Search results

1 – 10 of 289
Book part
Publication date: 25 September 2013

Johan M.G. van der Dennen

Purpose – This chapter contributes to comparative biopolitics and reviews primatological literature, especially about our nearest relatives, the Great Apes…

Abstract

Purpose – This chapter contributes to comparative biopolitics and reviews primatological literature, especially about our nearest relatives, the Great Apes.

Design/methodology/approach – Biopolitics in this chapter means evolutionarily informed political science, with emphasis on power relations. I review the literature on intrasexual and intersexual dominance interactions among individuals and competitive and/or agonistic interactions among groups in the Great Apes (Hominidae, formerly Pongidae): orangutan (Pongo with two species and three subspecies), gorilla (Gorilla with four subspecies), bonobo (Pan paniscus), and common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes with four subspecies). In the final section I present some (speculative) thoughts on Pan prior or the modern human ancestor.

Findings – Not only Man is a political animal.

Originality/value – Impartial, objective, and as complete as possible review of the literature for the students of (comparative) politics, ethology, and psychology.

Details

The world of biology and politics: Organization and research areas
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78190-728-3

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 25 March 2011

Johan M.G. van der Dennen

In this chapter, I use the term “biopolitics” to mean evolutionarily informed political science. Politics has been characterized as “Who gets what, when, and how” (Lasswell, 1936

Abstract

In this chapter, I use the term “biopolitics” to mean evolutionarily informed political science. Politics has been characterized as “Who gets what, when, and how” (Lasswell, 1936), but rather than about material possessions, politics is understood to be about power, more specifically about collective power, especially differential group power competition, hierarchy and stratification in power distribution, and the universal struggle to enhance power, and to maintain or challenge/destroy this status quo. Politics “should be found in any system of nature in which conflicts of interest exist among cooperating organic units” (Johnson, 1995, p. 279). My main focus will be competitive intergroup relations in monkeys and apes, or as I (van der Dennen, 1995) called it “intergroup agonistic behavior” (IAB). I also briefly treat interindividual and intercoalitionary agonistic behavior when relevant.

Details

Biology and Politics
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-0-85724-580-9

Book part
Publication date: 1 December 2008

Sarah F. Brosnan

Purpose – Responding negatively to inequity is not a uniquely human trait. Some of our closest evolutionary ancestors respond negatively when treated less well than a conspecific…

Abstract

Purpose – Responding negatively to inequity is not a uniquely human trait. Some of our closest evolutionary ancestors respond negatively when treated less well than a conspecific. Comparative work between humans and other primates can help elucidate the evolutionary underpinnings of humans’ social preferences.

Methodology/approach – Results from studies of nonhuman primates, in particular chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys, are presented in comparison to human results that have been collected during economic game studies in humans, such as in the Ultimatum Game or Impunity Game.

Findings – Among nonhuman primates, a frequent behavioral reaction to inequity is to refuse to continue the interaction. While in some cases this response appears to be caused by the inequitable distribution, in others, it seems to be caused by another individual's inequitable behavior. While these reactions are similar to those of humans, this reaction does not appear to be a sense of fairness in the way that we think of it in humans. Neither nonhuman primate species alters their behavior when they are the benefited individual, and in an experimental situation, chimpanzees do not alter their behavior to obtain food for their partner as well as for themselves.

Originality/value of the chapter – Although there are differences between human and nonhuman primate responses, such studies allow us to better understand the evolution of our own responses to inequity. Given the strong behavioral reactions that even monkeys show to inequitable treatment, it is not surprising that humans are concerned with equity. Such comparisons increase understanding of issues such as healthcare disparities in humans.

