Social bonding and nurture kinship

Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship: Compatibility between Cultural and Biological Approaches<ref name="SBNK" /> is a 2004 doctoral thesis by British academic Maximilian Holland. The thesis synthesizes evolutionary biology, psychology and sociocultural anthropology approaches to human social bonding, social relationships and cooperative behaviour.
The synthesis bridges natural science and social science approaches to human kinship, which have hitherto been regarded as largely incompatible. The approach is non-reductive. The key resolutions that Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship draws are in the proper interpretation of the established biological theory of the evolution of altruism and social behaviour, Inclusive fitness theory. Holland argues that the single most significant stumbling block for sociobiology and evolutionary psychology attempts to apply this theory to explaining human kinship data is the failure to observe a separation between evolutionary and proximate levels of analysis (see Tinbergen's four questions). Once this distinction is observed, the robust ethnographic data that refutes the simple notion that human kinship is necessarily build around genealogical ties can be made sense of.
Intellectual Background
W.D.Hamilton introduced the theory of inclusive fitness in 1963 and 1964 whilst a graduate student in the Sociology department of the London School of Economics. In doing so, he problematized contemporary biological thinking about the evolution of altruism by group selection, and suggested that a set of criteria involving the genetic correlation between participants of social behaviours are necessary for altruistic traits to evolve (see ). Hamilton's formal description of the theory was mathematical, but he included some discussion as to the possible implications. Strictly interpreted, the criterion of 'inclusive fitness' specifies the selection pressure on gene frequencies. However, since its value is in potentially explaining individual organisms' behaviour, Hamilton ‘hazards’ "the following unrigorous statement of the main principle that has emerged from the model";

In later refinements, collaborating with George R. Price, Hamilton noted that his original formulation had been incorrect and that evolution of altruism by inclusive fitness was a special case of what is now known as multi-level selection;
He also later revised some of his initial thoughts<ref name="H1964" /> on possible mechanisms whereby altruistic traits are expressed in such a way that they typically coincide with genetic relatedness (subsequently known as green-beard effects);
It is thus clear from his later refinements that Hamilton sought to correct interpretations of his theory as refuting group selection and to correct the interpretation that inclusive fitness behaviours are expected to operate via innate kin recognition adaptations. These later refinements instead demonstrated that the theory does not simply predict that genetically related individuals will inevitably recognise and engage in positive social behaviours with genetic relatives. Consideration of the demographics of the typical evolutionary environment of any species is crucial to understanding the evolution of social behaviours. As Hamilton (1987) puts it, “Altruistic or selfish acts are only possible when a suitable social object is available. In this sense behaviours are conditional from the start.” (Hamilton 1987, 420).<ref name="H1987" />
Nevertheless it was Hamilton's original 1964 work<ref name="H1964" />, offering a formal treatment of the evolution of social behaviours, that stimulated the rise of the field of sociobiology in the 1970s, defined by its main proponent as “The extension of population biology and evolutionary theory to social organisation”<ref name="Wilson1978" /> and initial attempts to apply these theories to human kinship data. These attempts usually employed an interpretation of inclusive fitness theory derived from Hamilton's 'unrigorous statement' (above), and posited a formulation along the lines of ~individuals have evolved to bias their cooperation towards genetic relatives~. An early influential treatment was given by Alexander (1974)<ref name="A1974" />. Here are some examples from this research programme, known as 'darwinian anthropology';
During this initial period, these attempts to subsume human kinship patterns into the broader programme of sociobiology were strongly resisted by anthropologists such as Marshall Sahlins in his book 'The use and abuse of biology' (1976)<ref name="S1976" />. The general thrust of the defense has been that patterns of human social bonding and cooperation do not necessarily follow a blood-relationship concept (what anthropologists refer to as consanguinity), but instead form around diverse conceptualizations of connectedness. For more critiques, see evolutionary psychology controversy. As a result of such counter-evidence, the sociobiological programme to apply biological theories of social behaviour to human kinship data failed to convince social scientists, and was largely abandoned.
Evolutionary psychology arose from sociobiology in the early 1990s, seeking to give a fresh start to some of the perspectives of the former programme. Similar misinterpretations of inclusive fitness theory are however still prevalent in evolutionary psychology. For example, Daly and Wilson, whose work began in the sociobiology era, maintain the basic interpretation of the darwinian anthropologists;
A recent review conducted by Park outlines the ongoing nature of the problem;
In maintaining the same basic misinterpretation of the significance of inclusive fitness theory to understanding human social cooperation, evolutionary psychology has similarly found no way to fit the theory to the variety of cross-cultural data on human kinship patterns. The gap between natural science and social science perspectives on human social patterns has thus remained in place.
Synopsis

