167

HUMAN NATURE, SOCIOBIOLOGY AND COUNSELLING

WILLIAM A. LANG and LLOYD W. WEST Department of Educational Psychology, University of Calgary

Abstract Assumptions about human nature play an important role in the formation of counsel• ling theories. Sociobiology suggests that much of our basic psychological makeup is geneti• cally determined and has evolved by means of natural selection. The sociobiological picture of human nature challenges the assumptions that human goodness is innate and that human behavior is easily modified by reinforcement. Rather, sociobiology suggests that biologically based human predispositions will often conflict with the legal and moral requirements of modern life and that resolving this conflict will not be easy. Accordingly, sociobiology provides support for the direct teaching of moral values and social skills to compensate for the vestigial predispositions which impede self and social enhancement. Sociobiology, thus, may serve as the cornerstone of a rationale for the role of counsellor as educator. Resume Certaines présuppositions sur la nature humaine jouent un rôle important quand il est question de formuler des théories de consultation. La sociobiologie suggère qu'une partie importante de la dimension psychologique de base est déterminée par la généalogie et qu'elle a évolué par la voie de la sélection naturelle. La dimension sociobiologique de la na• ture humaine questionne les présuppositions que la bonté humaine est inée et que le com• portement humain se modifie facilement par le renforcement. La sociobiologie suggère que les prédispositions humaines d'origines biologiques entreront souvent en conflit avec les normes légales et morales de la vie moderne et que la résolution de ce conflit ne sera pas facile. Par conséquent, la sociobiologie appuie l'enseignement direct des valeurs morales et des compétences sociales afin de compenser les vestiges des prédispositions gênant le développement du soi et du comportement social. Par ce fait, la sociobiologie sert de pierre d'angle à la raison d'être du conseiller à titre d'éducateur. Donald T. Campbell (1975) chose the occasion Human Nature of his presidential address to the American Psy• The nature of man has been an important con• chological Association to discuss the conflict be• cern of philosophers, poets, priests and peasants tween contemporary psychology and moral throughout recorded history. How much of our be• tradition. Arguing from a sociobiological havior is attributable to our biological heritage perspective, he challenged the psychological com• and how much is the result of the environment in munity to re-examine that conflict. Somewhat which we are raised and live? What is the source later, Christensen (1976) introduced readers of of good and evil in human behavior? Are we nat• the Canadian Counsellor to Campbell's argument urally good but sometimes corrupted by society or and to the potential implications of sociobiology are we savages requiring socialization in order to for the practice of counselling. Christensen's edito• behave in civilized ways? Is our behavior the re• rial provided stimulus for a special issue of the sult of rational and conscious choice, or is it large• Canadian Counsellor edited by Lloyd West ly the product of irrational and unconscious (1977) and devoted to the topic of "Teaching, The forces? Answers to questions like these make up Substance of Counselling." In that issue, Lang our assumptions about human nature and it is on (1977) reviewed three books on sociobiology and the basis of such assumptions that we decide what urged counsellors to gain some acquaintance with we ought to do and what we can hope to accom• this new discipline. The present writers now pick plish. up this theme for a more detailed look at the socio• Three forces (the psychoanalytical, the behav• biological paradigm and the implications of the ioral and the humanistic) are commonly believed sociobiological portrait of human nature for the to have exerted a major influence on the philosophy, theory and practice of counselling. developnent of counselling psychology. Before 168 William A. Lang and Lloyd W. West elaborating upon the sociobiological portrait of hu• supression or perversion of our inherent source of man nature, it will therefore be useful to briefly wisdom, human empathy, warmth and uncondi• review the positions held by eminent spokesmen tional acceptance leading to self-exploration are for these movements. presumed to aid its rediscovery. Clearly what we Freud, it will be recalled, held a very pessimistic believe about human nature makes a difference to view of human nature and was quite skeptical what we do as counsellors. about the future of our species. He contended that Sociobiology is a new discipline based upon people were driven from cradle to grave by uncon• modifications to Darwin's theory of evolution. It scious forces of sex and aggression and that with• claims not only that our basic nature is much less out social restraint chaos would reign supreme. than perfect, but also that it is biological. At a Cultural progress was thought possible only general level of description, sociobiology's through the inhibition and sublimation of sexual portrayal of human nature matches well with the and aggressive energies. Freud believed that