Anthropology Historical Foundations of Anthropology

Anthropology

Historical Foundations of Anthropology

How do the methods of 19th Century Evolutionists explain the development of marriage, family, political organization, and religion?

The development of the evolutionary theory of societal development arose from the precept that all cultures arose in a uniform manner. Early theorists believed that various cultures represented different stages along the path to development. Evolutionary anthropology arose from encounters with cultures that were different Theorists such as Tylor and Morgan developed opposing viewpoints on the development of society.

Tylor disagreed that groups, such as the Native American population, were a degenerated culture (Tylor, cited in Anthropological Theory, 1871:30). He felt that culture from simple to complex and that it progressed through three distinct stages. Tylor argued that civilization progressed from savagery through barbarism into civilization (Tylor, cited in Anthropological Theory, 1871:38). All cultures were capable of becoming advanced civilizations. This is different from Morgan's idea, which had more subdivisions than Tylor's theory, but agreed with the basic premise that culture developed in a uniform fashion (Tylor, cited in Anthropological Theory, 1871:37). Tylor believed that clues to primitive religion lie in magic, astrology, and witchcraft (Tylor, cited in Anthropological Theory, 1871:)..

Morgan felt that the family evolved in six stages (Morgan, cited in Anthropological Theory 1877:44-45). The first stage was contained no constraints or bonded pairs. The next stage was where a group of brothers was married to a group of sisters and brother-sister mating was permissible. The third stage also included group marriage, but brothers and sisters were not allowed to mate. The fourth stage involves a loosely paired male and female that still lived in a group of other people. The fifth state is a patriarchic family where the husband may have more than one wife at a time. In the final stage is the monogamous family where one wife and one husband are equal in status. According to this model, the family became progressively smaller and smaller.

Morgan's theories on family development are not supported by modern ethnographic evidence. "Primitive" societies today do not practice group marriage, as could be expected by Morgan's theory. Sir James George Frazer was considered a classical evolutionist. He theorized that magic was the root of religion. He promoted the idea that magic evolved into religion and religion evolved into science (Frazer, 1890).. This change was slow, but eventually represented complete transition. Frazer also felt that superstition was important in the evolution of culture, as it strengthened respect for the idea of private property, strengthened the ideals of marriage, and included adherence to strict rules of sexual morality (Frazer, 1890). Sir John Lubbock differed from Frazer and considered the evolution of religion to progress from atheism, to nature worship, to shamanism, to idolatry, and finally to monotheism (Lubbock, 1872).

Comparative Method.

Comparative method stems from fields such as archeology and paleontology where evidence from the past is compared with existing societies and species to form hypotheses as to what they were like. The comparative method in anthropology uses a similar method. This method of exploration holds the premise that the sociocultural systems of today bear a certain resemblance to cultures of the past. However, this method draws both supporters and criticism.

Morgan saw these similarities in sexual customs, kinship relationships, and territorial customs. He felt that they are present in areas of home life, architecture, and through progress in the individual ownership and inheritance of property Morgan, cited in Anthropological Theory 1877:44-45). This method contends that the simpler methods of societal customs are also the older ones. Morgan's use of comparative method supports his own ideas, that family units became smaller in time. However, these hypotheses do not have a high degree of academic support. If Morgan's hypotheses were true, one could expect to find artifacts of group marriage and brother-sister marriages in remote cultures today. However, no society is known to exist today, which indulges in these practices. Comparative methods cannot explain many of the things that are seen in today's society.

Organic Analogies

Organic analogies are similar to comparative methods, only instead of comparing modern society to evidence of the past, society is compared to organic beings. In this analogy, human society it viewed as a complete organism. According to this theory, humans are divided into groups and have distinct functions within that society. This theory contends that the society is much like a living organism, where the various individual parts must be viewed for their function in the whole. According to this theory, family issues, religion, and other aspects of the society must be viewed in terms of what they contribute to the whole of society.

Psychic Unity

The theory of Psychic Unity holds that the human mind is similar and that this created the tendency to develop in parallel paths, according to their innate potential. According to this theory, all cultures will eventually arrive at the same end, but only a few will be able to advance further. Some will remain primitive, although there are parallels in their early development.

How are Marx's ideas similar to and different from other 19th century theorists?

Karl Marx saw parallels between Morgan's theory of evolutionism and his own theories of societal development. Marx and Engels hypothesized that the social institutions of monogamy, private property, and the state were responsible for exploitation of the working classes in modern industrialized nations (Marx and Engels, in Anthropological Theory, 1845-1846). However, they felt that eventually the process would be reversed and that society would eventually return to the communist structure of the early stages of development.

