Initiation Ceremonies; A Cross-Cultural Study of Status Dramatization, Bobbs-Merrill, New York, 196c.
w. c. YOUNG (ed.) Sex and Internal Secretions, vol. 2 (3rd edition), Bailliere, Tindall & Cox, London, 1961.
SOLLY ZUCKERMAN The Social Life of Monkeys and Apes, Kegan Paul, London, 1932.
2. ARTICLES IN JOURNALS, PUBLISHED AND UNPUBLISHED PAPERS, AND INDIVIDUAL LECTURES
DAVID F. ABERLE, URIE BRONFENBRENNER, ECKHARD H. HESS,
DANIEL R. MILLER, DAVID M. SCHNEIDER, and JAMES N. SPUHLER 'The Incest Taboo and the Mating Patterns of Animals', American Anthropologist, 65, 2 (April 1963).
CORINNA ADAM 'Gretel's Old Look', New Statesman (21 February 1964).
CORINNA ADAM * Duels and Jobs for the Boys', New Statesman (18 June 196 c).
J. ANTHONY AMBROSE 'The Study of Human Social Organization : A Review of Current BIBLIOGRAPHY 231
Concepts and Approaches', Symposia of the Zoological Society, No. 14, London.
IRIS ANDRESKI 'The Baby as Dictator', New Society (1 c December 1966).
YU. P. AVERKIEVA On the Earliest Forms of Inheritance, a paper presented to the Sixth World Congress of Sociology, Evian, September 1966: Nauka Publishing House, Moscow, 1966.
HERBERT BARRY, III, MARGARET K. BACON, and IRVIN L. CHILD 'A Cross-Cultural Survey of Some Sex Differences in Socialization', Journal of Abnormal and Sexual Psychology, 55, 3 (November 1957).
F. BARTH 'Anthropological Modes and Social Reality' (The Second Royal Society Nuffield Lecture), Proceedings of the Royal Society, 165, 998 (July 1966).
MARSTON BATES 'On Being Man1, The American Scholar, 36, 1 (Winter 1966-7).
FRANK BEACH 'The Snark was a Boojum', American Psychologist, 5 (19 co), pp. 113-27.
ROBIN BEST Against High Density', New Society (24 November 1 966).
LEWIS R. BINFORD and SALLY R. BINFORD 'A Preliminary Analysis of Functional Variability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies', American Anthropologist, 68, 2 (April 1966).
E. WILBER BOCK 'The Female Clergy: A Case of Professional Marginality', American Journal of Sociology, J2, c (March 1967).
KENNETH E. BOCK 'The Comparative Method of Anthropology', Comparative Studies in Society and History, 8, 3 (April 1966).
WILLIAM F. BRAINERD 'Masonic Lecture', John March, New London, 182c; Encyclopaedia Britannica (nth edition), vol. 23, Cambridge, 1911.
PETER BROOK 'Filming a Masterpiece', Observer Weekend Review (26 July 1964).
NONA B. BROWN 'Inquiry into the Feminine Mind', New York Times Magazine (12 April 1964). 232 MEN IN GROUPS
JEAN BUXTON 'Animal Identity and Human Peril: Some Mandari Images', Man, 3, 1 (March 1968). ROBERT L. CARNEIRO and STEPHEN F. TOBIAS 'The Application of Scale Analysis to the Study of Cultural Evolution', Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences (Series II), vol. 26, No. 2 (December 1963). ROBERT CARRICK 'Ecological Significance of Territory in the Australian Magpie', unpublished paper, 196c. M. R. A. CHANCE 'Attention Structure as the Basis of Primate Rank Orders', Man, 2, 4 (November 1967). M. R. A. CHANCE and ALAN MEAD 'Social Behaviour and Primate Evolution', Symposia, vol. 7, Society for Experimental Biology, London, 1953. MICKEY CHIANG 'Use of Tools by Wild Macaque Monkeys in Singapore', Nature, 214 (17 June 1967). J. DESMOND CLARK 'Acheulian Occupation Sites in the Middle East and Africa: A Study in Cultural Variability', American Anthropologist, 68, 2, Part 2 (April 1966). WERNER COHN 'Social Stratification and the Charismatic', Midwestern Sociologist, 2i, 1 (December 195-8). WERNER COHN 'Social Status and the Ambivalence Hypothesis: Some Critical Notes and a Suggestion', American Sociological Review, 25, 4 (August i960). LEWIS A. COSER 'Political Functions of Eunuchism', American Sociological Review, 29, 6 (December 1964). EARL W. COUNT 'Comment on Steps toward a Unified Anthropology', Current Anthropology, 8, 1-2 (February-April 1967). EARL W. COUNT 'The Biological Basis of Human Sociality', American Anthropologist, 60, 6 (December 1958). URSULA M. COWGILL 'The Season of Birth in Man', Man, 1, 2 (June i960). BIBLIOGRAPHY 233
JOHN HURRELL CROOK 'Cooperation in Primates*, Eugenics Review, 58, 2 (June 1966).