The main points of Holland's argument are that:
* Clarification of the relationship, if any, between biological forces and human social patterns and behaviours (traditionally the domain of kinship studies) would be valuable in advancing our understanding of human social cooperation.
* Robust versions of Inclusive fitness theory (e.g. Hamilton 1970<ref name="SSBEM" />) that incorporate regression coefficient of relatedness, and multi-level selection, specify necessary conditions under which the evolution of social traits can occur.<ref name="ISAM" />
* These theoretical treatments take the form of evolutionary explanations for social behaviour rather than proximate explanations (see Tinbergen's four questions).
* Sociobiology, darwinian anthropology and evolutionary psychology have too often interpreted Inclusive fitness theory as predicting something resembling ~individuals have evolved to bias their cooperation towards genetic relatives~ which is closer to the prediction of a proximate mechanism of how social traits are expressed, and an misinterpretation of the theory.
* This error has underpinned a long history of over-ambitious and ultimately damaging misapplications of biological theory to human social behaviour.
* A more careful interpretation of Inclusive fitness theory encourages both consideration of whether for any given species; a context for the evolution of social traits may/may not have existed in the species' history; and if a context has existed, consideration of contextual cues that might mediate the expression of evolved social traits.<ref name="H1964" /><ref name="D1979" />
* A thorough review of the data for a wide variety of mammals that do display some social traits shows that contextual cues overwhelmingly mediate the expression of social behaviours, and that the common assumption that 'positive powers' able to discriminate coefficient of relatedness and mediate on this basis, are neither predicted by the theory<ref name="H1987" /> nor in any evidence.<ref name="S1997" />
* The contextual cues mediating the expression of social traits in these mammals typically take the form of familiarity arising from shared history, especially from an early developmental stage.
* Experiments testing the effect of coefficient of relationship on familiarity and mediation of social behaviours in these mammals confirms that genetic relatedness is not a necessary condition for the operation of the proximate mechanism. .<ref name="S1997" />
* The same is the case for primates, and for these species we typically know it as emotional attachment.
* John Bowlby and colleagues’ pioneering work on attachment is instructive here. As far back as 1982, Bowlby<ref name="B1982" /> explicitly identified his work as being compatible with Inclusive fitness theory.
* Much ethnographic literature on the workings of human social relationships and kinship arrangements demonstrates that the emotional attachment also mediates social behaviours in humans<ref name="SBNK" />. Genetic relationship is not a necessary feature of the development of emotional attachments, even those that mediate the most primary and essential social traits (infant & child care etc.)<ref name="SBNK" />
* We can conclude that, as they apply to humans, (as well as other mammals) biological theories of social behaviour do not predicate its expression on genetic relatedness or consanguinity.
* Other variables, long studied by ethnographers, such as cultural history, symbolic systems, economic systems etc. are of more relevance in understanding the variations in patterns of human social cooperation across cultures.
The research acknowledges a large intellectual debt owed to the seminal work<ref name="S1984" /> of David M. Schneider on Kinship.
Reception
As is the practice in British research, the thesis was examined by two independent professors, Elliott Sober and Christina Toren. In reviewing the thesis, Toren noted;
The thesis acknowledges support from Charles Stafford, Richard Dawkins, Nicholas Humphrey, and Alan Grafen amongst others.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu