When I read through John Horgan’s article, “Quitting the hominid fight club: The evidence is flimsy for innate chimpanzee–let alone human–warfare” in Scientific American I was surprised. I know John and have talked to him about the topic of lethal intercommunity coalitions (LICs), and the evolution of warfare in the past. I sat there thinking to myself, “Why did he take this position in this article?” And, “Does it matter?” The answer to the second question is, “Probably not.” The investigation of the roots of warfare is a search for fact, not truth. While personal philosophies often confuse and muddle that search, the objective should remain objectivity.
When Mr. Horgan declared that he had turned, “…from a believer to a skeptic” we discover all that we really need to know about his commentary. He was a follower of the “Church of Demonic Males” and has “fallen from grace”. Mr. Horgan, for all of his pure intentions, was never an investigator who had been convinced by the evidence that supports an evolutionary predisposition towards lethal intercommunity coalitions among male humans and chimpanzees, that our common ancestry with chimpanzees is marked by males that were willing to kill their own kind. Instead, Mr. Horgan, who is an excellent science writer, was a believer, in a philosophy that looks at the world through red in tooth and claw glasses. While Mr. Horgan’s shift in his personal philosophy will probably not do much to impact the study of the evolution of warfare in our lineage, his article provides an opportunity to address several issues that are often misunderstood or misrepresented in this line of inquiry.
At the beginning of his article Mr. Horgan claims that a quote from Wrangham and Peterson’s 1996 book “Demonic Males:Apes and the Origins of Human Violence” is an extraordinary claim. When examined more closely, the quote, “Chimpanzeelike violence preceded and paved the way for human war, making modern humans the dazed survivors of a continuous, five-million-year habit of lethal aggression.” is obvious to most, it’s creative language used in a trade book to make a dramatic point. Mr. Horgan apparently doesn’t see it that way. Instead he uses it as his basis for analysis of what he calls the “demonic-males theory”. This is where I am reminded how few people understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, and it’s particularly upsetting that an otherwise excellent science writer doesn’t seem to grasp these two elemental concepts in science. In the sciences a theory is an agreed upon explanation of a phenomenon, or group of phenomena, that has been consistently supported through empirical testing, using available data. In other words, in the sciences, a theory is kind of a big deal. In the sciences a hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon or group of phenomena. The ideas put forward by Wrangham and others about the evolutionary basis of LICs in chimpanzees, humans and our common ancestor are hypotheses, they are yet to reach the level of theory. Unfortunately for his argument Mr. Horgan doesn’t seem to recognize this.
Mr. Horgan continues in his article by suggesting that researchers are somehow inflating the numbers of their studies by putting things in a context of 100,000 individuals in a population. This is really an issue for the statistical tests being used, and much like the effect of predation, LICs, while rare, are critically important for the individuals impacted by those behaviors. He further tries to minimize the impact of LICs by quoting a study by Sussman and Marshack that showed that on average researchers observed LICs among chimpanzees once every seven years. If we were to do the same sort of analysis on rates of predation among wild chimpanzee populations, I bet we would find that predation was observed even less by researchers. I will soon be running this analysis to verify my wager. However, there are few researchers that would claim that predation has not been an important selective force in the natural history of chimpanzee populations. Likewise, Mr. Horgan seems to minimize the importance of infanticide as part of this behavior. By doing so he seems to be ignoring the impact that killing the offspring of rivals, and potential rivals, has on competition between groups of males. I can only attribute this position to his relative ignorance of the study of infanticide in chimpanzees and other mammals.
Mr. Horgan continued his article by asking the question: Could unusual environmental conditions be triggering intergroup chimpanzee killing? To support this proposition, he used a quote from Jane Goodall, that appeared in Sussman and Marshack’s paper in which Dr. Goodall said that provisioning, “…was having a marked effect on the behavior of the chimps. They were beginning to move about in large groups more often than they had ever done in the old days. Worst of all, the adult males were becoming increasingly aggressive. When we first offered the chimps bananas the males seldom fought over their food; …now…there was a great deal more fighting than ever before.” To the casual observer, this quote would indicate that chimpanzees only started forming large parties and engaging in LICs after they were provisioned with bananas. To this I suggest reading the report by Mitani et al more closely, in which they are describing and analyzing the behavior of the Ngogo chimpanzee community. The Ngogo community has never been provisioned and is in the middle of a fairly stable national park, with little human encroachment. Yet, this community patrols and engages in LICs at higher rates than any other community observed to this point.