JOHN HURRELL CROOK 'Evolutionary Change in Primate Societies', Science Journal (June 1967).
j. H. CROOK and j. s. GARTLAN 'Evolution of Primate Societies', Nature, 210 (18 June 1966),
R. H. S. GROSSMAN 'War Crime', New Statesman (3 May 1963),
F. FRASER DARLING 'Social Life in Ungulates', in Structure et Thysiologie des Societies Animales, Colloques Internationaux du Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 19C2.
RAYMOND DART 'The Minimal Bone-Breccia Content of Makapansgat and the Aus- tralopithicine Predatory Habit', American Anthropologist, 60, c (October 19 c8).
JAMES A. DAVIS 'The Campus as a Frog Pond: An Application of the Theory of Relative Deprivation to Career Decisions of College Men', American Journal of Sociology, 72, 1 (July 1966). P. CHOMBART DE LAUWE 'Introduction', Images of Women in Society: International Social Science Journal, 14, 1, UNESCO, Paris.
ROBERT E. EDGERTON 'Pokot Intersexuality: An East African Example of Resolutions of Sexual Incongruity', American Anthropologist, 66, 6 (December 1964).
IRENAUS EIBL-EIBESFELDT 'The Fighting Behaviour of Animals', Scientific American (December 1961).
JOHN F. EISENBERG and ROBERT E. KEUHN 'The Behaviour of Ateles Geoffroyi and Related Species', Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 151, 8 (1966).
JOHN F. EISENBERG 'The Social Organization of Mammals', Handhuch der Zoologie, 10, 7 (May 1964).
NORBERT ELIAS and ERIC DUNNING 'Dynamics of Group Sports with Special Reference to Football', British Journal of Sociology, 17, 4 (December 1966). 234 MEN IN GROUPS
J. MERRITT EMLEN 'Natural Selection and Human Behaviour', Journal of Theoretical Biology, I 2 (1966).
ERIK ERIKSON 'Sex Differences In the Play Configurations of Pre-Adolescents', American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 21,4 (October 19 c/i).
ROBERT ERWIN 'Civilization as a Phase of World History', American Historical Review, 71, 4 (July 1966),
WILLIAM M. EVAN 'Dimensions of Participation in Voluntary Associations', Social Forces, 36, 2 (December 1957).
COLIN FLETCHER 'Beat and Gangs on Merseyside', New Society (February 1964).
CLELLAN S. FORD 'A Comparative Study of Human Reproduction', In Yale University Publications in Anthropology, vol. 3, Yale University Press, 1945". R. F. FORTUNE 'Omaha Secret Societies', In Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, vol. 14, Columbia University Press, 1932,, ROBIN FOX 'The Evolution of Human Sexual Behaviour', New York Times Magazine (24 March 1968).
ROBIN FOX 'In the Beginning: Aspects of Hominid Behavioural Evolution' (London School of Economics and Political Science, Malinowski Memorial Lecture, 1967), Man, 2, 3 (September 1967).
ROBIN FOX 'Incest, Inhibition and Hominid Evolution', paper presented to Wenner-Gren Symposium, Burg Wartenstein (August 1968).
J. G. FRAZER 'Observations in Central Australian Totemism', Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (n.s.), 1, 3-4 (February-May 1 899).
