Negotiating the gap. Four academics and the dilemma of human biodiversity

I’ve published a second article in Open Behavioral Genetics: “Negotiating the gap. Four academics and the dilemma of human biodiversity.” You can read it as a PDF here or as a caliber ebook here. The foreword is reproduced below. Comments are welcome.

 

*****************************************************

 

Twenty-five years ago I met a professor from the medical faculty who had decided to go into anthropology. He was excited by the concept of gene-culture co-evolution and wanted to get in on the action. But he stressed the need for "prudence." He would first earn his credentials as an anthropologist before tackling this sensitive subject, and he would do so gradually and prudently.

He was already a man of a certain age, and I wondered whether he would have time for all of this, but I said nothing. He knew better than me how to plan his life. And his proposal for research on gene-culture co-evolution had been thoroughly worked out. This was no back-of-the-envelope thing.

Over the next quarter-century he carried out fieldwork and published journal articles, but he never touched the subject that had inspired his move to anthropology. Did he change his mind? I suspect the reason was less thought out. Once you begin your research from a certain angle, it is hard to break away and approach it from a totally different angle—you would have to find new sources of funding and make friends with new people. You would also lose friends. So you take the easy way out, for the time being. And you wait for the right moment, which never comes.

Charles Darwin himself had fallen into that trap. When a non-biologist anonymously wrote and marketed a book about evolution, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, the resulting controversy impressed on Darwin the need to become a reputable biologist before writing on the topic. So he bided his time and published, published, published … on other topics in biology. One day, however, fate forced his hand. Another biologist sent him a manuscript that set out the very theory that Darwin had kept under wraps for so long. The rest is history.

You may be thinking: "That was Darwin, and this is me. And my situation is different, very different. And this is a completely different issue. It's really important for me to wait until the time is right!"

I hear you. Maybe your situation is different. And who am I to judge?

 

***********************************************

 

This essay presents four academics—Richard Dawkins, Claude Lévi-Strauss, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides—and how they negotiated the gap between personal conviction and mainstream discourse. All four came to the conclusion that human populations differ not only anatomically but also in various mental and behavioral predispositions. These differences are statistical and often apparent only between large groups of people. But even a weak statistical difference can affect how a society will develop and organize itself. Human biodiversity is therefore a reality, and one we ignore at our peril.

Yet most academics do ignore it, their ignorance being either real or feigned. It is easy to forgive the truly ignorant. But what about the ones who know better?  What's their excuse? "I don't have tenure yet." "I'm not well enough known yet." "I don't have enough clout yet." Some will just say: "Please come into my office. Others may hear us talking in the corridor."

And so, among those who do know better, the common response is ... no response. But what else is there to do? How does one go about saying something that is offensive to most people? Is it better to do it gradually? Or all at once? Or is it better to say nothing at all and wait for someone else to speak out?

There are no easy answers, and that may be part of the problem. Too many people are looking for answers that are easy—that cost little in terms of reputation, career prospects, or acceptance at the next cocktail party. Why not instead assume that everything worthwhile has a cost and then look for ways to minimize the cost?

Once you accept that rule of life, everything will fall into place. This intellectual maturity became a source of strength for one of the above academics, Claude Lévi-Strauss, who had to face bitter criticism for what he said. There was an énorme scandale. People were upset and shocked. Yet he carried on as if nothing terrible had happened. Was he so fascinated by his ideas that he simply ignored what others might think? Perhaps. More likely than not, he pondered his dilemma, weighed the pros and cons, and decided that the only sensible thing was to speak out. 

How will you decide? Will you speak out or remain silent?

Reference 

Frost, P. (2014). Negotiating the gap. Four academics and the dilemma of human biodiversity, Open Behavioral Genetics, June 20

http://openpsych.net/OBG/2014/06/negotiating-the-gap/
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvtmnssmg5rbwpm/Negotiating%20the%20gap%20-%20Peter%20Fro%20-%20Peter.epub  

Looking back and ahead

Was the scientific revolution (1540-1700) due to an increase in trade and the discovery of the New World? Or were there just more people around who could understand and appreciate new ideas? (source)

The past year has seen the deaths of two scholars who tackled the thorny issue of IQ and race, first Philippe Rushton (October 2) and then Arthur Jensen (October 22). The coming year may see more departures. Most of the remaining HBD scholars are retired or getting on in years.

Some see this as proof of the issue’s irrelevance. Rushton and Jensen were too old to understand that “race” and “intelligence” are outdated concepts. In reality, they were old because they had earned tenure before the campaign against “racist academics” had gotten into full swing … back in the 1980s.

I use quotation marks because that campaign cast a very wide net. It targeted anyone who might believe in race differences, or heritable differences of any sort. A good example would be John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, who founded evolutionary psychology in the 1980s and have authored publications that are now required reading in undergrad psychology. Yet they had to wander in the wilderness for years before getting secure academic positions. Their sin? They believed that many human behaviors have a sizeable heritable component, although they repeatedly denied the existence of any heritable differences among human populations. But that wasn’t good enough. They had taken the first step in a chain of reasoning that could lead God knows where. They weren’t guilty of something they actually thought. They were guilty of something they might end up thinking.

The climate in academia today, especially in the social sciences, eerily resembles that of Eastern Europe a half-century ago. In private, many academics make fun of the idea that every aspect of human behavior is “socially constructed.” In public, they say nothing. Even the ones with tenure are terrified to speak out. It just isn’t worth it. Even if your position is secure, you’ll still see funding and publishing opportunities disappear, and your acquaintances will treat you as a horrible person. At best, you’ll be considered an oddball.

With little new blood entering the pipeline, and with its leading scholars growing old and dying off, the HBD community seems destined to disappear within academia and the larger community of intellectuals. Game over.

I’m less pessimistic. Individuals may die, but ideas don’t die so easily, especially if they make sense. The HBD idea may lose certain aspects and gain new ones, but the idea itself will be much more tenacious. And the false academic consensus can be shattered with a bit of effort. All it takes is a few people who can make their case calmly and lucidly. The basic facts are already in and beyond dispute.

We know, for instance, that at least 7% of the human genome has changed over the past 40,000 years, with most of the change being squeezed into the last 10,000. In fact, human genetic evolution speeded up by over a hundred-fold about 10,000 years ago (Hawks et al., 2007). By then, however, humans had spread over the earth’s entire surface from the equator to the Arctic Circle. They weren’t adapting to new physical environments. They were adapting to new cultural and behavioral environments. They were adapting to differences in diet, in mating systems, in family and communal structure, in notions of morality, in forms of language, in systems of writing, in modes of subsistence, in means of production, in networks of exchange, and so on. This genetic evolution involved changes to digestion, metabolism, and … mental processing.