Freudian. Sociobiologists, however, would not see people submit to social control in order to protect human nature limited to a few basic drives nor as themselves from one another. The security of the mechanistically determined as the instinct concept collective, however, comes at a price since seems to imply. Nash's (1970) "psychological effi• thwarted instinctual drives continue to generate ciency" construct captures the sociobiological internal tension. The appropriate release of this assumption about the relationship between genes tension is the key to effective adjustment. Thus, and human behavior. Nash (1970) claims that as the aim of psychoanalysis is to strengthen the ego a result of our biological heritage, "certain modes or rational component of the human personality so of function [are] easier to elicit and more effective that it can obtain control and find personally and in operation than others" (p. 8). Sociobiology puts socially constructive outlets for these instinctual detail to this construct by suggesting that our bio• impulses. logical heritage has programmed us in such a way Behaviorists, like B.F. Skinner, work under the that it is much easier to learn and to perform assumption that the content of "black boxes" is too self-enhancing behaviors than to learn or to intractable for speculation. Thus Skinner makes perform socially enhancing behaviors. From this few assumptions about human nature. Rather he perspective and contradistinction with the turns his attention to the observable effects of en• Rogerian and Skinnerian perspective, human vironmental variables on human behavior. This beings are neither basically good nor blessed with orientation leaves the impression that our biologi• virtually unlimited flexibility. Rather, we are cal heritage has endowed us with virtually unlim• biologically predisposed toward behavior which ited flexibility. The founding father of behavior• society will very likely judge as inimical. It is to be ism, J.B. Watson (1925) declared that he could expected, then, that human beings will often find take any infant at random and make of it anything that their natural inclinations are in conflict with he liked, given only the appropriate environment. societal expectations. In order to become good In the tradition of Watson, behaviorists generally citizens in a complex world, many social skills and assume that we turn out the way we do largely as a moral values will need to be learned. Moreover, result of environmental influences — the rewards this learning will not be easy. Barash (1977) likens and punishments in daily living. Since most of genetically influenced predispositions to the hu• what is "within" was put there by operant condi• man sweet tooth. We may overcome the excessive tioning, Skinner holds that cultural progress, how• use of sugar in our diet but it will require effort. ever defined, can be achieved only by the planned The counsellor who accepts the sociobiological and rigorous management of reinforcement con• picture of human nature must come to see him or tingencies. herself as an educator. Teaching becomes the Carl Rogers, representing the third force to preferred mode of enhancing both individual and influence counselling psychology, subscribes to the social welfare. romantic view that people are basically good. The Sociobiological Paradigm From this very optimistic perspective, human Sociobiology seeks an ultimate explanation for beings like Russeau's "noble savage" are naturally all social behavior in terms of biological evolution. inclined toward self and society enhancing behav• Although Darwin has first propounded the me• iors. Rogers contends that through the provision of chanics of natural selection in 1859, E. 0. growth facilitating "conditions," individuals are Wilson's founding text, Sociobiology: A New enabled to follow the wisdom of their organism, Synthesis, was published as recently as 1975. A which he believes to be a most reliable guide. brief look at this more-than-a-century hiatus be• Since a predisposition toward and a potential for tween Darwin's and Wilson's work will serve to goodnesrectlAlthougy taughsh "awaitsociat constructivsl within,influence" epeopl s modemae ysnee oresuldf no behaviort bie ndi a.• thoughtplace sociobiolog. y in a context of scientific Sociobiology and Counselling 169

Evolution by natural selection, like major para• flocking species gives a warning call, attracting a digm shifts before it, challenged existing "world predator's attention while the flock escapes. An views" and led to furious religious, political, and ant will lay down its life in defense of the colony. scientific controversy. Fundamentalists, who held A person gives money to charity or saves a drown• to a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of ing stranger. We know that the behavior of ants, creation were enraged. Darwin's theory was con• for example, is genetically controlled, yet it is any• sidered blasphemy — an insidious attempt to thing but selfish. This paradox between the theory undermine the most cherished beliefs, if not the predicting selfishness and examples of altruism very foundations of our culture. Growing accept• even caused some biologists to turn partly away ance of Darwin's theory by the scientific commu• from Darwin's theory of evolution and claim that