DEREK FREEMAN 'Social Anthropology and the Scientific Study of Human Behaviour', Man, 1, 3 (September 1966), pp. 330-42. HOWARD E. FREEMAN, EDWIN NOVAK, and LEO G. REEDER 'Correlates of Membership in Voluntary Associations', American Sociological Review, 2 2, c (October 1957). BIBLIOGRAPHY 235
EDGAR Z. FRIEDENBERG 'A Violent Country', New York Review of Books (20 October 1966). HAROLD GARFINKLE 'Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies', American Journal of Sociology, 61, c (March 19 c6). CLIFFORD GEERTZ 'The Impact and Concept of Culture on the Concept of Man', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (April 1966). VALERIUS GEIST 'Working with the Mountain Sheep', Animals (July 1967). MARTHA GELLHORN 'A Tale of Two Wars', Guardian (14 April 1967). ERNEST GELLNER 'Nature and Society in Social Anthropology', Philosophy of Science, 3°> 3 (July 1963). M. T. GHISELIN 'On Semantic Pitfalls of Biological Adaptation', Philosophy of Science, 33, 1-2 (March-June 1966). HELEN GIDEON 'A Baby is Born in the Punjab', American Anthropologist, 64, 6 (Decem ber 1962). NOEL P. GIST 'Secret Societies: A Cultural Study of Fraternalism in the United States', University of Missouri Studies, 15, 4 (1 October 1940). RONALD GOLDMAN 'Cultural Influences on the Sex Ratio in the Incidence of Stuttering', American Anthropologist, 69, 1 (February 1967). E. H. GOMBRICH 'Ritualized Gesture and Expression in Art', Royal Society Philosophical Transactions, Series B, Biological Sciences No. 772, 2 c (December 1966). MICHAEL GRAHAM 'Crowds and the Like in Vertebrates', Human Relations, 17 , 4
(1964). E. F. GREENMAN 'The Extraorganic', American Anthropologist, 50, 2 (April-June 1948). EDWARD GROSS 'Plus Qa Change . . . The Sexual Structure of Occupations Over Time', presented to the American Sociological Association Meeting, San Francisco, 1967. 236 MEN IN GROUPS
OSWALD HALL 'Gender and the Division of Labour', in Implications of Traditional Divisions Between Mens Work and Women's Work in Our Society, Department of Labour of Canada, Ottawa, 1964. A. IRVING HALLO WELL 'Personality Structure and the Evolution of Man', American Anthro pologist, 52, 2 (April—June 19C0). DAVID A. HAMBURG 'Evolution of Emotional Responses : Evidence from Recent Research on Nonhuman Primates', Science and Psychoanalysis, 12 (1968). H. F. HARLOW and M. H. HARLOW 'Affection in Primates', Discovery, 27, 1 (January 1966). RICHARD S. HARTIGAN 'Augustine on War and Killing', Journal of History of Ideas, 27, 2 (April-June 1966). KATHY HASSARD 'Spirit of Feminism Political Lack Today', Vancouver Sun (2 October 1963). HARRY B. HAWTHORN 'A Test of Simmel on the Secret Society: The Doukhobors of British Columbia', American Journal of Sociology, 62, 1 (July 19 c6). BRUCE A. HERTIG 'Acclimatization of Women during Work in Hot Environments', Federation Proceedings, 22, 3 (May-June 1963). JAMES N. HILL 'A Prehistoric Community in Eastern Arizona', Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 22, 1 (Spring 1966). ROBERT A. HINDE 'The Nature of Aggression', New Society, 9, 231 (2 March 1967). RALPH L. HOLLOWAY, JR 'Tools and Teeth: Some Speculations Regarding Canine Reduction', American Anthropologist, 69, 1 (February 1967). ROGER HOLMES 'Freud and Social Class5, British Journal of Sociology, 16,1 (March 196^). ROGER HOLMES 'The University Seminar and the Primal Horde', unpublished paper, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, 1966. JOHN J. HONIGMANN 'Cultural Dynamics of Sex', Psychiatry, 10, 1 (February 1947). BIBLIOGRAPHY 237
THELMA HUNT 'Australian Women', Australian Quarterly, 35, 1 (March 1963),