Details

Neuroeconomics
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-84855-304-0

Book part
Publication date: 21 November 2022

Kenneth C. Blanchard

Aristotle's Politics provides an example of what a biopolitical science might look like. Three key elements stand out: (1) an account of political structure as a multilevel…

Abstract

Aristotle's Politics provides an example of what a biopolitical science might look like. Three key elements stand out: (1) an account of political structure as a multilevel society including kin and non-kin relationships; (2) an account of the human species that includes comparison with other social species that are capable of coordinated action; and (3) an emphasis on the human capacity to understand and communicate moral rules. Over the last 50 years, a number of research programs in evolutionary anthropology have provided the basis for a biopolitical science that maps onto the elements above. Schultz, Opie, and Atkinson describe the trajectory of human evolution from solitary to a pair bonded, familial species. Michael Tomasello's two-step account of the evolution of human cooperation shows how the ancestral humans went from merely gregarious to genuinely political animals. Christopher Boehm shows how the human capacity for moral emotions and decision making by consensus developed. Richard Wrangham provides evidence that the suppression of reactive aggression by ancestral human societies resulted in a self-domesticated species, a process that enhanced the human capacity for cooperation and communication. Bernard Chapais argued that the emergence of pair bonding among ancestral humans laid the foundation for both consanguineal and affinal kinship structures. That these bodies of research hold together can best be seen when they are viewed in light of Aristotle's biopolitical science.

Details

Biopolitics at 50 Years
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-80262-108-2

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 7 October 2014

Douglas P. Fry and Patrik Söderberg

The purpose of this paper is to critique several studies that claim to show that nomadic foragers engage in high levels of inter-group aggression. This is done through exploring…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to critique several studies that claim to show that nomadic foragers engage in high levels of inter-group aggression. This is done through exploring four myths: nomadic foragers are warlike; there was a high rate of war mortality in the Pleistocene; the nomadic forager data support the “chimpanzee model” of lethal raiding psychology; and contact and state influence inevitably decrease aggression in nomadic forager societies.

Design/methodology/approach

Using exact criteria, a sample of 21 nomadic forager societies is derived from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample. This sampling method minimizes the chance of sampling bias, a shortcoming that has plagued previous studies. Only the highest quality ethnographic data, those classified as Primary Authority Sources, are used, which results in data on 148 cases of lethal aggression. The specifics of the lethal aggression cases are then discussed vis-à-vis the four myths to demonstrate the disjuncture between the data and the myths.

Findings

All four myths are found to be out of step with actual data on nomadic forager war and peace. Overall, the default interaction pattern of nomadic foragers is to get along with neighbors rather than make war against them. The findings contradict both assertions that there was a high level of war mortality among nomadic foragers of the Pleistocene and the chimpanzee model's proposal that human males have a tendency or predisposition to form coalitions and make lethal attacks on members of neighboring groups.

Research limitations/implications

Consideration of nomadic forager war and peace should be contextualized in terms of social organization, contact history (including ethnocide, displacement, and other factors), and the current situation faced by extant forager populations. As in other contexts, the introduction of alcohol at contact or subsequently has increased nomadic forager aggression.

Practical implications

Propositions as to the aggressiveness of nomadic foragers should be viewed with skepticism because they are contradicted by data and a contextual view of nomadic forager social organization and ethnohistory.

Social implications

The debate over nomadic forager war and peace is connected to larger debates in modern society about the nature of human nature and has real-world implications regarding foreign policy and political approaches toward war and peace.

Originality/value

A critique of sampling, methodology, and theory is provided in this area.

Details

Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, vol. 6 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1759-6599

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 19 October 2012

Jonathan H. Turner and Alexandra Maryanski

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to bring data to suggest that group processes have a biological base, lodged in human neurology as it evolved over the last 7 million…

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to bring data to suggest that group processes have a biological base, lodged in human neurology as it evolved over the last 7 million years.

Design/methodology/approach – The method for discovering the neurological basis of group processes is labelled evolutionary sociology, and this method revolves around: (1) cladistic analysis of traits of distant ancestors to humans and the great apes, with whom humans share a very high proportion of genes, (2) comparative neurology between the great apes and humans that can inform us about how the brains of humans were rewired from the structures shared by the last common ancestor to humans and apes, and (3) ecological analysis of the habitats and niches that generated selection pressures on the neurology of apes and hominins.

Findings – A key finding is that most of the interpersonal processes that drive group processes are neurologically based and evolved before the brain among hominins was sufficiently large to generate systems of symbols organized in cultural texts remotely near the human measure. There is, then, good reason to study the neurological basis of behavior because neurology explains more about the dynamics of interpersonal behavior than does culture, which was a very late arrival to the hominin line.

Research implications – One implication of these findings is that social scientific analysis of interpersonal processes and group dynamics can no longer assume that groups are solely a constructed process, mediated by culture and social structure. There were powerful selection pressures during the course of hominin evolution to increase hominin sociality and especially group formation, which required considerable rewiring of the basic ape brain. Since groups are not “natural” to apes in general and even to an evolved ape-like humans, it is important to discover how humans ever became group-organizing animals. The answer resides in the dramatic enhancing of emotions in hominins and humans, which shifts attention away from the neocortex to the older subcortical areas of the brain. Once this shift is made, theorizing and research, as well as public views on human sociality, need to be recast as, first, an evolved biological trait and, only second, as a most tenuous and fragile of a big-brained animal using language and culture to construct its social world.

Originality/value – The value of this kind of analysis is to liberate sociology and the social sciences in general from simplistic views that, because humans have language and can use language to construct culture and social structures, the underlying biology and neurology of human action is not relevant to understanding the social world. Indeed, just the opposite is the case: to the extent that social scientists insist upon a social constructionists research agenda, they will fail to conceptualize and perform research on more fundamental forces in the social world, including group dynamics.

Details

Biosociology and Neurosociology
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78190-257-8

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 22 September 2023

Kip Errett Patterson

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to demonstrate how memes perpetuate trauma with a schematic. This conceptual paper uses the “begin with the end in mind” meme to format the…

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to demonstrate how memes perpetuate trauma with a schematic. This conceptual paper uses the “begin with the end in mind” meme to format the presentation of the necessary components for the schematic of how trauma persists across generations. It is the third paper in a series of applications of the recursive, test-operate-test schematic to the systemic effects of the information processes involved in trauma. The schematic presented permits evaluations of solutions to interrupt the generational trauma cycle.

Design/methodology/approach

The required schematic components are described. Trauma (actual or perceived threat to survival) will be briefly discussed. Evolutionary processes that create the psychophysiology necessary to support nominal social expectations (NSEs) memes and metaphors will be summarized. The development of NSEs will be discussed. Metaphors and memes necessary for the creation of the schematic and esoteric events at level Learning IV will be briefly described. Finally, Figure 3, which illustrates the maintenance of NSEs and attempts to prevent their violation, will be explained.

Findings

It is asserted that functional human social behavior requires NSEs. Trauma is found to persist through the presence of anti-nominal NSE memes that are transduced by the individual into anti-nominal metaphors, which then damage grid, place and dentate gyrus cell (GPDG) neurophysiology. The damaged neurocircuits allow the use of anti-nominal NSE metaphors within our individual neurophysiology. Furthermore, anti-NSE memes interfere with the self-organized criticalities (SOCs) of genetic-epigenetic processes necessary for the intergenerational transfer of functional social behavior. When anti-NSE nominal metaphors are transduced back into anti-NSEs, social niche memes, the trauma process is reiterated. Anti-NSE memes and metaphors are found to be inappropriate criteria central to the maintenance of persistent trauma. Therefore, anti-NSE memes have hijacked our epigenetics and our social niches. Solutions are available because during our evolution, the Homo clade developed esoteric capabilities and the ability to bring back what information we can from those encounters. This physiology operates around the 5HT2A neural receptors that process hallucinogens, such as psilocybin. Accessing this resource system, either through naturally occurring altered states of consciousness or through micro-dose pharmaceutical psilocybin and related neurotransmitters, produces a significant structural change in the GPDG system to reset the NSE system illustrated in the schematic to its nominal status so that we can maintain nominal NSE relationships within our meme niche(s).

Research limitations/implications

The source of persistent trauma in our social niche(s), the means by which the trauma is maintained and the means to mitigate and perhaps eliminate persistent trauma are identified. Based on these three conclusions, it is difficult to make decisions regarding corrective actions because of ubiquitous anti-NSE memes and because of the limitations of our ordinary consciousness.

Practical implications

If we wish to survive as a species, we will need to discover the criteria necessary to maintain our niche(s) congruent SOCs and use them instead of tyrannical memes described by Dawkins (1989) to make decisions about ourselves and our niche(s).

