What do you think?
Rate this book
Sociobiology
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
View a collection of videos on Professor Wilson entitled "On the Relation of Science and the Humanities"
Harvard University Press is proud to announce the re-release of the complete original version of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis--now available in paperback for the first time. When this classic work was first published in 1975, it created a new discipline and started a tumultuous round in the age-old nature versus nurture debate. Although voted by officers and fellows of the international Animal Behavior Society the most important book on animal behavior of all time, Sociobiology is probably more widely known as the object of bitter attacks by social scientists and other scholars who opposed its claim that human social behavior, indeed human nature, has a biological foundation. The controversy surrounding the publication of the book reverberates to the present day.
In the introduction to this Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition, Edward O. Wilson shows how research in human genetics and neuroscience has strengthened the case for a biological understanding of human nature. Human sociobiology, now often called evolutionary psychology, has in the last quarter of a century emerged as its own field of study, drawing on theory and data from both biology and the social sciences.
For its still fresh and beautifully illustrated descriptions of animal societies, and its importance as a crucial step forward in the understanding of human beings, this anniversary edition of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis will be welcomed by a new generation of students and scholars in all branches of learning.
Harvard University Press is proud to announce the re-release of the complete original version of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis--now available in paperback for the first time. When this classic work was first published in 1975, it created a new discipline and started a tumultuous round in the age-old nature versus nurture debate. Although voted by officers and fellows of the international Animal Behavior Society the most important book on animal behavior of all time, Sociobiology is probably more widely known as the object of bitter attacks by social scientists and other scholars who opposed its claim that human social behavior, indeed human nature, has a biological foundation. The controversy surrounding the publication of the book reverberates to the present day.
In the introduction to this Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition, Edward O. Wilson shows how research in human genetics and neuroscience has strengthened the case for a biological understanding of human nature. Human sociobiology, now often called evolutionary psychology, has in the last quarter of a century emerged as its own field of study, drawing on theory and data from both biology and the social sciences.
For its still fresh and beautifully illustrated descriptions of animal societies, and its importance as a crucial step forward in the understanding of human beings, this anniversary edition of Sociobiology: The New Synthesis will be welcomed by a new generation of students and scholars in all branches of learning.
720 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1975
96 people are currently reading
4957 people want to read
About the author
Edward O. Wilson
204 books2,446 followersEdward Osborne Wilson, sometimes credited as E.O. Wilson, was an American biologist, researcher, theorist, and author. His biological specialty is myrmecology, a branch of entomology. A two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction, Wilson is known for his career as a scientist, his advocacy for environmentalism, and his secular-humanist ideas pertaining to religious and ethical matters. He was the Pellegrino University Research Professor in Entomology for the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He is a Humanist Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
July 27, 2010
Read the original in college...will always be relevant. Humans are animals, get over it. Humans are special, so is every living thing.
January 29, 2016
"Camus said that the only serious philosophical question is suicide. That is wrong even in the strict sense intended. The biologist, who is concerned with questions of physiology and evolutionary history, realizes that self-knowledge is constrained and shaped by the emotional control centers in the hypothalamus and limbic system of the brain. These centers flood our consciousness with all the emotions–hate, love, guilt, fear, and others–that are consulted by the ethical philosophers who wish to intuit the standards of good and evil. What, we are then compelled to ask, made the hypothalamus and limbic system? They evolved by natural selection."
June 15, 2024
The Field That Dare Not Speak its Name
On publication, the reception accorded Wilson’s ‘Sociobiology’ was divided.
In biology, the reception was unanimously laudatory. My 25th anniversary edition proclaims on its cover that it was voted by officers and fellows of the Animal Behavior Society as the most important ever book on animal behavior.
Yet, on the other side of campus, the reception was different. Sociobiology became almost a dirty word in the social sciences, to such an extent that the word fell into disuse and was replaced by euphemisms like behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.
Even those researchers whose work carried on the sociobiological approach in all but name almost always played down the extent of their debt to Wilson.
Thus, books on evolutionary psychology typically begin with disclaimers acknowledging that the sociobiology of Wilson was, of course, crude and simplistic, and that their own approach is, of course, infinitely more sophisticated.
Indeed, reading some recent works on evolutionary psychology, one could be forgiven for thinking that evolutionary approaches in social science began around 1989 with Tooby and Cosmides.
What then is ‘sociobiology’?
Today, the term has largely fallen into disuse, save among some social scientists as a term of abuse for any theory of human behavior perceived as placing too great a weight on biological factors, including many research traditions quite separate from sociobiology (e.g. behavioral genetics).
Wilson did not coin the term, but he did popularize (and ultimately unpopularize) it.
Wilson defined sociobiology as:
The hormonal, neuroscientific, or genetic causes of behavior are just as much part of “the biological basis of behavior”, yet these lie outside of sociobiology. As Wilson himself admitted:
A Book Much Read About, But Rarely Actually Read
Wilson proudly proclaims that the book was:
I suspect this was a factor in the hostile reception accorded the book. It was so big that most social scientists were disinclined to read it for themselves, especially since most of it concerned non-human species and was thus, in their view, irrelevant to their own work.
Thus, their entire knowledge of the field was filtered to them by the critiques of other social scientists, who presented a straw man caricature of the field. Indeed, reading these critiques, one suspects that those not bothering to read the work for themselves included many of those taking it upon themselves to write about it!
As a result, it became, among social scientists and the educated public, a book much read about, but rarely actually read—and, like other books falling into this category (e.g. the Bible and Bell Curve), myths have emerged about its content.
Humans
Thus, it is often claimed Wilson extended his gaze to humans only in his final chapter. In fact, humans are mentioned before.
His chapter on “Roles and Castes” closes with a discussion of “Roles in Human Societies” (p312-3); the final section of the chapter on “Aggression” is titled “Human Aggression” (p254-5); and in his chapter on “Sex and Society”, he discusses the association between adultery and violent retribution in humans (p327).
Another misconception is that, if he did not found the field of sociobiology, Wilson attracted most of the flak because he was the first biologist brave, foolish, ambitious, farsighted or naïve enough to apply sociobiology to humans.
In fact, much of Trivers’ 1971 seminal paper on reciprocal altruism discussed human emotions, like guilt and gratitude (Trivers 1971).
Reductionism?
Among the familiar charges levelled at sociobiology is that of ‘reductionism’.
It is thus a surprise to find in the opening pages of ‘Sociobiology’ Wilson defending “holism” against “the triumphant reductionism of molecular biology” (p7).
This passage is even more surprising for anyone who has read Consilience, where Wilson champions “reductionism” as “the cutting edge of science… breaking down nature into its constituent components” and “the primary and essential activity of science” (Consilience: p59).
Many opponents of ‘reductionism’ promote an untestable and unscientific obscurantism, whereby any attempt to explain behavior in terms of causes is dismissed as ‘reductionism’ and ‘determinism’.
Indeed, use of the word ‘holistic’ is often something of a red flag (e.g. holistic medicine).
Wilson’s writing on this topic must be understood as responses, not to the controversies these works provoked, but rather the controversies that preceded them.
Thus, just as his defence of reductionism in Consilience was a response to the sociobiology debates, so Wilson’s defence of holism in ‘Sociobiology’ was a response an earlier academic controversy, in which molecular biologists led by James Watson had contended that molecular biology was the only biology, and that traditional fieldwork and experiments were positively passé (see Naturalist).
Wilson responded:
Among the key breakthroughs that formed the basis for sociobiology was Williams’s critique of group-selection.
A focus the individual, or even the gene, as the sole unit of selection came to be viewed as an integral part of the sociobiological paradigm.
It is thus surprising to discover that Wilson was himself apparently a group-selectionist all along.
This is apparent not only in his recent work but also in ‘Sociobiology’ itself.
Wilson regurgitates the familiar criticisms of group-selection (p106-7), but he continues to offer group-selectionist explanations (e.g. p275) and concludes:
Returning to Wilson’s infamous last chapter, it is, I feel, disappionting.
Inevitably, any science book will be dated after forty years. Yet, while true of the whole book, this is especially true of this last chapter, which bears little resemblance to modern evolutionary psychology.
This is perhaps inevitable. While the application of sociobiological theory to other species was already well underway, the application of sociobiological theory to humans was in its infancy.
Yet, while the substance of the chapter is dated, the general approach is spot on.
