DEMONIC MALES: APES AND THE ORIGINS OF HUMAN VIOLENCE

(Wrangham and Peterson)

INTRODUCTION

Violence ubiquitous All to frequently we are disturbed and concerned with multitude of cases of various forms of violence reported in the news media. Often it seems that aggression is ubiquitous and accordingly inevitable and inescapable within and between human groups (e.g., Wrangham and Petersen 1996:84). Is there a terrible, evil demon lurking inside each of us humans, and especially in adult males? This is the serious and pivotal question addressed by Wrangham and Petersen (1996) in their recent book Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. The basic idea is not new, but some of the arguments and much of the evidence is new.

Killer apes The "killer ape" argument extends back to the works of Dart (1953), Ardrey (19 ), Tiger (19 ), and others at least to the 1950s. It argues that humans inherited from their evolutionary ancestry a killer instinct in which hunting by early humans was applied not only to other species but also to their own species, in particular outgroup members. (See Wrangham and Petersen 1996:216-219).

Sociobiology This argument has been revived with the development of sociobiology since the 1970s (Chagnon and Irons 1979, Wilson 1975). Its most recent expression is found in Wrangham and Peterson (1966). Wrangham is an authority on the chimpanzees from extensive fieldwork, and the bibliography reflects a thorough coverage of most of the pertinent literature. Peterson is a popular writer who has written various books including two on chimpanzees, one of them with Jane Goodall. (or a good introductory overview of sociobiology see Gray 1996).

Demonic Males is an extraordinary book with an extraordinary thesis. It is as captivating as it is disturbing. It is well researched and well written, and the authors hold the reader's attention not only by the fascinating contents but also by regularly asking questions within and at the end of chapters as a way of introducing new sections and new chapters. There is no preface or introduction which outlines the argument and the organization of the book. While this would have expedited the delivery of the main thesis, the lack of it results in the book reading almost as a mystery novel as the pieces of the argument are gradually put in place until the puzzle is completed.

The primary questions the authors explore with regard to the origins of human violence in relation to the chimpanzee are similar to Paul Gauguin's famous painting: Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? (Wrangham and Peterson 1996:90). The closest thing to a concise statement of the primary argument is on pages 167-168:
(See also pp. 4-5).

THESIS

Violence common to siblings The basic argument is that humans are killer apes just like their sibling species, the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes), but unlike another closely related primate, the pygmy chimpanzee or bonobo (Pan paniscus). (Chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to gorillas (Wrangham and Petersen 1996:40)). The patriarchal killer apes have an innate tendency to explode in violence, especially in intercommunity aggression when an adult male patrol encounters, attacks, and likely kills a lone chimpanzee from another band near the border of its territory. (See p. 21, 227, 233).

Peaceful bonobos The differences between the common and pygmy chimpanzees relate to food resources and competitors. Common chimpanzees overlap in their geographical and ecological distribution with gorillas, whereas the bonobos do not share their range with either common chimpanzees or gorillas. Thus bonobos have access to herbal foods on the ground which would not be as abundant if gorillas were present to feed on them as well as competitors. This allows for larger and more stable groups in which females develop significant power through coalitions. This in turn leads to a society in which gender relations are egalitarian for individuals within the same rank within the dominance hierarchy. Furthermore, tensions and conflicts are minimized and resolved through sex, every conceivable combination (homosexual and heterosexual relations between adults and between adults and young). In short, bonobo society is organized around the strategy of make love not war, and the authors hint that it may even be more moral than human society (p. 230).

On the other hand, because food resources are less abundant for the common chimpanzee as it competes with gorillas, its group size and group stability are lower. Often individuals forage alone during parts of the day. This makes them vulnerable to brutal attack and killing by adult male patrols from a neighboring group if they stray to close to the border of their territory.

Legacy for humans Humans have inherited this pattern from the common ancestry their share with the common chimpanzee, and this is reflected in many aspects of human aggression and war, including the statistically significant rate of male violence which is disproportionately higher than for females in society. The body and mind of Homo sapiens reflects this killer ape legacy. The human body has well developed shoulders and arms for hitting, a thick skull as protection against blows, and sexual dimorphism in body size reflecting male defense of the group. The human mind reveals its killer ape heritage and instincts through male pride and status competition, male coalitions and "part-gangs", ingroup loyalty and outgroup hostility, and the contagious behavior of a crowd.

