Happy Darwin Day! Although this blog has been relatively inactive during the winter season, my continued collaboration with the web magazine Evolution: This View of Life has been very engaging. The Politics Section at ETVoL has continued to feature many news articles that cover new research on the application of evolution theory to political behavior. In this piece below, Dominic Johnson and I survey some of these findings and place them in the context of the broader effort of consilience in the social and life sciences. I hope you enjoy--
Dominic Johnson &
Anthony Lopez
On D-Day, 6 June 1944,
150,000 soldiers landed on the beaches of Normandy to begin the slow march on
Germany. It was a turning point, a day on which uncertainty evaporated and the
Allies could focus on the struggle ahead. In a war that would claim over 60
million lives and engulf the entire globe, to this day we remain struck both by
the depths of depravity and the remarkable feats of heroism that can be
achieved by human beings.
Today is another
D-Day—Darwin Day. Evolution might seem so divorced from the realm of politics
that they have little to exchange. World wars involving millions of people,
nation states, complex organizations, nuclear weapons, and the clashing of
cultural ideas might seem to mark a line of division in the development of
human beings, beyond which evolution has nothing to say.
However, as editors of the
politics page, we believe that Darwin’s legacy sheds vital new light on our understanding
of political events. For one thing, despite monumental efforts over the
centuries, we have failed to prevent wars from occurring—and not for lack of
people studying it. Especially following the end of the Cold War and the rise
of new forms of conflict around the globe, new approaches are sorely needed.
Another reason is that evolutionary science has advanced rapidly in recent
years and decades, and important new theories, tools, and methodologies are
emerging. Much of the resistance to biological explanations of behavior is a
re-run of the sociobiology debates that raged in the 1970s. The science has
simply moved on, and we must too. If we are to understand human behavior,
evolutionary theory offers the single most powerful and parsimonious framework
for doing so.
The levels of analysis and human behavior
This claim is not as
controversial among psychologists or biologists as it is among social
scientists in general and political scientists in particular. One common fear is
fueled by the memory of Nazi attempts to apply evolutionary ideas to politics in
ways that are fundamentally dangerous. Fortunately, the ideas and goals of
eugenics have been widely and rightly discredited, and have absolutely nothing
to do with the modern application of evolutionary theory to human affairs.
Another reaction to the
incorporation of evolutionary theory in the social sciences, and especially in
international relations, is that there is no need for evolutionary theory, even
if they acknowledge that the misapplications of the past are less likely today.
For these scholars, the world we are trying to understand is much more than, or
even entirely divorced from, the human beings that live within it. The father
of modern international relations theory, Kenneth Waltz, famously examined three
possible “levels of analysis” in international politics: (1) the international
system as a whole; (2) nation-states; and (3) individual human beings. Each of
these levels in principle might offer explanations of political events. But
Waltz’s claim to fame was to reject not only a role for individuals in
international politics, but even a role for states—despite their widely
differing characters, cultures and regimes. For Waltz, since there is no
monopoly of force “above” states to enforce agreements and regulate behavior,
the recurrence of war in the international realm could be explained entirely by
the pressures exerted on them by other survival-minded states. Like billiard
balls, the actions of one state could be predicted by the actions of others,
since all were primarily seeking to maintain their security by the only
reliable means: power.
Waltz’s theory remains a
powerful perspective on world politics, and theory and practice in
international politics often operate with this “neorealist” view as a
background against which other factors must be measured. But it is probably
fair to say that most political scientists today reject any neat division and
accept that all three levels of analysis are, in reality, important influences
on politics. World War II is an important illustration of this, because it strongly
suggests that even the most significant world events can be influenced by
individual human beings and by the character of the nation-states that they
create.
Some versions of
international relations theory imply that Hitler himself did not make any real difference
and, given the constraints upon it at the time, any German state would have
behaved similarly in the 1930s. But few political scientists or historians
accept such a view. World War II was to a large extent about Adolf Hitler the
man (as well as Stalin, Mussolini, Tojo, Roosevelt and Churchill, among others).
Influences at the nation-state level are clear as well. The war itself, as well
as the Cold War to follow, was not just a conflict over material resources. It
was also a conflict between contrasting political ideologies, not least
fascism, communism and democracy. The ways in which ideas spread and clashed
within and between nations was also fundamental to the origin and nature of the
war. And lest we forget the most basic manifestation and consequence of war,
the 60 million dead were human beings too. If we are to understand war, then we
need to understand the psychology and behavior of the individuals who endure
them as well as the psychology and behavior of the leaders and states that
decide to fight them.