nity was counterbalanced by notable efforts to ban in some respects the environment selected for be• the teaching of evolution from publicly supported haviors which benefitted the group rather than the institutions. individual. If biologists could not make up their As if to add fuel to the fire, Social Darwinists minds between group or individual selection, and misapplied concepts from evolutionary theory such altruism or selfishness, then counselling theorists as "the struggle for existence" and "the survival of were, in effect, free to develop their own the fittest" to support their elitist social and assumptions about human nature. Consistent with political ideology. Instead of striving to promote two of the illustrative positions outlined in the the welfare of less fortunate members of society, opening section, perhaps the genetic influences on Social Darwinists regarded them as genetically our behavior were either minimal or perhaps our inferior and argued that they should be allowed to genetic predispositions were toward socialization, die out according to "natural laws." Moreover, growth, goodness — in short, the benefit of the Francis Galton, noting that society had effectively group. negated natural conditions of selection, founded Ways out of this selfishness/altruism paradox the eugenics movement to curtail the propagation account for the development of sociobiology. Two of the "unfit." Social Darwinism and the eugenics new theoretical conceptions provided the keys that movement were later to play a role in Hitler's turned acts of apparent altruism into selfishness Nazi political philosophy. Thus, for many people and lessened the need for a group selection hy• Darwin's theory posed not only a threat to their re• pothesis. One of the conceptions, known as kin ligious faith, but also to their physical existence. It selection (Haldane, 1955; Hamilton, 1964, 1970; is not suprising that the Zeitgeist of a post-war Dawkins, 1976), is based on the idea that natural world was less than congenial to the extension of selection operates on the gene not the individual as evolutionary principles to human behavior. Darwin originally postulated. Since related indi• The controversy in the scientific arena had a viduals (kin) share genes, altruism toward different focus. Scientists striving for dispassion• relatives to the degree of relatedness helps increase ate objectivity typically challenge theoretical the frequency of those genes in future generations. paradigms on the basis of disconfirming evidence. Many acts of altruism, then would be nothing One of the strongest challenges to the application more than genetic selfishness based upon the of natural selection to human behavior was the implicit assumption that kin may pass on the genes acknowledged reality of human altruism and the shared. This kin selection conception would seem inability of Darwinian theory to account for this sufficient to provide an explanation for the appar• phenomenon. ent altruism of ants and of flocking species since The theory of natural selection predicts that in• such altruism is likely to benefit kin. It may even dividuals will do whatever is necessary to maxi• be sufficient to explain some of the altruism of a mize their own reproduction. Thus we would not person toward a drowning stranger since human expect to see individuals wasting time helping altruism may have evolved at a time when our others. Time spent being helpful to others is time ancestors lived in small groups of closely related unavailable for acquiring a territory, finding a individuals. mate, producing and enhancing the welfare of The second theoretical key twists altruism into offspring. Selfishness will result in more offspring genetic selfishness in situations where kin are not than altruism. Altruism has a precise definition in involved. Trivers' (1971) reciprocal altruism sociobiology. It refers to any behavior which while concept is based on the assumption that as reducing the reproductive fitness of the actor, organisms developed the capacity to recognize in• benefits the reproductive fitness of the recipient. dividuals and remember events, a pattern of "you Thus, any behavior that is genetically controlled scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" could develop. will be characterized by selfishness. A reciprocal exchange of favors could be benefi• malThi behaviors selfishnes, bust i s nofount alld i.n manAn yindividua aspects lo fi anin a• ciainherentlAs l Dawkinto boty unstablsh (1976partiese) however cleverl. Suchy, puabecausnt arrangemenit, e"yo ofu cheatingscratct ihs . 