Other apes Although the word ape is in the subtitle, the book concentrates almost exclusively on chimpanzees, both the common and the pygmy species. Gorillas are mentioned mainly with reference to infanticide, and orangutans mainly with reference to rape, while the gibbon is almost completely ignored. The main species of monkey which is briefly considered is the muriqui monkey ( ) of South America which appears to have a remarkably peaceful and egalitarian society. (See p. 151-152 for quote to summarize this section).

Violence and sex The argument is grounded in sociobiology, particular sexual selection and inclusive fitness. The more aggressive males are more likely to win a mate in competition and thus to produce more offspring. Females have no such choice in competition, except to do their best to ensure the survival of their offspring. Females appear to be merely passive subordinates and sex objects for the reproductive competition of males. Thus, the origins of human violence is found in the ape origins of humans and expressed in a variety of aggressive behaviors displayed by demonic (violent males). (See pp. 158-160).

Holism? In developing this argument the authors provide a holistic overview of relevant phenomena and themes through a survey of multiple lines of evidence and argument from the diverse disciplines of primatology (especially of the apes and mostly of the chimpanzees), molecular anthropology (biochemistry and genetics), palaeontology and archaeology, and ethnology, sociology, and psychology.

Paradise lost Wrangham and Petersen (1996:11) include a quote from Ardrey (19 : ):

Paradise imagined

In discussing raiding the main human society they compare with the common chimpanzee is the Yanomami. They also attempt to debunk romantic or idealistic ideas about human societies which are nonviolent and peaceful in Polynesia as portrayed in the artistic work of Paul Gauguin, the literary work of Herman Melville, and the ethnography on Samoa of Margaret Mead. They also consider the case of the Tasaday. Accordingly, they deconstruct the "paradise imagined" of pacific polynesia as well as expose the "paradise lost" of the supposedly pacific common chimpanzee as described in the early writings of Jane Goodall. In the end, cultural determinism of Mead and other Boasians is rejected in favor of the biological determinism of modern sociobiology. Likewise, they reject the either-or dichotomies of nature/nurture, biology/culture, and emotion/reason, indicating that human behavior is the product of the interactions of these factors as integral components.

Steps toward peace Finally, the authors suggest some avenues to explore and develop toward taming the demonic male: developing more female power, changing female preference for the attributes of demonic males, and transcending ingroup-outgroup hostility through cooperative enterprises in common concerns.

PROBLEMS

Convincing? On the surface of it the primary points in this thesis seem valid, useful, insightful--- adult males in both of the species of common chimpanzees and of humans have a potential which is sometimes realized for explosive, brutal, and lethal violence, a reflection of their recent common ancestry and the cold logic of male competition for reproductive fitness. Although this aggressive tendency may be expressed in many forms, usually it involves a gang targeting a lone individual outside the group. However, the argument does not withstand close scrutiny, but is seriously flawed on a number of crucial points, although not beyond redemption with substantial revision.

How violent? In the first place, the frequency, duration, and intensity of various types of aggression in chimpanzee and human societies is less impressive than a few dramatic events might initially imply. For instance at Mahale, seven males were killed from the same group one by one, until the group disintegrated, the survivors joining another group (?), but this occurred over a period of 13 years from 1969-1982 (Wrangham and Petersen 1996:19). Likewise, during 1973-77 there were 6 individuals who disappeared from Kahama group (Wrangham and Petersen 1996:17). In the Mahale case, this amounts to 7 days of lethal violence out of a total of 4,745 days, or killing 0.14% of the days. From this perspective, the Mahale society would appear overall relatively nonviolent and peaceful! Parallels might easily be drawn with human societies. Yes, apes and humans can be terribly, brutally violent, but relatively few are and these few rarely so, even though the drama of the moment may make a deep and lasting impression on observers. (See p. 21). [The bonobos are not a stain on our ape past.... p. 258].

Simplistic reductionism The argument is simplistic and reductionistic, tending toward biological determinism almost to the exclusion of any significant influence from culture. Superficial similarities are presumed as identities, but are not capable of explaining the tremendous variation and variability of aggressive and other behavior found in the more than 6,000 distinct cultures in the contemporary world (e.g., Levison 19 ). The ideas, behaviors, and institutions associated with warfare in human societies vary tremendously to the point that it is nearly meaningless to group them together under the same category of warfare, but the authors tend to treat human warfare and other forms of violence as if they were invariant. Also there is a tendency to indiscriminately apply the same concept to humans, apes, and other animals without any qualifications or critical scrutiny, such as raiding, war, rape, foreign policy. For instance, chapter one begins with a description of the genocidal atrocities in Rwanda, and then describes "warfare" among chimpanzees in Gombe and other sites. Wrangham and Petersen (1996:14) describes "... male chimpanzees as defenders of a group territory, a gang committed to the ethnic purity of their own set." To apply the term "ethnic purity" to a chimpanzee group and to thereby imply some connection with "ethnic cleansing" is not only patently absurd, but irresponsible science and scholarship which can only confuse rather than clarify matters. As another example, is the label "political murder" applied in the case of humans and chimps (p. 131). Wrangham and Petersen (1996:24) apply the idea of related males being aggressive against outsiders in the case of Americans versus Vietcong in the Vietnam War, yet relationship was only in the most general sense of national identity, not kinship, thus sociobiological logic is irrelevant in this case. [discussion of orang rape and Palmer's cross-species survey..... check]