War and Cooperation
At each level of analysis,
evolution has much to offer. For millions of years, humans have evolved in
small, relatively nomadic bands, and the challenges of navigating a complex
world of family, friends and adversaries, seem to have left a lasting impact on
our evolved psychology. Indeed, the most enduring debates in the social and
biological sciences are debates on the evolution of cooperation and the evolution of warfare, and we can see the psychological footprint of these
evolutionary legacies at all levels of human relationships, from the individual
to the international. Often this investigation leads to entirely novel or
counter-intuitive hypotheses, with unique predictions that can account for
phenomena where other, non-biological theories fail.
For example, mounting
evidence shows that individual phenotypic traits such as bicep muscle mass and
upper body strength predict a surprising array of variables, from opinions on wealth distribution to beliefs on the utility of force in foreign policy. This appears to be a reflection of how individuals
derived different payoffs from alternative social strategies in human
evolutionary history, depending on their characteristics. Our brains “know” our
physical capabilities, and adjust our preferences and strategies accordingly. Researchers
also continue to accumulate evidence of sex differences in war, revealing a disturbing tendency for males to be
both the perpetrators and recipients of violence, and to overestimate their
chances of victory in war. These trends are predicted by evolutionary theory based
on ancestrally recurrent parental investment strategies that differed between
the sexes, and over successive
generations led to sexual dimorphism in the design of psychological systems
that help regulate behavior. Lastly, and more generally, a surprisingly common
leitmotif seems persistent across motivations for violence the world over, especially regarding the revenge
motive, honor and status, as well our incessant territoriality, which seems
only more urgent in a world of evolutionarily novel and territorially-fixed
nation states.
There remains much healthy
debate regarding the evolution of warfare and cooperation, as well as corollary
debates over the implications for “human nature.”
However, we should not be led astray to falsely conclude that the existence of adaptations
for war suggests that war itself inevitable or necessary. Three reasons suggest
it is not.
First and most importantly,
if such adaptations do exist, they are designed to operate flexibly in response
to dynamic environmental conditions; viz. aggression is not merely the product
of a primal urge that springs forth regardless of person or place. Natural
selection always prefers strategies that are contingent on context, maximizing
payoffs by triggering a given behavior in favorable contexts and suppressing it
in others. We can therefore lay the “killer ape” hypothesis to rest.
Second, there is substantial evidence to suggest that many forms of violence are indeed in
decline and have been for some time, again forcing us to recognize the
conditionality of behavior and the presence of competing abilities and desires,
as well as the success of institutions and governments in preventing aggression
and promoting collaboration. This leads to the third reason.
An equally large and
accumulating body of research reveals the deep and broad human capacity for cooperation and peacemaking. In a surprising twist, it may in fact even be the
case that the social pressures unleashed by an especially violent past are in
part responsible for our remarkable ability to cooperate. It is notable that one
enduring measure of battlefield success is in-group solidarity, coordination
and cooperation. Human conflict may have demanded, or boosted, the evolution of
cooperation. Although we are agnostic on the question of whether this renders war a “creative” force, it would be folly to fail to recognize the common
and sometimes tragic link between inter-group conflict and within-group cooperation. Here again, however, even this tragic link can be amended as humans have continually sought over time to
expand their social and political associations ever outward. As the world
globalizes, significant evolutionary questions arise over whether and how our
evolved, small-group adaptations will hurt or help us.
States, Parties, and Leadership
Clearly, much evidence seems
to indicate the existence in humans of a complex coalitional psychology that is at the heart of many political behaviors. We
see this debate at the international level in explanations for the stubborn
prevalence of war and the puzzle of cooperation. States distrust other states,
but are able to ally against common enemies. At the domestic state level,
however, one debate that has gained momentum is the “red brain/blue brain” discussion.
