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

159 Evolution, Primates, and Subaltern Genocide E. O. SMITH T he incident took place in February 1974 and marked the beginning of the end of the Kahama community. A raiding party of three adult males and one adult female from the Kasakela community hiked for over half an hour into Kahama country, where they happened upon a member of the Kahama community. The three males attacked quickly, catching the unsuspecting Kahama male, biting him and stamping on him. Soon the victim stopped struggling and sat hunched over on the ground. Suddenly he attempted to run away, but he was caught by the leg and pulled to the ground. Now all the members of the Kasakela raiding party, including the female, joined in the attack, pounding the prostrate victim repeatedly. One or more of the aggressors ripped the skin from the victim’s leg with their teeth. The attack ended as quickly as it had begun. Two months later the victim was seen again. His spine and pelvis were protruding. He had an unhealed gash on his inner thigh, likely the spot where his skin was ripped in the attack. The nails had been torn off his fingers. One toe was partially severed. He had lost part of an ear. He was emaciated. After that sighting, he was never seen again. This is not an instance of a genocidal attack among humans, but rather an attack by members of a larger, socially dominant group of chimpanzees (based on the demography of the group, and in particular the number of adult males) on members of a smaller, less dominant group in the Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania.1 The incident suggests that humans are not the only primates capable of systematic group attack and killing of nongroup members. Consideration of, and comparison with, our closest nonhuman relatives may provide useful insights into genocidal behavior in general, and subaltern genocide in particular. Are humans, for example, the only animal species in which some groups experience “oppression” and seek to gain “revenge” and achieve “liberation” by waging genocide against their “oppressors”? To the extent that humans exhibit such behavior, can we account for it with culture and learned behavior alone? Or is there an evolutionary basis for this behavior? A reasonable question is: “So what if there are commonalities between humans and nonhumans in the expression of certain types of aggressive behavior?” And additionally, “What difference does it make if genocide has an 160 evolutionary or biological basis or not?” It is important to understand that the strategies developed to control genocide might be different from those employed today, if it could be shown that there was at least a partial evolutionary or biological basis to this aggressive behavior. An evolutionary perspective on human aggression might therefore stimulate new thinking about the formation and implementation of social policy, incorporating an acceptance of the underlying genetic and hence evolutionary basis of our aggressive behavior. Using an evolutionary approach, it might be possible to identify certain sociopolitical and ecological situations where genocide may occur, and at the very least prepare a humanitarian response if it occurs. An Evolutionary Primer Many critics of the application of evolutionary theory to human behavior are vigorous adherents to the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) of explanation. The central theme of the SSSM is that differences between people result from differing environmental conditions, not genetic differences between populations or individuals. Unfortunately, adherents of the SSSM are misinformed about the relationship between genes and behavior. Rather than playing a rigidly deterministic role in shaping behavior, genes may exert more subtle influences—which feel like urges from within that have positive feelings attached to them, as opposed to rigid cause-and-effect relationships. The widespread acceptance of the SSSM is based on its moral appeal rather than on empirical fact. The SSSM has been carefully critiqued,2 but its appeal lies in its strong stand against explaining differences between races, sexes, or individuals as exclusively the outcome of underlying biological differences. In its most extreme form, the SSSM holds that humans are plastic and the contingencies of the environment shape and channel our behavior with no input from our genetic heritage in explaining modern human variation. This model has been important in combating social injustices. Supporters of the SSSM are opposed to racism and sexism; by definition, those who challenge the moral superiority of SSSM are labeled “biological determinists.” This characterization of all non-SSSM adherents as determinists is patently wrong. Moreover...

Share