There is more to human biology and behavior than simply male competition for females as mates to enhance reproductive fitness (cf. p. 234). Beyond genetics and reproduction, there are factors such as history, politics, economics, psychology, and ecology. In particular, the authors seem incapable of considering the realm of ideas in connection with human society and aggression, as if Homo sapiens were a mindless reproductive machine. Considering the mental capacities exhibited in psychological experiments with captive apes, perhaps more credit should be given to the mind of the ape over their genes?

Furthermore, the authors seem to all but ignore any reproductive interests that females might have almost to the point of sexism (but see p. 235). Many critics of sociobiology view it as a form of sexist capitalism in biological clothing with genes as the currency and offspring as the profit. The cold logic of sexual competition for reproductive success simply isn't very convincing (e.g., pp. 148-149, ). The explanatory power of sociobiology is not impressive in the case of the discussion of the bonobos who seem to achieve reproductive success by making love rather than war!

In the case of territoriality, it is far from a panhuman universal, but appears under certain ecological conditions and not others (e.g., Dyson-Hudson and Smith 19 ).

While all humans have the potential or capacity for various forms of aggressive behavior, this is not realized by all individuals, and even those individuals who engage in serious aggression usually do so only rarely. There are nonviolent celibate human male communities such as Buddhist and Christian monasteries. There are also all female human communities such as girls schools and women's prisons which have problems with social tensions, conflict, and violence. The presence or absence of violence can not be so simply related to gender and reproductive competition (see pp. 248-249).

One can't begin to seriously considered let alone explain the aggressive behaviors of Hitler and the military regime in Nazi Germany as simply an expression of the killer ape tendency's humanity inherited from its common ancestor with chimpanzees, nor other famous villains of history such as those responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing (pp. 247-248), or for genocide in the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, even though the book commences with the latter (e.g., see Wrangham and Petersen 1996:61-62). While the human capacity for brutal and lethal violence is surely a component of such phenomena, their occurrence and form could never be predicted on that basis alone, rather much more is involved in such a complex phenomenon (e.g., Staub 19 ).

Political power may coincide with physical force in chimpanzee society, but in human society mental ability and political skills are among the additional factors which are involved, such as in the case of the Yanomami where being a headman involves much more than simply physical force.

Biased and hypocritical The argument is biased and even hypocritical. It emphasizes violence and war to the almost complete exclusion of nonviolence and peace, except in the chapter on bonobos. The very important pioneering work of Frans de Waal (1989) on primate peacemaking (conflict reduction, nonviolent conflict resolution, and reconciliation) is barely discussed despite its obvious relevance. Also de Waal argues that common chimpanzees also have means of nonviolent conflict resolution, in contrast to the implication that this is only among bonobos in Wrangham and Petersen (1996:26).

While some other biologists and primatologists have considered human behavior from an ethological perspective, such as Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1989) and Desmond Morris (19 ), Wrangham doesn't. A curious omission in the literature coverage is that Wrangham doesn't even mention in his bibliography Ardrey (19 ), Fox (19 ), and Morris ( ), even though they are an indispensable part of the intellectual history of this subject. His whole approach is sociobiological.

While the authors are critical and skeptical of any claims for the existence of any nonviolent and peaceful societies, they are uncritical and unskeptical about any claims for violent and warlike societies. The prime case offered is the Yanomami, and even though the authors acknowledge that Chagnon has his critics they simply ignore them (Wrangham and Petersen 1996:67) (in Chapter 4 on "Raiding") (see Sponsel 1997). However, the authors do discuss differences as well as similarities between Yanomami and chimpanzee raiding (Wrangham and Petersen 1996:68-74). This is simply another unscientific prostration and exploitation of the Yanomami for "academic" purposes.

To bolster their argument the authors select poor examples to debunk, constructing straw man to demolish. Because the Tasaday remain contested in anthropology, they are summarily dismissed as quickly as they are raised as a possibility of a nonviolent and peaceful human society (Wrangham and Petersen 1996:75-76). The chapter on "Paradise Imagined" is a superficial deconstruction of the works of a painter Gauguin, novelist Meville, and ethnographer Mead, the latter steeped in controversy as a result of Derek Freeman's attacks. Much better anthropological examples, such as the famous and well-documented case of the Semai, could have been selected to argue either for or, less likely, against, the existence of relatively nonviolent and peaceful societies (Bonta 19 , 19 , Dentan 19 , Fabian 19 , Gregor 1996, Howell and Willis 1989, Montagu 1978, Sponsel 1996, Sponsel and Gregor 1994, other? ). The only explanation for criticizing Gauguin, Melville, and Mead is that they are dead and so can not provide any rebuttal!
In the case of Gauguin and Melville, to refute something as untrue ("romanticized and dishonest" p. 107) which is fiction anyway, doesn't require much intellectual courage or analytical rigor.
Such tactics reveal the poverty of the argument which Wrangham and Petersen attempt to marshall, a best an indefensible thesis.
This is hardly sober, waking rationality, to use a phrase from Wrangham and Petersen (1996:172).

Neither is the nebulous concept of temperament, as applied to group or species, convincing in Chapter 6. Even within American (USA) society, gender is no longer simply a matter of male or female. Furthermore, cross-cultural consideration of gender variation and variability would reveal the simplistic characterization by Wrangham and Petersen (1996). They conveniently ignore Mead's classic Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, and subsequent works like Kelley's Etoro....
(see Kottak.... ). Wrangham and Petersen (1996:167) cite examples of notoriously violent males like Genghis Khan, Alexanders, Casears, and Hitlers, but ignore the numerous exemplars of nonviolent and peaceful males in recent history such as Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Benigno Aquino, and Nelson Mandela, to name a few of the more famous personages which are sufficient exceptions to disprove Wrangham and Petersen's tendency to generalize that all males are demonic by nature (see Paige....). (See Honolulu Advertiser article....). If subordination of women were the only factor or a key factor among several giving rise to violent societies, then one would expect much more violence in Islamic and Indian societies, yet these societies have also given rise to various philosophies of nonviolence such as ahimsa in Hindu and Jain religions (cf. p. 246).

Assuming that males are demonic and that females are angelic, then the route to a nonviolent and peaceful society is inexorable if one follows Wrangham and Petersen's argument to its logical conclusion--- the development of a matriarchy to replace the patriarchy or the extinction of all males (e.g., p. 236).

Humans are unique Unique aspects of human nature are either down played or simply ignored: mind, language, culture, technology, morality, etc. While humans and chimpanzees may be sibling species at the biochemical and genetic levels, at the behavioral level there are significant contrasts in geographic and ecological distribution, demography, and adaptability. Humans have dispersed over the entire inhabitable portion of the land surface of planet Earth adapting relatively rapidly through cultural diversification to a tremendous diversity of biomes from tropical rain forest to desert, temperate forests and grasslands, arctic and subarctic zones, etc. If environment and behavior are closely related, then how can humans retain the basic behavior of chimpanzees as essentially tropical forest inhabitants in such diverse biomes? Furthermore, although the authors are evolutionists, their argument effectively denies evolution--- humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, but then chimps remained conservative in the tropical rain forest while humans remained killer apes even as they rapidly evolved to adapt to a tremendous diversity of biomes throughout the terrestrial surface of the planet (see Wrangham and Petersen 1996:43, 46-47). Humans become evolutionary schizophrenics, remaining like the conservative chimps in terms of aggression, yet rapidly evolving in almost all other aspects of their behavior. The authors never resolve this apparent paradox.

Almost no attention is given to the tremendously different lifestyles of human forager, farmer, and industrial societies. Hunter-gatherers in general have more or less egalitarian societies focused on generalized reciprocity and cooperation, nonviolent conflict resolution and reconciliation, and a fission-fusion dynamic in adjustment to short-term and seasonal fluctuations in natural resources facilitated by kinship ties. Hunter-gatherers occupied about 99% of human existence on the planet, and overall were not killer apes (Sponsel 1996).