What did Durkheim mean by social fact?

Social facts are the norms and cultural constructs that define a society, but which lie beyond individual actions. According to Durkheim, the job of the social scientist was to discover and define these social facts within a particular culture (Durkheim, in Anthropological Theory, 1895: 73). Once these elements were defined, one could then judge the society as being either healthy or pathological. Durkheim divided into material and nonmaterial. Material facts have to do with physical social structures, ones that can be touched with the hands and senses. Nonmaterial facts have to do with cultural norms, beliefs and other things that cannot be touched or experienced physically (in Anthropological Theory, 1895: 73).

Durkheim applies these concepts to compare different societies to one another. However, these methods are scrutinized for their data collection methods. Various cultures may define a certain action differently. Where one may call an action a murder, another may call it an accidental death. One has to be careful when applying Durkheim's concepts to social science. It is difficult to obtain scientifically valid results when comparing two different societies. There are many variables within the societies that can skew the results.

What is mechanical and organic solidarity?

In Durkheim's work, the Division of Labour in Society, two distinct ways are mentioned in which solidarity is achieved within a society (1893:Chapter 2). Mechanical solidarity is defined by a small, isolated, but homogeneous population. Members of the society have no specialization within the group. The society uses a cooperative labor system in which everyone works for community goals. Mechanical solidarity uses a system where social linkages are defined by custom, social obligation and emotion. Traditional systems of law prevail in a society displaying mechanical solidarity. The needs of the individual are less important than those of the social group. People with this type of solidarity feel connected through their similarities in work, religion, and lifestyle.

In a society that demonstrates Organic solidarity, there is a complex division of labor (Durkheim, 1893: Chapter 6). This type of society usually consists of a larger population spread over a larger geographic area. In this society, individual members cannot supply all of their needs. They must depend on others to help them get the things that they need. The individual has many more legal rights and individual freedoms. In a society that shows organic solidarity, an individual's status is determined by the job they perform, rather than their kinship ties. Those in a society with organic solidarity through their interdependence on each other for their individual survival.

What is collective consciousness?

Collective consciousness refers to the shared beliefs that are the unifying force within a particular society. In traditional societies, Durkheim presented the hypothesis that religions represented the collective consciousness of the people (Durkheim, in Anthropological Theory, 1895: 73). The attitudes and beliefs of the individuals are shared in common with other members of the society. Collective consciousness creates mechanical solidarity through the mutual beliefs and similarities among various society members.

What is Mauss's notion of gift giving?

Mauss felt that gifts are never truly free and that there is an expectation of reciprocity at some point in the near future (Mauss, in Anthropological Theory, 1925:94-97). The idea of a gift is that it goes beyond the physical and spiritual meaning associated with the object. The giver is giving a part of himself to another. The meaning of the gift goes deeper than the object itself. Gift giving creates a bond between the giver and the receiver. Mauss felt that to reject a gift, was to reject the social bond attached to it. Likewise, to fail to reciprocate is viewed as a dishonorable act in some cultures. Gift giving is a means to create social cohesion among the group.

What Distinctive contributions did Weber make to social theory?

Weber used his work to attempt to understand the differences between traditional cultures and modern western society. He disagrees with organic theories and placed more emphasis on the individual's contribution to the whole (Weber, in Anthropological Theory, 1922: 112-113). Weber contributed the idea that religion changes the motives of the individual. Therefore, religion played a constructive role in the development of society. Weber felt that individuals in traditional societies selected and followed leaders based on their personalities, or out of tradition. He felt that individuals in Western society follow leaders because they are legal. Weber sees western culture as a double-edged sword. On one side, individuals can experience improved material lives. On the other hand, they have become disconnected from each other on an emotional level.

Early 20th Century Anthropology

Commonalities of Boas's Historical Particularism

Boas rejected the cultural evolutionary model proposed by 19th century anthropologists. Rather than parallel development, Boas heralded the argument that every society is a result of its own collective history (Boas, in Anthropological Theory, 1920: 122). Boas demonstrated that societies could reach a similar level of cultural development in many different ways. Mechanisms of development include their exposure to other cultures through trade and their environment (Boas, in Anthropological Theory, 1920: 123). Accidents of history also resulted in certain cultural traits that may be similar from one culture to another.