Another fact. By 10,000 years ago, modern humans were no longer a small founder group. They were already splitting up into different geographic populations. So the acceleration of human genetic evolution did not affect all humans the same way. Yes, we are different, and the differences aren’t skin deep.

Undoubtedly, these differences are statistical, and many weakly so. But even a statistical difference can affect the way a society develops. I once believed that the scientific revolution of the 16th century onward was due to the increase in trade and the discovery of the New World. I’ve now come to the conclusion that it was driven by an increase in the smart fraction of northwestern European societies, and this increase was in turn driven by the demographic processes described by Clark (2007). That revolution didn’t happen just because new ideas were being discovered (actually, many of them had been around for some time). It happened because more people could now understand those ideas and appreciate their significance.

But enough digression. You can bury a person but not an idea.

References

Anon. (2012). Unit 12 – The Scientific Revolution, MrGrayHistory

http://mrgrayhistory.wikispaces.com/UNIT+12+-+THE+SCIENTIFIC+REVOLUTION

Clark, G. (2007). A Farewell to Alms. A Brief Economic History of the World, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.

Hawks, J., E.T. Wang, G.M. Cochran, H.C. Harpending, and R.K. Moyzis. (2007). Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104, 20753-20758.

Was evolutionary psychology inevitable?

Cover of Time, August 28, 1995. Evolutionary psychology beat out its rivals in the race to win public acceptance.

During the 1990s, evolutionary psychology overtook and replaced sociobiology. Its success was total, much like that of many paradigms we now accept as normal science. Did it succeed for the same reason? Did it better fit the data?

In some ways evolutionary psychology was better than its rivals and in other ways worse. Its superiority tended to be more organizational, even political. In short, it became the only game in town for study of human behavior from an evolutionary perspective. The alternatives—sociobiology and gene-culture co-evolution—had much less to offer in terms of research funding, career opportunities, or just an untroubled academic life.

Early years of evolutionary psychology

At first, the term ‘evolutionary psychology’ simply referred to psychologists and psychiatrists who shared an interest in evolutionary theory. Such people began to come together in the late 1980s:

In mid-1987, an initial list of people using modern evolutionary theory to address problems in psychology and psychiatry was compiled and distributed. The respondents suggested additional names that expanded the list to over 200 researchers. Many people expressed surprise that there were so many others working in the area. Many more suggested that it was time to organize a forum for the exchange of ideas and research findings in the area. (Evolution, Psychology and Psychiatry 1988)

The first forum was held at the 1988 Evolution and Human Behavior Meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The meeting had two purposes:

- To facilitate the exchange of ideas and findings among researchers in the area of Evolution, Psychology and Psychiatry. The developing new basic science will be emphasized.

- To consider plans for initiating an organization that will promote research and scholarly exchange in the area of Evolution, Psychology and Psychiatry.

The proceedings only hinted at evolutionary psychology’s eventual divorce from sociobiology. Some presenters talked about a mismatch between current behavior and earlier contexts of adaptation, but these contexts were not placed over a million years ago in the Pleistocene.

It was decided to have more meetings and to hold them annually. The 1989 meeting, now called the Human Behavior and Evolution Conference, had a similar mix of ideas. Presenters were now talking more about ‘mismatch’ and ‘mental mechanisms’:

Debate about the relevance of mental mechanisms, rather than current human behavior, to the study of adaptation continued from other conferences in the recent past. […] Turke pointed out that studies examining current reproductive success could reveal the nature of mental mechanisms by comparing contexts in which humans do or do not behave adaptively. […] The abstract models presented by evolutionary psychologists (first by Cosmides and Tooby), which are somewhat like descriptive structural equation models, seem often to be misunderstood to present physiological structures, again making mental mechanisms appear to promote invariant behavior. More sophisticated basic theory is necessary to determine whether current behavior reflects adapted strategies. (HBES, 1990)

Leda Cosmides and John Tooby were already arguing that the genetic determinants of human behavior had assumed their current form long before the emergence of Homo sapiens, but this view was still a minority one. Other presenters were affirming the possibility of much more recent evolution:

Cultural versus natural selection was also the major topic of a roundtable on the final morning, lead by William Hamilton, George Williams, Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfelt, Edward Wilson, Irven DeVore, and Richard Dawkins. Much of the discussion focused on the unit of selection and the selective process. Dawkins stressed defining a specific replicating unit, which must be genes or memes. Williams proposed using epidemiological, disease–transmission models for the spread of cultural traits rather than using genetic models. Wilson stressed the importance of co-evolutionary theory, which models the interaction of genes and culture in epigenetic processes. (HBES, 1990)

Evolutionary psychology was nonetheless en route to becoming a paradigm distinct from sociobiology, with the Pleistocene EEA as the key difference. In 1989, this theme inspired two articles in Ethology and Sociobiology. Don Symons wrote:

[…] a well-formed description of an adaptation must consist solely of words for things, events, relations, and so forth that existed in the EEA, which, in the case of human beings, means the Pleistocene world of nomadic foragers. The specific environmental features to which Tibetan polyandry is adapted, according to Crook and Crook, include agricultural estates, animal husbandry, primogeniture, monasticism, aristocrats, landlords, governments, and taxation. Because none of these things existed in the human EEA, Crook and Crook’s account contains not a single well formed description of a Darwinian adaptation […] (Symons, 1989, pp. 138-139)

John Tooby and Leda Cosmides argued along similar lines:

It is no more plausible to believe that whole new mental organs could evolve since the Pleistocene—i.e., over historical time—than it is to believe that whole new physical organs such as eyes would evolve over brief spans. It is easily imaginable that such things as the population mean retinal sensitivity might modestly shift over historical time, and similarly minor modifications might have been made in various psychological mechanisms. However, major and intricate changes in innately specified information-processing procedures present in human psychological mechanisms do not seem likely to have taken place over brief spans of historical time. (Tooby & Cosmides, 1989, p. 34)

Here, Tooby and Cosmides assert that ‘whole new mental organs’ could not have arisen over the past million years. They then conclude that ‘major changes’ to mental organs are unlikely. This conclusion hardly follows from their initial assertion, which itself is doubtful. New organs have arisen over shorter time spans, specifically through duplication of an existing organ and rapid modification of the ‘spare.’

As a result of these articles and succeeding ones, the Pleistocene EEA came to define evolutionary psychology. The latter ceased to mean ‘sociobiology for psychologists’ and took on a narrower, more paradigmatic meaning.