Peace? The authors do not clearly define and distinguish key concepts such as violence, war, and peace; but that might weaken their argument as well. [Thus, homicide is conflated with war (p. 77); this confusion would mean that the USA has been continuously involved in a civil war in recent decades with political assassinations, serial killers, street gangs, drive by shootings, drug violence, etc.! Yes, violence is epidemic, as recognized by the American Medical Association (19 ). However, this is not war by any normal anthropological definition. Such sloppy thinking in a book which pretends to be science and treats such a serious and disturbing subject is an anathema?????]. The authors seem undecided as to whether or not nonviolent and peaceful societies exist (pp. 80, 250, and ). Likewise, the dismissal of the Seville Declaration on Violence does justice to no intellect (Wrangham and Petersen 1996:176). [See de Waal (199 ) for a thoughtful analysis.....] The evidence for "demonic males" in the human body --- large shoulders and arms, thick skull, and sexual dimorphism in body size (Wrangham and Petersen 1996:179) may have alternative explanations. Indeed, the lack of such "natural weapons" as claws, fangs, horns, etc., may reflect a natural history of peace rather than war!

In human societies war is common, peace is extremely rare, according to Wrangham and Petersen (1996:81, 82). However, they appear to be oblivious to the scientific record of ethnography. Peace is rare, only because it is so rarely studied, not because it is rare in fact (Sponsel 1996).

There is also an inherent bias typical of Western scientists and others in favor of considering violence and war almost to the exclusion of nonviolence and peace (Sponsel 1994, 1996). The authors blindly pursue the negative concept of peace rather than the positive concept of peace. The former considers peace as simply the absence of war. The latter includes this and in addition the present of various kinds of nonviolent and peaceful ideas, values, attitudes, behaviors, and institutions (Sponsel 1994).

CONCLUSIONS

If If the book had addressed gender roles in ape and human societies in relation to both violence/war and nonviolence/peace from the perspectives of both biological and cultural anthropology a much more balanced account and a much stronger argument would have been developed. At this stage we have another "Just So Story" and in this case, it just isn't so! Early in the century via Du Chaillu and others the myth of the fierce gorilla was created, and then in recent decades George Schaller, Diane Fossey and others successfully challenged it and almost turned it completely upside down into the gentle gorilla (pp. 147-148). Could the case of violence in the chimpanzee be headed for yet another turn?
Is it accurate or fair to blame chimpanzees for human evil (p. 258), or should we look to our moral conscience and authorities for understanding and guidance?

Nevertheless, as far as it goes, the book does provide a most captivating and provocative reading, and however seriously flawed the argument may be, it deserves to be carefully read and considered by a broad and diverse audience, both professional and public.

REFERENCES CITED

American Medical Association

Ardrey, Robert, 19 . The Hunting Hypothesis....

Bonta, Bruce D., 1993, Peaceful Peoples: An Annotated Bibliography, Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Bonta,

Chagnon, Napoleon A., and William Irons, ed., 1979. Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.

Dart, Raymond A., 1953. "The Predatory Transition from Ape to Man," International Anthropological and Linguistic Review 1(4):201-218.

Dentan, Robert Knox, 1968, The Semai: A Nonviolent People of Malaysia, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

de Waal, Frans, 1989. Peacemaking Among Primates. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dyson-Hudson and Smith....

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenaus, 1989. Human Ethology. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Fabbro, David, 1978, "Peaceful Societies: An Introduction," Journal of Peace Research XV(1):67-83.

Fox, Robin, 19

Ghglieri, Michael, 1999, The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence, Reading, MA: Perseus Books.

Giorgi, Piero, 1999, The Origins of Violence by Cultural Evolution, Brisbane, Australia: Minerva E & S.

Gray, J. Patrick, 1996. "Sociobiology," in Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds., New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co., 4:1212-1219.

Gregor, Thomas, 1996. A Natural History of Peace. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Howell, Signe, and Roy Willis, eds., 1989. Societies at Peace. New York, NY: Routledge.

Levinson, David, 199 . Encyclopedia of Human Aggression....

Montagu, Ashley, ed., 1978. Learning Non-Aggression... New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Morris, Desmond, 19 . The Naked Ape.

Sponsel, Leslie E., 1994, "The Mutual Relevance of Anthropology and Peace Studies," in The Anthropology of Peace and Nonviolence, L.E. Sponsel and Thomas Gregor, eds., Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, pp. 1-36.

Sponsel, Leslie E., 1996. "The Natural History of Peace," in A Natural History of Peace, Thomas Gregor, ed., Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Sponsel, Leslie E., 1998. "Yanomami: An Arena of Conflict and Aggression in the Amazon," Aggressive Behavior 24(2):97-122.

Sponsel, Leslie E., and Thomas Gregor, eds., 1994. The Anthropology of Peace and Nonviolence. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Staub, Ervin, 1989, The Roots of Evil: The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Tiger, Lionel, 1969. Men in Groups. New York, NY: Random House.

Wilson, Edward O., 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wrangham, Richard, and Dale Peterson, 1996. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.