Indeed, even some of the advances claimed by evolutionary psychologists as their own were anticipated by Wilson. Thus, Wilson recognises:
Wilson proposes to study human behavior from the disinterested perspective of an alien zoologist and concludes:
But Wilson actually urged caution:
Ambition
The scale of Wilson’s ambition was enormous. First, he sought to synthesize the field of animal behavior under the rubric of sociobiology and in the process produce the ‘New Synthesis’ promised in the subtitle, by analogy with the ‘Modern Synthesis’ of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics that forms the basis for modern biology.
Then, in a final chapter, he decided to add human behavior to his synthesis.
This meant, not just providing a new foundation for a single subfield within biology (i.e. animal behavior), but for several whole disciplines formerly largely unconnected to biology—e.g. psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics.
Oh yeah… and moral philosophy and perhaps epistemology too. I forgot to mention that.
Philosophy
Wilson’s forays into philosophy proved even more controversial than those into social science. Though limited to a few paragraphs in his first and last chapter, they were among the most critiqued in the whole book.
Not only were opponents of sociobiology—and philosophers—indignant, but even those taking up the sociobiological gauntlet were mostly skeptical.
In proposing to reconstruct moral philosophy on the basis of biology, Wilson was widely accused of committing the naturalistic fallacy.
If a behavior is natural, this does not make it right, any more than the fact that dying of tuberculosis is natural means that it is morally wrong to treat tuberculosis with such ‘unnatural’ interventions as vaccination or antibiotics.
Most evolutionary psychologists are only too happy to reiterate the sacrosanct inviolability of the fact-value chasm, not least because it allows them to investigate the evolutionary function of such behaviors as infidelity, rape, war and infanticide, without thereby justifying these behaviors.
Yet, if we cannot derive values from facts, whence can values be derived? Only from other values? Whence then are our ultimate moral values, from which all others are derived, themselves to be derived? Must they be simply taken on faith?
Wilson has recently argued:
Yet these same moral philosophers take these emotions for granted. They treat the brain as a “black box” rather than a biological entity the nature of which is the subject of scientific study (p562).
Our moral preferences are a product of our brains, which are themselves a product of evolution, and of socialization and experiences.
The philosophical implications of recognising that moral intuitions are themselves a product of the evolutionary process have since been investigated by both biologists and philosophers, not least Wilson himself in collaboration with philosopher Michael Ruse (Ruse & Wilson 1986).
What applies to ethics also applies to the other major subfield of philosophy, namely epistemology, to which Wilson devotes only a single parenthesis (p3). What humans are capable of knowing is, like morality, a product of the brain, which is itself a product of evolution (see Taking Darwin Seriously).
Dated?
Is ‘Sociobiology’ worth reading today? At 700 pages, it represents no idle investment of time.
Wilson has the unusual honour for a working scientist of being a twice Pulitzer-Prize winner, but‘Sociobiology’ is not a book one would read for its literary merits alone.
As a textbook, it is dated.
Indeed, one of the hallmarks of a true science is the speed at which cutting-edge work becomes obsolete.
Religious believers still cite holy books written millennia ago and adherents of pseudo-sciences like psychoanalysis and Marxism still paw over the words of Freud and Marx—but the scientific method is a cumulative process and no respecter of persons. Scientific works go obsolete almost as fast as they are published.
The speed with which Wilson’s work became obsolete is thus a marker of the success of the research project it inspired.
If you want a textbook summary of the latest research in sociobiology, I would recommend the latest edition of Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach or An Introduction to Behavioral Ecology; or, if your primary interest is human behavior, the latest edition of Evolutionary Psychology.
The continued value of ‘Sociobiology’ lies in the field, not of science, but ‘History of Science’.
Full (i.e. vastly overlong) review available here.
References
Ruse & Wilson (1986) Moral Philosophy as Applied Science. Philosophy 61(236):173-192
Trivers (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46:35–57
On publication, the reception accorded Wilson’s ‘Sociobiology’ was divided.
In biology, the reception was unanimously laudatory. My 25th anniversary edition proclaims on its cover that it was voted by officers and fellows of the Animal Behavior Society as the most important ever book on animal behavior.
Yet, on the other side of campus, the reception was different. Sociobiology became almost a dirty word in the social sciences, to such an extent that the word fell into disuse and was replaced by euphemisms like behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.
Even those researchers whose work carried on the sociobiological approach in all but name almost always played down the extent of their debt to Wilson.
Thus, books on evolutionary psychology typically begin with disclaimers acknowledging that the sociobiology of Wilson was, of course, crude and simplistic, and that their own approach is, of course, infinitely more sophisticated.
Indeed, reading some recent works on evolutionary psychology, one could be forgiven for thinking that evolutionary approaches in social science began around 1989 with Tooby and Cosmides.
What then is ‘sociobiology’?
Today, the term has largely fallen into disuse, save among some social scientists as a term of abuse for any theory of human behavior perceived as placing too great a weight on biological factors, including many research traditions quite separate from sociobiology (e.g. behavioral genetics).
Wilson did not coin the term, but he did popularize (and ultimately unpopularize) it.
Wilson defined sociobiology as:
“The systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior” (p4; p595).But sociobiology came to be associated in particular with the question of why behaviors evolved and the evolutionary function they serve (i.e. one of Tinbergen’s Four Questions).
The hormonal, neuroscientific, or genetic causes of behavior are just as much part of “the biological basis of behavior”, yet these lie outside of sociobiology. As Wilson himself admitted:
“Behavioral biology… is now emerging as two distinct disciplines centered on neurophysiology and… sociobiology” (p6).Yet Wilson’s definition was also too narrow. Behavioral ecologists have come to study all forms of behavior, not just social behavior (e.g. optimal foraging theory).
A Book Much Read About, But Rarely Actually Read
Wilson proudly proclaims that the book was:
“Written with the broadest possible audience in mind and most of it can be read with full understanding by any intelligent person whether or not he or she has had any formal training in science” (p577)However, the size of the work was probably enough to deter most such readers long before they reached p577 where these words appear.
I suspect this was a factor in the hostile reception accorded the book. It was so big that most social scientists were disinclined to read it for themselves, especially since most of it concerned non-human species and was thus, in their view, irrelevant to their own work.
Thus, their entire knowledge of the field was filtered to them by the critiques of other social scientists, who presented a straw man caricature of the field. Indeed, reading these critiques, one suspects that those not bothering to read the work for themselves included many of those taking it upon themselves to write about it!
As a result, it became, among social scientists and the educated public, a book much read about, but rarely actually read—and, like other books falling into this category (e.g. the Bible and Bell Curve), myths have emerged about its content.
Humans
Thus, it is often claimed Wilson extended his gaze to humans only in his final chapter. In fact, humans are mentioned before.
His chapter on “Roles and Castes” closes with a discussion of “Roles in Human Societies” (p312-3); the final section of the chapter on “Aggression” is titled “Human Aggression” (p254-5); and in his chapter on “Sex and Society”, he discusses the association between adultery and violent retribution in humans (p327).
Another misconception is that, if he did not found the field of sociobiology, Wilson attracted most of the flak because he was the first biologist brave, foolish, ambitious, farsighted or naïve enough to apply sociobiology to humans.
In fact, much of Trivers’ 1971 seminal paper on reciprocal altruism discussed human emotions, like guilt and gratitude (Trivers 1971).
Reductionism?
Among the familiar charges levelled at sociobiology is that of ‘reductionism’.
It is thus a surprise to find in the opening pages of ‘Sociobiology’ Wilson defending “holism” against “the triumphant reductionism of molecular biology” (p7).
This passage is even more surprising for anyone who has read Consilience, where Wilson champions “reductionism” as “the cutting edge of science… breaking down nature into its constituent components” and “the primary and essential activity of science” (Consilience: p59).
“The love of complexity without reductionism makes art; the love of complexity with reductionism makes science (Consilience:p59).Of course, reductionism is a matter of degree. Dennett distinguishes “greedy reductionism”, which oversimplifies the world , from “good reductionism”, which explains it in all its complexity.
Many opponents of ‘reductionism’ promote an untestable and unscientific obscurantism, whereby any attempt to explain behavior in terms of causes is dismissed as ‘reductionism’ and ‘determinism’.
Indeed, use of the word ‘holistic’ is often something of a red flag (e.g. holistic medicine).
Wilson’s writing on this topic must be understood as responses, not to the controversies these works provoked, but rather the controversies that preceded them.
Thus, just as his defence of reductionism in Consilience was a response to the sociobiology debates, so Wilson’s defence of holism in ‘Sociobiology’ was a response an earlier academic controversy, in which molecular biologists led by James Watson had contended that molecular biology was the only biology, and that traditional fieldwork and experiments were positively passé (see Naturalist).