Boas broke tradition by attempting to explain the development of culture through individual mechanisms, rather than through a single, all-encompassing theory. Boas criticized cultural evolution based on a lack of evidence. Boas concentrated on the development of more reliable field data collection methods. He did not believe that all human cultures were subject to the same general laws and thought systems (Boas, in Anthropological Theory, 1920: 124). He did not believe in the "ranking" of society according to the level of civilization. He felt that societies have to be considered based on their own merit (Boas, in Anthropological Theory, 1920: 128).

How did Radin and Kroeber illustrate the extremes of the Boasian school?

The Boasian school had many advantages over the cultural evolutionists, in that its theories could be observed and demonstrated in the field. Every culture was judged against itself, rather than against unrelated societies with different cultures. Boas later took these concepts to an extreme and became radical speaker against racism and a staunch proponent of intellectual freedom for all cultures. The Boasian school became associated with radical ideas and racial activism.

Albert Kroeber was one of Boas's students. He was primarily an archeologist and was famous for intertwining the disciplines of anthropology and archeology in order to gain a deeper understanding of the culture. Kroeber's ideas differed from those of both Radin and Boas. He considered the division between and individual and civilization to be a boundary (Kroeber, in Anthropological Theory, 1915: 132). Civilization began where the individual ended.

Paul Radin diverged from the thought patterns of Boas. Radin's work on the Winnebago is regarded as one of the best written to date. Radin felt that the facts should be presented as the informants conveyed the information and that the reader should be able to make their own judgments and to draw their own conclusions (Radin, in Anthropological Theory, 1927: 136-137). Some of his work was considered "rough" as the original language of the informant was preserved in the final text. Radin disagreed with Boas's unwillingness to generalize concepts to an entire culture. For Radin, society comprised a cluster of individuals. Culture represented the abstraction of individual ideas (Radin, in Anthropological Theory, 1927: 139). Boas felt hat collectivism played a more important role in the development of culture.

How did Whorf, Benedict, and Mead link the individual to his/her culture?

The relationship of the individual with society is a key point of contention among anthropologists. This question is much like the old adage about which came first the chicken or the egg? The question centers on where the individual ends and society begins and how much influence once has over the other. This point represents a major division among Boasian students.

Benedict's work highlighted the constraints placed on individual psychology by their culture. This theory placed much more emphasis on how culture shaped the individual, than on the influence of the individual on society. Benedict focused on larger patterns in a culture that were the collective results of individual attitudes and actions. Benedict searched for patterns in culture that helped to distinguish it from other cultures. Benedict sought to understand the core values of the culture (Benedict, in Anthropological Theory, 1930).

Whorf sought to understand the influence of the individual on the development of human language. Their work attempted to discover the conceptual categories found within the language of the culture. Mead differed from Boas in her interpretation of the individual's role within the culture. She concentrated on how socialization of the individual worked to maintain the cultural norms of the society (Whorf, in Anthropological Theory, 1939: 154). For instance, she concentrated on the psychological processes at work in the development of the individual. For instance, the cultural actions that parents taught their children and the manner in which they related to each other. Boas studied culture in a regional context and the individual identities of the various cultural divisions.

What is British Social Anthropology?

British social anthropology differed significantly from American anthropology in its development. America had a wealth of raw material available in the Native American cultures that inhabited the continent. However, British anthropological theory was not as experiential in its development. The development of British anthropology depended on reading, not fieldwork. Much of the data was not collected first hand through the use of informants and observation. British anthropology relied on ancient writings, texts, journals from travelers, and the works of other anthropologists. It is not surprising that American and British anthropology is different and that they arrived at different theories and conclusions.

The works of Tylor played a much more significant role in the development of British anthropology than American anthropology. Like American social anthropology, British anthropologists became dissatisfied with the wholesale categorization of cultures and cultural development proposed by Tylor and his contemporaries. They began to search for new ways to carry out fieldwork that would provide better answers than the current theoretical framework would allow.

In what ways did British social anthropology contribute to the method and theory of anthropology?

One of the greatest contributions of British anthropologists is the improvement of methodology used in anthropological research. British anthropologists became more interested in how societies functioned in the present than how they functioned historically. One of the key changes in method was a shift towards long-term fieldwork, and a multi-disciplinary approach. Sending teams of specialists including botanists, linguists and others became the norm for large British field research undertakings.

Several key researchers contributed to the development of British anthropological theory. Bronislaw Malinowski was stranded in New Guinea by the first world war. During that time, he developed an intensive method for fieldwork, striving to get an insider's view of the native population. His method of participant observation became a standard that is still used today in ethnographic research (Malinowski, in Anthropological Theory, 1922: 168).

Another important British anthropologist is a.R. Radcliffe-Brown. His early work reflected the old historical reconstruction method of research. However, influenced by the work of Durkheim and Mauss, he developed a method called structural functionalism (Radcliffe-Brown, Anthropological Theory, 1940: 180). He focused on how various societies work to balance the social system so that equilibrium is reached that keeps it functional and stable. Gluckman introduced Marxist theory to the study of social anthropology with an emphasis on how the individual resolved conflict with the structure of the society (Gluckman, in Anthropological Theory, 1956: 199).

Methodologies developed by British anthropologists had a significant influence on the American methodology as well. Application of British methodology advanced the anthropological methods around the world. Several key players are responsible for the largest changes and had the greatest impact on the development of the field. Although there are many others who contributed to the development of British Anthropological thought, Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown were responsible for the most sweeping reforms.

Mid-Century Anthropology

What caused some anthropologists in the 1940s to return to evolutionary approaches?

Tylor and Morgan led were the first to suggest that societies developed from simple to complex and that one could determine a society's stage in evolution by its characteristics. This was largely abandoned by Boas and his school in favor of a more individualized theory of development. World War II heralded the return of evolutionists and a more generalized approach to societal development. The works of Leslie White and Julian Steward were instrumental in the return of evolutionary theory.

How were their ideas similar to and different from those of the 19th century evolutionists?

Julian Steward revisited the evolutionists of the 19th century. Steward agreed that cultures developed in similar patterns. However, rather than assuming that the universe contained a "grand plan" for cultural development and that all cultures followed this line, Steward proposed that parallel development may be the result of similar environmental circumstances (Steward, in Anthropological Theory, 258). This proposal explains both differences and similarities without the rigid adherence to conformity that characterized 19th century evolutionists.

Leslie White's idea of evolutionism resembled 19th century evolutionism more closely than Steward's concept. White's theory agreed with 19th century evolutionists that culture developed from simple to complex. He separated culture into three distinct types, technological, sociological and ideological (White, in Anthropological Theory, 1943: 241-242). However, his theories were flawed by the inability to define what constituted a culturally complex society without resorting to ethnocentric approaches. His theories are considered theoretically valid, although his examples are considered skewed. His ideas more closely resembled the generalized idea of cultural development in the 19th century.

George Murdock rejected the avoidance of cross-cultural comparisons promoted by Boas. Murdock wished to develop a means to statistically compare different cultures. His work eventually led to the establishment of a cultural database of over one thousand societies. Murdock believed that certain aspects of society were ruled by common factors. He believed that kinship relations, family structure, and marriage practices followed a common set of rules (Anthropological Theory, 227-228). These common factors were similar to theories of early evolutionists, only they were restricted to certain aspects of the society.

These anthropologists rejected the individuality of Boas and returned to the ideal that certain elements of society were uniform and could be compared to each other. However, the rigidity of the early evolutionists was replaced by empiricism. Later evolutionists did not entirely embrace the older ideas, but they drew influence from them and incorporated aspects of early theorists into works of their own.

Explain cultural ecology and cultural materialism

The study of cultural ecology and cultural materialism were instrumental in the resurgence of interest in evolutionist theory. Cultural ecology studies the relationship of a society and its natural environment. It considers the ecosystem in which they live and the influence that it has on the development of economy, customs, and traditions. Cultural ecology examines the distribution of wealth and power, as well as patterns of gifting and hoarding. Cultural ecology takes into account the place of humans in the web of life and how this place functioned to structure society in response to need. Cultural ecology is the study of human adaptation to its environment.

Cultural materialism is similar to cultural ecology. The premise behind cultural materialism is that society is a response to the problems of existence on earth and the fulfillment of basic needs. The goal of the theory of cultural materialism is an attempt to develop theories that apply to all human communities in a similar manner to early evolutionary theories. In this theory all societal constructs are minimalized to their relationship with productivity and reproduction. It considers topics such as religion, politics, law and kinship as a response to the need for reproduction and production.

What are the strengths of these approaches?