Social implications

Significant courage is required to identify the memes that maintain trauma because many of them are culturally sacred cows. Unfortunately, we have known since Bremner's (1995) MRI study of posttraumatic stress disorder that trauma causes brain damage. Fortunately, our NSE genes compel us to pursue restitution of the memes that maintain our trauma-inducing cultures.

Originality/value

Several original assertions are presented. While the Homo clade ancestors began the creation of the social niche(s) that led to Homo sapiens sapiens, it is asserted that the australopiths created the NSE memes which are the foundation behaviors that permit our social niche(s). Furthermore, NSEs were produced by enhanced intentionality skills and NSEs were created by both genetic and memetic processes. The evolution of intentionality-NSE neural networks is asserted as the source of intentional material manipulation. While anti-NSE memes are claimed as the source of persistent trauma, the practice of esoteric technologies is presented as a solution to persistent trauma.

Details

Kybernetes, vol. ahead-of-print no. ahead-of-print
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0368-492X

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 1 March 2003

Janet M. Alger and Steven F. Alger

Ever since Mead, sociology has maintained a deep divide between human and non human animals. In effect, Mead constructed humans as having capacities that he saw lacking in…

1894

Abstract

Ever since Mead, sociology has maintained a deep divide between human and non human animals. In effect, Mead constructed humans as having capacities that he saw lacking in animals. Recent research on animals has challenged the traditional ideas of Mead and others by providing evidence of animal intelligence, adaptability, selfawareness, emotionality, communication and culture. This paper examines the human‐animal relationship as presented in Introductory Sociology Textbooks to see if this new research on animals has allowed us to move beyond Mead. We find outdated information and confused thinking on such topics as the relationship between language and culture, the development of the self in animals, and the role of instinct, socialization and culture in animal behavior. We conclude that, with few exceptions, the main function of the treatment of animals in these texts is to affirm the hard line that sociology has always drawn between humans and other species.

Details

International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 23 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0144-333X

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 21 November 2022

James H. Rutherford

A multidimensional understanding of human nature based on biology can provide a very useful framework of analysis and bring some understanding and coherence to the very fragmented…

Abstract

A multidimensional understanding of human nature based on biology can provide a very useful framework of analysis and bring some understanding and coherence to the very fragmented perspectives within moral, political, and legal philosophy. A useful four-part framework of analysis can be based on the evolution of the brain as described by Paul MacLean (1973, 1990) and Sir John Eccles (1989). A similar pattern of development of our mental and moral capacities through experience in childhood was also described by Jean Piaget (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958) and Lawrence Kohlberg (1981). This multidimensional understanding of human nature considers the individual, social, rational, and metaphysical perspectives. Because this four-part multidimensional understanding of human nature is based on a naturalized epistemology related to the development of our mental capacities in both evolution and through experience, this pattern can be seen across a wide variety of disciplines. Medical ethics, US constitutional democracy, and legal philosophy will be used as examples of the usefulness of this multidimensional understanding of human nature.

Details

Biopolitics at 50 Years
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-80262-108-2

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 23 April 2013

Robert L. Young and Carol Y. Thompson

Although questions about nonhuman animal mind and selfhood have been a long-standing interest of philosophers, psychologists, biologists, and cognitive ethologists, sociologists…

Abstract

Although questions about nonhuman animal mind and selfhood have been a long-standing interest of philosophers, psychologists, biologists, and cognitive ethologists, sociologists have been reluctant to acknowledge the importance of such questions. This is due, in part, to George Herbert Mead’s denial of consciousness, especially self-consciousness, in animals. Indeed, the exclusion of nonhuman consciousness was a fundamental axiom of Mead’s very conceptions of mind and self. However, recently a growing number symbolic interactionists have begun to build a body of research that demands a reconsideration of Mead’s anthropocentric and phonocentric definitions of mind, self, and the nonhuman participants who cohabit the everyday world of social life. Here we provide a brief account of their work and present evidence from evolutionary biology, cognitive ethology, and neuroscience that strongly validates their contention that the processes of consciousness and self, which constitute the cornerstone of meaningful social action and interaction, can no longer be denied to several species of nonhuman animals.

Details

40th Anniversary of Studies in Symbolic Interaction
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78190-783-2

Keywords

1 – 10 of 289