Mr. Horgan goes on to talk about bonobos and how they may more accurately represent our primate ancestry than chimpanzees. This is a position held by a minority of scientists. Bonobos are geographically isolated to the south of the Congo River, while chimpanzees stretch from the western edge of Africa to the Albertine Rift. Bonobos are much more homogeneous, ecologically than chimpanzees. Finally, bonobos have derived characteristics not shared by chimpanzees or humans. It is more plausible [and parsimonious] that the common ancestor of bonobos, humans and chimpanzees was chimpanzee-like and that bonobos and humans are derived from that ancestral condition.
In a flash, Mr. Horgan moves quickly into archaeology and the seeming absence of data that indicates warfare in our recent evolutionary past. This is a leap given the evidence of warfare in numerous prehistoric societies, that have spawned volumes like Pearson’s “Warfare, Violence and Slavery in Prehistory”, Guilaine’s “The Origins of War: Violence in Prehistory” and Arkush and Allen’s “The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest”. These volumes together represent over 40 separate studies that document and analyze warfare in prehistoric societies. Despite this, Mr. Horgan continues the myth that there is little evidence of warfare in prehistory. Even if we ignore these studies for a moment [a difficult task given their breadth and scope] there is a point that Mr. Horgan seems to be missing: warfare doesn’t always take the form of battles between armies. It often consists of a few individuals ambushing a member of another community and inflicting as much damage as possible in an attempt to kill that individual.
Dr. Fry, who Horgan invokes next to combat the dreaded “demonic-males theory” has tried to minimize the importance of warfare among hunter-gatherers and pre-state societies by using definitional deflection. He is using the definition of war to deflect readers from a pattern, observed in prehistory and today, among male humans that resembles chimpanzee boundary patrols and territoriality: Groups of related males working together to isolate, ambush and kill [if possible] males from other communities. While modern human and chimpanzee males engage in this behavior, and human males in prehistory did likewise, it leaves little direct evidence for researchers to find. Human victims of this sort of ambush killing die alone and their bodies are often not recovered. In the forest we are lucky if we find the bodies of chimpanzees that have been killed by rivals from other communities – dead bodies don’t last long in the rainforest. While I would never say that we can use data that doesn’t exist to support a position in science, I would agree that just because we haven’t observed something yet, we cannot conclude that it doesn’t happen. It took years of observation for Jane Goodall to describe to us all how chimpanzees regularly make and use tools in the wild – a trait that used to distinguish our species from all others.
Mr. Horgan is a self-proclaimed “peacenik” who obviously would like to believe that our ancestry is much less bloody than what the data indicate. I do not fault his philosophical position, I just hope that those reading his article do not confuse it for scientific inquiry or skepticism. One thing that I do hope is that the individuals who share Mr. Horgan’s personal philosophy come to understand that ignoring facts and plausible explanations for phenomena will not make them go away. If we want to be able to do something about war, we need to understand where it comes from. To do that, we need to consider all of the data available, not just that which fits within our personal philosophies.
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 6, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Jackie Wurzelbacher
When I first read this article I was not quite sure how to respond to Dr. Sherrow’s response, instead I asked my dad (completely untrained in anthropology) what he thought a “demonic male theory” sounded like and if he thought humans were innately good or bad. He responded that were aren’t innately good or innately bad, humans are just selfish and that all of our actions stream from desire for self preservation and doing what is best for our individual self. He also made a comment about “demonic male theory” sounding absolutely barbaric where our early ancestor would have had glowing red eyes and fangs.
After reading both Demonic Males and Beyond Peace I don’t think I particularly ascribe to either philosophy about early humans or prehumans due to the extremes both sides portrays. The concept of “demonic males” being particularly warlike and aggressive also seems somewhat barbaric to me yet makes me question why people are pulling so hard over being more closely linked to chimpanzees or bonobos. Will the scientific data be available one day where we will actually be able to test these ideas and determine what we were like? Additionally, could it be possible we were not like either and instead had a hybrid of traits like a mix between human, chimpanzee, and bonobo characteristics?
We know that reproduction and preservation are very strong selectors in our behavior. So I feel that maybe my dad is right that humans are not pure good or bad, that we are more selfish in the way we look at the world and sometimes that causes us to commit violent acts when we feel threatened or unhappy. Yet without this strong selfish desire for self preservation we would never have evolved as far as we have.