Wilson responded:
“Raw reduction is only half the scientific process… the remainder consist[ing] of the reconstruction of complexity by an expanding synthesis under the control if laws newly demonstrated by analysis… reveal[ing] the existence of novel emergent phenomena” (On Human Nature: p11).Group Selection?
Among the key breakthroughs that formed the basis for sociobiology was Williams’s critique of group-selection.
A focus the individual, or even the gene, as the sole unit of selection came to be viewed as an integral part of the sociobiological paradigm.
It is thus surprising to discover that Wilson was himself apparently a group-selectionist all along.
This is apparent not only in his recent work but also in ‘Sociobiology’ itself.
Wilson regurgitates the familiar criticisms of group-selection (p106-7), but he continues to offer group-selectionist explanations (e.g. p275) and concludes:
“Group selection and higher levels of organization, however intuitively implausible… are at least theoretically possible under a wide range of conditions” (p30).From Sociobiology to Evolutionary Psychology
Returning to Wilson’s infamous last chapter, it is, I feel, disappionting.
Inevitably, any science book will be dated after forty years. Yet, while true of the whole book, this is especially true of this last chapter, which bears little resemblance to modern evolutionary psychology.
This is perhaps inevitable. While the application of sociobiological theory to other species was already well underway, the application of sociobiological theory to humans was in its infancy.
Yet, while the substance of the chapter is dated, the general approach is spot on.
Indeed, even some of the advances claimed by evolutionary psychologists as their own were anticipated by Wilson. Thus, Wilson recognises:
“One of the key questions [in human sociobiology] is to what extent the biogram represents an adaptation to modern cultural life and to what extent it is a phylogenetic vestige” (p458)He thus anticipates the key evolutionary psychological concept of the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness.
Wilson proposes to study human behavior from the disinterested perspective of an alien zoologist and concludes:
“In this macroscopic view the humanities and social sciences shrink to specialized branches of biology” (p547)The idea that the behavior of a single species is alone exempt from principles of general biology, such that it must be studied in entirely different university faculties by entirely different researchers, the vast majority with little knowledge of biology, reflects an indefensible anthropocentrism.
“Sociology and the other social sciences, as well as the humanities, are the last branches of biology waiting to be included in the Modern Synthesis” (p4).
But Wilson actually urged caution:
“Whether the social sciences can be truly biologicized in this fashion remains to be seen” (p4)The evidence of the ensuing decades suggests that they indeed can be and are being ‘biologicized’. The only stumbling block has proven social scientists themselves.
Ambition
The scale of Wilson’s ambition was enormous. First, he sought to synthesize the field of animal behavior under the rubric of sociobiology and in the process produce the ‘New Synthesis’ promised in the subtitle, by analogy with the ‘Modern Synthesis’ of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics that forms the basis for modern biology.
Then, in a final chapter, he decided to add human behavior to his synthesis.
This meant, not just providing a new foundation for a single subfield within biology (i.e. animal behavior), but for several whole disciplines formerly largely unconnected to biology—e.g. psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics.
Oh yeah… and moral philosophy and perhaps epistemology too. I forgot to mention that.
Philosophy
Wilson’s forays into philosophy proved even more controversial than those into social science. Though limited to a few paragraphs in his first and last chapter, they were among the most critiqued in the whole book.
Not only were opponents of sociobiology—and philosophers—indignant, but even those taking up the sociobiological gauntlet were mostly skeptical.
In proposing to reconstruct moral philosophy on the basis of biology, Wilson was widely accused of committing the naturalistic fallacy.
If a behavior is natural, this does not make it right, any more than the fact that dying of tuberculosis is natural means that it is morally wrong to treat tuberculosis with such ‘unnatural’ interventions as vaccination or antibiotics.
Most evolutionary psychologists are only too happy to reiterate the sacrosanct inviolability of the fact-value chasm, not least because it allows them to investigate the evolutionary function of such behaviors as infidelity, rape, war and infanticide, without thereby justifying these behaviors.
Yet, if we cannot derive values from facts, whence can values be derived? Only from other values? Whence then are our ultimate moral values, from which all others are derived, themselves to be derived? Must they be simply taken on faith?
Wilson has recently argued:
“The posing of the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy” (Consilience: p273).His point in ‘Sociobiology’ is narrower, namely that, in contemplating the appropriateness of different theories of prescriptive ethics (e.g. utilitarianism, Kantian deontology), moral philosophers consult “the emotional control centers in the hypothalamus and limbic system of the brain” (p3).
Yet these same moral philosophers take these emotions for granted. They treat the brain as a “black box” rather than a biological entity the nature of which is the subject of scientific study (p562).
Our moral preferences are a product of our brains, which are themselves a product of evolution, and of socialization and experiences.
The philosophical implications of recognising that moral intuitions are themselves a product of the evolutionary process have since been investigated by both biologists and philosophers, not least Wilson himself in collaboration with philosopher Michael Ruse (Ruse & Wilson 1986).
What applies to ethics also applies to the other major subfield of philosophy, namely epistemology, to which Wilson devotes only a single parenthesis (p3). What humans are capable of knowing is, like morality, a product of the brain, which is itself a product of evolution (see Taking Darwin Seriously).
Dated?
Is ‘Sociobiology’ worth reading today? At 700 pages, it represents no idle investment of time.
Wilson has the unusual honour for a working scientist of being a twice Pulitzer-Prize winner, but‘Sociobiology’ is not a book one would read for its literary merits alone.
As a textbook, it is dated.
Indeed, one of the hallmarks of a true science is the speed at which cutting-edge work becomes obsolete.
Religious believers still cite holy books written millennia ago and adherents of pseudo-sciences like psychoanalysis and Marxism still paw over the words of Freud and Marx—but the scientific method is a cumulative process and no respecter of persons. Scientific works go obsolete almost as fast as they are published.
The speed with which Wilson’s work became obsolete is thus a marker of the success of the research project it inspired.
If you want a textbook summary of the latest research in sociobiology, I would recommend the latest edition of Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach or An Introduction to Behavioral Ecology; or, if your primary interest is human behavior, the latest edition of Evolutionary Psychology.
The continued value of ‘Sociobiology’ lies in the field, not of science, but ‘History of Science’.
Full (i.e. vastly overlong) review available here.
References
Ruse & Wilson (1986) Moral Philosophy as Applied Science. Philosophy 61(236):173-192
Trivers (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology 46:35–57
January 13, 2008
I'm a sociologist and Wilson is kind of the boogey man to us. I was pleasantly surprised though when finally reading this. Not because I think he explains much human social stuff, but because he's much more modest than reductionists like Dawkins, and he at least nominally recognizes the issue of multiple levels of reality and analysis that probably can't be simply collapsed into each other. So; not a major threat to socials science, but ants are definitely cool.
June 11, 2009
Wow. WAAAAAAAAAAAAY over my head on this one, but when I could parse out meaning, it was pretty cool stuff. I mean, cool in the sense that it validated all of my thinking with regards to why animals, people in particular, act like they do.
I imagine that this book is to modern animal behavior science what the Pythagorean theorem is to geometry: a very simple representation of some very basic principles that, when expounded upon, lead to some real revelatory shit.
That being said, I picked at this - it's a textbook after all - so I can't claim to have read it cover to cover. Nor can I vouch for the legitimacy of all the of the science, which a lot of Creationists evidently have a big problem...although I'm the type to think that if you drive your car to a church heated through a modern heating system, you've already basically given the edge to science in that little debate...
Anyway - I'd recommend this for people who are much smarter than me, who have long attention spans. Surprisingly, I'd also recommend this to Creationists, if only because I wouldn't mind hearing about their heads exploding while trying to rationalize actual science with their beliefs.
I imagine that this book is to modern animal behavior science what the Pythagorean theorem is to geometry: a very simple representation of some very basic principles that, when expounded upon, lead to some real revelatory shit.
That being said, I picked at this - it's a textbook after all - so I can't claim to have read it cover to cover. Nor can I vouch for the legitimacy of all the of the science, which a lot of Creationists evidently have a big problem...although I'm the type to think that if you drive your car to a church heated through a modern heating system, you've already basically given the edge to science in that little debate...
Anyway - I'd recommend this for people who are much smarter than me, who have long attention spans. Surprisingly, I'd also recommend this to Creationists, if only because I wouldn't mind hearing about their heads exploding while trying to rationalize actual science with their beliefs.