The key strength of culturally ecology is that it considers the factors of culture that are induced by the environment. Many theories, such as those of early evolutionists, tend to treat cultures as if they develop in a vacuum. As the example of the Indian cattle population demonstrated, certain cultural elements may develop out of the need for survival. Cultures do not develop independent of the forces around them. Cultural ecology takes this factor into account.

Cultural materialism has a similar advantage to cultural ecology. However, it entails a different aspect of culture than cultural ecology. Both cultural ecology and cultural materialism examine the external factors that influence cultural development. However, cultural ecology has more to do with physical survival and cultural materialism deals more with abstract ideas such as politics and law.

What are the problems with cultural materialism and cultural ecology?

Cultural materialism is an expansion of the Marxist model. However, unlike Marxism, cultural materialism takes into consideration reproductive forces, rather than only productive forces in society. Cultural materialism and cultural ecology challenge anthropology to adapt reliable quantitative methods in their analysis. Traditional research in Anthropology depends on native interpretations of cultural practices. However, both cultural ecology and cultural materialism are difficult to measure. Many variables exist that can effect the results. Achieving uniformity in measurement is problematic to these approaches.

Cultural materialism and cultural ecology have opponents from a number of different directions. For instance, Marxists believe that the empirical approach to cultural change is too simple and does not reflect the real nature of culture. They believe that the approach is too unidirectional. Durkheim and others criticize cultural materialism on the basis that cultural factors are a part of the human physiology of the brain, therefore cultural variation can be attributed to internal, rather than external factors. However, if one takes this position, it would seem unlikely the human culture could make choices that influence the direction that culture takes. Under Durkheim's view, culture would appear more like predestiny, rather than an interaction between the environment and human adaptation to circumstances.

Structuralism and cognitive anthropology both claim that culture is a mental structure and to be understood through language. Structuralists tried to determine the universal structures of human thought, while cognitive anthropologists tried to describe cognitive paradigms unique to individuals and groups.

Structural anthropology is based on the concepts of Levi-Strauss, which contends that people think of the world in terms of opposites. He argued that resolution arises from two opposing forces, which eventually resolve themselves. This same concept of opposition existed in language as well. We are not conscious of these structures, which exist only in the mind. Levi-Strauss disagrees with Durkheim in that social structures influence cognitive processes in the individual. Levi-Strauss felt that the opposite was true, that individual cognitive processes had an impact on the development of society.

Stucturalists concentrate on finding traces of the individual expressed in the cultural aspects of society. This concept considers the whole greater than the individual parts. Structuralists search for the deeper meaning within cultural constructs. Cognitive anthropology explores the connection between thought processes and culture. Cognitive anthropology searches for cultural knowledge, which contained within words, stories and myths of the culture. These myths and stories are shared among individuals and collectively create the unique culture of the people.

Late 20th Century and Beyond Essay 4

What are sociobiology/evolutionary psychology/behavioral ecology?

Since the return to evolutionist thought in anthropological thought, many different branches of human science began to develop. These new disciplines often combined old disciplines in new ways. They developed in an attempt to answer the many questions left unanswered and gaps left by traditional branches of science. These new branches of science explore the interrelationships of other concepts.

One of these new branches of science is sociobiology. This branch of science represents the synthesis of social science and evolution. It attempts to explain the evolution of species in terms of the advantages and disadvantages that a behavior might have. It is closely related to biology and sociology, but one can also find traces of anthropology, evolution, zoology, archeology and genetics within its texts. Sociobiology is typically concerned with behaviors such as mating patterns, territorial fights, pack hunting and the social organization of insects. The branch of science reminds us that not only physical adaptations evolved, behaviors went through and evolutionary process as well.

Evolutionary psychology is considered a branch of sociobiology. However, it attempts to explain the mental and psychological traits in terms of evolution and adaptation. Rather than attempting to explain social behaviors, such as pack behavior, evolutionary psychology attempts to explain individual psychological response. Many of the theories in this sub-branch of sociology consider the physical adaptations, such as reactions of the heart, lungs, and immune system in response to various stimuli, Evolutionary psychologists argue that human behavior is largely driven by psychological adaptations to the environment of our ancestors. Language is cited as one of these psychological adaptations. The precepts of evolutionary psychology are consistent with those of natural selection.

Behavioral ecology combines the study of ecology and evolution as the basis for human behavior. It also studies the role of behavior in allowing an animal to adapt to its environment. It involves the study of behavioral strategies in adaptation to the environment. It considers the opportunities and costs of each behavior. For instance, participation in one activity, such as grooming, may leave less time for activities such as foraging. There is a cost for every activity in which a species decides to participate. Behaviors adapt to maximize the opportunities and minimize the risks.