Gene-culture co-evolution: a competing paradigm

At the turn of the 1990s, it was still far from clear that evolutionary psychology would take over from sociobiology. Gene-culture co-evolution seemed to hold a stronger position.

This other paradigm began in a cultural evolution class that L.L. Cavalli-Sforza taught in 1978-79 at Stanford to Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson (Stone & Lurquin 2005, p. 108). The Italian geneticist argued that the natural environment has not been the main driving force of human evolution. Instead, this role has largely fallen to the cultural environment, such as oral and written language, social organization, technology, means of subsistence, and so forth. There has thus been a feedback loop: we humans have created different cultural environments, which in turn have subjected us to different pressures of natural selection. Our creations have become our creators. This co-evolution fascinated Cavalli-Sforza, and its study now occupied his thoughts.

But others were thinking along the same lines, like the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss in 1979:

[…] as anthropologists, the aspects of the question that will always appeal to us will be much less the genetic determination of culture or cultures than the cultural determination of genetics. […]

The selection pressure of culture—the fact that it favors certain types of individuals rather than others through its forms of organization, its ideas of morality, and its aesthetic values—can do infinitely more to alter a gene pool than the gene pool can do to shape a culture, all the more so because a culture’s rate of change can certainly be much faster than the phenomena of genetic drift. (Lévi-Strauss, 1979, p. 24-25)

The 1980s saw growing interest from other students of human evolution. Robert Boyd and Peter Richerson were among the first, followed by Pierre van den Berghe, Charles Lumsden, E.O. Wilson, and R.D. Alexander. The new paradigm was summed up by Pierre van den Berghe:

[…] the causality between genes and culture is reciprocal […] culture, though clearly possessing some emergent and irreducible properties (notably in its mode of transmission), is itself subject to a wide set of developmental parameters because it comes out of a brain with a definite bio-chemical structure […] the human mind, despite its undoubted plasticity, is not a tabula rasa. It is predisposed to learn certain things with ease, and others with difficulty or not at all. According to this viewpoint, the programmed learning biases of the human brain result in a non-random distribution of cultural products […] Moreover, since culture has consequences for the survival and reproduction of flesh and blood organisms, natural selection must exert some influence on cultural evolution (van den Berghe & Frost, 1986)

Work on gene-culture co-evolution initially involved trawling through the ethnographic literature. In the mid-1980s, however, a major project for field research was launched, specifically among the Inuit of northern Canada.

Its leader? Cavalli-Sforza. The project was organized in 1986 with professors from Queen’s University and Université Laval. The aim was to determine whether natural selection favors different mental toolkits in hunting and gathering societies versus agricultural societies. As one project member, John Berry, a psychologist at Queen’s University, later explained:

Hunters, by this way of thinking, require good visual acuity, keen disembedding skills and a well-developed sense of spatial orientation. To hunt successfully, the hunter must be able to discern the object of the quest (which is often embedded in a complex visual landscape), then disembed the object, and finally return to home base. In contrast, agriculturalists need not develop these particular skills, but rather they need to invest in other areas of development, such as conservation (in both the economic and the Piagetian senses) and close social interactions. (Berry 2008, p. 3)

According to an unpublished report, Cavalli-Sforza wished to trace the origins of Inuit artistic talent by estimating the relative contributions of genetic endowment and socio-cultural learning:

One of the most remarkable phenomena in the contemporary Canadian Arctic is the presence of highly-acclaimed art forms — carving in stone and ivory, and printing on paper. The question we ask is: how can we account for the wide-spread distribution of such talent in a small dispersed population?

[…] Is it possible that artistic talent is transmitted culturally (from parents to offspring, from others in society to the artist, and from peers to artist)? How can we assess these types of transmission?

Is it possible that artistic talent is transmitted genetically (from parents to offspring)? How can we assess such transmission? (Berry & Cavalli-Sforza 1986, p. 2)

The approach would be to study specific Inuit artists and then their biological and non-biological relatives. The high rate of adoption among Inuit (between 15 and 30%) would provide a means to distinguish cultural inheritance from genetic inheritance in the transmission of artistic talent. Related mental traits would also be investigated. “Given enough information one can hope to separately estimate two quantities, called respectively cultural and genetic heritability” (Berry & Cavalli-Sforza 1986, p. 5)

The project fell through. At Laval, we assumed something went wrong with the funding. At Queen’s, the story was that Cavalli-Sforza had quit because of illness. Yet his biography makes no mention of illness during this period, the only bouts of ill health being an operation for bladder cancer in 1976 and a heart attack in 1991 (Stone & Lurquin, 2005, pp. 98, 160). In any case, ill health would have been a reason for postponing the project, not canceling it.

This project has left no traces in any of Cavalli-Sforza’s publications—books, journal articles, conference proceedings, or poster sessions. The paper trail amounts to one unpublished report (Berry & Cavalli-Sforza, 1986). Just as mute are his published writings on gene-culture co-evolution. Examples are confined to the usual suspects: lactose tolerance in cattle-raising societies, and malaria resistance among tropical agriculturalists (Cavalli-Sforza & Cavalli-Sforza 2008, p. 264). There is no hint that natural selection might have favored different mental traits in different cultural environments.

Endgame

With Cavalli-Sforza gone, the field of gene-culture co-evolution lost momentum. It had big names, but few of them could put boots on the ground, i.e., do fieldwork. Nor could any of them focus on this area of research. As big names, they typically had their fingers in many pies.

There may have been another reason in the case of Cavalli-Sforza. He was vulnerable to blackmail because of his wartime anthrax research … in Berlin. Nothing terrible came of that laboratory work, but it had the potential to derail his career. At the very least, it was a stain on his curriculum vitae. (1)

Evolutionary psychology thus beat out its rivals by default. The term ‘sociobiology’ was becoming a mark of Cain even among people interested in human behavior and evolution. In 1997, it was literally voted out of existence. Gene-culture co-evolution continued to attract interest but only as a sideline.

With its rivals growing ever weaker, evolutionary psychology gained strength as the millennium drew nearer. It could now offer grad students a hassle-free research environment with a real chance of academic employment later on. This may have been due to avoidance of the stormy issue of population differences (although academia in general was becoming calmer). A bigger reason, however, was the strong focus of its main proponents, John Tooby and Leda Cosmides. They talked at conferences, gave interviews to the media, networked, and published, published, published. As they slowly climbed the academic career ladder, they would turn around to help likeminded people on lower rungs.

Bit by bit, they did what the big names could not do. They created a new teaching and research environment. And this environment would be called ‘evolutionary psychology.’

