Xref: utzoo sci.psychology:3430 sci.bio:3730 alt.romance:5230 soc.men:23570 soc.women:29649 soc.singles:72054
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au!arkeo
From: arkeo@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.psychology,sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <1990Oct27.131432.2477@fennel.cc.uwa.oz.au>
Date: 27 Oct 90 05:14:32 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <13922@cs.utexas.edu> <MIKEB.90Oct25090008@wdl31.wdl.fac.com>
Followup-To: sci.psychology,sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Organization: University of Western Australia
Lines: 68

In article <MIKEB.90Oct25090008@wdl31.wdl.fac.com>, mikeb@wdl31.wdl.fac.com (Michael H Bender) writes:
> In article <13922@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
> writes:
> 
>     In article <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP>, reiser@pmafire.UUCP 
> 	(Steve Reiser) writes:
>    > Without cultural training would human being by there biological nature
>    > be monogamous or is it culturally ingrained from childhood?
> 
>    (... some stuff delete...)
> 
> I think that your answer is a little too pat and simplistic. Yes, it is
> true that you can't have humans without culture. However, it is also true
> that you can't have humans without biological drives and genes, and they do
> give us some direction (Actually, they usually give us a number of
> different, conflicting, directions!).
> 
>       (some normative  Sociobiology deleted)
> 
> So unless you deny evolution and assume that are behavioral tendencies are
> completely cut off from the "lower" animals, then the answer to the
> original question is probably that humans have a polygamous drive and that
> they also have other drives, some of which push in the direction of
> monogamy. 

Again, too pat and simplistic.  In fact, the CAPACITY to be cultural is a 
GENETIC CAPACITY.  This is the logic:
Cultural is defined as those aspects of the phenotype acquired by means of 
teaching/learning/imitation from other humans.
The capacity for culture is the ability (frequency, if you will) of the 
above in a member of a population.
Our distant ancestors were less cultural than us (data from 
palaeoanthropological record supports this).
The evolution of Homo sap sap, amoung other things, may be characterized 
by increases in the ability to be cultural.
This evolution HAD to proceed by means of natural selection.
The GENETIC changes in the evolving popualtion would be (must be, according 
to Nat Sel theory) driven by maximization of fitness.
Fitness in the hominid lineage was highest in those members of the lineage 
who left offspring who exhibited a higher cultural capacity than other 
members of the lineage.  (which is how the capacity increased over time in 
the lineage).
Yet, as we note, the PERFORMANCE of culture involves determining aspects of 
the phenotype WITHOUT *Direct* instruction from the genes (save in the 
capacity). Overall, we could say that, in our lineage, genetic fitness was
greatest in those ancestors or ours who had the LEAST direct genetic 
influence on the specifics exhibited in their behaviour.
Hence we need not reject evolution in order to accept an autonomously 
functioning CULTURAL determination of behaviour.
[Note this is NOT to claim that the *specific behaviors* coded in a cultural 
system are necessarily IMMUNE from any sort of selection (analagous to 
natural selecttion).  This however is a separate issue.]

What is important here is to realize that CULTURE (as a capacity of 
individual humans) is ITSELF a product of natural selection.  When we 
polarize GENES/CULTURE we miss the most important thing about the genetic 
evolution of culture itself -- that culture as a genetic capacity evolved 
by means of natural selection and that this capacity was more fit than 
"genetic" (less cultural) means of determination of behaviour.  Wilson et 
al always seem to miss this simple genetic point. Tis a shame, since in the 
process they end up, therefore, making fundamental errors such as 
confusing evolutionary-biological traits with cultural traits.  If a kind 
of behaviour (ie mating behaviour) is "learned" (coded in the cultural 
transmission system) it is INCOHERENT to speak of its "genetic" aspects 
since the only "genetic aspect" it could posess is in the, much larger, 
capacity for cultural behaviour itself.

Dave