July 3, 2017
Incredible text; a book to double check through one's library before purchasing a copy. There is nothing I can add here or elsewhere, and so this is more of a digital note to self than a review. You'll never have to do anything save suppress a philosophical roll of the eyes the next time one hears, "It doesn't make sense why so many ______ people do ________!" Well, it actually makes perfect sense if one is willing to skip the futile political protest and give E.O. Wilson some serious time.
Then again if the majority of human beings took to critical reading, research, and unbiased contemplation of presented facts, they would have much less to complain about. And now that none of the hundreds of thousands who promised to leave the country last November have - Suprise! - decided to stay, it has become glaringly obvious that a good deal of human beings live to complain. And I mean literally live lives that revolve around the act of complaining. Without the ability to complain, be it brought on by enlightenment or some sort of of technological fascist ploy, the suicide rate would indeed skyrocket. And since trust fund money goes into the child's bank account much quicker with the States, we can become witnesses to ceaseless chimpanzee howling for several years, the soundtrack of suicidal delusions gone optimistically haywire, or one can remove one's self from all scenarios whereby one is witness to mass mental retardation, preferably with a big sociobiological masterpiece in one hand, machiato in the other. Yrstruly suggests the latter.
Then again if the majority of human beings took to critical reading, research, and unbiased contemplation of presented facts, they would have much less to complain about. And now that none of the hundreds of thousands who promised to leave the country last November have - Suprise! - decided to stay, it has become glaringly obvious that a good deal of human beings live to complain. And I mean literally live lives that revolve around the act of complaining. Without the ability to complain, be it brought on by enlightenment or some sort of of technological fascist ploy, the suicide rate would indeed skyrocket. And since trust fund money goes into the child's bank account much quicker with the States, we can become witnesses to ceaseless chimpanzee howling for several years, the soundtrack of suicidal delusions gone optimistically haywire, or one can remove one's self from all scenarios whereby one is witness to mass mental retardation, preferably with a big sociobiological masterpiece in one hand, machiato in the other. Yrstruly suggests the latter.
February 3, 2022
This isn’t hardline biological determinism, as was thought at the time, and most of it is rigorous recapitulation of evolved animal behaviour. But the speculative claims about humanity bookending it are not very convincing, and basically amount to unacknowledged ideology. Still, the basic project of sociobiology doesn’t strike me as intrinsically problematic, and I think we should read and learn from Wilson.
May 23, 2025
(ελληνική κριτική μετά τους αστερίσκους)
Blood, tears, sweat, mucus — and I’m understating it — were spilled in the reading of this tome, which, while theoretically one of the most important works of the 20th century in biology, psychology, and sociology, remains among the most controversial. First published in 1975, it has since sparked fervent debate, both in terms of its scientific merit and its wider social and philosophical implications.
The sociobiology proposed by Wilson is the study of the biological foundations of social behaviour. In his book, he seeks to explain behaviours such as aggression, altruism, familial organisation, and social hierarchy through the lens of evolution by natural selection. He begins with the simplest social animals — insects such as ants and bees — and gradually moves towards higher mammals, culminating with Homo sapiens. It is in this final chapter, unsurprisingly the most divisive, that Wilson extends his framework to human behaviour, suggesting that ethics, religion, and social organisation may also have evolutionary roots.
Wilson deserves credit, without doubt, for offering a unified theoretical framework that connects biology with the social sciences — a groundbreaking endeavour, particularly for the time in which the book was written. His approach is markedly interdisciplinary, drawing from biology, psychology, anthropology, and moral philosophy. Theoretically, the work exhibits considerable scientific clarity, and despite its depth, the prose remains accessible to the cultivated reader — although the headache it caused me raises doubts as to whether I possess the critical mass of cultivation in question.
In terms of scholarly grounding, it is difficult to find fault: Wilson draws on an extensive body of empirical literature and research-based examples, making disagreement a formidable task.
Of course, not everything is rosy. Wilson has faced allegations of biological determinism and of oversimplifying human behaviour by attributing it almost exclusively to biology. Ethical and social concerns have also been raised — particularly the danger of legitimising social inequalities should they be perceived as “natural” or evolutionarily inevitable. His approach is often deemed excessively reductionist, undermining the significance of culture and free will.
Yet, despite — or perhaps because of — these critiques, sociobiology laid the groundwork for what would later become evolutionary psychology, and opened the door for a fruitful dialogue between the biological and social sciences. Regardless of the criticisms, Wilson’s book remains a landmark in scientific thought and a catalyst for revisiting many long-held assumptions. It is undoubtedly a work that leaves no one indifferent — or, let’s be honest, headache-free. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Wilson’s propositions, his contribution to shaping the discourse on human nature is indisputable.
A book well worth reading — not necessarily to embrace, but to provoke thought, challenge assumptions, deepen understanding,and induce headache.
* * * * *
Αίμα, δάκρυα, ιδρώτας, βλέννες και λίγα λέω για να διαβαστεί αυτό νταμάρι, που ναι μεν αποτελεί θεωρητικά ένα από τα πιο σημαντικά έργα του 20ού αιώνα στον χώρο της βιολογίας, της ψυχολογίας και της κοινωνιολογίας, αλλά δεν παύει να είναι και από τα πιο αμφιλεγόμενα. Εκδόθηκε για πρώτη φορά το 1975 και έκτοτε έχει πυροδοτήσει έντονες συζητήσεις, τόσο για την επιστημονική του αξία όσο και για τις κοινωνικές και φιλοσοφικές του προεκτάσεις.
Η κοινωνιοβιολογία που εισηγείται ο Wilson είναι η μελέτη της βιολογικής βάσης της κοινωνικής συμπεριφοράς. Στο βιβλίο του επιχειρεί να εξηγήσει συμπεριφορές όπως η επιθετικότητα, ο αλτρουισμός, η οικογενειακή οργάνωση και η κοινωνική ιεραρχία, χρησιμοποιώντας την εξέλιξη μέσω φυσικής επιλογής ως το ερμηνευτικό εργαλείο.
Ξεκινά από τα απλούστερα κοινωνικά ζώα –έντομα όπως τα μυρμήγκια και οι μέλισσες– και προχωρά σταδιακά προς τα ανώτερα θηλαστικά, καταλήγοντας στον άνθρωπο. Στο τελευταίο κεφάλαιο, που προκάλεσε και τη μεγαλύτερη διαμάχη, ο Wilson επεκτείνει την προσέγγιση και στην ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά, υποστηρίζοντας πως η ηθική, η θρησκεία και η κοινωνική οργάνωση ενδέχεται να έχουν εξελικτικές ρίζες.
Αναμφίβολα, πρέπει να πιστωθεί στον Wilson ότι προσφέρει ένα ενιαίο θεωρητικό πλαίσιο που συνδέει τη βιολογία με τις κοινωνικές επιστήμες, κάτι πρωτο��οριακό, ιδίως για την εποχή που γράφτηκε το βιβλίο, ενώ η προσέγγισή του είναι διεπιστημονική, συνδυάζοντας βιολογία, ψυχολογία, ανθρωπολογία και ηθική φιλοσοφία. Θεωρητικά, διακρίνεται από επιστημονική σαφήνεια, με το σκεπτικό ότι παρά το βάθος του έργου, το ύφος του είναι προσβάσιμο για τον καλλιεργημένο αναγνώστη, αν και ο διαρκής πονοκέφαλος μέχρι να το ολοκληρώσω έχει τις ενστάσεις του (μάλλον στερούμαι της κρίσιμης μάζας καλλιέργειας). Όσο για την τεκμηρίωση, δύσκολα θα βρει κανείς χώρο για διαφωνίες, δεδομένου ότι βασίζεται σε εκτεταμένη ερευνητική βιβλιογραφία και εμπειρικά παραδείγματα.
Προφανώς και δεν είναι ΟΛΑ ρόδινα. Ο Wilson έχει κατηγορηθεί για βιολογικό ντετερμινισμό και υπεραπλούστευση της ανθρώπινη συμπεριφοράς, η οποία αποδίδεται σχεδόν αποκλειστικά στη βιολογία. Δεν λείπουν επίσης ανησυχίες ηθικής και κοινωνικής χροιάς, με το φόβο της δικαιολόγησης κοινωνικών ανισοτήτων εφόσον αυτές θεωρηθούν «φυσικές» ή εξελικτικά αναπόφευκτες. Τέλος, η προσέγγιση κρίνεται μάλλον υπερβολικά αναγωγιστική, υποβαθμίζοντας τον ρόλο του πολιτισμού και της ελεύθερης βούλησης.