There are many other branches of anthropology that combine several disciplines into one. This trend is both convergent and divergent. It diverges from traditional scientific lines of thought, but it represents the convergence of disciplines as well. This is the trend of the future, as the interrelationships between various disciplines become apparent. The beginnings of the multidisciplinary approach trace their roots to the multidisciplined approach of British anthropologists.

Why did some reviewers of your text strongly suggest that sociobiology shouldn't get space in the McGee/Warms text?

Sociobiology has been accused of being reductionist in nature. The field of sociobiology reduces every action to a supposed genetic "code" that ultimately ties to a particular behavior such as cooperation or hunting. There are two major problems with this theory. The first is that the "code" has not yet been discovered or proven to exist. The second problem with sociobiology is that history does not support the existence of this code.

If one considers genetics to be the sole contributor to human behavior, it is to ignore the many influences and the ability to adapt that is inherent in human history. Due to its lack of empirical evidence, sociobiology remains in the realm of Psueodo-science. Yet one cannot completely dismiss the possibility that understanding the genetics of behavior will provide clues into anthropology in the future. For now, it is important to explore the possibilities that sociobiology holds, but not to consider it to be the sole factor in human behavior and the development of culture.

One of the most difficult areas of sociobiology to accept is that according to this construct, genetic programming precludes any other factor in determining behavior and culture. It if difficult to separate the development of behavior from environmental and other influences. The area of sociobiology is highly controversial on many aspects. The questionable nature and conflict surrounding sociobiology is the key reason to consider disallowing it in the text. The authors may have been afraid of undermining their authority by including this topic.

What are some of the fundamental differences between sociobiology and feminist anthropology?

Feminist anthropology studies cultural anthropology with the intention of presenting a female perspective on a traditionally male-centric approach to the topic. Moore contends that the topic of gender in anthropology is confused with ideals about class, ethnicity and race. Like sociobiology, which attempts to introduce the field of genetics into anthropology, feminist anthropology is considered to be a sub-section of anthropology. Sociobiology and feminist anthropology are considered side topics, not central theories in social anthropology.

Sociobiology contends that male and female cultural strategies are built upon the privilege to pass on one's genes to the next generation. Males and females have developed inherently different mechanisms for accomplishing this task. Males produce millions of sperm, therefore their best interest is to impregnate as many females as possible. On the other hand, females only produce a few hundred eggs in her lifetime. Therefore, it is in her best interest to invest time and interest into her offspring. Using this strategy, females typically inherit responsibility for childcare. The constructs of sociobiology does not address the problem associated with pair bonding.

Are the two perspectives inevitably in conflict? Why?

Feminist anthropologists were the product of the American anthropological movement. For these early anthropologists, sex and gender were simply descriptive techniques. Feminist anthropologists were key contributors to the attempt to break the male-centric viewpoint that generalized traditional women's roles. Feminist anthropology attempted to separate the biology of gender from engendered behaviors. However, it is the goal of sociobiology to attempt to explain gender behavior through biology. The basic premises of these theories are in opposition and will not be able to reconcile their differences.

Do sociobiology's evolutionary explanations of male promiscuity, rape, altruism, and costly signaling make sense to you? Explain.

These concepts make sense from a theoretical sense, but they do not stand the test of observation and life experience. They fail to take into account the effects of the environment. Sociobiology attempts to explain morality based on evolution. However, this view reflects reductionist attitude and ignored many There are many animal behaviors that to not support sociobiological theory.

Altruism in animals often places one's own offspring and genetic progeny at risk. For instance, the squirrel will sound a call when a predator is near. This increases the chance that the alarm squirrel will be caught and killed. This would reduce his chances of producing more alarm squirrels. Yet, squirrels will still sound an alarm to warn the other, even if it means placing their own lives in danger. Under the precepts of sociobiology, this increased risk of being caught would predispose the selection of squirrels that do not sound an alarm. This is not what is observed in nature and squirrels continue to place themselves at risk for the benefit of the group.

It is much easier to agree with the sociobiological concept of altruism and costly signaling from a sociobiological perspective than it is to accept sociobiological theories of promiscuity and rape. One can agree that rape or promiscuity may be advantageous in animals such as moles and other creatures. However, human motivation is much more complex. We are much less driven by our innate instincts. We have the ability to consider consequences beyond the moment and the action at hand.