August 7, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Lindsey Distler
Talking with my parents and grandparents about the theory of “demonic males” brought up some interesting view points. My mother, a strong Catholic, believes that we are born (this includes our ancestors) as blank slates, neither inherently good or evil. We adapt to our surroundings and with the combination of nature and nurture, supposing that our brain is functioning on a standard normal basis, will influence and determine whether we are good or evil. As for the primate aspect of “demonic males” she believes that for animals of a lesser intellectual capacity, there can be no good or evil. These animals do not serve their lives for any higher meanings or purpose. The actions carried out by the individuals are not done on an individual basis. They are common acts carried out through out different sexes, species, communities, etc. To claim one certain group as “demonic” would be categorizing these animals in a way that does not fit. Her example was if you classified certain humans as various animals depending on the way they looked. Humans are not horses because they resemble one. Male primates are not demonic because of their “aggressive, violent or war-like” actions.
It was an interesting viewpoint to say the least.
August 8, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Morgan Chaney
The most frustrating aspect of many objectors’ critique of the so called demonic-males theory (hereafter referred to with Wrangham’s (1999) terminology as the chimpanzee violence hypothesis [CVH]) is this trite idea that bonobos are being ignored throughout this whole discussion. The image is one of conspiratorial primatologists pushing the bonobo data aside so that they can advance their bellicose idea. To follow this line of thought is at first naive; moreover, for anyone who has given Wrangham’s and Peterson’s book a good read, this is an admission of poor comprehension or maybe even being guilty of the charge that is being attributed to primatological researchers. Chimpanzee homologs are strengthened by the conservative ecology of chimpanzees, and these ecological reasons form the real basis for why researchers use chimps over bonobos. As Wrangham and Peterson very effectively illustrate, this boils down to high costs of grouping in chimpanzees, which augments territoriality in chimps, while bonobos incur a very low cost to grouping and are therefore less territorial.
While I somewhat enjoyed Fry’s book, “Beyond War,” it is an astoundingly weak argument against the current consensus of researchers who specialize in the evolution of human warfare, and “definitional deflection” is a very precise characterization of Fry’s argument. Warfare, feuding, and blood revenges are not categorically different phenomena as Fry would seem to have many believe. Simply because the ethnographic and archaeological records show a simpler occurrence of intercommunity lethal aggression does not mean that warfare’s evolutionary roots are wholly invalidated, and that it is a maladaptive anomaly attributable to Western belligerence. These ideas articulate with each other so that human warfare is a very probable product of the confluence of these evolved traits and modern social factors.
August 8, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Dr. Amber Rose
(Must be read in a British accident)
Mr. Hogan’s article is a furrowed eyed reading indeed. After reading such a delightful piece I turned and asked myself… how should one respond to such a scientific inquiry such as “demonic-males theory”?
Despite, as you stated, the commonly misinterpreted jargon used to define the scientific world around us. Its believe the general public understands such accusations being made in Wrangham book Demonic Males that simply states the evolutionarily acclaimed violence in primates. Although, Wrangham primary focus is on the “warfare” of chimpanzees its evident that the similar behaviors are found in human beings. Such a SUBJECTIVE piece might not sit well with the daisy lovers of society or furthermore those who that undergone a prim and proper enculturation process. But those who have ever seen the discovery channel or opened there hearts to the dark arts may find it more easy to believe such theories ! Whatever the case may be, it seems people are more willing are dismiss their human to bonobo roots because of our ever so violence history. There is little reason of such a peaceful ape to be violent after all, Bonobos live in the Congo, a forest thickened with dangers . Research suggests that bonobo history is much like that of the swish, sheltered and protected by the natural habitats. Giving them there zen like attitudes. Still, such a ridiculous slightly academic response only chips away at the question on hand. Little can be done when the world ponders upon new scientist at the risk of releasing the old.
August 8, 2010 at 8:23 pm
gwennanrichmond
Initially, I had trouble coming up with a response to this as well, on the one hand I understand that depending on how exactly one is defining war it could very well be considered a modern phenomenon. Yet, I agree that ignoring, or miss using scientific evidence to propose that it did not evolve from hunter gathers and has little to no connection to the lethal behavior exhibited by chimpanzees does little to convince me that I should follow this line of thinking. I find myself thinking not so much in terms of extremes, but in simplicities. In chimpanzees we see that the willingness to kill within their own species comes about most often as a way of ensuring and protecting their resources, which to me seems to serve as a the same motivating factor for hunter gathers, which gradually escalated into what we thing of now, when the topic of warfare is brought up. I don’t feel that it’s a matter of being inherently good or evil, but simply looking out for the interests of individuals and the groups they are in. It really bothered me that Fry, had an answer to this question, before he went looking for the evidence that would later support. Everyone has their own version of their ideal world, but hand picking the evidence one uses to support that ideal, does not change the fact that the behaviors that are being discounted have no root or that connections cannot be drawn between the human and non-human world is a bit much for me to agree with.