PP. 79-84- G. I. C. INGRAM 'Displacement Activity in Human Behaviour', American Anthropologist, 62, 6 (December i960). NICHOLAS JOHNSON 'What do Children Learn from War Comics', New Society (7 July 1966). SIDNEY JOURARD 'Privacy: The Psychological Need', New Society (2 r May 1967). MIRRA KAMOROVSKY 'The Voluntary Associations of Urban Dwellers', American Sociological Review, n, 6 (December 1964). FRANK KERMODE 'The Meaning of It AIL, Books and Bookmen, 5 (October 1959). A. KORTLANDT and M. KOOIJ 'Protohominid Behaviour in Primates', Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, No. 10 (1963). A. KORTLANDT 'Comment on the Essential Morphological Basis for Human Culture', Current Anthropology, 6 (196c). LANDAU, JACOB M. 'Prolegomena to a Study of Secret Societies in Modern Egypt', Middle Eastern Studies, 1, 2 (January 196c). MARK LANE 'The Eternal Feminine', printed for private circulation, 1922. CHRISTOPHER LASCH 'The Trouble with Black Power', New York Review of Books, 10, 4 (29 February 1968). EARL LATHAM 'The Group Basis of Politics: Notes for a Theory', American Political Science Review, 46 (June 19 c2). W. S. LAUGHLIN 'The Importance of Hunting in Human Evolution', paper presented to the Man the Hunter Conference, University of Chicago, April 1966. EDMUND LEACH 'Don't Say Boo to a Goose', New York Review of Books (1 r December 1966). 238 MEN IN GROUPS
RICHARD B. LEE 'What "Hunters" Do for a Living: Or, How to Make Out on Scarce Resources', paper presented to the Man the Hunter Conference, University of Chicago, April 1966. ROBERT E. LEVINE 'Sex Roles and Economic Change in Africa', Ethnology, 5, 2 (April 1966). SEYMOUR LEVINE 'Sex Differences in the Brain', Scientific American, 214, 4 (April 1966). CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS 'The Scope of Anthropology', Current Anthropology, 7, 2 (April 1966). NORMAN LEWIS 'The Honored Society', New Yorker (8 February 1964). OSCAR LEWIS 'Husbands and Wives in a Mexican Village: A Study of Role Conflict', American Anthropologist, 51, 3 (July-September 1949). KENNETH LITTLE 'The Role of Voluntary Associations in West African Urbanization', American Anthropologist, 59, 4 (August 1957). KENNETH L. LITTLE 'The Role of the Secret Society in Cultural Specialization', American Anthropologist, 51, 1 (January-March 1949). FRANK B. LIVINGSTONE 'Reconstructing Man's Pliocene Pongid Ancestors', American Anthro pologist, 64, 2 (April 1962). PETER LOMAS 'Childbirth Ritual', New Society (3 1 December 1964). KONRAD LORENZ 'The Evolution of Behaviour', Scientific American (December 19 c8). G. A. LUNDBERG 'The Natural Science Tradition in Sociology', American Journal of Sociology, 61, 3 (November 19cc). STANFORD LYMAN ' Chinese Secret Societies in the Occident: Notes and Suggestions for Research in the Sociology of Secrecy', Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 1, 2 (196 c). GLEN MCBRIDE 'The Conflict of Crowding', Discovery, 27, 4 (April 1966). W. C. MCCLELLAND 'Women's Weeklies', New Society (31 December 1964). BIBLIOGRAPHY 239
