This paper examines four central questions in sociobiology: the evolutionary basis of conflict and selfish-gene theory, the extent to which sociological accounts can explain human violence and their limitations, whether aggression is an innate aspect of human nature, and how culture and ethnicity can be understood along psychological lines. Drawing on sources including Wrangham and Peterson's work on demonic males, Baumeister and Bushman's social psychology research, and Schaller and Crandall's foundational work on cultural psychology, the paper argues that while biological pressures shape behavior, human cognitive capacity and cultural formation complicate any purely deterministic account of aggression or social conflict.
Sociobiology is a field of scientific study built on the premise that social behavior results from evolutionary pressures and the biology of the organism. Just as natural selection involves organisms evolving based on traits that provide greater opportunities to mate and survive, the same logic applies to the genetic evolution of advantages in social behavior. Behaviors exhibited by organisms are therefore passed — inherited — from generation to generation.
Within this theoretical framework, conflict behaviors (sometimes described through the lens of "selfish genes") allow some organisms to be more aggressive or more selfish, enabling them to outlast conceivably weaker competitors who fail to reproduce at the same rate. Those organisms carrying genes that promote aggressive or self-serving behavior are thus more likely to pass those traits on to subsequent generations (Wenseleers and Ratnieks, 2006).
For human populations, violence is an expression of some type of force directed against an individual or a group. This may occur at the individual-to-individual level, group-to-group level, or, in sociological terms, at the level of society acting against — or being victimized by — violent behavior. Violence is both a matter of perception and an empirically measurable phenomenon.
Some sociologists tend to view human violence as inherent but not inevitable, often drawing on the image of the violent male ape — the idea of primitive bands organized around an aggressive alpha male acting as protector. From this perspective, violence is likely inherited but then intensified by additional environmental pressures. A key limitation of this account is its failure to recognize that, as cognitive beings, humans make choices regarding violent behavior. It also overlooks the predispositional factors that can be culturally established and that perpetuate violence across generations (Wrangham and Peterson, 1996).
Much of the concept of "human nature" rests on the assumption that humans are born with aggressive instincts. From a strictly biological tendency paradigm, this may hold some truth: early humans likely had to fight for food, social dominance, and survival. However, modern humans possess a large cerebral cortex, which enables reasoning, creativity, empathy, compassion, and the formation of culture. Societies can therefore choose — and actively shape — whether to be hyperaggressive, hyperpassive, or something in between.
A number of sociological and anthropological studies now suggest that it was the proto-human capacity to cooperate, rather than compete, that ultimately led to the formation of society and culture. This perspective challenges the assumption that aggression is the defining or primary driver of human social evolution (Baumeister and Bushman, 2009).
"Psychology and evolution applied to culture and ethnicity"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.