August 8, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Sarah Tillett
I talked to my friend Spencer about it and although she really has no anthropology background she does believe in the importance of the scientific method, and how an hypothesis has less weight behind it than a theory.
On the topic of whether the human race is inherently war-like and violent we agreed that with all the violence that we have grown up and learned about in the past 20 years, its hard to refute that we are naturally a nonviolent species. But would argue that we are also have much greater capacity than chimps and bonobos to solve are problems through other nonviolent means.
August 9, 2010 at 3:42 am
Matt Nelson
“If evolution provided us with a demonic monkey butt kicking gene why is over population a problem? Seems every seven years we would go “ape” (intended smart ass connotation) and kill off a large portion of the population.” – Tim Nelson
My father does not have an anthropological background, he does raise a good point. If humans were intrinsically demonic why don’t we go on random killing sprees? I’m not saying I by into what my dad is saying, I’m just curious to why we don’t? Ethics? Morals?
October 4, 2016 at 8:31 pm
Jj Tells the Truth
if they create energy by photosynthesis, then why aren’t plantae green?
you *do* go ape and kill off large portions of the population. without waiting 7 years between waves of it. it is CONSTANT. a woman is CONSTANTLY BEING STRANGLED AND RAPED by her husband, her brother, her father (a title which means nothing, btw), her schoolteacher. everywhere, all the time, there is male violence.
conversely women keep men alive in many ways, to say nothing of our creation of them. women also care for men in ways men are too ignorant or stubborn to care for themselves. women are a buffer between men, always to women’s detriments; for her, the only choices lie between bad and worse.
next i will hear “not all men are like that/ i am not like that”.
like what? misogynist?
wrong. every single man to walk this earth has done or said something misogynist.
every. single. one.
August 9, 2010 at 4:38 am
Meggie Kraus
The thing that bothers me the most about Mr. Horgan’s article and in Fry’s book is when they say that there is a lack of archaeological evidence of warfare. I agree with Dr. Sherrow that just because it hasn’t been observed or found doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur. Fry says that the evidence people use to say warfare existed is actually just evidence for aggression and violence, not war. What I don’t get is how he can’t see that there is no real way of knowing and anyone’s guess could be the right one. Also, there were far less people in the past so what we would call warfare now would have been on a much smaller scale then. Just because the numbers and technology are greater now, I don’t see why what happened in prehistoric times wouldn’t be considered war because the reasons for fighting and the outcomes are the same.
When it comes to the argument over whether we should focus on chimpanzees or bonobos, I think that looking at both is significant and debating over which is more important is pointless. The information that is gathered should be looked at with an open mind, otherwise the conclusions from the data can be clouded. When it comes down to basics you can look at any animal, not just primates, and see similarities. Such as when we were talking about dogs being territorial, or any of the animals that we read about in the articles the first week. I believe that there are basic instincts that occur in animals and people should be looking at the big picture and not focus on disputing over smaller details.
August 26, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Rich Schwegler
Demonic males……………. excellent book by the way. The thought of a “Demonic Male” approach to our war origins is a very intersting one. I feel mostly inclined to agree with Richard Wrangham and his take on the matter more so than Beyond war’s approach. we are violent. end of story for me. it was OBVIOUSLY adaptive to be violent or else we wouldnt have things like the Striatum in our brain. it was beneficial to fight. it was beneficial to win. winners made babies, which made more winner babies and so on. if men are too violent, maybe stop selecting for violent men
August 31, 2010 at 10:55 am
Delaney Paynter
I think that some of the books we read use many opposing ideas and hypotheses to create a starting point in which they use their own ideas and hypotheses to “prove wrong” their opposition. I think that when researchers base all their own data and work off of purely combating another researchers work shouldn’t count as work at all. By bringing nothing new to the scientific field except their own thoughts against a particular hypothesis is counter intuitive and produces no new ideas.
November 19, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Eric Osborne
I think it’s interesting to note that the more peaceful bonobos are also more homogeneous. If the species as a whole exhibits less genetic variation, then even individuals from different kin groups will have more genes in common than two chimpanzees of different kin groups. With less selective pressure to defend a specific set of genes, it makes sense that bonobos would be less inclined to kill conspecifics. Furthermore, using sex instead of violence to establish social networks would increase genetic diversity, which might be evolutionarily beneficial to a homogeneous species.