JAMES V. MCCONNELL 'A Tape Recorder Theory of Memory', Worm Runner's Digest, 7, 2 (September 196 ALASTAIR MCKINNON 'God, Humanity and Sexual Polarity', Hihbert Journal (July 19£4). MARSHALL MCLUHAN and GEORGE LEONARD 'The Future of Sex', Look (2 c July 1967), JOHN S. MCNEIL and MARTIN B. GIFFEN 'Military Retirement: The Retirement Syndrome', American Journal of Psychology, 123, 7 (January 1967). DAVID G. MANDELBAUM 'The Plains Cree', Anthropological Tapers, 37, 2 American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1940. MARGARET MEAD 'The Mountain Arapesh', Anthropological Papers, 36, 3, American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1938. RICHARD MEANS 'Why Worry About Nature?', Saturday Review (2 December 1967). RICHARD MEANS 'Sociology, Biology and the Analysis of Social Problems', Social Problems, 15, 2 (Fall 1967). P, B. MEDAWAR 'Onwards from Spencer', Encounter (September 1963). WALTER R. MILES 'Chimpanzee Behaviour: Removal of Foreign Body from Com panion's Eye', paper presented to the 100th Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., May 1963. C. WRIGHT MILLS 'The Structure of Power in American Society', British Journal of Sociology, 60, 1 (March 19C8). GERALDINE R. MINTZ 'Some Observations on the Function of Women Sociologists at Sociology Conventions', American Sociologist, 2, 3 (August 1967). URSULA MITTWOCH 'Sex Differentiation in Mammals', Nature, 214 (May 1967). BARBARA MOON 'For the Sake of Argument', Maclean s Magazine (c October 1963). LEWIS MUMFORD 'Speculations on Prehistory', American Scholar, 36, 1 (Winter 1966- 7). 240 MEN IN GROUPS GEORGE P. MURDOCK 'Comparative Data on the Division of Labour by Sex', Social Forces, 15, 4 (i937). ROBERT F. MURPHY 'Social Structure and Sex Antagonism', Southwestern Journal of Anthro pology, 15, 1 (Spring 19 £9). ROBERT F. MURPHY Review of Denise Paulme (ed.), Femmes D'Afrique Noire, in American Anthropologist, 64, c (October 1962). JOHN NAPIER 'The Antiquity of Human Walking', Scientific American, 216, 4 (April 1967). PAT NASH Homeless Men at Home, unpublished paper, Columbia University, New York, 196c. CARL NIEMEYER 'The Coral Island Revisited', College English, 22 (January 1961). EDWARD NORBECK, DONALD E. WALKER, and MIMI COHEN 'The Interpretation of Data: Puberty Rites', American Anthropologist, 64, 3 (June 1962), KENNETH P. OAKLEY 'The Problem of Man's Antiquity: An Historical Survey', Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Geology, 9, c (1964). GORDON ORIANS 'Natural Selection and Ecological Theory', American Naturalist, 96, 890. ANTHONY M. ORUM 'A Reappraisal of the Social and Political Participation of Negroes', American Journal of Sociology, 72, 1 (July 1966). GEORGE ORWELL 'Boys' Weeklies', Inside the Whale, Seeker & Warburg, 1940. TALCOTT PARSONS 'Evolutionary Universals in Society', American Sociological Review, 29, 3 (June 1964). T. T. PATERSON 'Ritual in Industrial Societies, A Discussion of Ritualizations in Animals and Man', Royal Society Philosophical Transactions, Series B, Biological Sciences No. 772, 25 (December 1966). BIBLIOGRAPHY 241 MELVIN L. PERLMAN 'The Changing Status and Role of Women in Toro (Western Uganda)', Cahiers d* Etudes Africaines, 6, 4 (1966). JOHN PFEIFFER 'When Homo Ereetus Tamed Fire, He Tamed Himself, New York Times Magazine (n December 1966). JEAN PIAGET 'Biology and Cognition', Diogenes, No. ^4 (Summer 1966). JEAN PIAGET 'Le Probleme des Mechanismes Commune dans les Sciences de l'Homme', Transactions of the Sixth World Congress of Sociology, vol. 1, International Sociological Association, Geneva, 1966. DAVID R. PILBEAM 'Man's Earliest Ancestors', Science Journal, 3, 2 (February 1967). MIHAILO POPOVICH 'What the American Sociologists Think About their Science and its Problems', American Sociologist, 2 (May 1966). ALVIN F. POUSSAINT 'The Stresses of White Female Workers in the Civil Rights Move ment in the South', American Journal of Psychiatry, 123, 4 (October 1966). JOHN DOUGLAS PRINGLE 'The British Commune: Thoughts on the Public School', Encounter, 16, 2 (February 1961). FROELICH G. RAINEY 'The Whale Hunters of Tigara', Anthropological Tapers, 42, 2, American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1911. VERNON REYNOLDS 'Kinship and the Family in Monkeys, Apes and Man', Man, 3, 2 (June 1968). VERNON REYNOLDS 'Open Groups in Hominid Evolution', Man, 1, 4 (December 1966). AILEEN D. ROSS 'Control and Leadership in Women's Groups; An Analysis of Philanthropic Money-Raising Activity', Social Forces, 37, 2 (De cember 19C8). JOHN C. SCOTT, JR 'Membership and Participation in Voluntary Associations', American Sociological Review, 22, 3 (June 19C7). 