Note

1. Whenever Cavalli-Sforza lists his publications he never goes farther back than 1947. His wartime publications are all the more unknown because they were published under the name of Cavalli. He later changed his name to Cavalli-Sforza, having been ostensibly adopted by the second husband of his maternal grandmother. His autobiography dates the name change to 1950 (a year after his father died) when he was 28, married, and already a father. Such circumstances hardly justified adoption under Italian law or custom. Even more inexplicably, he was still publishing under his old name as late as 1953. Google Scholar lists three publications by L.L. Cavalli in 1950, one in 1951, five in 1952, and two in 1953.

References

Berry, J.W., and L.L. Cavalli-Sforza. (1986). Cultural and genetic influences on Inuit art. Report to Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Ottawa.

Boyd, R. and P.J. Richerson. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process, Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. and F. Cavalli-Sforza (2008). La génétique des populations : histoire d'une découverte, Paris: Odile Jacob. (French translation of Perché la scienza : L’aventura di un ricercatore).

Evolution, Psychology and Psychiatry. (1988). Meeting Announcement, Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 28-30, 1988.

HBES. (1990). Summary of the first Human Behavior and Evolution Conference: Evanston, Illinois, August, 1989, Human Behavior and Evolution Society Newsletter, 1(1), 2-4, July 1990.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1985). Claude Lévi-Strauss à l’université Laval, Québec (septembre 1979), prepared by Yvan Simonis, Documents de recherche no. 4, Laboratoire de recherches anthropologiques, Département d’anthropologie, Faculté des Sciences sociales, Université Laval.

Stone, L. and P.F. Lurquin. (2005). A Genetic and Cultural Odyssey. The Life and Work of L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. New York: Columbia University Press.

Symons, D. (1989). A critique of Darwinian anthropology, Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 131-144.

Tooby, J. and L. Cosmides. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, Part I. Theoretical considerations, Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 29-49.

van den Berghe, P. L. & P. Frost. (1986). Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism, and sexual selection: A case of gene-culture co-evolution? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9, 87-113.

Can evolutionary psychology evolve?

The Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness, over a million years ago in the Pleistocene. A founding myth of evolutionary psychology.

In the future, how will we look at evolution and human behavior? Perhaps we’ll still be looking through the lens of evolutionary psychology, albeit a more “evolved” one than the current variety. Or perhaps there will be a new paradigm.

One thing is sure. Evolutionary psychology, as now defined, is untenable. It suffers from several flawed assumptions:

- Human nature is uniform, except for gender differences. It came into existence over a million years ago during the Pleistocene, in the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA). This was long before modern humans began to spread out of Africa some 40,000 years ago and eventually form the populations we know today.

- Given the complexity of human behavior, its genetic basis could not have changed to any appreciable extent since the Pleistocene.

- All present-day humans are therefore essentially the same. All differences in behavior, personality, and temperament must result from a single human nature responding to different environmental inputs.

These assumptions are false. Human genetic evolution has actually accelerated over the past 40,000 years, and even more so over the past 10,000. The latter period, in particular, was not one of people adapting to new physical environments defined by climate, landscape, and vegetation. People were adapting to new cultural environments defined by social structure, normative behavior, and technology.

Yes, human behavior is complex, and any genetic influences must be correspondingly complex. But these influences can be radically changed by a few point mutations. There’s no need to start from scratch, as John Tooby and Leda Cosmides imply. There may simply be changes to developmental timing, such as an infant’s mental plasticity being extended into older life stages. Or there may be changes to the degree of masculinization or feminization. The possibilities are endless. Again, there is no need to posit a huge number of genetic changes.

Yes, we are adapted to past environments—and not to the present one. And there is often a mismatch between something that made sense in the past and our present reality. But why assume a time gap of over one million years? Is it because the Pleistocene makes an ideal setting for just-so stories?

I suspect there is another, more cynical reason. By placing the evolutionary origins of human nature in the distant past, one avoids the messy reality of differences among current human populations—differences in outlook, personality, time orientation, and behavioral predisposition. The Pleistocene EEA may be a just-so story about the past, but it has also had a real impact on the present. It was part of the deal that made evolutionary psychology possible, in the wake of the firestorm that consumed sociobiology.

Will evolutionary psychology evolve?

A paradigm can evolve. Medicine was a pseudo-science that killed more patients than it cured as late as the 1920s. In the space of a few decades, the situation completely reversed. There have been similar turnarounds in other fields. Alchemy became chemistry, and astrology became astronomy.

Indeed, there have been calls for a rethinking of evolutionary psychology, even from Tooby and Cosmides. “Although the hominid line is thought to have originated on edges of the African savannahs, the EEA is not a particular place or time” (Tooby and Cosmides, 2005, p. 22). It is a composite of whichever selection pressures brought each adaptation into existence. There are thus potentially as many EEAs as there are adaptations, and some may be later than others.

This year, several evolutionary psychologists authored what may be called a manifesto for change:

We argue that the key tenets of the established EP paradigm require modification in the light of recent findings from a number of disciplines, including human genetics, evolutionary biology, cognitive neuroscience, developmental psychology, and paleoecology. For instance, many human genes have been subject to recent selective sweeps; humans play an active, constructive role in co-directing their own development and evolution; and experimental evidence often favours a general process, rather than a modular account, of cognition. (Bolhuis et al., 2011)

The text parallels my recent paper in Futures, sometimes strikingly so. It starts off by observing that in the early years of evolutionary psychology “our knowledge of the human genome was limited and gradualism dominated evolutionary thinking.” Today, we know differently:

Events in the Holocene (the last 10,000 years), particularly the adoption of agriculture, domestication of animals, and the increases in human densities that these practices afforded, were a major source of selection on our species, and possibly accelerated human evolution. Evidence from the human genome strongly suggests that recent human evolution has been affected by responses to features of the environment that were constructed by humans, from culturally facilitated changes in diet, to aspects of modern living that inadvertently promoted the spread of
diseases. (Bolhuis et al., 2011)

This recent evolution has especially shaped the human brain: “Genes expressed in the human brain are well-represented in this recent selection.”

Even when assessed on its own terms, the Pleistocene EEA looks more and more like a myth, and should be treated as such:

[…] the abstract concept of stable selection pressures in the EEA is challenged by recent evidence from paleoecology and paleoanthropology. The Pleistocene was apparently far from stable, not only being variable, but progressively changing in the pattern of variation. The world experienced by members of the genus Homo in the early Pleistocene was very different from that experienced in the late Pleistocene, and even early anatomical modern Homo sapiens that lived around 150,000 years ago led very different lives from Upper Paleolithic people (40,000 years ago) (Bolhuis et al., 2011)

Is a paradigm shift in the offing? Probably. But what form will it take? Perhaps the second question is unimportant. Whether evolutionary psychology changes or disappears, we’ll be looking at evolution and human behavior in a very different light.