Παρά τις όποιες αντιδράσεις, δικαιολογημένες ή μη, η κοινωνιοβιολογία αποτέλεσε πρόδρομο της σημερινής εξελικτικής ψυχολογίας και άνοιξε τον δρόμο για γόνιμο διάλογο ανάμεσα στις βιολογικές και τις κοινωνικές επιστήμες. Παρά τις επικρίσεις, το βιβλίο του Wilson παραμένει ορόσημο στην επιστημονική σκέψη και κίνητρο για αναθεώρηση πολλών παραδοχών. Σίγουρα είναι ένα έργο που δεν αφήνει κανένανχωρίς πονοκέφαλο αδιάφορο. Είτε συμφωνεί κανείς είτε διαφωνεί με τις απόψεις του Wilson, η συνεισφορά του στη διαμόρφωση του επιστημονικού διαλόγου γύρω από τη φύση του ανθρώπου είναι αδιαμφισβήτητη.
Ένα βιβλίο που αξίζει να διαβαστεί – όχι απαραίτητα για να γίνει αποδεκτό, αλλά για να προκαλέσει σκέψη, αμφισβήτηση, εμβάθυνσηκαι πονοκέφαλο.
Blood, tears, sweat, mucus — and I’m understating it — were spilled in the reading of this tome, which, while theoretically one of the most important works of the 20th century in biology, psychology, and sociology, remains among the most controversial. First published in 1975, it has since sparked fervent debate, both in terms of its scientific merit and its wider social and philosophical implications.
The sociobiology proposed by Wilson is the study of the biological foundations of social behaviour. In his book, he seeks to explain behaviours such as aggression, altruism, familial organisation, and social hierarchy through the lens of evolution by natural selection. He begins with the simplest social animals — insects such as ants and bees — and gradually moves towards higher mammals, culminating with Homo sapiens. It is in this final chapter, unsurprisingly the most divisive, that Wilson extends his framework to human behaviour, suggesting that ethics, religion, and social organisation may also have evolutionary roots.
Wilson deserves credit, without doubt, for offering a unified theoretical framework that connects biology with the social sciences — a groundbreaking endeavour, particularly for the time in which the book was written. His approach is markedly interdisciplinary, drawing from biology, psychology, anthropology, and moral philosophy. Theoretically, the work exhibits considerable scientific clarity, and despite its depth, the prose remains accessible to the cultivated reader — although the headache it caused me raises doubts as to whether I possess the critical mass of cultivation in question.
In terms of scholarly grounding, it is difficult to find fault: Wilson draws on an extensive body of empirical literature and research-based examples, making disagreement a formidable task.
Of course, not everything is rosy. Wilson has faced allegations of biological determinism and of oversimplifying human behaviour by attributing it almost exclusively to biology. Ethical and social concerns have also been raised — particularly the danger of legitimising social inequalities should they be perceived as “natural” or evolutionarily inevitable. His approach is often deemed excessively reductionist, undermining the significance of culture and free will.
Yet, despite — or perhaps because of — these critiques, sociobiology laid the groundwork for what would later become evolutionary psychology, and opened the door for a fruitful dialogue between the biological and social sciences. Regardless of the criticisms, Wilson’s book remains a landmark in scientific thought and a catalyst for revisiting many long-held assumptions. It is undoubtedly a work that leaves no one indifferent — or, let’s be honest, headache-free. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Wilson’s propositions, his contribution to shaping the discourse on human nature is indisputable.
A book well worth reading — not necessarily to embrace, but to provoke thought, challenge assumptions, deepen understanding,
* * * * *
Αίμα, δάκρυα, ιδρώτας, βλέννες και λίγα λέω για να διαβαστεί αυτό νταμάρι, που ναι μεν αποτελεί θεωρητικά ένα από τα πιο σημαντικά έργα του 20ού αιώνα στον χώρο της βιολογίας, της ψυχολογίας και της κοινωνιολογίας, αλλά δεν παύει να είναι και από τα πιο αμφιλεγόμενα. Εκδόθηκε για πρώτη φορά το 1975 και έκτοτε έχει πυροδοτήσει έντονες συζητήσεις, τόσο για την επιστημονική του αξία όσο και για τις κοινωνικές και φιλοσοφικές του προεκτάσεις.
Η κοινωνιοβιολογία που εισηγείται ο Wilson είναι η μελέτη της βιολογικής βάσης της κοινωνικής συμπεριφοράς. Στο βιβλίο του επιχειρεί να εξηγήσει συμπεριφορές όπως η επιθετικότητα, ο αλτρουισμός, η οικογενειακή οργάνωση και η κοινωνική ιεραρχία, χρησιμοποιώντας την εξέλιξη μέσω φυσικής επιλογής ως το ερμηνευτικό εργαλείο.
Ξεκινά από τα απλούστερα κοινωνικά ζώα –έντομα όπως τα μυρμήγκια και οι μέλισσες– και προχωρά σταδιακά προς τα ανώτερα θηλαστικά, καταλήγοντας στον άνθρωπο. Στο τελευταίο κεφάλαιο, που προκάλεσε και τη μεγαλύτερη διαμάχη, ο Wilson επεκτείνει την προσέγγιση και στην ανθρώπινη συμπεριφορά, υποστηρίζοντας πως η ηθική, η θρησκεία και η κοινωνική οργάνωση ενδέχεται να έχουν εξελικτικές ρίζες.
Αναμφίβολα, πρέπει να πιστωθεί στον Wilson ότι προσφέρει ένα ενιαίο θεωρητικό πλαίσιο που συνδέει τη βιολογία με τις κοινωνικές επιστήμες, κάτι πρωτο��οριακό, ιδίως για την εποχή που γράφτηκε το βιβλίο, ενώ η προσέγγισή του είναι διεπιστημονική, συνδυάζοντας βιολογία, ψυχολογία, ανθρωπολογία και ηθική φιλοσοφία. Θεωρητικά, διακρίνεται από επιστημονική σαφήνεια, με το σκεπτικό ότι παρά το βάθος του έργου, το ύφος του είναι προσβάσιμο για τον καλλιεργημένο αναγνώστη, αν και ο διαρκής πονοκέφαλος μέχρι να το ολοκληρώσω έχει τις ενστάσεις του (μάλλον στερούμαι της κρίσιμης μάζας καλλιέργειας). Όσο για την τεκμηρίωση, δύσκολα θα βρει κανείς χώρο για διαφωνίες, δεδομένου ότι βασίζεται σε εκτεταμένη ερευνητική βιβλιογραφία και εμπειρικά παραδείγματα.
Προφανώς και δεν είναι ΟΛΑ ρόδινα. Ο Wilson έχει κατηγορηθεί για βιολογικό ντετερμινισμό και υπεραπλούστευση της ανθρώπινη συμπεριφοράς, η οποία αποδίδεται σχεδόν αποκλειστικά στη βιολογία. Δεν λείπουν επίσης ανησυχίες ηθικής και κοινωνικής χροιάς, με το φόβο της δικαιολόγησης κοινωνικών ανισοτήτων εφόσον αυτές θεωρηθούν «φυσικές» ή εξελικτικά αναπόφευκτες. Τέλος, η προσέγγιση κρίνεται μάλλον υπερβολικά αναγωγιστική, υποβαθμίζοντας τον ρόλο του πολιτισμού και της ελεύθερης βούλησης.
Παρά τις όποιες αντιδράσεις, δικαιολογημένες ή μη, η κοινωνιοβιολογία αποτέλεσε πρόδρομο της σημερινής εξελικτικής ψυχολογίας και άνοιξε τον δρόμο για γόνιμο διάλογο ανάμεσα στις βιολογικές και τις κοινωνικές επιστήμες. Παρά τις επικρίσεις, το βιβλίο του Wilson παραμένει ορόσημο στην επιστημονική σκέψη και κίνητρο για αναθεώρηση πολλών παραδοχών. Σίγουρα είναι ένα έργο που δεν αφήνει κανέναν
Ένα βιβλίο που αξίζει να διαβαστεί – όχι απαραίτητα για να γίνει αποδεκτό, αλλά για να προκαλέσει σκέψη, αμφισβήτηση, εμβάθυνση
April 12, 2023
In Chapter 1 of “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” Edward O. Wilson writes, “Sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior.”
Sociobiology can also be seen as the assertion that human behavior is influenced by instincts we share with other animal species, instincts that place restrictions on social reform.
The publication of Professor Wilson’s book in 1975 did not confront the left with the existential challenge the publication of “The Bell Curve” did nineteen years later.
It still aroused anger, and caused Professor Wilson to suffer some harassment at his teaching position at Harvard.