242 MEN IN GROUPS JOHN FINLAY SCOTT 'The Role of the College Sorority in Endogamy', American Sociological Review, 30, 4 (August 1965). JEAN SHARP 'Widows Are Often Successful Running for Political Office', Montreal Star (2 2 December 1964). EDWARD A. SHILS and MORRIS JANOWITZ 'Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War IP, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1 2 (1948). E. L. SIMONS 'Fossil Evidence Relating to the Early Evolution of Primate Be haviour' , Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 102, Article 2 (December 1962). E. L. SIMONS 'In Search of the Missing Link', Discovery, 1, 2 (Spring 1966). E. L. SIMONS 'Some Fallacies in the Study of Hominid Phylogeny', Science, 141, 35-84 (6 September 1963). E. L. SIMONS 'New Fossil Apes for Egypt and the Initial Differentiation of the Huminoides', Nature, 205 (196c). RITA JAMES SIMON, SHIRLEY MERRITT CLARK, and KATHLEEN GALWAY 'The Woman Ph.D.: A Recent Profile', Social Problems, 15, 2 (Fall 1967). GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON 'The Biological Nature of Man', Science, 132, 3721 (22 April 1966). PHILIP E. SLATER 'On Social Regression', American Sociological Review, 28, 3 (June 1963). DAVID HORTON SMITH 'A Psychological Model of Individual Participation in Formal Voluntary Associations', American Journal of Sociology, 72, 3 (November 1966). ROBERT SOMMER 'Studies in Personal Space', Sociometry, 22 (1959). DAVID STEA 'Territoriality, The Interior Aspect: Space, Territory and Human Movements', Landscape (Autumn 1965). JULIAN H. STEWARD 'Hunting as a Factor in the Evolution of Social Structures', presented to the Man the Hunter Conference, University of Chicago, April 1966. BIBLIOGRAPHY 243 ANTHONY STORR 'The Psychology of Aggression', New Society (11 October 1962). H. SUTHERLAND and IAIN STEWART 'A Critical Analysis of Premenstrual Syndrome', Lancet, 7397 (c June 196 c). YONINA TALMON 'Sex Role Differentiation In an Equalitarian Society', in T. E. Lass- well, J. H. Burne, and S. H. Aronson (eds.), Life in Society, Scott, Foreman, Chicago, 196 c. J. M. TANNER 'Galtonian Eugenics and the Study of Growth: The Relation of Body Size, Intelligence Tests Score, and Social Circumstances in Children and Adults', Eugenics Review, No. 38, 3 (September 1966). SUSAN D. TAYLOR, M. WILTON, R. OSNOS 'The Wives of Drug Addicts', American Journal of Psychiatry, 123, § (November 1966). w. I. THOMAS 'The Gaming Interest', American Journal of Sociology (1906). KYRIL TIDMARSH 'Right to do the Hardest Work', The Times (16 February 1967). LIONEL TIGER 'Diplomats, Monkeys and the New Biology', International Journal (Winter 1967). LIONEL TIGER 'A Program for the Study of the Biological Aspects of Human Male Association Patterns', unpublished paper presented to the meeting of the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour, Oxford, July 196 c. LIONEL TIGER and ROBIN FOX 'The Zoological Perspective in Social Science', Man, 1 (n.s.), 1 (March 1966). NIKO TINBERGEN 'On Aims and Methods of Ethology', Zeitschriftfur Tierpsychologie, 2o, 4 (1963). NIKO TINBERGEN 'The Search for Roots of Human Behaviour', unpublished paper, University of Oxford, 196 c. NIKO TINBERGEN 'On War and Peace in Animals and Man', Science, 160 (28 June 1968). 