To be cont’d

References

Bolhuis, J.J., G.R. Brown, R.C. Richardson, and K.N. Laland. (2011). Darwin in mind: New opportunities for evolutionary psychology, PLoS Biol 9(7): e1001109. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109

Frost, P. (2011). Human nature or human natures? Futures, 43, 740–748.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.05.017

Tooby, J. and L. Cosmides. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology, in: D. M. Buss (Ed.) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 5-67.

Evolution and human behavior: Towards a new paradigm?

Illustration from Darwin’s book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872)

Evolution has shaped not only our anatomy but also our behavior. This was recognized by Charles Darwin himself in his work The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). Not until the early 20th century, however, would evolution and human behavior emerge as a real field of study. It has gone by three successive names so far:

Ethology

This largely German school began in 1937 with the founding of the journal Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, mainly through the efforts of Konrad Lorenz. The initial aim was to understand the evolutionary origins of human behavior by identifying human behavioral patterns, by examining how they develop during the life of an individual, and by comparing them to homologous behaviors in other primates and mammals.

From the 1960s onward, ethology increasingly shunned the study of human behavior, ostensibly because only nonhuman species could be observed under controlled conditions. Once we had fully understood how and why they behave, it would then be possible to move on to humans. This self-imposed limitation became self-reinforcing: only zoologists went into this field of study, and the occasional musings about human behavior tended to be amateurish.

When did ethology cease to mobilize research into human behavior? The cut-off date probably lies shortly after Lorenz’s death in 1989 and the publication of Human Ethology by his student Eibl-Eibesfeldt the same year.

Sociobiology

Launched in the late 1970s, this North American school drew heavily on the latest developments in evolutionary thinking, which in turn drew on economics and game theory. From the outset, it ran into a firestorm of opposition that doomed any real chances for growth or even survival.

Even under better circumstances, it is doubtful whether this field of study could have survived without serious rethinking. Its main shortcomings were:

- “presentism,” a tendency to see contemporary human behavior as an adaptation to present environments, however recent or novel they might be.

- a resulting tendency to see modern behavior as being necessarily adaptive, despite evidence to the contrary. Falling birth rates, for instance, were attributed to parents switching to a K-type reproductive strategy.

- a disinterest in the actual pathways by which genes influence behavior. Such influences were said to be unknowable. Instead, sociobiologists preferred to invoke a mysterious “fitness-maximizing mechanism.”

- naïve and often impressionistic use of anthropological data

By the 1990s, few sociobiologists wished to identify themselves as such, if only because the term itself had become an obstacle to public acceptance. In 1997, this field did away with itself. Its leading journal, Ethology and Sociobiology, was renamed Evolution and Human Behavior.

Evolutionary psychology

This school is likewise North American and largely based in California, its leading pioneers being Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Don Symons, and David Buss. It took over from sociobiology in the mid-1990s and still dominates thinking on the evolutionary origins of human behavior. Its writers come overwhelmingly from psychology and to a lesser extent from anthropology, biology, and even the humanities. Psychologists are over-represented largely because their discipline better weathered the anti-sociobiology firestorm of the 1980s.

In reaction to sociobiology, evolutionary psychology sought to understand the actual ways in which genes influence behavior, which was now seen as an adaptation to past environments. This school developed around four basic principles:

1. The environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). Past environments have shaped human nature. How far back in the past is not clearly stated, although the EEA has typically been equated with the savanna of Pleistocene Africa.

2. Gradualism. The human mind is a product of co-adapted gene complexes that cannot respond quickly to selection. Like the EEA, gradualism denies that human nature could have evolved differently in the different cultural and physical environments that modern humans entered as they spread out of Africa over the past 40,000 years

3. Modularity of the human mind. Because specific adaptive problems require specific adaptive solution, the human mind is mainly composed of domain-specific, modular programs.

4. Universal human nature. There is only one human nature. Apparent differences in human nature are simply different outcomes of species-wide programs (as a result of different environmental inputs).


The above principles are more than a reaction against sociobiology. They’re an overreaction. Some genetic determinants of human behavior are clearly post-Pleistocene in origin. How are we supposed to explain them? And what about more domain-general aspects of the human mind, like general intelligence?

But, then, this “overreaction” isn’t just a matter of rational argument. There is also fear. Leda Cosmides and John Tooby remember the firestorm that ravaged sociobiology in the 1980s. They then wandered a long time in the wilderness before finally landing a permanent academic position. Time and again, they had to convince potential employers or funding agencies that they had no secret interest in psychological differences among human populations.

And so was paved the road to evolutionary psychology, a road paved with the best of intentions: legitimate criticisms of sociobiology, with an understandable desire to lead a normal academic life.

This desire is described by Cosmides and Tooby in one of their articles:

The Standard Model therefore frees those in the biological sciences to pursue their research in peace, without having to fear that they might accidentally stumble into or run afoul of highly charged social or political issues. It offers them safe conduct across the politicized minefield of modern academic life. This division of labor is, therefore, popular: Natural scientists deal with the nonhuman world and the “physical” side of human life, while social scientists are the custodians of human minds, human behavior, and, indeed, the entire human mental, moral, political, social, and cultural world. (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992)

Ironically, in seeking to challenge this modus vivendi, Cosmides and Tooby have ended up creating a new one. We can now study human behavior from an evolutionary perspective, but only if we exclude (1) psychological differences between human populations and (2) domain-general aspects of human behavior, e.g., general intelligence. That’s the implicit deal behind evolutionary psychology—an acquiescence to self-censorship.

How has the deal worked out? Quite well, apparently. Evolutionary psychology has attained a degree of respectability that seemed impossible back in the mid-1990s. In 1995, only 261 newly published academic books or articles mentioned the term “evolutionary psychology.” Last year, the figure was 3,570 (see Google Scholar). This field now has its own handsomely illustrated textbooks, grad school programs, and research centers. Perhaps more importantly, it now incurs few costs to a career in academia.

But maybe this would have happened anyway. By the mid-1990s, the anti-sociobiology firestorm was burning itself out. The far left had entered a steep decline, and its graying leadership was pushing sixty. With rising tuition, a weakening economy, and aging demographics, the social sciences were attracting fewer and better students. Meanwhile, the advent of the Internet was “deregulating” the marketplace of ideas.

Has self-censorship calmed debate over evolution and human behavior? I’m not so sure. In any case, it has certainly done much to distort the way the debate is framed. And this is the sad part. Evolutionary psychologists often produce interesting findings, only to fall down when they try to interpret them.