Sociobiology takes note of the fact that human societies everywhere in the world, and always throughout history have been similar in ways that cannot be explained by cultural transmission. Everywhere we find status hierarchies, religions, different roles for men and women, male dominance, long periods of child dependency, incest taboos, marriage, ethnocentricism, and war.
When “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” was published many on the left accused Professor Wilson of defending institutions they wanted to change or eliminate. Deriding Wilson as a reactionary was unfair. In his writings he advocates protection of the environment and acceptance of homosexuals.
Nevertheless, sociobiology has implications that are more congenial to the philosophy of Edmund Burke than that of Karl Marx. Burke argued, and Wilson would agree, that before trying to eliminate an institution we should try to understand why it came into existence.
Since 1975, the political successes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of Islamic fanaticism, the failure of the war on poverty, disappointments connected with the civil rights movement, and the failure of No Child Left Behind ought to have inspired humility on those to the left of liberalism. Good intentions are not good enough. Charles Murray wrote in “The Inequality Taboo” “specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.”
In a retrospective on the failure of the new left held in the early 1980’s. Jerry Rubin said, “We are refugees from a future that never happened.”
According to sociobiology status hierarchies exist because innate human inequality exists. Some people are congenitally more able to contribute to the success of a social group than others. Different sex roles exist because there are intrinsic differences between the nature of men and women. Male dominance exists because men tend to be more aggressive and competitive than women. Men tend to make more money than women, because women prefer successful men, but men do not prefer successful women. Ethnocentricism exists because there is never enough of what humans value to go around. More for Them usually means less for Us. War exists because life is a struggle for scarce resources. War is one of the ways the struggle is carried out.
This does not mean that reform is pointless. It does mean that it should restrained by prudence. There is often wisdom in tradition. Wisdom includes pessimism about human nature and human potential.
In “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” Professor Wilson frequently illustrates his points with calculus equations. His bibliography includes books in French and German. He knows his book is going to start a fight. He does not believe in coming to a gun fight with a knife.
The vast majority of this book describes animal societies. This is justified, because we can see how features we may consider unique to humans were anticipated millions of years earlier, sometimes tens of millions of years earlier. There are ants, for example, that tend livestock. There are ants that grow crops. There are ants that capture slaves from other ant colonies. Ants of all ant species wage wars with ants of other colonies. Baboons were living in African grasslands before our ancestors began doing so. Wolfs practiced social hunting before our ancestors learned how to.
When nectar is plentiful bees allow bees from other nests to enter their own. When nectar is scarce bees exclude intruders. We can see this in the way economic conditions influence attitudes about immigrants.
“Sociobiology the New Synthesis” is a large, heavy book that does not make for light reading. It might be a good idea to read “Sociobiology and Behavior,” by Professor David P. Barash of the Department of Psychology and Zoology of the University of Washington first.
Professor Wilson could have gone into more detail about how human societies are similar, and how these similarities are related to instincts that had survival in the past, even though some might be dysfunctional now. He does this in his book, “On Human Nature.”
The sociobiology of human sexual behavior is aptly covered in “The Evolution of Human Sexuality,” by Professor Donald Symons of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
I anticipated the findings of “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” before reading it. In the early 1970’s I was appalled by the continuation of the War in Vietnam, which seemed obviously to be tragically futile. I was afraid by the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union were spending vast sums of money preparing to fight a nuclear war that would destroy both sides. I disliked the fact that white blue collar workers were voting Republican in larger numbers, despite the fact that the GOP had always advanced the economic interests of management, not labor.
I concluded that human behavior was influence by instincts that had survival value during human evolution, even though many of these instincts threatened us now with extinction. I began reading books about physical and cultural anthropology. When “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” was published most of it seemed self evident to me.
Sociobiology can also be seen as the assertion that human behavior is influenced by instincts we share with other animal species, instincts that place restrictions on social reform.
The publication of Professor Wilson’s book in 1975 did not confront the left with the existential challenge the publication of “The Bell Curve” did nineteen years later.
It still aroused anger, and caused Professor Wilson to suffer some harassment at his teaching position at Harvard.
Sociobiology takes note of the fact that human societies everywhere in the world, and always throughout history have been similar in ways that cannot be explained by cultural transmission. Everywhere we find status hierarchies, religions, different roles for men and women, male dominance, long periods of child dependency, incest taboos, marriage, ethnocentricism, and war.
When “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” was published many on the left accused Professor Wilson of defending institutions they wanted to change or eliminate. Deriding Wilson as a reactionary was unfair. In his writings he advocates protection of the environment and acceptance of homosexuals.
Nevertheless, sociobiology has implications that are more congenial to the philosophy of Edmund Burke than that of Karl Marx. Burke argued, and Wilson would agree, that before trying to eliminate an institution we should try to understand why it came into existence.
Since 1975, the political successes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of Islamic fanaticism, the failure of the war on poverty, disappointments connected with the civil rights movement, and the failure of No Child Left Behind ought to have inspired humility on those to the left of liberalism. Good intentions are not good enough. Charles Murray wrote in “The Inequality Taboo” “specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often they do harm.”
In a retrospective on the failure of the new left held in the early 1980’s. Jerry Rubin said, “We are refugees from a future that never happened.”
According to sociobiology status hierarchies exist because innate human inequality exists. Some people are congenitally more able to contribute to the success of a social group than others. Different sex roles exist because there are intrinsic differences between the nature of men and women. Male dominance exists because men tend to be more aggressive and competitive than women. Men tend to make more money than women, because women prefer successful men, but men do not prefer successful women. Ethnocentricism exists because there is never enough of what humans value to go around. More for Them usually means less for Us. War exists because life is a struggle for scarce resources. War is one of the ways the struggle is carried out.
This does not mean that reform is pointless. It does mean that it should restrained by prudence. There is often wisdom in tradition. Wisdom includes pessimism about human nature and human potential.
In “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” Professor Wilson frequently illustrates his points with calculus equations. His bibliography includes books in French and German. He knows his book is going to start a fight. He does not believe in coming to a gun fight with a knife.
The vast majority of this book describes animal societies. This is justified, because we can see how features we may consider unique to humans were anticipated millions of years earlier, sometimes tens of millions of years earlier. There are ants, for example, that tend livestock. There are ants that grow crops. There are ants that capture slaves from other ant colonies. Ants of all ant species wage wars with ants of other colonies. Baboons were living in African grasslands before our ancestors began doing so. Wolfs practiced social hunting before our ancestors learned how to.
When nectar is plentiful bees allow bees from other nests to enter their own. When nectar is scarce bees exclude intruders. We can see this in the way economic conditions influence attitudes about immigrants.
“Sociobiology the New Synthesis” is a large, heavy book that does not make for light reading. It might be a good idea to read “Sociobiology and Behavior,” by Professor David P. Barash of the Department of Psychology and Zoology of the University of Washington first.
Professor Wilson could have gone into more detail about how human societies are similar, and how these similarities are related to instincts that had survival in the past, even though some might be dysfunctional now. He does this in his book, “On Human Nature.”
The sociobiology of human sexual behavior is aptly covered in “The Evolution of Human Sexuality,” by Professor Donald Symons of the University of California, Santa Barbara.
I anticipated the findings of “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” before reading it. In the early 1970’s I was appalled by the continuation of the War in Vietnam, which seemed obviously to be tragically futile. I was afraid by the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union were spending vast sums of money preparing to fight a nuclear war that would destroy both sides. I disliked the fact that white blue collar workers were voting Republican in larger numbers, despite the fact that the GOP had always advanced the economic interests of management, not labor.
I concluded that human behavior was influence by instincts that had survival value during human evolution, even though many of these instincts threatened us now with extinction. I began reading books about physical and cultural anthropology. When “Sociobiology the New Synthesis” was published most of it seemed self evident to me.
April 30, 2010
As a nature writer, I deeply enjoy E.O. Wilson's work. In Sociobiology (and the new edition with lots of lovely photos, etc.), I am less thrilled.
Sociobiology tends to assume (and not necessarily demonstrate) that all behaviors are genetically determined. This may be a tempting assumption to make when speaking about, say, insects, but the assumption is held throughout the animal kingdom. It is quite easy to fall into the adaptationism viewpoint; easy, but not necessarily scientifically accurate or honest.
I'd give this 2 to 3 stars - two for the flaws in the approach, but 3 for the attempt in this new volume to bring more about evolution, animal behavior, and diversity to the mass market in a lovely, glossy book.