170 William A. Lang and Lloyd W. West my back, I'll ride on yours." The increased recog• much debate as to the soundness and generaliza- nition and discrimination powers are necessary for bility of sociobiological theory (e.g., Allen et al., the avoidance of nonreciprocators and the effec• 1975, 1976; Baerends, 1976; Barkow, 1978; Ellis tive application of sanctions. Indeed, reciprocal et al., 1977; Midgley, 1978; Richerson & Boyd, altruism would in some ways be better called 1978). Nevertheless, sociobiology is a rich source sanctioned altruism. The scenario would then of hypotheses about human nature; hypotheses read: "If you do not return the favor, you will not which may stimulate a re-evaluation of some of get any more favors, and I may tell others about our assumptions. your transgressions to see if they will help me pun• The "Sociobiology Study Group of Science for ish, ostracize or kill you." The group will under• the People" (Allan, et al., 1975, 1976), while criti• take sanctioning activities because group action cizing the scientific credibility of sociobiology, against a single individual is relatively safe. This have also sought to link sociobiology with Social safety factor helps maintain reciprocal altruism. Darwinism and, thereby, to discredit the science of Other acts of altruism, then, are nothing more sociobiology on ethical, political and social than genetic selfishness based upon the assump• grounds. While the present authors acknowledge tion of reciprocity or the fear of sanctions. that a scientist is in some sense responsible for the The combination of the traditional natural implications of the discoveries that s/he makes, selection perspective with kin selection and recip• the implications attributed to sociobiology by the rocal altruism constitutes the paradigm of socio• study group seem ill-founded. An empirical biology. Thus armed, sociobiology is prepared to picture of human nature does not necessarily im• enter the ring wherein explanations of human be• ply what human nature ought to be. Indeed, there havior will be decided. Of course, the idea that are many things which exist or occur in the world genes influence behavior is hardly new. Much which, on ethical grounds, we would wish to elimi• work in psychology has involved attempts to nate. An accurate, empirical picture of human na• separate the influence of nature and nurture in hu• ture serves two primary purposes for ethical man behavior. Ethologists have studied behavioral reasoning. First, it allows the wise choice of instru• processes and sought to understand their evolu• mental values for obtaining ultimate objectives. In tion. Some psychologists have employed an evolu• Wilson's (1978) words, "the evidence of biological tionary perspective in understanding human devel• constraints alone cannot prescribe an ideal course opment. The thoughts of Nash, the of action. However, they can help us to define the psychobiologist, quoted in the introductory sec• options and to assess the price of each" (p. 134). tion, reflect this approach. The work of ethologists Second, it allows us to monitor — and particularly and psychologists form much of the raw data upon warns us of the dangers in — our own ethical rea• which sociobiology is built. What is new about soning processes. Sociobiology not only does not sociobiology is its principal concern with the pro• provide any justification for Social Darwinism, it cess of evolution itself. Whereas ethologists and warns us that a common human predisposition is psychologists might wish to look experimentally at to build elaborate rationalizations of self-interest. the behavior of existing organisms and generalize The following offers a brief review of some of on the results, sociobiologists in a very real sense the sociobiological predictions about and don't need to "see" behavior in order to under• interpretations of human nature. The basic stand behavior. For sociobiologists, trying to figure strategy is to see if human behavior may be inter• out human nature by watching human behavior is preted consistent with genetic selfishness or as like trying to discover the program of a Dawkins (1976) calls it, "genemanship." To the chess-playing computer from watching it play. degree that human behavior may be interpreted Sociobiology as a science is built on the assump• consistent with genetic selfishness, the case for ge• tion that it is more productive to seek to under• netic selfishness underlying our psychological stand the programmer's perspective; i.e., to under• makeup is strengthened. stand evolution. Sociobiology at Work Obviously, sociobiology is more theoretical- de• A general sociobiological prediction about be• ductive than the empirical-inductive approaches of havior is that individuals will be tempted to cheat ethology and psychology. What has made the whenever possible. Cheating refers to gaining re- science of sociobiology possible is the improvement productivcly relevant benefits with others paying to theory; the primary improvements being the the costs. Good genemanship however, requires solutions to the selfishness/altruism paradox subtle cheating. Gross and obvious cheating are outlined above. Wilson (1975, 1978) is confident evolutionary failures. Such behavior is easily enough of the theory to forecast that sociobiology detected and punished. Awareness of purpose has will replace ethology and the social sciences. That to go underground; become unconscious. You are ais ,sociobiologica hypotheses aboul perspectivet behavior. wilTherl bee iderives of coursed from. far less likely to give yourself away if you are un- Sociobiology and Counselling 171