244 MEN IN GROUPS P. U. TOBIAS 'New Discoveries in Tanganyika: Their Bearing on Hominid Evolu tion', Current Anthropology, 6, 4 (October 1965:). BRUCE G. TRIGGER 'Engels on the Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man: An Anticipation of Contemporary Anthropological Theory', Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 4, 3. JEREMY TUNSTALL 'Trawling: A Murderous Trade', New Society (8 February 1968). F. G. VALLEE 'Kabloona and Eskimo in the Central Keewatin', Development of Northern Affairs, Ottawa, 1962. MARGARET VARLEY and DAVID SYMMES 'The Hierarchy of Dominace in a Group of Macaques', Behaviour, 27, 1-2 (1966). G. H. R. VON KOENIGSWALD 'Early Man: Facts and Fantasy' (Huxley Memorial Lecture, 1964), Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 194, 2 (1964). IRVING WARDLE 'Evolutionary Stage', New Society (May 1967). S. L. WASHBURN, PHYLLIS C. JAY, and JANE B. LANCASTER 'Field Studies of Old World Monkeys and Apes', Science, 15, 370 (1966). HITOSHI WATANABE 'The Ainu: A Study of Ecology and the System to Social Solidarity Between Man and Nature in Relation to Group Structure', Journal of the Faculty of Science, University of Tokyo, Section c, 11, 6 (30 July 1964). CAMILLA H. WEDGEWOOD 'The Nature and Functions of Secret Societies', Oceania (July 1930). j. p. WELCH, et al. 'Psychopathy, Mental Deficiency, Aggressiveness and the XYY Syn drome', Nature, 214 (29 April 1967). CHARLES E. WOODHOUSE and H. J. TOBIAS 'Primordial Ties and Political Process in Pre-Revolutionary Russia: The Case of the Jewish Bund', Comparative Studies in Society and History, 8, 3 (April 1966). DENNIS WRONG 'The Over-Socialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology', American Sociological Review, 26, 2 (April 1961). BIBLIOGRAPHY 245 F. W. YOUNG 'The Function of Male Initiation Ceremonies', American Journal of Sociology, 68, 4 (January 1962). F. w. YOUNG and ALBERT A. BACDAYAN 'Menstrual Taboos and Social Rigidity', Ethnology, 4, 2 (April 1965). BASIL G. ZIMMER and AMOS H. HAWLEY 'The Significance of Membership in Associations', American Journal of Sociology, 65, 2 (September 1959). SOLLY ZUCKERMAN 'Myths and Methods in Anatomy', Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, 11 (1966), pp. 87—114. 3. REPORTS Children and Their Primary Schools, Department of Education and Science, H.M.S.O., London, 1967. Labour in Britain — Survey of Women s Employment, Survey of British and Commonwealth Affairs, 2, No. 11 (24 May 1968). Women in the Labour Force in Nine Countries of Europe, Women's Bureau, Department of Labour, Government of Canada, Ottawa, 1962. Women and Top Jobs: An Interim Report, P.E.P., London, 1967. Women at Work in Canada, Government of Canada, Department of Labour of Canada, Ottawa, 1958. 4. NEWSPAPER ITEMS 'Doing Away with Grades in Toronto', The Times Educational Supple ment (13 January 1967). 'Stock Exchange May Admit Women', The Times (1 8 January 1967). 'Canadians return to Vimy Ridge', The Times (10 April 1967). 'Women wanted in Norway's Polities', The Times (23 February 1967). 'Slow March of the Matriarchy', Guardian (leader) (3 November 1966). 'U.S. Sets Out to Destroy North Vietnam Air Force', New York International Herald Tribune and Washington Post (4 January 1967). 'Equal-wage Bill is Voted in House', New York Times (Western edition) (24 May 1963). ' "No" to Vote for Women in Zurich'? Guardian (2 1 November 1966).