For instance, it is known that children develop differently if the biological father is absent and a strange male is present (e.g., a stepfather). In both sexes, sexual activity will begin earlier with less stable pair bonds. Sons will show hypermasculine behavior, such as aggressive acting out, boasting, and risk-taking. Daughters will reach puberty earlier and judge potential mates by current appearance and status in the male hierarchy rather than by steadfastness and ability to support a family. It has thus been hypothesized that an early sensitive period allows certain environmental cues, like father presence, to define reproductive strategy later in life (Ellis et al., 2003).

The above reasoning is consistent with the four principles of evolutionary psychology. It’s also false. A recent twin study has found that early menarche is predicted as strongly by a step-uncle’s presence as by a stepfather’s. “It does not seem necessary for a child to experience the direct environmental influence of a stepfather to exhibit an accelerated age of menarche—as long as she is genetically related to someone who does have a stepfather” (Mendle et al., 2006).

In other words, a woman may be more prone than others to early menarche, a high degree of female reproductive autonomy, and low expectations of paternal investment. It’s not as if she acquires this reproductive strategy from her childhood environment. Instead, she inherits it genetically from her mother and absent father.

So where do we go from here? We can continue down the road paved by Cosmides and Tooby. But it will often take us to a dead end. We’ll then have to waive some or all of the above four principles, assuming of course we wish to understand human behavior.

To be cont’d

References

Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (eds.) (1992). The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, B.J., J.E. Bates, K.A. Dodge, D.M. Fergusson, L.J. Horwood, G.S. Pettit, L. Woodward. (2003). Does father absence place daughters at special risk for early sexual activity and teenage pregnancy? Child Development, 74, 801-821.

Mendle, J., E. Turkheimer, B.M. D’Onofrio, S.K. Lynch, R.E. Emery, W.S. Slutske, and N.G. Martin. (2006). Family structure and age at menarche: a children-of-twins approach, Developmental Psychology, 42, 533-542.

John Tooby and Leda Cosmides. Why not collaborate?

The Standard Model therefore frees those in the biological sciences to pursue their research in peace, without having to fear that they might accidentally stumble into or run afoul of highly charged social or political issues. It offers them safe conduct across the politicized minefield of modern academic life. This division of labor is, therefore, popular: Natural scientists deal with the nonhuman world and the “physical” side of human life, while social scientists are the custodians of human minds, human behavior, and, indeed, the entire human mental, moral, political, social, and cultural world. Thus, both social scientists and natural scientists have been enlisted in what has become a common enterprise: the resurrection of a barely disguised and archaic physical/mental, matter/spirit, nature/human dualism, in place of an integrated scientific monism. (Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992)

In writing the above words, the evolutionary psychologists John Tooby and Leda Cosmides were denouncing an unwritten agreement that had let researchers study everything about our species in biological terms … except the human mind. Concretely, this modus vivendi denied ‘safe conduct’ to those who wanted to investigate genetic influences on the way the mind develops and functions, unless the creature in question was nonhuman.

While attacking these constraints on research, Tooby and Cosmides actually paved the way for a new set of constraints. Academics would be free to study genetic influences on the mind, as long as these influences did not differ from one human population to another. The two evolutionary psychologists saw no problem in this because, in their opinion, there were no population differences to study.

They justified this opinion on two grounds. First, the more complex the adaptation, the more genes it involves, and the more time needed to make all of the right changes to all of the right genes. Therefore, evolution has created only simple traits during the relatively recent presence of modern humans outside Africa (< 50,000 years):

It is no more plausible to believe that whole new mental organs could evolve since the Pleistocene—i.e., over historical time—than it is to believe that whole new physical organs such as eyes would evolve over brief spans. It is easily imaginable that such things as the population mean retinal sensitivity might modestly shift over historical time, and similarly minor modifications might have been made in various psychological mechanisms. However, major and intricate changes in innately specified information-processing procedures present in human psychological mechanisms do not seem likely to have taken place over brief spans of historical time.

… For these and other reasons, the complex architecture of the human psyche can be expected to have assumed approximately modern form during the Pleistocene, in the process of adapting to Pleistocene conditions, and to have undergone only minor modifications since then (Tooby & Cosmides, 1989, p. 34).

There was a second justification for the new modus vivendi. Because the past fifty thousand years have seen our species diversify into a wide range of environments, recent traits would tend to be adaptive in some environments but not in others. And their underlying genetic variants would tend to proliferate in some populations but not in others. Yet such population specificity seems impossible. At almost any genetic marker (blood types, serum proteins, enzymes, mtDNA, etc.), a typical gene varies much more within than between human populations. And this is true not only for large continental populations but also for small local ones. The geneticist Richard Lewontin (1972) concluded that 85% of our genetic variation exists only among individuals and not between ‘races.’

Tooby and Cosmides (1990, p. 35) explicitly referenced Lewontin’s paper when they argued this point:

Human groups do not differ substantially in the types of genes found, but instead only in the relative proportions of those alleles. … What this means is that the average genetic difference between one Peruvian farmer and his neighbor, or one Bornean horticulturist and her best friend, or one Swiss villager and his neighbor, is 12 times greater than the difference between the "average genotype" of the Swiss population and the "average genotype" of the Peruvian population (i.e., the within-group variance is 12 times greater than the between-group variance).

This is true but does not mean what one might think. The same genetic overlap exists not only between populations of one species, like our own, but also between related species, like canids.

[U]sing genetic and biochemical methods, researchers have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical in many respects to other members of the genus. … there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings, which are recognized as belonging to a single species (Coppinger & Schneider, 1995, p. 32-33).

Nor is it true that genetic influences on behavior evolve over eons of time. As Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran (2002) pointed out:

Even if 40 or 50 thousand years were too short a time for the evolutionary development of a truly new and highly complex mental adaptation, which is by no means certain, it is certainly long enough for some groups to lose such an adaptation, for some groups to develop a highly exaggerated version of an adaptation, or for changes in the triggers or timing of that adaptation to evolve. That is what we see in domesticated dogs, for example, who have entirely lost certain key behavioral adaptations of wolves such as paternal investment. Other wolf behaviors have been exaggerated or distorted.

The above points are so elementary that it’s a wonder they never crossed the mind of either John Tooby or Leda Cosmides. Or perhaps they did. I remember attending a talk where John Tooby expressed his skepticism about Lewontin’s 1972 paper, saying that within-population genetic variation was inflated by disease polymorphisms and other junk variability. In addition, he had a low opinion of Lewontin, as seen in this exchange in 2000 with Slate editor, Judith Shulevitz:

In the mid-1970's, for example, Gould, Lewontin, and a few others injected heavy-handed moralizing, easy denunciation, the attribution of dubious intellectual genealogies, and an ad hominem attack-style into scientific debate in an effort to settle intellectual disputes by other means.

