Humans are constantly examining their actions in trying
to understand why they behave as they do.
A major point of contention always arises when evaluating what of our
behaviors is derived from our genetic makeup and what is learned from our
interactions with members of society after we are born. This is the nature versus nurture, or biology
versus culture, controversy. One way to
evaluate biological contributions is to search for behaviors or characteristics
which are shared with our nearest primate relatives the apes. This is the approach taken by the highly
regarded primatologist Frans de Waal as he considers differences between males
and females in his book Different: Gender Through the Eyes of a Primatologist.
Of most use in this context is our growing understanding of primate
behaviors and in particular the characteristics of our closest kin, the
chimpanzees.
Deriving
conclusions from studying this ape becomes quite intriguing because there are
two versions of chimps. The most
numerous and widespread is referred to as the “common” chimp. Societies of common chimps are, to a casual
observer, dominated by the highest-ranking male chimp, a situation generating
the label of “alpha” male. Within those
societies the females will also have organized themselves into a hierarchy led
by an alpha female. The gender roles in
the second class of chimp, the bonobo, are partially reversed with the alpha
females having the most social or political power in their societies. Scientists tell of our ancestors and those of
the bonobos breaking off from the ancestors of the common chimpanzee millions
of years ago. Clearly evolution has
brought great changes to all three species, indicating, among other things,
that male dominance is not an evolutionary imperative. Yet all three beasts still harbor common
genetic characteristics while developing much different cultural
characteristics.
Evolution
can be thought of as the result of who within a species is most likely to have
their genes reproduced by having them passed on to succeeding generations. There are at least three mechanisms for
determining the specimens most successful at contributing to the gene
pool. First, an individual must survive
long enough to reach mating age and to produce a significant number of offspring. The phrase “survival of the fittest” was
created to cover this aspect. Second, an
individual must have the opportunity to mate.
This may not be as easy as it seems because males and females will each have
preferences for the types of individual they most desire as mates. Third, cultural factors in a society will
also influence who gets to mate with whom.
The latter constraint is clearly active in human societies, and in those
of chimps and bonobos as well. The role
of mate selection in evolutionary processes was recognized by Darwin and then
mostly ignored by his successors. The contribution
of cultural factors is rarely explicitly mentioned.
To
understand the society of the common chimpanzee, one must understand the role
of the alpha male and recognize that human use of the term is misapplied. De Waal explains.
“I recognize two main alpha types. The first type fits the one fêted in…business
books. They are bullies who live by
Machiavelli’s credo that ‘it is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be
both.’ These males terrorize everyone
and are obsessed with instilling loyalty and obedience. We know this kind of male all too well in our
species but also in chimpanzees.”
De
Waal tells the tale of one such chimp leader who was ultimately challenged and
lost his position. He was rewarded for
his tactics as leader by being nearly beaten to death by a gang of angry males. Clearly this male did not build a happy
constituency during his reign. The
purpose of forming a male hierarchy with an alpha male is not to reward the
strongest or the best fighter, although that is part of the process. The purpose is to bring stability to a
society. All societies must arrive at a
state of stability but there is no unique and inevitable path. For a healthy
chimp society, a competent leader is required.
“The other type of alpha is a true leader. While he is dominant and defends his position
against rivals, he is neither abusive nor overly aggressive. He protects the underdog, keeps peace in the
community, and reassures those in pain or distress. Analyzing all instances in which one
individual hugs another who has lost a fight, we found that females generally
console others more often than males.
The only striking exception is the alpha male. This male acts as the healer-in-chief,
comforting others in agony more than anyone else. As soon as a fight erupts, everyone turns to
him to see how he will handle it. He is
the final arbiter of disputes.”
Less
physically imposing chimps can attain alpha status by forming alliances with other
males who will provide support if necessary.
One of the advantages of being a high-status male is greater access to mating-ready
females.
Male
chimps seem to be born knowing what lies ahead for them: a physical struggle
for dominance.
“I am always astonished at the inexhaustible energy with
which young male apes romp around, jump up and down things, and go at each
other, rolling over the ground with big laughing faces while they rip each
other apart. Known as rough and tumble
play, it’s mostly fake assaults, wrestling, pushing, shoving, slapping, and
gnawing on each other’s limbs while laughing.”
This
behavior is found among all primates, including humans. Male children will tend to play with other
males and females with females, both having play characteristics tuned to
future roles in society. Do chimps
produce their male hierarchy because inherent physical competitiveness made
that inevitable, or did the need for a dominant leader to provide a stable
society drive evolution to select the appropriate male characteristics? If males predisposed to strive for dominance
have greater access to mates and produce more offspring their genetic tendencies
will become ascendent in the gene pool.
Is evolution driving chimp societal culture, or is chimp culture driving
evolution?
Female
chimps also seem to be born knowing what lies ahead for them: motherhood and nurturing
children. Primates learn how to be a
mother to an infant by watching mothers in action
“Among primates, the orientation to vulnerable newborns and
their substitutes, such as dolls or logs, is undoubtedly part of biology and
more typical of females than males.”
“Young primate females are besotted with infants…Young
females surround a new mother and try to get close to her infant. They groom the mother and—if they are lucky—get
to touch and inspect the infant…Females follow the mother wherever she
goes. They may play with the newborn and
carry it if the mother lets them, which serves as a preparation for the moment
when they get their own progeny.”
Female
chimps know that their major responsibility is to produce and care for
offspring. However, they still feel the
need, whether cultural or genetic, to form their own hierarchy and have an
effective leader, one who, like the male leader, will work to ensure the
stability of the society. Females will
have power, but it will be exercised in a different way than that of the males.
De
Waal tells us that the role of females in chimp society was long overlooked and
only recently even recognized as a relevant topic.
“The reason we rarely hear about feminine power in other
primates is that we can’t look past male leadership. Males are flamboyant and suck up all the
attention with their cockiness, displays, and noisy fights. They are also less timid, which means
fieldworkers get to know them first…while females received less attention, at
least initially. Given their low-key
behavior, it took decades for them to enter the scientific literature.”
Female
chimps are more subtle and more nuanced in their behaviors, required more patient
effort to figure out what they are up to.
“Female apes rarely compete physically with each other over
status. In captive settings we sometimes
put them together from a variety of sources.
It is astonishing how quickly females establish ranks. One of them walks up to another, who submits
by bowing, pant-grunting, or moving out of the way. That’s all there is to it. From then, on the first female dominates the
second.”
Manifestations
of physical power are the surest path to high rank on the male side. On the female side, age, experience, and
personality are prized. These
characteristics are not prized by males, but they are often respected. Typical alpha males need political alliances
to lead effectively. Approval or
disapproval from a respected alpha female who can deliver half the population
of the group to the decision process, can provide considerable influence. De Waal provided several examples where the
alpha male’s power depended upon the alliance, or lack thereof, with the alpha
female.
“When we say that chimpanzees are male-dominated and bonobos
female-dominated, we therefore need to qualify that the less dominant sex is
never powerless.”
One
can reasonably assume that evolution provided the sexual pleasure that
encourages sexual activity that produces the offspring that sustains the
population of the species. But if those
who derive the most sexual pleasure produce the most offspring, the genetic
pool will tend to produce specimens with ever greater desire to have sex. There must be some way of limiting this
process. A species who spent all day
having sex and neglected searching for food would not survive long. Well, the bonobos seem to have developed the desire
and the ability for nearly day-long sexual antics. However, we will not dwell on that topic since
we are here interested in differences between males and females.
There
is no way of knowing how or why females became dominant, but the result
produced a stable culture and affected the physical evolution of the species.
“Chimpanzees look as if they work out in the gym every day. They have large heads, thick necks, and broad
muscular shoulders. In comparison,
bonobos have an intellectual look, as if they spend their time in the
library. They have slim upper bodies,
narrow shoulders, thin necks, and elegant piano-player hands…When standing on
two legs, bonobos straighten their back and hips better than any other ape so
that they look eerily human-like…Of all the great apes, the bonobos anatomy is
closest to that of Lucy, our Australopithecus ancestor named after a 3.5-foot,
4-million-year-old juvenile female fossil.”
When
one bonobo group meets another, the males my respond with traces of typical male
behavior, but the dominant females will make sure socialization occurs. A researcher once quipped that what follows
is more likely to be an orgy than a battle.
“When bonobo groups meet in the wild, males chase
neighboring males. But since these
encounters are typically initiated by females, who are eager to mingle and
groom with their neighbors, male competition never escalates to the level of
violence seen in chimpanzees. Chimps
kill their enemies, whereas male bonobos barely make a scratch.”
Bonobo
males are more powerful than bonobo females, but females acting as an organized
group keep males in line. Normally, everyone gets along, but a male knows that if
it arouses anger among the females, it is best to become scarce until everyone
calms down. The males seem to have no
interest in changing their place in society.
Female
dominance provides an opportunity to feed acceptance of this state preferentially
into the gene pool. Besides the dominant
females having breeding mate choices, they seem to support their offspring in
finding the best mates as well.
Bonobos
are in some ways more similar to humans than are the common chimpanzees. Any such comparison raises difficulties with
many people. Male-dominated fields are
more comfortable with violent male ancestors than oversexed subordinate
ones. It is also difficult to promote a
comparison when the characteristics of bonobo society are not fit for prime-time
television.
“Since apes hold up a mirror to ourselves, we care how they
make us look. Perhaps the biggest
problem with bonobos is their nonviolence.
We have no confirmed reports of one bonobo killing another, whereas we
have an abundance of such cases for chimpanzees. You’d think everyone would be pleased to get
a break from chimpanzee brutality and finally meet a close relative leaning
toward love rather than hate. But then
you wouldn’t have reckoned with the prevailing narrative in anthropology,
according to which we were born warriors who conquered the earth by eliminating
every ancestral type that stood in our way.
We are children of Cain, not of Abel.”
What
is clear is that sex-segregated hierarchies are the standard, with the males
usually dominant. But the evidence
supports both sexes having the cognitive capabilities to provide leadership. This applies to much of human history as well,
although marriage in recent history would occasionally leave a male-dominated society
with a queen in charge. It is only in
the past few generations that societies began attempting, under female demands,
to essentially create hierarchies in which the two genders could be intermixed. This is a grand endeavor. But should we think of this situation as a
grand experiment, something that might ultimately prove inefficient or
ineffective? What does our knowledge of primate
relatives tell us about the possibility of success or failure? De Waal provides his opinion.
“Modern society’s attempt to integrate both genders into a
single hierarchy relies on the leadership capacities of both. From looking at other primates, we know that
these capacities can be found in both sexes.
They may not be exactly the same, but they overlap more than they
diverge. We have no reason to assume, as
is often done, that males are more suited for leadership than women. Men’s greater size and strength doesn’t make
them better leaders, even though these qualities still subconsciously bias our
judgement. In other primates, both sexes
astutely exert power, and female leadership is not hard to find…Moreover, many
alpha individuals, regardless of their sex, care about more than rank. They defend the underdog, settle disputes,
console distressed parties, facilitate reconciliations, and promote
stability. They serve their community
while at the same time safeguarding their position and privileges.
In
other words, what our society is doing might be a bit unusual, but it is not
unnatural.