Sociobiology tends to assume (and not necessarily demonstrate) that all behaviors are genetically determined. This may be a tempting assumption to make when speaking about, say, insects, but the assumption is held throughout the animal kingdom. It is quite easy to fall into the adaptationism viewpoint; easy, but not necessarily scientifically accurate or honest.
I'd give this 2 to 3 stars - two for the flaws in the approach, but 3 for the attempt in this new volume to bring more about evolution, animal behavior, and diversity to the mass market in a lovely, glossy book.
May 17, 2012
It is a long time since this has come out and the subject has moved an enormous distance since then, as well as, being renamed 'evolutionary psychology' along the way. This is, though, a brilliant and entertaining book and is, one can say aptly, seminal.
August 23, 2024
WILSON'S OWN ABRIDGEMENT OF THIS BOOK
Edward Osborne Wilson (born 1929) is an American biologist, researcher, theorist, naturalist and author [he is a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction]. He wrote in the Preface to this [1980] Abridged Edition, "Modern sociobiology is being created by gifted investigators who work primarily in population biology, [and] zoology... Because my training and research experience were fortuitously in the first two subjects... I decided to learn enough about vertebrates to attempt a new general summary. The result was 'Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,' published in 1975.
"The book met with substantial critical success... However, its large size... and necessarily high cost prevented it from reaching much of the large audience of lay readers and students who have become interested in sociobiology ... In the present version... I have trimmed the text down... This shortened version is intended to serve both as a textbook and a semi-popular general account of sociobiology. Because of the unusual amount of interest and commentary it has generated, I have left the final chapter on human social behavior... virtually intact." (Pg. v)
He says, "Sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior." (Pg. 10) He states, "These prime movers of social evolution can be divided into two broad categories of very diverse phenomena: phylogenetic inertia and ecological pressure." (Pg. 20)
He states in the first chapter, "This brings us to the central theoretical problem of sociobiology: how can altruism, which by definition reduces personal fitness, possibly evolve by natural selection? The answer is kinship: if the genes causing the altruism are shared by two organisms because of common descent, and if the altruistic act by one organism increases the joint contribution of these genes to the next generation, the propensity to altruism will spread through the gene pool. This occurs even though the altruist makes less of a solitary contribution to the gene pool as the price of its own solitary act." (Pg. 3)
He suggests, "social evolution is constrained and shaped by the necessities of sexual reproduction and not promoted by it. Courtship and sexual bonding are devices for overriding the antagonism that arises automatically from genetic differences induced by sexual reproduction." (Pg. 156) He argues, "There also exist several general conditions that promote polygamy still further. They include (1) local or seasonal superabundances of food, which permits the female to raise the young on her own and the male to go off in search of additional females; (2) the risk of heavy predation, which makes it advantageous for the family to divide; (3) and the existence of precocial young, which requires less parental care." (Pg. 165)
He suggests, "If there is any truth to this theory of innate moral pluralism, the requirement for an evolutionary approach to ethics is self-evident. It should also be clear that no single set of moral standards can be applied to all human populations, let alone all sex-age classes within each population. To impose a uniform code is therefore to create complex, intractable moral dilemmas---these, of course, are the current condition of mankind." (Pg. 288)
This is an excellent abridgement of Wilson's larger book, and will be very helpful to those wanting to get an idea of the field, without spending so much time reading the fuller book.
Edward Osborne Wilson (born 1929) is an American biologist, researcher, theorist, naturalist and author [he is a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction]. He wrote in the Preface to this [1980] Abridged Edition, "Modern sociobiology is being created by gifted investigators who work primarily in population biology, [and] zoology... Because my training and research experience were fortuitously in the first two subjects... I decided to learn enough about vertebrates to attempt a new general summary. The result was 'Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,' published in 1975.
"The book met with substantial critical success... However, its large size... and necessarily high cost prevented it from reaching much of the large audience of lay readers and students who have become interested in sociobiology ... In the present version... I have trimmed the text down... This shortened version is intended to serve both as a textbook and a semi-popular general account of sociobiology. Because of the unusual amount of interest and commentary it has generated, I have left the final chapter on human social behavior... virtually intact." (Pg. v)
He says, "Sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior." (Pg. 10) He states, "These prime movers of social evolution can be divided into two broad categories of very diverse phenomena: phylogenetic inertia and ecological pressure." (Pg. 20)
He states in the first chapter, "This brings us to the central theoretical problem of sociobiology: how can altruism, which by definition reduces personal fitness, possibly evolve by natural selection? The answer is kinship: if the genes causing the altruism are shared by two organisms because of common descent, and if the altruistic act by one organism increases the joint contribution of these genes to the next generation, the propensity to altruism will spread through the gene pool. This occurs even though the altruist makes less of a solitary contribution to the gene pool as the price of its own solitary act." (Pg. 3)
He suggests, "social evolution is constrained and shaped by the necessities of sexual reproduction and not promoted by it. Courtship and sexual bonding are devices for overriding the antagonism that arises automatically from genetic differences induced by sexual reproduction." (Pg. 156) He argues, "There also exist several general conditions that promote polygamy still further. They include (1) local or seasonal superabundances of food, which permits the female to raise the young on her own and the male to go off in search of additional females; (2) the risk of heavy predation, which makes it advantageous for the family to divide; (3) and the existence of precocial young, which requires less parental care." (Pg. 165)
He suggests, "If there is any truth to this theory of innate moral pluralism, the requirement for an evolutionary approach to ethics is self-evident. It should also be clear that no single set of moral standards can be applied to all human populations, let alone all sex-age classes within each population. To impose a uniform code is therefore to create complex, intractable moral dilemmas---these, of course, are the current condition of mankind." (Pg. 288)
This is an excellent abridgement of Wilson's larger book, and will be very helpful to those wanting to get an idea of the field, without spending so much time reading the fuller book.
December 16, 2021
Edward O. Wilson is an American biologist among many other things and was nicknamed 'darwin's natural heir' and the "father of biological diversity."https://www.britannica.com/biography/..." He gained those names because of his huge attributes to sociobiology, which is the integrative study of social behaviors, based on the idea that all behavior is adaptive. And "Sociobiology attempts to understand and explain animal (and human) social behavior in the light of natural selection and other biological processes." https://www.britannica.com/science/so...) In simpler terms "all behavior is a solution to an environmental challenge." (Dr. Suarez Lecture video)
Basically putting science behind the behavior. He kicks up a lot of controversies thanks to his last few thoughts in the book, pertaining to human behavior. In the chapter "Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology" E.O Wilson admits to how complex and intricate the Homo sapiens species is, anatomically speaking and behaviorally. He says "We have leaped forward in mental evolution in a way that continues to defy self - analysis." (Pg.548) At this point, he has not yet lost his reader, by admitting to humanity's great achievements and complimenting its ego he has hooked his reader further in. And when he admits "Human societies are organized by high intelligence..." (Pg. 549" Even I'm blushing.
The controversy began more so when he said that social behaviors were genetically inherited and programmed into a species for survival purposes (the nickname Darwin's heir is starting to make sense) and that "with altruism— self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of others—bred into their bones." (EO Wilson's Theory of Altruism Shakes Up Understanding of Evolution | Discover Magazine)
By doing this he introduces altruism and claims human behavior is genetic, a science, and not so much a product of the environment. These claims frustrated a lot of people and ignited a defensive backlash. Most people have control issues and need to feel as if they have some control of who they are and why they are the way they are.
Throughout these chapters, he also popularized altruism and self-destructive behavior and how one could benefit from such a sacrifice. Even though he later debunked these theories it is important to note their significance in the world of science.
Going back to his logic on human behavior being controlled by genes, this comment(s) upset and stepped on the toes of many psychologists, cultural anthropologists, and disagreeing sociologists. While it is easy to see E.O Wilson's thought process here, he is simply continuing the logic from his early chapters and applying it to humans. It is just too complex. He said it himself, "Human societies are organized by high intelligence..." (Pg. 549" Maybe we should credit the human intelligence and not the inherited genetic behaviors.
I gave this book a four out of five stars. I did enjoy it and learned a lot but I will be grouping myself in with the defensive, need for control, people. As someone who does spend more time studying psychology, philosophy, and sociology I think behavior is a societal and environmental thing, hardly a genetic thing.
But kudos to Edward O. Wilson for probing many brains, popularizing theories, and debunking them years later.
4/5 stars.