… The most notorious tactic of Gould, Lewontin, and their allies during the early years was their attempt to drag the ideas they opposed under by manufacturing links to various repugnant doctrines. … More significantly, they did succeed in tarring the revolution in evolutionary biology in the eyes of nonbiologists, together with any serious attempt to think through the relationship between culture, human nature, and human evolution. This has perpetuated the antiquated status quo, during which social scientists have remained wary of the possibility of scientifically mapping human nature, and have remained almost totally ignorant of modern evolutionary biology. The cumulative harvest of suffering from this will not be small.

Why, then, did Tooby and Cosmides accept Lewontin’s findings so uncritically? Or was this acceptance simply window-dressing, an attempt to procure ‘safe conduct’ for their research?

Such a question has no easy answer. By the late 1970s, few academics wished to discuss whether or not human races exist, any more than people of another age wished to discuss whether or not Jesus had a biological father. There was only one acceptable view. The new academic environment thus allowed a lot of dubious ideas on this subject to go unchallenged because challenging them might lead to accusations of racism. Academics became used to having two sets of beliefs: those they really believed and those they believed for convenience sake. Over time, many lost the ability to distinguish between the two.

Well, so Tooby and Cosmides fudged their beliefs a bit. Wasn’t it worth it? Hasn’t the academic environment become much less hostile to research on “the relationship between culture, human nature, and human evolution”?

The answer to the last question is ‘yes’. It’s less clear, however, whether Tooby and Cosmides had anything to do with the improved academic environment. The last quarter of a century has seen broader societal changes that are probably more relevant.

One was the decline of the far left. In the early 1980s, every college in my city had a Marxist-Leninist club. By the end of the decade, they had all disappeared. Marxists had become few and far between even at the university.

A related factor was the aging of the baby-boomer generation. In the early 1980s, every social science department was flush with young people who often had no idea why they were there. By the end of the decade, the baby boomers were gone and enrolment in the social sciences had fallen by over a half. Students also now tended to be more cynical about politics and more narrowly focused on their studies.

Finally, in the mid-1990s, there was the rise of the Internet. It became possible to discuss ideas outside the normal channels of conferences, peer-reviewed journals, and university publishing houses. This freer academic environment gradually replaced the one that had arisen back in the mid-1970s when ideas flowed through fewer channels and were more easily controlled.

I suspect that Tooby and Cosmides deceived themselves in thinking they could obtain a ‘safe conduct’ for their research from the likes of Lewontin and Gould. The only real-world effect of this self-deception has been to make evolutionary psychology subservient to ideas that are, at best, dubious.

References

Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (eds.) (1992). The Adapted Mind. Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coppinger, R., & R. Schneider, Evolution of working dogs, in: J. Serpell (Ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 21-47.

Harpending, H. & G. Cochran. (2002). In our genes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 99(1), 10-12.

Lewontin, R.C. (1972). The apportionment of human diversity. Evolutionary Biology, 6, 381-398.

Tooby, T. & L. Cosmides. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: the role of genetics and adaptation, Journal of Personality, 58, 17-67.

Tooby, T. & L. Cosmides. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, Part I. Theoretical considerations, Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 29-49.

Claude Lévi-Strauss. The refusal to collaborate

French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss is remembered as one of the leading postwar figures of antiracism. He personally encountered racism in 1940 when his Jewish origins cost him his teaching post. As an anthropologist in Brazil, he saw first-hand the dispossession of native peoples in the name of progress. In a UNESCO booklet, Race and History (1952), he pleaded for the preservation of all human cultures, saying that even the most ‘primitive’ ones deserved to survive.

This is the Lévi-Strauss we remember. There was, however, a later stage in his intellectual development that remains largely unknown to most of us, if only because little came of it.

We can see hints of these later views in his 1952 publication, which shows him already deviating from the postwar antiracist consensus:

There are [cultural] contributions that are systemic in character, i.e., corresponding to the specific way each society has chosen to express and satisfy human aspirations as a whole. These ways of life are undeniably original and irreplaceable, but since they represent so many different choices that are exclusive [to each society] it is hard to see how a civilization could benefit from another one’s way of life, unless it renounced being itself.

By the early 1970s, he had become convinced that the emerging world system would eventually liquidate all cultures, and not simply those of the upper Amazon. He also felt that antiracism was moving away from its role of defending the dispossessed and the politically marginalized. In fact, it was becoming the very thing it used to denounce.

These ideas found their way into a lecture he gave to UNESCO in 1971, ironically to launch the International Year for Action to Combat Racism. In this lecture, he attacked the idea that “the spread of knowledge and the development of communication among human beings will some day let them live in harmony, accepting and respecting their diversity ”:

Nothing indicates that race prejudices are decreasing, and everything suggests that after brief local lulls, they resurge elsewhere with increased intensity. Hence the need felt by UNESCO to periodically restart a fight whose outcome seems at the very least uncertain.

But are we so sure that the racial form of intolerance results primarily from false ideas that such or such a population has about the dependence of cultural evolution on biological evolution? Don’t these ideas simply provide an ideological cover for more real conflicts based on the desire to subordinate and on the relative strengths of competing groups (rapports de force)?

In addition, he argued that cultural intermixture is advantageous only if a certain distance is kept between cultures:

[Humanity] will have to relearn that all true creation implies some deafness to the call of other values, which may reach the point of rejecting or even negating them. One cannot at the same time melt away in the enjoyment of the Other, identify oneself with the Other, and keep oneself different. If fully successful, complete communication with the Other will doom its creative originality and my own in more or less short time. The great creative ages were those when communication had increased to the point that distant partners stimulated each other but not so often and rapidly that the indispensable obstacles between individuals, and likewise between groups, dwindled to the point that excessively easy exchanges would equalize and blend away their diversity.

He also maintained that many cultural differences have, over time, produced biological differences:

We cannot insist too much on one fact: although [natural] selection has allowed living species to adapt to the natural environment or to better resist its transformations, with humans the environment has ceased to be primarily natural. Humans derive their distinctive characteristics from technical, economic, social, and mental conditions that, through the operation of culture, create an environment specific to each human group.