As John Hibbing and his colleagues have noted, certain “bedrock principles” have led to
enduring questions that political coalitions have had to solve the world over
and throughout time. These are questions such as: how to treat out-groups, how to deal with in-group rule breakers, such as free-riders (e.g. punish or rehabilitate?),
the proper conduct of leadership, and more generally, the appropriateness of
absolutism or compromise on political issues. Hibbing and colleagues argue that
these core puzzles have been sufficiently enduring in human social life that our
answers to these questions underlie the liberal-conservative spectrum, and even
have a genetically heritable component. Others such as Jonathan Haidt have taken a (not-mutually
exclusive) neuroscientific approach and have investigated the underlying brain
systems active in liberals and conservatives, with some surprising and provocative results. See ETVoL’s interview with Haidt here.
In addition to the conduct
of political parties in response to the seemingly ubiquitous questions of how
to achieve in-group solidarity and successful foreign relations, researchers
have actively investigated the biological dimensions of leadership. Even in
egalitarian societies that enforce strict rules regarding ‘upstarts’ who may
seek to gain undue influence over others, political groups have had to deal
with the challenge of political power that becomes centralized around
formidable or influential individuals. Two intertwined challenges here are the challenge of group coordination when exigencies demand a quick response, and the challenge of resisting exploitation by individuals of great influence. Importantly, although modern
nation-states are more accustomed to long-term stable leadership, it is more likely
that leadership in ancestral social groups was flexible, fleeting, and varied
based on the current challenges facing the group. For example, researchers have
shown that subtle cues in the face, in interaction with whether the group is currently at war or at peace, predicts one’s preference in voting among leaders. Furthermore,
although the demands of a given task will do much to condition the emergence of
leadership, there is new evidence that associates a specific DNA sequence with leadership skills in the form of supervisory or
managerial skills.
The seemingly ubiquitous
challenges of internal political organization and the risks and benefits of
strong leadership are all too familiar and central to human associations.
Research continues apace in all these areas, but perhaps most encouraging is
one trend that permeates the rest: A greater consciousness of, and explicit
movement towards, consilience.
Evolution and consilience: The way forward
At the end of the day,
social and life scientists studying humans are all students of behavior, and
evolutionary theory continues to gain ground as a useful, and in many cases
indispensible tool for exploring the depth and complexity of the human
experience. This is reflected in frequent and rigorous publications in many of
the leading scientific journals, as well as the fact that these publications
are multi-scholar, cross-disciplinary collaborations between biologists,
psychologists, economists, anthropologists, political scientists and many others.
It is also reflected in extensive coverage by major news outlets such as The
New York Times, The Economist, and of course popular television shows such as
the Colbert Report and Daly Show.
However, if this movement is
to consolidate the gains it has made in the direction of consilience, greater
effort must be made, especially in the social sciences, to break down
antiquated notions that persistently make it difficult for scholars—especially
young scholars breaking the norms of the trade—to engage in innovative
cross-disciplinary research. For example, caricatures of evolutionary theory
appear indefatigable in many instances, such as the belief that evolutionary
explanations imply or require rigid (“hard-wired”) behavior, or that evolution
can be used to justify the belief that humans are “fundamentally” selfish and
competitive, or the reverse, that they are fundamentally altruistic and
cooperative.
Social scientists, like the
objects they study, are human, and it takes a long time for beliefs to shift
and fears to settle. Thus, many scholars will continue to be wary over the
potential reappearance of Social Darwinism, and it will take time for the
academic community as a whole to shed popular but flawed impressions of
evolution and replace them with a modern, rigorous one, replete with its necessary
complexity and nuance.
Lastly, therefore, if
consilience is to be successful it must couple academic collaboration with good
old-fashioned public diplomacy. Evolution: This View of Life has prioritized
public diplomacy as a central aim, and in collaboration with The Evolution
Institute and The Social Evolution Forum, it has been instrumental in sparking
active and constructive discussion at the intersection of academia and the
public eye. ETVoL is uniquely focused on both breadth of coverage and depth of
analysis, and it currently remains the only web magazine of its kind. As
editors of the politics section, we aim to provide a forum for all new research
on politics, irrespective of topic or level of analysis, but unified by a
common focus on applying the insights of evolution to the many puzzles of
political behavior.
No one is under any
illusions about the ability of evolutionary theory—nor indeed any other theory—to
end war, create peace, halt climate change, or solve any other of the great
challenges that confront us in the 21st century. But given the
urgency and magnitude of such tasks, what we should not do is leave any stone
unturned. For over a hundred and fifty years since Darwin introduced his theory
of evolution, many stones have been left unturned. Darwin Day is a rallying
call to pick those stones up and look. We do not know what we may find.