aware that you are trying to cheat. Alexander use of force. Designed to be sensitive to cheating, (1975) concludes, "[man] will not see in himself we probably tend to over-react. Human nature what he does not want to see, or what he does not may facilitate acquiescence better than growth. wish his neighbors to see . . ." (p. 97). Trivers The more natural methods for controlling (1976) challenges the view that natural selection "strange" behavior are ostracism and death. necessarily favors nervous systems which accu• Selfishness and the predisposition to cheat rately reflect reality. We generally wish to see based upon this selfishness remain, but specific be• ourselves and have others see us in idyllic terms. haviors are modified by the norms of the group. If We may invest considerable energy in maintaining children were born without a predisposition our self-image and avoiding dissonance. Our toward socialization they would end up gross and image, however, does not likely reflect our real obvious cheaters with negative evolutionary conse• motives. Even our feelings may lie. We may use quences. The social system encourages the child morality to justify our action and cement apologies toward contribution to reciprocal altruism. for transgressions but so that we might be able to Parents expect altruism, particularly with respect cheat next time. We may feel guilty, but guilt may to relatives, but want their children to be success• not detract us when an opportunity to cheat is ful in the outside world. Selfishness drives the in• available. We are likely to covet our neighbor's dividual first toward socialization but increasingly wife, but not while he is watching. We seek out toward assertiveness and self-centeredness. The friendships, but in order to build alliances. We interaction of these forces and the norms of the may have admirable character traits, but these group help determine the individual's approach to traits are poor predictors of behavior given a reciprocal altruism situations. Deviant behavior is situation which "permits" atypical behavior. a predictable outcome given a failure to teach Prosocial behavior is encouraged by externally social norms. Individuals may live out their lives in imposed restraints and by the internalization of service to their fellow humans but such an social values. outcome is dependent upon appropriate learning. Obviously, genemanship requires skills in cheat Sociobiology indicates that many types of con• detection. While we turn a pleasant face to the flict are inevitable. Females, by virtue of pregnan• world, another is watching for the possible cheat• cy and nursing, make a larger investment in repro• ing of others. We preach one story but practice an• duction than males. By being sales-resistent and other. We attribute the behavior of strangers to coy, females can extract an equal investment from lack of character while reserving consideration of the male. Females will usually not mate until the the situation to explain our own behavior. He did male builds a home, defends a territory or shows that because he is evil; I did it because I was signs of domesticity. The male will appear faith• forced. We excuse ourselves while others are read• ful, but sneak away at every opportunity. Love ily censured. Our relatives and friends however, helps the male deceive his mate and achieve his are probably afforded the luxury of situational ex• purpose of passing on as many genes as possible. planations. We wish to maintain the positive eval• Females, on the other hand, have an advantage in uations of those with whom we share genes or alli• always knowing that their child carries their ances. Our justice system and ethical codes also genes. Males will get particularly upset with reflect a duality. Virtues necessary to maintain re• promiscuous mates. The double standard is good ciprocal altruism are extolled, but these are quick• genemanship. ly followed by a listing of possible transgressions Parent-child conflict is likely because the child and appropriate sanctions. Justice and morality will want a greater investment of parental benefit are not solely the triumphs of culture; they are than the parents, given consideration of their en• rooted in our genes in order to control the selfish tire reproductive potential, will be willing to give. predispositions of others. Children will attempt to subtley manipulate their Cheat detection and the application of sanctions parents into giving benefits; parents will attempt may be time-consuming and dangerous work. If to teach their children to behave altruistically. the cheating does not affect us directly, why not Parents will raise their children to become turn a blind eye in the hope that others will be independent as quickly as possible and/or to bene• forced into the nasty business of confrontation and fit the parents in raising other offspring. Wilson punishment. The ease with which societal restraint (1975) believes that home and school education is is imposed upon human selfishness is in part a as much indoctrination in reciprocal altruism as function of the degree to which there is consensus anything else. The conflict between parent and about values. Pluralistic societies may face the child will not be total warfare. A level of conflict danger of a runaway positive feedback toward consistent with good genemanship will emerge. handpredisposegreate,r i tdegree isd importantowars of dself-centerednesst repressio to note ntha antd peopl. thOne eexcessivth maey othe ber anthedChildre maiwisen. roadnTh arrive sacquisitio teo ievolutionarn a worln odf highedominatey successr statud: bstatusy isth onese deol o-df 172 Sociobiology and Counselling termines access to territories and other reproduc- ling psychology must be based upon a realistic and tively relevant acquisitions which, in turn, credible picture of human nature. Sociobiology influences male attractiveness and breeding might provide such a perspective. If sociobiology success. Wilson (1975) believes that we should ex• comes to be fully assimilated into the body of pect to see moralizing patterns and moral reason• scientific knowledge, the impact on counselling ing vary with age. The young will initially concen• psychology will have an educational theme. trate on the power and control dimensions and, Should we teach? If we reflect upon the possible later, the response of peers; adults will attempt to human predispositions outlined in the previous justify and teach altruism. Wilson, thus, sees an section, socially constructive counterparts can eas• evolutionary basis for Kohlberg's stages of moral ily be generated. In our rational moments we reasoning. Also reflecting the relative advantage/ would prefer interpersonal relationships based on disadvantage of the old and young, the young will trust and guided by reason and morality, equality be more responsive to new ideas. They have less to of opportunity for the sexes and understanding be• lose and more to gain from a new idea. Genes play tween the generations, commitment to mainte• a part in the generation gap. nance of the eco-system, self-imposed restraint on Material acquisitions translate into the produc• desires, dedication to higher ideals, etc. Our genes tion and enhancement of offspring. The notion however, have programmed us for past worlds. It that "if some is good, more is better" probably may take a veritable saint to walk a modern path sounds a natural ring. Moreover, as material through the predispositions indicated by socio• acquisitions become one of the symbols of status, biology. Our nature is estranged from modern our predispositional key to the appropriate level of social requirements and, in some ways, from our acquisition or exploitation may have become the own self-satisfaction. We not only need to be con• ingenuity of our neighbor. Both our selfishness and trolled, but our controlling tendencies need to be our desire for status any operate as counter-tend• controlled as well. The combination of the socio• encies to living at a level of acquisition and con• biological picture of human nature with a desire sumption consistent with the maintenance of the for good citizens makes teaching essential. eco-system. What should we teach? Campbell (1975) has Although conflict is inevitable, it is not challenged psychologists for what he believed to be uncontrolled. Human beings are not subject to an their uncritical attack upon traditional cultural aggressive instinct as Ardrey (1966) and Lorenz wisdom. Drawing upon sociobiology, he reasoned (1966) argue. Human aggression should reflect that traditional beliefs and values represent a cer• good genemanship. Dawkins (1976) believes that tain wisdom since they have been able to keep an unconscious cost-benefit calculation underlies beneficial company with our selfish predispositions aggression and most other behaviors. In certain for a long time. His message is clear: before advo• situations, helplessness may be a viable evolution• cating the removal of traditional cultural ary strategy. A reciprocal altruism system may be restraints, counsellors should consider the possible exploited by appealing to the sympathy of others. reasons for their existence and question whether Awfulizing and excuse-building maintain the their removal would be socially constructive. Per• image where one may always request understand• haps such "old" ideas as restraint, duty, ing, sympathy and aid. Human behavior is flexible responsibility, guilt, rational thought and morality enough to allow people to achieve selfish goals by merit continuous attention. But it is one thing to many methods. Human beings do not have to be show respect for traditional values and another to happy, self-actualized or blessed with an abun• offer improvements. Where is the counsellor's list dance of inner peace and contentment to be genet• of empirically verified recipes for good living ically fit. Indeed, we are probably more geneti• which blend individual enhancement with social cally fit when these are but fleeting conditions. We requirements? Even more conspicuous by their are not programmed for perfection in self-benefit infrequency are recipes which blend individual en• either. hancement with the requirements necessary to Dawkins (1976) effectively implicates the maintain the eco-system. Just as sociobiology selfish gene in all of this: sensitized Campbell to have a more respectful look [our genes] swim in huge colonies, safe inside gigantica t traditional values, sociobiology may make coun• lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, sellors more aware that their recipes of good living manipulating it by remote control. They are in you must do more than simply satisfy their client's and in me; they created us body and mind; and their preferences. preservation is the ultimate rationale for our How should we teach? Human nature has a existence... we are their survival machines, (p. 21 ) Janus face. It is important to note that we are nat• The Counsellor as Educator urally endowed with the capacity for guilt, ra• The philosophy, theory and practice of counsel• otionaf prosocial thoughtl behavior, morality. ,A netc .effectiv — the eunderpinning educational s William A. Lang and Lloyd W. West 173 technology must take cognizance of the limitations Ardrey, R. The territorial imperative: A personal inquiry of our natural endowment and also must build into the animal origins of property and nations. New upon its strengths. Magoon (1978) draws upon York: Atheneum, 1966. sociobiology to suggest that perhaps the reason Baerends, G.P. et al. Multiple review of Wilson's socio• research on learning technologies fails to show sig• biology. Animal Behavior, 1976,24, 698-718. nificant differences is because we are genetically Barash, D.P. Sociobiology and behavior. New York: predisposed to learn certain things regardless of Elsevier, 1977. how they are taught. Biggs (1978), using similar Barkow, Jerome H. Culture and sociobiology. American reasoning, suggests that such things as learning to Anthropologist, 1978,50(1),5-19. talk, follow examples, and read emotions, would Biggs, J.B. Genetics and education: An alternative to need little specialized aid whereas learning to read Jensenism. Educational Researcher, 1978, 7 (4), and write and solve abstract problems would re• 11-17. quire specific teaching. In a counselling context, Campbell, Donald T. On the conflict between biological one might suggest that acquiring some skill with and social evolution and between psychology and interpersonal relations would be easy, but that moral tradition. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, learning to control some of the selfishness to be ex• 1103-1126. pected in interpersonal relations may require Christensen, CM. Changing role of the counsellor. Cana• specific teaching. Sociobiology would seem to dian Counsellor, 1976,10, 45-49. suggest many hypotheses about human capacities Dawkins, Richard. The selfish gene, New York: Oxford and limitations relevant to developing an effective University Press, 1976. educational technology. Ellis, Lee. et al. The decline and fall of sociology, Can we justify what we teach? If human nature 1975-2000. The American Sociologist, 1977, 12, is in conflict with modern social requirements, 56-80. then counselling must have a soul — and, an inter• Haldane, J.B.S. Animal communication and the origin of disciplinary soul at that. It is one thing to note the human language. Social Progress, 1955, 43 (171), conflict. It is quite another to offer a defensible 385-401. specification of social requirements. Such a speci• Hamilton, W.D. The genetical theory of social behavior, fication would have to have psychological, social, I, II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1964, 12 (1), political, economic and philosophical detail. Psy• 12-45. chology and counselling, borne out of philosophy, Hamilton, W.D. Selfish and spiteful behavior in an evolu• have long since lost their roots. If the picture of tionary model Nature, 1970,228(5277), 1218-1220. human nature offered by sociobiology becomes ac• Lang, W.A. Sociobiology: The new discipline of consider• cepted, the counsellor may have to rediscover able relevance to counsellors. Book Review of Barash, her/his heritage. The model of curing mental D.P. Sociobiology and Behavior, Dawkins, R. The sickness may come to be seen as self-serving. If Selfish Gene, and Wilson, E.O. Sociobiology: The conflict is inevitable, then problems are to be ex• Synthesis, Canadian Counsellor, 1977,12. pected. Mental illness would not be a mystical pro• Lorenz, K. On aggression. New York: Harcourt, Brace & cess, but rather the inevitable result of a failure to World, 1966. teach conflict resolution skills. The model of the Magoon, A.J. Sociobiology and schooling. Educational counsellor as one who facilitates the satisfaction of Researcher, 1978,7(4),4-10. client desires might begin to be seen as Midgley, Mary. Beast and man: The roots of human na• irresponsible. The model of the counsellor as edu• ture. New York: Cornell University Press, 1978. cator would force us into the debate as to what is Richerson, Peter J., & Boyd, Robert. A dual inheritance worth teaching. Perhaps counsellors need to model of the human evolutionary process I: Basic rediscover their philosophical roots and actively postulates and a simple model. Journal of Social and enter the contest for the definition of the good. We Biological Structures, 1978,1 (2), 126-154. believe they have much to offer. Trivers, R.L. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The References Quarterly Review of Biology, 1971,46 (4), 35-59. Alexander, R.D. The search for a general theory of be• Trivers, R.L. Forward to Richard Dawkins' The selfish havior. Behavioral Science, 1975,20, 77-100. gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. Allen, L. et al. Against sociobiology. The New York Re• Watson, J.B. Behaviorism. London: Routledge & Kegan view of Books. November, 1975. Paul, 1925. Allen, L. et al. Sociobiology — Another biological deter• West, L.W. Teaching: The substance of counselling. minism. Bioscience, 1976, 26 (3), 182-190. Canadian Counsellor, 1977,12,3-6. Wilson, Edward O. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975. Wilson, Edward O. On human nature. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978.