Basically putting science behind the behavior. He kicks up a lot of controversies thanks to his last few thoughts in the book, pertaining to human behavior. In the chapter "Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology" E.O Wilson admits to how complex and intricate the Homo sapiens species is, anatomically speaking and behaviorally. He says "We have leaped forward in mental evolution in a way that continues to defy self - analysis." (Pg.548) At this point, he has not yet lost his reader, by admitting to humanity's great achievements and complimenting its ego he has hooked his reader further in. And when he admits "Human societies are organized by high intelligence..." (Pg. 549" Even I'm blushing.
The controversy began more so when he said that social behaviors were genetically inherited and programmed into a species for survival purposes (the nickname Darwin's heir is starting to make sense) and that "with altruism— self-destructive behavior performed for the benefit of others—bred into their bones." (EO Wilson's Theory of Altruism Shakes Up Understanding of Evolution | Discover Magazine)
By doing this he introduces altruism and claims human behavior is genetic, a science, and not so much a product of the environment. These claims frustrated a lot of people and ignited a defensive backlash. Most people have control issues and need to feel as if they have some control of who they are and why they are the way they are.
Throughout these chapters, he also popularized altruism and self-destructive behavior and how one could benefit from such a sacrifice. Even though he later debunked these theories it is important to note their significance in the world of science.
Going back to his logic on human behavior being controlled by genes, this comment(s) upset and stepped on the toes of many psychologists, cultural anthropologists, and disagreeing sociologists. While it is easy to see E.O Wilson's thought process here, he is simply continuing the logic from his early chapters and applying it to humans. It is just too complex. He said it himself, "Human societies are organized by high intelligence..." (Pg. 549" Maybe we should credit the human intelligence and not the inherited genetic behaviors.
I gave this book a four out of five stars. I did enjoy it and learned a lot but I will be grouping myself in with the defensive, need for control, people. As someone who does spend more time studying psychology, philosophy, and sociology I think behavior is a societal and environmental thing, hardly a genetic thing.
But kudos to Edward O. Wilson for probing many brains, popularizing theories, and debunking them years later.
4/5 stars.
August 7, 2021
I skimmed a lot of this because much is out of date. It is very long--large pages with 2 columns, and this is the abridged version! I wish the last chapter had not been cut so much because the arguments are interesting but not lengthy enough to be more than simply hints in particular directions. Also, Wilson's ideas about the future growth of scientific knowledge are optimistic enough to be funny.
There are some interesting concepts but of course the most entertaining parts are the descriptions of unusual animal behavior. Wilson, like the best naturalists since Darwin, is adept at this kind of writing and communicates a lot of his enthusiasm for the subject.
There are some interesting concepts but of course the most entertaining parts are the descriptions of unusual animal behavior. Wilson, like the best naturalists since Darwin, is adept at this kind of writing and communicates a lot of his enthusiasm for the subject.
May 24, 2025
I read the book years ago and found it groundbreaking. It stimulated enormous amounts of debate in both the physical and social sciences, then and onward. While I agree with Wilson's revelatory approach to human actions and emotions as being developed through evolution, and then altered culturally through experiences and nurture (and further evolution), I agree that his thesis has been refined/expanded/altered with further research over the years. This is the hallmark of a revolutionary hypothesis, i.e., it will generate a range of emotions and opinions, and most importantly, precipitate intense research. For a detailed review of the book, I highly recommend Paul's review on this site.
December 4, 2020
Wilson was excoriated by many prominent "leftish intellectuals" when this book came out and for some time thereafter. Since then Sociobiology applied to non-human animals has become dogma and human Sociobiology has re-emerged under the name Evolutionary Psychology. In other words, "The New Synthesis" has won! Despite so many people coming down hard on him, E.O. Wilson is a wonderful, gentle, civilized good human, deep thinker and great scientist. I'm glad for this abridged version of his magnum opus as it's already big enough. Jeeze, these Biologists and their massive compendiums!
May 17, 2024
A fabulous introduction to one of the great minds I have encountered. Wilson’s analysis of behaviors based on his work with ants is truly amazing. I initially read this book as a student at Claremont graduate school and following a return from my sabbatical year lead a discussion group of colleagues and considering this work in 1976 to 1977. Since that time, I have enjoyed several additional Wilson works of which Consilience is my favorite. Obviously he remains a personal hero and an absolute inspiration to continue learning.
November 14, 2017
Amazing that so many nuts object to this book. Basically humans are just another animal, behave like animals and have instincts like animals, below the veneer of civilisation and intelligence. Only egotistical people (such as creationists) would believe otherwise. Get over yourselves!
Wilson has been assaulted and vilified for daring to articulate this simple fact! A science hero!
Wilson has been assaulted and vilified for daring to articulate this simple fact! A science hero!
January 17, 2024
Pros:
- I found concepts useful and cited them in my own work
- Citation heavy
- Famous and socially signficant; started a movement and founded the term sociobiology
In-between:
- extremely long, however, in this case most the length is interested encyclopedic knowledge as opposed to fluff.
Cons:
- completely verbal
- I found concepts useful and cited them in my own work
- Citation heavy
- Famous and socially signficant; started a movement and founded the term sociobiology
In-between:
- extremely long, however, in this case most the length is interested encyclopedic knowledge as opposed to fluff.
Cons:
- completely verbal
July 6, 2018
A classic. Long and requires a significant commitment, this book is a text that serves better as a reference. Reading the chapters on primates for a full appreciation of its significance and controversy
April 7, 2023
Always provocative, E. O. Wilson's work nevertheless demands wrestling with his ideas. He does wade into anthropological waters in ways that clearly annoy professionals, but his interest in seeing if it's possible to generalize evolutionary patterns across life forms is curious.
July 6, 2018
This tome was very informative and very thorough. It was also way too dense for most lay people. If it was intended as a textbook, it serves the purpose well. Not so much as a little light reading.
July 16, 2023
Probably the best science textbook ever written.
February 16, 2017
Makes so much sense....
May 30, 2023
A very comprehensive foray into the lives of animals and their behavior. Why animals behave the way they do? How they behave. Where you can find them and how you can make sense of their behavior. Why is the lion pride structured the way it is, why do matriarchs lead elephant herds, and why do wildebeest run around wildly? Answer these questions and more. A fascinating read. Highly recommended.
Edward O. Wilson is another of my heroes, if you read "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson and enjoyed it I would also recommend a rather pithy read... "Sociobiology" by Edward O. Wilson. He is sadly no longer with us, but this eminent Professor of Biology and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner left behind an incredible resource for anyone interested in zoology. The book takes an in-depth look at a variety of animals and their behaviors. It is a fascinating read and I would highly recommend reading it. It was first published in 1975, but is just as relevant today. He is best-known for his studies on invertebrates, especially ants.
I particularly enjoyed the sections about Ungulates and Elephants, as well as Carnivores. The information and illustrations are spot on. There even is a section on wild dogs.
The book has close to 600 pages of detailed information and is a great read. I would describe it as a picture book for adults with factual information akin to a university textbook.
Edward O. Wilson is another of my heroes, if you read "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson and enjoyed it I would also recommend a rather pithy read... "Sociobiology" by Edward O. Wilson. He is sadly no longer with us, but this eminent Professor of Biology and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner left behind an incredible resource for anyone interested in zoology. The book takes an in-depth look at a variety of animals and their behaviors. It is a fascinating read and I would highly recommend reading it. It was first published in 1975, but is just as relevant today. He is best-known for his studies on invertebrates, especially ants.
I particularly enjoyed the sections about Ungulates and Elephants, as well as Carnivores. The information and illustrations are spot on. There even is a section on wild dogs.
The book has close to 600 pages of detailed information and is a great read. I would describe it as a picture book for adults with factual information akin to a university textbook.
April 17, 2016
Quite amazing how social structures span so many different species, from communication, hierarchies, leaders, learning, groups, love, emotions and altruism. We as a species are advanced but not so unique. Fascinating how certain species naturally adapt in a few generations (or perish) in response to resource constraints and overpopulation. How little we know of life, intertwined nature and our past.
to-keep-reference
May 12, 2016Si no entiendo mal, este libro es la base de la sociobiología, defendida por Pinker y que fue acusada de eugenesica al darle relevancia a la participación biológica en la toma de decisiones, con lo que echa por tierra la teoría de La tabla rasa.
November 14, 2011
Contains full text of the hardcover first published in the 1970's. I read and studied the hardcover during the early 1980's. An impressive work whether or not you have the same or different perspectives, assumptions, analogies as the author.
March 15, 2007
As a Lewontin-esq person myself, I was suprized I still enjoyed this book so much.
Read
June 27, 2007Fascinating and surprisingly easy to read for such a dense and esoteric subject.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews