In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

[11] The Biological Basis for Political Behavior Man is by nature a political animal. —Aristotle (384–322 bce) We began this book with a description of an event that determined how we view and think about famine—the Ethiopian famine of 1973. In embarking on our journey to simultaneously understand the biology and the politics of starvation, we ended that prologue with the observation that the physical sciences tell us what is, whereas the social sciences strive to help us define the way things should be. In this chapter, we ask the following question. If, as Aristotle implies, political behavior is innately human, can we also say that it is biologically determined? That is, is there a stronger link between our biological “selves” and our social “selves” than we might presently believe? Is there a scientific explanation for the discrepancy between how we behave on a large scale and how we should behave? The answer to both questions, of course, is yes—but what is the scientific evidence with which we back up this unequivocal statement? The study of the human mind is an extraordinarily complex subject involving multiple disciplines—neurobiology, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, behavioral science, and psychology, among others. Although these disciplines overlap to some degree, they are considerably different in regard to the paradigms and tools of investigation used to define the workings of the human mind, and yet the findings of the scientific investigations in each of these fields are remarkable in their congruence, all pointing to the answer given above. We do not intend to present an exhaustive account of all the experimental evidence in each subject that has led to our final conclusion. Rather, we shall present representative arguments, borrowing from the literature in the neurosciences, behavioral sciences, and psychology that have informed our conclusions as to why we have been unable to transcend the behaviors that limit our ability to fulfill the basic needs of our fellow human beings. If we are the good, decent, socially responsible people we all consider ourselves to be, or if we are created in the image of God, as some of us believe, we must reconcile our policies and performance on the one hand with our The Biological Basis for Political Behavior [] 227 failure to reach this basic humanitarian goal on the other. In order to begin to understand the answer to this apparent paradox, we will need to understand the following four basic concepts.° The evidence leading to our belief that at some level human behavior is genetically based and has evolved in much the same way as our physical attributes.° The origin of intraspecific aggression; its function as a trait that confers “genetic fitness” and its relationship to the ability to form individual and group bonds.° The curious but incontrovertible evidence that the linkage of the traits of aggression and bond formation leads to acceptable (unavoidable) aggressive behavior toward members of our own species, if they are seen (or can be portrayed) as “other.”° The evidence that cooperative behavior is also an evolutionary robust behavior that has evolved in tandem with aggressive behaviors because it is ultimately a successful behavioral strategy. Genetic Basis of Human Behavior First, we should address the question as to whether or not human behavior (what we call human nature) is in any manner genetically determined and, therefore, fixed in particular ways. In other words, are we hard-wired for certain behaviors: do we see the world in certain ways that are determined by our biology and evolutionary history? On reflection these are very sensitive questions. The potential answers involve not only consideration of scientific study and empirical evidence but millennia of strongly held human beliefs, core values, and moral structure. There are a number of moral arguments as to why this should not be true, or even suggested. If we are purely biological entities, and all of our structure and function, including our thoughts and behavior, are products of a Darwinian evolutionary process, does this mean that we are not divinely created; that we are not part of a greater process; that we are only meant to live and then die; that there is no such thing as free will or self-determinism? The biologist E. O. Wilson makes it clear in his book On Human Nature that he believes all but the last point to be so (although he concedes that God may certainly have created matter—the protons, neutrons, electrons, and other atomic and subatomic particles that make up everything...

Share