Sociobiology
In the middle of this century, bot biological and cultural
anthropology
experiences a major change in theory. In biological
anthropology, biological
anthropologists adopted an approach which focused on
the gene. They saw the
human evolution as the process of genetic adaptation
to the environment. In the
mean time, there were also cultural analogies to
evolution. Cultural evolution
also followed a process of adaptation. In the
field of anthropology, a very
important theory is that of the
sociobiologists. Sociobiologists focus on
adaptation and reproductive success
rather than progress toward perfection.
Edward O. Wilson was one of the
most important of them. He adopted an approach
that focused on the level of
the gene. He saw social behavior as controlled, in
principle, by particular
genes, and he saw evolution as occurring at this level
because reproductive
success amounted to increasing the frequency of certain
genes in future
generations. However, the insistence of sociobiologists on
grounding at least
some behavior in universal human genetic predisposition runs
contrary to
cultural anthropologists' emphasis on the primacy of culture itself
as the
determinant of human social life. Several distinct approaches can
be
identified in contemporary sociobiology. The first one is
evolutionary
psychology. Evolutionary psychology is concerned primarily with
the analysis of
the mind as a device formed by natural selection. The second
focus is human
behavioral ecology. It emphasized populations rather than
cultures, human
population biology, as well as evolutionary ecology. The
difference from
evolutionary psychology is that it focuses on testing the
hypotheses that
culturally patterned traits actually enhance fitness rather
than mind. The third
approach involves the search for human universals.
People advocating this kind
of approach concentrate on discovering the
characteristics found in all human
societies. (McGee and Warms, 1996)
However, this universal evolution point of
view is rejected by other
anthropologists such as Julian Steward. Steward
developed an ecological
approach that focused on the adaptation of individual
cultures to specific
environmental circumstances rather than trying to find out
the universal law
of human evolution and adaptation. He devoted most of his
energy to the study
of the environmental adaptation of specific societies. He
did not believe
that cultures followed a single universal sequence of
development. Instead,
he proposed that cultures could evolve in any number of
distinct patterns
depending on their environmental circumstances. He called his
theory
multilinear evolution. He also proposed that cultures in similar
environments
would tend to follow the same developmental sequences and formulate
similar
responses to their environmental challenges. (McGee and Warms,
1996)
However, the multilinear point of view was not proposed by other
anthropologists
such as Leslie White. White concludes that unilineal
evolutionary theory was
fundamentally sound. He argued that evolutionary
development from simple to
complex, with increasing specialization of parts,
was valid bot for cultures and
for biology. He also proposed a grand,
universal law of cultural evolution by
means of the control of energy as the
key factor in cultural evolution: culture
advances as the amount of energy
harnessed per capita per ear increases, or as
the efficiency with which
energy is utilized increases. (McGee and Warms, 1996)
Still, there were
other anthropologists who proposed both a multiliear and a
universal law of
evolution. For example, George Peter Murdock was interested in
the
statistical testing of cross-cultural hypotheses. His
cross-cultural
comparisons of cultural traits in many ways paralleled
Steward's theory of
multilinear evolution. In the meantime, he also believed
that a universal set of
principle governed the relationship between family
structure, kinship, and
marriage practices. In this sense, his attempts to
statistically demonstrate
universal principles of kin relation s resembled
White's effort to formulate a
universal theory of cultural evolution. (McGee
and Warms, 1996) Besides, William
C. Boyd also suggests that there is no
doubt that some rectilinearity can often
be observed in evolution.
Nevertheless, rectilinear evolution is far from
universal. (Boyd, 1952)
Another key issue concerning human evolution is the
issue of race. The
definition of race, according to many anthropologists, is
based on the
frequency of certain genes. William C. Boyd defines race as that
"A race is
not an individual, and it is not a single genotype, but it is a
group of
individuals more or less from the same geographical area (a
population),
usually with a number of identical genes, but in which many
different types
may occur." His definition or race is a genetic one. (Boyd,
1952) Echoing
Boyd, Dobzhansky also suggests that races arise chiefly as a
result of the
ordering of the genetic variability by natural selection in
conformity with
the environmental conditions in different territories. He said
that "since
human population often, in fact usually, differ in the
frequencies of one or
more, usually several to many, genetic variables, they are
by this test
racially distinct." (Dobzhansky, 1962) However, this
definition of race is
not favored by some other anthropologists. For example,
Frank B.
Livingstone even rejected the concept of race. He pointed out that
although
it is true that there is biological variability between the populations
of
organisms which comprises a species, this variability does not conform to
the
discrete packages labeled races. In other words, there are no races, the
are
only clines. He suggested that the variability in the frequency of any
gene does
not utilize the concept of race. (Livingstone, 1962) Sherwood L.
Washburn
defines race as a group of genetically similar populations. He also
suggests
that races intergrade because there are always intermediate
population.
Moreover, he compared the concept of race with the concept of
type. A
"type", according to Washburn, is a group of individuals who
are
identical in those characters by which the type was sorted. In this
sense, the
race concept and the type concept are fundamentally different.
(Washburn, 1952)
To summarize, concerning the concept of evolution, there
exists the contrast
between evolution as universal process and evolution as
individual and
multilinear process. Concerning the concept of race, the gene
is essential to
the definition of race. However, whether, or not there exists
a concept of race
is disputable.
Bibliography
Boyd, William C.
1952 The Contribution of Genetics to Anbthyropology. in
Anthropology
Today, ed. by A.L. Kroeber, pp488-506, Chicago: University of
Chicago
Press. Dobzhansky, Grigrievich 1962 On the non-existence of human
race.
Current Anthropology 3 (3):279-281. Livingstone, Frank B. 1962 On
the
non-existence of human race. Current Anthropology 3 (3):279-281 McGee, R.
Jon
& Richard L. Warms 1996 Anthropological Theory: An Intorductory
History.
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Washburn, Sherwood &
Lancaster, C.
1968 The Evolution of Hunting. in Man the Hunter, ed. by
R.B. Lee & I.
DeVore, pp.193-303, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.