Brain Complexity Enhances Speed of Behavioral Evolution
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (1979), 2, 1-57 Printed in the United States of America irenaus Eibl-EIbesfeldt Forschungsstelle fur Humanethologie, Max-Planck-lnstitut fur Verhaltensphysiologie, 8131 Seewiesen, Federal Republic of Germany Abstract: Human ethology is defined as the biology of human behavior. The methods it employs and the questions it poses are elaborations of those generally used in the various fields of biology, but especially adapted to the study of man. Observation and experimentation in the natural and seminatural setting as well as the comparative method derived from morphology play important roles in human ethology, and the exploration of phylogenetic adaptations constitutes one of its focal interests. On the basis of observations on experientially deprived and nondeprived children, comparative primate and animal behavior studies, and cross-cultural investigations, certain universal phylogenetic adaptations (in terms of fixed action patterns, innate releasing mechanisms, releasers, innate motivating mechanisms, and innate learning dispositions) have been found to occur. However, human ethology does not restrict itself to the investigation of phylogenetic adaptations. The question as to how a behavior pattern contributes to survival can be posed with respect to cultural patterns as well. Similar selection pressures have shaped both culturally and phylogenetically evolved patterns. Through cross-cultural studies a number of universal social interaction strategies have been discovered. Some of their apparent variation can be accounted for by the fact that innate and culturally evolved patterns of behavior can often substitute as functional equivalents for one another within a given context. Some social interactions can even become completely verbalized. Nevertheless, underlying structural rules remain the same. The discovery that nonverbal and verbal behaviors can substitute for one another bridges the gap between these seemingly distinct categories of behavior, and opens the way for the study of a grammar of human social behavior encompassing both the verbal and nonverbal. Keywords: communication; cross-cultural studies; cultural evolution; environment; ethology; evolution; heredity; human ethology; nature/nur- ture controversy; nonverbal behavior; ritualization; sociobiology; verbal behavior Comparative studies based on the quasi-scientific theories of the in- man being the rawest of all raw materials, shaped by his environment heritance of behavior and the predominance of genetic processes as according to the standards set by culture. Certainly, the tabula rasa causal in evolution and development of all species, including peo- concept of the British empiricists, which holds that man is born as a ple - Lorenzian ethology, Wilsonian sociobiology - overlook signifi- blank slate for experience to write upon, is nowadays espoused only cant differences among species and reduce quantitiative and quali- by a few, but genetic contributions are still largely conceived as tative differences in behavior to a unitary causal mechanism which merely providing very general boundary conditions for behavior, is not sufficient to explain complex behavior. such as in determining the bodily structures. Thus, sex is recognized Tobach, 1976, p. 14 to be genetically determined, but gender roles are attributed to cultural factors. And if, in referring to gender roles, one ventures to Far from underestimating the differences which exist between the suggest that certain aspects of their associated behaviors may be [above described] behavior patterns of higher animals and those ac- "innate" too, one risks being called sexist (Tobach et al., 1974). complishments of man based upon reason and responsible morality, Apparently, a basic fear of any sort of "biological determinism" I assert: No one is more in a position to see the uniqueness of those prevails, something to the effect that anything recognized as innate specific human capacities than he who perceives them against the to man must then be accepted as an inevitable fate. background of those far more primitive actions and norms of reac- The ethological point of view in particular is often represented in a tion that we still share with the higher animals. distorted way in secondary sources. We need only examine Monta- Lorenz, 1971, p. 509; translated from the German original gu's most recent book (1976, p. 55), in which he writes: "Konrad Lorenz and other ethologists of his persuasion hold that almost all When Darwin (1859) published his revolutionary ideas, many of his animal behavior - and they include human behavior in this sweeping contemporaries felt insulted by the mere suggestion that they might generalization - is instinctive." Since Lorenz, as well as the present have evolved from animal ancestry. Since then, the fact of our author, has so often emphasized that man is a cultural being by phylogenetic history has been accepted, but it is obvious that many nature, selected for adaptive modifiability of his behavior, Montagu's people recognize this fact only as far as their morphology and basic statement seems odd indeed. In the same book, the ethological physiology are concerned. Whether the concepts of phylogeny, concept of instinct is crudely depicted as an explanatory principle of selection, and inheritance are applicable to human behavior, howev- the uncritical ethologist: er, is still a matter of considerable controversy. " 'Instinct' undoubtedly constitutes the most popular of such Holzkamp-Osterkamp (1975), for example, expresses the view that explanations. Spiders spin webs by instinct, cats nurse their young by man has withdrawn from the biological laws of selection; they instinct, beavers build dams by instinct, and so on. Hence, when shaped his evolution only until he began to live in a society based women nurse their young, and men 'defend their country' by killing upon cultural convention. One also reads the opinion, expressed in other men, they do so by instinct. Are we to suppose that when many versions, that there exists no such thing as "human nature," women make beds and men build dams, such activities too are 1 1979 Cambridge University Press 0140-525X/79/IEIB019$04.00 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 11 Jul 2017 at 10:53:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00060611 Eibl-EIbesfe!dt: Human ethology referable to some appropriate instinct? The absurdities of thought well as adaptation, function, and some other basic concepts of that have been committed in the name of 'instinct' constitute an ethology will be discussed. object lesson in the systematics of confusion" (Montagu, 1976, pp. Originally, human ethologists tended to issue from the ranks of 63 - 64). biology and closely related disciplines (e.g., Tiger, 1969; Morris, Having thus exposed the simplistic ways of ethological thinking 1968, 1977; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1966, 1972; Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, and the obsoleteness of the concept of the innate (see the chapter 1967). But scientists from more distant disciplines are now converg- "The Innate and the Acquired or Learned - a False Dichotomy"), ing upon this field in increasing numbers, either by their emphasis on Montagu emphasizes marrs lack of instincts. Tobach et al. (1974) observation in the natural setting (Goffman, 1966, 1971; Marsh, attack ethologists in a similar vein, accusing them, amongst others, of Rosser, and Harre, 1978), or by a shared theoretical emphasis on the biological determinism. phylogenetic dimension. It seems timely, therefore, to present our point of view for discussion in this multidisciplinary forum. In particular, I shall examine the concept of the "innate" and its relevance to an under- 2. The comparative approach standing of human behavior. A discussion of the comparative, approach and the subject of functions and adaptations will introduce The comparative approach is a basic source of information, but it has our theme. I wish to express the hope that this discussion will serve to been criticized for making too much of "similarities." Yet if we bridge the gulf between ethologists and opposing groups of behav- compare the structure or the behavior of animals and man, we do ioral scientists. We share, after all, the basic objective of attempting indeed encounter striking similarity. In greeting rituals, for example, to understand why we behave as we do, and even though some of weapons are turned away in a conspicuous fashion to indicate what will be said concerning our approach is still tentative, I hope to peaceful intent. Boobies sky-point with their beaks, the Masai thrusts demonstrate that even these speculations derive from observations his spear into the ground, and in our culture we salute state visitors worthy of consideration. with twenty-one averted guns. Similarities of this kind call for an explanation. They can be accidental, but most of the time they are not, being due rather to similar selective pressures that have shaped L What is human ethology? behavior during phylogenetic and cultural evolution alike, or else to a common heritage resulting from a shared ancestor.1 In the latter Human ethology can be defined as the biology of human behavior. case, we speak of homologies, in the former of analogies. Some Its special interests are distributed along lines largely congruent with comparisons between human and animal rituals will now be its parent discipline, biology,