… Among early humans, biological evolution may have selected for pre-cultural traits like capability to stand upright, manual dexterity, sociability, symbolic thinking, and ability to vocalize and communicate. It was culture, however, once it came into being, that consolidated these traits and propagated them. When cultures specialize, they consolidate and favor other traits, like resistance to cold or heat for societies that have willingly or unwillingly had to adapt to extreme climates, like dispositions to aggressiveness or contemplation, like technical ingenuity, and so on. In the form these traits appear to us on the cultural level, none can be clearly linked to a genetic basis, but we cannot exclude that they are sometimes linked partially and distantly via intermediate linkages. In this case, it would be true to say that each culture selects for genetic aptitudes that, via a feedback loop, influence the culture that had initially helped to strengthen them.

His lecture ended on a grim note. The population explosion, combined with competition for increasingly scarce resources, will push diverse populations together under conditions less than optimal for peaceful coexistence. Meanwhile, governments will continue to respond with an “ideological struggle against racism”, in the naïve belief that the rising level of tension is being caused by a rising level of ignorance.

… the path that mankind is going down is building up tensions such that racial hatreds provide a pretty poor picture of the regime of heightened intolerance that may become established tomorrow, without even having ethnic differences to serve as a pretext. To circumvent these perils, those of today and those, ever more redoubtable, in the near future, we must persuade ourselves that their causes are much deeper-rooted than those causes that may simply be put down to ignorance and prejudice. We can place our hope only in a change in the course of history, which is much harder to bring about than progress in the course of ideas.

He pursued this line of reasoning during the discussions that followed, as this account makes clear:

Lévi-Strauss felt that UNESCO was going astray by wanting to reconcile two opposed tendencies: civilising progress leads to growth in populations, which encourages cultural exchanges, but the latter lead to the obliteration of cultural diversity, while at the same time demographic saturation causes its inevitable share of intolerance and hostility towards peoples that have become rivals. In this situation, Lévi-Strauss came to maintain the right of every culture to remain deaf to the values of the Other, or even to contest them. This amounted to replacing the conception – defended by UNESCO – of humans spontaneously open to the Other and brought to cooperate with their fellow humans, by a conception of humans naturally inclined to be if not hostile, then at least reserved towards the Other.

Xenophobia – in the very moderate form that Lévi-Strauss gave to it, that of insensitivity to the values of the Other – is here transformed from a fact of modifiable culture into a fact of ineradicable nature. As a result, for Lévi-Strauss the UNESCO project became partially ineffectual, as one cannot hope to change unalterable human nature by action taken on its social element, through education and the fight against prejudice.

These words shocked the listeners. One can easily imagine how disconcerted UNESCO employees were, who, meeting Lévi-Strauss in the corridor after the lecture, expressed their disappointment at hearing the institutional articles of faith to which they thought they had the merit of adhering called into question. René Maheu, the Director General of UNESCO, who had invited Lévi-Strauss to give this lecture, seemed upset. (Stoczkowski, 2008)

Eight years later, Lévi-Strauss recalled this event at another conference. He spoke even more candidly this time, calling antiracism a “trap”:

I believe we have fallen into traps. I remember, if you will let me inject a personal note into this debate, that in 1952 I produced at UNESCO’s request a small booklet called Race and History in which I exalted collaboration between cultures, and in which I showed that it was only to the extent that cultures collaborated with each other willingly or unwillingly that larger, more solid ensembles would arise.

When UNESCO organized in 1971 the year against racism, I was asked to deliver the opening speech. So I said to myself: “No, all the same it’s not possible. We can’t go on year after year repeating nice sentiments and telling ourselves we’re going to further the progress of humanity this way.” And so instead of doing the same thing, like what I had done in 1952, I decided, and I assure you with no ulterior political motive, that I was going to do the opposite. I was going to show that the problems of nature and nurture were, after all, problems that existed, that it was not absolutely forbidden to look into them, and that it was not by affirming in the most sterile way that there were no differences between human groups and individuals that we would further the progress of humanity.

I need not tell you that this set off a huge scandal but I had no feeling of doing anything different from what I had done nearly twenty years before. I wanted to show that we were facing difficult problems and that for me to stick my head in the sand and refuse to look at them was no way to solve them (Lévi-Strauss, 1985, pp. 43-44)

Lévi-Strauss stressed the need for a new paradigm. Through it, we would be better able to examine the reality of human differences and thus be better positioned to face the oncoming “difficult problems.” As his other remarks at the conference make clear, he believed it would be developed by British and American evolutionary biologists, particularly those associated with the nascent field of sociobiology. In line with his 1971 lecture, he spelled out the form of this new paradigm: gene-culture co-evolution.

But it was not to be. I suspect he had been taken in by the sociobiology-bashing of the late 1970s. In reality, very few sociobiologists were interested in the subject, and most studiously avoided it. This avoidance became an article of faith for John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, who would form the vanguard of this field of study. They considered “implausible the notion that different humans have fundamentally different and competing cognitive programs” (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990, p. 30). After all, Richard Lewontin had proven that human racial variation was nonexistent, or almost so:

Human groups do not differ substantially in the types of genes found, but instead only in the relative proportions of those alleles. … What this means is that the average genetic difference between one Peruvian farmer and his neighbor, or one Bornean horticulturist and her best friend, or one Swiss villager and his neighbor, is 12 times greater than the difference between the "average genotype" of the Swiss population and the "average genotype" of the Peruvian population (i.e., the within-group variance is 12 times greater than the between-group variance) (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990, p. 35).

Ironically, Tooby and Cosmides were skeptical about Lewontin’s findings. I remember attending a talk where John Tooby argued that genetic variation within human groups was greatly inflated by disease polymorphisms and other junk variability. But none of this left a paper trail, probably because that was how they wanted it. They dreamed of getting tenure-track positions and didn’t want trouble. In any case, they had no idea that people like Lévi-Strauss were willing to step forward and take the flak with them.

Eventually, in the late 1990s, a small group of anthropologists began to propound something similar to what Lévi-Strauss had predicted. The term ‘race realism’ was bandied about and it seems to have stuck.

But by then Lévi-Strauss could do little to help. He was nearing his 90th birthday and needed assistance just to go to the bathroom.

References

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1985). Claude Lévi-Strauss à l’université Laval, Québec (septembre 1979), prepared by Yvan Simonis, Documents de recherche no. 4, Laboratoire de recherches anthropologiques, Département d’anthropologie, Faculté des Sciences sociales, Université Laval.

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1996). Race, histoire et culture, http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_12/fr/droits2.htm

Lewontin, R.C. (1972). The apportionment of human diversity. Evolutionary Biology, 6, 381-398.

Stoczkowski, W. (2008). Claude Lévi-Strauss and UNESCO, The UNESCO Courrier, no. 5, pp. 5-8.
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=41820&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Tooby, T. & L. Cosmides. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: the role of genetics and adaptation, Journal of Personality, 58, 17-67.