Uroboros, or biology between mythology and philosophy
ed. by W. Ługowski & K. Matsuno
Wrocław 1998 Arboretum
Krzysztof Łastowski
Institute of Philosophy, Adam Mickiewicz University
Szam arzewskiego 89c, 60-569 Poznań, Poland
ON THE ORIGIN OF SOCIOBIOLOGICAL THINKING
1. H IS T O R IC A L R E M A R K S
T heoretical p rem ises o f m odern sociobio log ical thinking can be found in the
concept form u la te d by R ussian biologist and sociolog ist P eter Kropotkin
(1904) w h o lived and w orked at the turn o f the 19th and 20th centuries. The
peculiar position o f the the n-con te m po ra ry biology also had its contribution to
the beginnings o f the form ative period o f sociobio log ical thought. From the
point o f view o f p hiloso ph y o f science the evolu tion a ry (D arw inian) paradigm
w as w idespread in th e last tw o decades o f the 19th century: the controversies
around th e co nce pt o f natural selection, presented by D arw in's opponents,
confirm this d om ination even m ore m arkedly. It w as then that the idea o f
"m utual aid" w as form e d - the idea w hich, according to Kropotkin, w as as es­
sential a fa cto r/m e ch a n ism o f evolution as the "strug gle fo r survival". Kropot­
kin's con ce p t w as im m ediately rejected. C onsequently, the D arw inian para­
digm rem ained unchanged fo r m any years in its basic elem ent, i.e. natural
selection. T his im perfection has been im proved only by m odern sociobiologi­
cal ideas.
The problem presented in the paper is essential fo r one m ore reason,
nam ely th a t it indicates th e existence - in the eyes o f a p hilosopher o f science
- o f the m yth o f s e lf-su fficie n cy w hich is expressed in the belief that biological
ideas are "im pervious" to ideas belonging to o the r fields o f know ledge. If it is
true th a t scie nce is "governed" by paradigm s, then Kropotkin's idea could
have been co g n itive ly noticed only by W .D . H am ilton in the developm ental
process o f th e 20th ce n tu ry e volutionary biology.
From th e point o f vie w o f the philosophy o f scie nce it is w orth noting that in
m id-19th ce ntu ry D arw in (1859) and S p encer (1862) proclaim ed th e ir con­
cepts w hich caused the ideas o f a "struggle fo r surviva l" and "natural selec­
tion" to be co m e the m ain points o f discussion on the evolution o f living organ­
- 23 9-
http://rcin.org.pl/ifis
ism s. Even opponents o f evo lu tion ary thinking becam e so entangled in the
discussion o f D arw inian ideas th a t any issue not pertaining to the fu n d a m e n ­
tals o f D arw inian evolution w as m arginal to e volutionary biology in the m aking.
O n the other hand, evolu tio na ry biology w as dom inated by proponents and
opponents o f the ideas m entioned above: the struggle fo r survival and natural
selection. The D arw inian paradigm - to use the Kuhn's concept - dom inated
contem pora ry biology. The paradigm assum ed tha t biological phenom ena
(and, in S p e nce r’s view, also social ones) w ere subject w ithout exception to
unrestrained m ech an ism s o f th e "strug gle fo r survival". This view w as sup­
ported by H egel's p h ilosophy w hich founded som e appropriate concepts, such
as "society o f citizens" and "spiritualized anim al kingdom ".
The view th a t the "strug gle fo r surviva l" is the elem entary m e chanism /factor
o f evolution w a s opposed by tw o R ussian scientists, K.F. K essler and K ropot­
kin. In the w ork entitled "M utual aid as a fa cto r o f evolution" (1904; m ain
chapters o f the w o rk appeared firs t in th e periodical "N ineteenth C entury" in
the years 1890-1896) Kropotkin rejected the assum ption that the struggle fo r
survival plays a dom in an t role in the anim al kingdom . He attem pted to prove
that, next to confrontation , it is m utual aid tha t is an universal phenom enon in
the anim al kingdom . M oreover, he added th a t this phenom enon is character­
istic not only o f the anim al, but also o f hum an species. Thus, in K ropotkin's
concept, the hum an and anim al w orld is not a w orld o f "fangs and talons", but
one o f m utual re lationships and to le ra n ce created w ithin the bounds o f those
relationships.
Thus, w h e re a s D arw in and S p e nce r sa w the "strug gle fo r survival" as com ­
m on basis o f biological phenom ena (D arw in) and o f social and biological ones
(S pencer), K ropotkin attem pted to sho w th a t it w as co-operation w hich both
these areas o f phenom en a had in com m on. The category o f co-operation
(m anifest in altru istic behaviour) reveals, in m y opinion, som e sociobio log ically
significant relatio nsh ip s betw een living organism s, including hum an organ­
ism s: thence th e conclusion th a t S p e ncer and D arw in's concept, as w ell as
th a t o f K ro po tkin 's constitute antip od al fo rm ula tion s o f the fundam en tals o f
biological and social phenom ena. The ta ble presented in point 2 show s those
differences.
-
240-
http://rcin.org.pl/ifis
2. E G O IS M A N D A LT R U IS M V E R S U S TH E N ATU R E OF B IO LO G IC A L
A N D S O C IA L P H E N O M E N A
If w e assum e, som ew h at sim plistically, tha t egoistic behaviour corresponds
to the conce pt o f the "struggle fo r survival" w hile altruistic behaviour - to the
concept o f "m utual assistan ce" the follow ing table can be presented:
TA B LE 1
Form s
o f b e ha viou r
S p encer / Darwin
th e struggle fo r existence
Kropotkin
m utual aid
egoism
altruism
1
0
0
1
Intensities o f egoism and altruism are m arked in th e m axim um degree,
w hich is ju stifie d by the view s expressed by the three scientists. The positions
d istinguish ed stand in m arked contrast. M odern sociobiology undoubtedly
perceives altruism as th e basis o f social beh aviou r o f anim als (and, in particu­
lar cases, also o f hum ans).
It is interesting to exam ine the ranges o f influence in w hich the im pact of
egoism and altruism is trad ition a lly surveyed. W hen these tw o factors are
properly confron ted w ith the nature o f phenom ena, another table presents the
areas w hich the three repre sen tative seekers o f com m on or contrary bases o f
social and biological phenom en a considered suitable fo r the prom otion o f their
ideas.
The basis fo r the co nstruction o f the below pattern is a com bination o f three
elem ents: (a) fa cto rs (egoism , altruism ), (b) types o f phenom ena (biological,
social ones), (c) the im pact range o f the fa cto rs (full, partial im pact). The areas
in w hich th o se concepts are valid have been m arked respectively. This allow s
to show exa ctly w hich relationships constitute the basis o f the table.
TA B LE 2
Form s
o f b e h aviou r
egoism
altruism
biological phenom en a
^
social phenom ena
D arw inism iSnenr.f>r)
D arw inism
——
ouuiobiology (K ropotkin)
^
liberalism
——
Let us begin w ith the first position. The point o f view w hich S p encer repre­
sents is social D arw inism . A ccording to Spencer, egoism appears in biological
and social phenom ena. In o th e r w ords, the struggle fo r survival is the basis o f
-241
-
http://rcin.org.pl/ifis
biological and social phenom ena; the essence o f social phenom ena rem ains
identical w ith tha t o f biological ones. A ccording to Darwin, the struggle fo r
surviva l governs biological phenom ena. Thus, w h at is traditionally called
Darwinism, is essentially S p encerism restricted to th e field o f biology. Egoism
in social phenom ena co nstitu te s the core o f liberalism. Kropotkin, in turn, ac­
cording to w hom altruism is fundam en tal to social and biological phenom ena,
creates the theore tical basis o f sociobiology. In his view, the essence o f bio­
logical phenom ena is identical w ith o f the social ones. T his notion m ay be
called biological solidarism.
W ell, I show tha t ta ble 2 p resents still som ething m ore. A t this picture w e
can see tw o im portant facts.
First is th at all conceptions co nsidered here are only doctrines (m ay be ide­
ologies), but not theories. T hat is because they are defining by the range o f
fa cto rs only. This operation o f a research procedure give us only classifica­
tion, but not explanation o f behavioural fa cts (o r phenom ena). C onclusion o f
this is that a sociobiolog ical thinking is not an expla n atory conception. It is
classificatio n point o f view only. S econd im portant fa c t is that this picture pre­
sents a m ethod o f m y thinking here. A t this exam ple w e can see tw o doctrines
w hich are to itself m ore contradictory: social D arw inism and "K ropotkinism ".
Both are in strong opposition. In this case I think th at th e y both assum e the
sam e background to the question o f social and biological phenom ena. T hat is
right, but the solutions proposed by them are one another.
First doctrine (social D arw inism ) cla im s that biological and social phenom ­
ena are "governed" by egoism as a behavioural factor. The second one
("K ropotkinism ") claim s, th a t th e y are "go verned" by altruism . I think that, in
each case w hich it concerns a sim ila r research situations, w e m ust discover
th is deep background o f o p p ositio na ry conceptions o r theories. This show s
th a t both doctrines (social D arw inism and "K ropotkinism ") accept the sam e
thesis: behavioural facto rs are the m ost im portant to the picture o f the evolu­
tio n a ry processes.
3. T W O C O N C R E T IZ A T IO N S O F TH E ID E A O F A L T R U IS T IC B E H A V IO U R
T able 2 show s th e first im po rtan t m om en t in th e d e velopm ent o f sociobi­
ological thinking. N am ely, it reveals the existence o f various ranges o f signifi­
can ce o f altruism . A ccording to this approach, altruism w orks in the field o f
both social (hum an) and biological (anim al) phenom ena. T hus the first concretization o f the idea o f altru istic b e ha vio ur (co-operation) has taken place.
The othe r im portant m om ent in the d e velop m e nt o f sociobio log ical thinking
w as the realization (on the part o f b iologists first and forem ost) that "intensity"
o f altruism (altruistic behaviour, co-op era tio n ) depended on a variety o f real
-
242-
http://rcin.org.pl/ifis
situations and could be contained in the <0,1 > bracket. S im ultaneously, it be­
cam e evide nt that extrem e values o f that factor's intensity did not exist in real­
ity and w ere purely theoretical. T hus began the survey o f the cases o f co­
operation betw een organism s, p opulations and species; to the description and
explanation o f this tw o last situations the W ynne-E dw ards' (1962, 1986) evo­
lutionary conception w ould be applicable. E cology w as the first field o f science
to have follo w e d tha t path (in p a rticu la r population ecology, by follow ed organism al ecology). In m y opinion, it w a s organism al ecology w hich becam e
a cu rta in -ra ise r on the m odem shape o f sociobiology, since only the first at­
tem pts at d efining altruistic b e h a viou r (in H am ilton's w orks - 1964) m arked out
a new m ode o f biological (socio b iolo g ica l) thought. This approach w as called
sociobiology by E.O. W ilson (1975).
It w as throug h those achie ve m en ts o f biological know ledge that the second
c oncretization o f the idea o f a ltruistic b ehaviour (co-operation) cam e about.
From the end o f the 19th century, this is from K ropotkin's tim es, to the 1970s
biological cognitive practice passed fro m analyzing the ranges o f the influence
o f altruism (that w as the firs t co ncretiza tion w hich resulted in the developm ent
o f ecology, e.g. the rise o f the so-called m athem atical ecology in the 19201940s) on the em pirical exam ination o f altru istic (and egoistic) behaviour, that
is to say, an exam ination o f the relatio ns w hich define relationships betw een
organism s o f d iffe re nt levels o f biolo gical com plexity. It w as then that organ­
ism al ecology, populational genetics, ethology and, finally, sociobiology w ere
developed.
A pparently, rejection o f K uhn's m ode o f thinking - the D arwinian paradigm by evo lu tio n a ry biology facilitated th at developm ent. This resulted in the incor­
poration into entire biological know ledg e o f the ideas w hose source - in m y
opinion - could be found in the late 19th century sociology, thus being extra­
neous to biology itself.
4. C O N C L U S IO N S
A t the end o f this paper, I w ould like to add that m y proposal contains only
th e m ain ideas o f the problem w hich rem ains on the border-line o f theoretical
biology, m ethodology and p h ilo sop hy o f biology. H owever, even a brief form u­
lation en ta ils som e im portant results w hich I am going to present now. All this
c o n s id e r w e have the follow ing conclusions:
1. The rise o f sociobio logical ideas should be ascribed to P. Kropotkin w ho
rem ained in sig nifica nt th eo re tical opposition to Darwin.
2. The d e ve lo pm e n t o f sociob io lo g ical ideas follow ed tw o m ain paths de­
term ined by the rejection o f th o se a ssu m p tion s w hich restricted biological
thinking:
-
243-
http://rcin.org.pl/ifis
(a) th e firs t path w as defined by the concretization o f research on altruism in
sp e c ific a reas o f hum an and anim al behaviour;
(b) the second path w as defined by a thorou gh recognition (em pirical defini­
tion o r designation) o f the "intensities" o f altruism (co-operatio n) in various
fie ld s o f biological and social phenom ena.
3. The term "sociobiological thinking" is used here to denote nam ely fields o f
know ledge, both the paths (a) and (b), w hile the term "sociobiology"
(according to W ilson 's approach), in m y opinion, denotes only the path (b).
4. The approach to sociobio log ical thinking presented above reveals certain
logic in th e de velop m e nt o f the idea. T hus it rem ains in opposition to K uhn's
approa ch w hich rejects such logic.
5. T he de velop m e nt o f sociobio log ical thinking proves th a t m odern sociobi­
o lo g y breaks w ith the self-sufficiency myth. This is m anifest in the develop­
m ent o f the ore tica l biology, w here interd iscip lin a ry studies, com bining the re­
sults o f cognition on m any biological subdisciplines, shed a new light on the
w hole o f biological phenom ena.
R eference s
Kropotkin P. (1904), Mutual aid, a factor of evolution, London: Heinemann.
Darwin Ch. (1859), On the origin of species, London: Murray.
Hamilton W .D . (1964), The genetical theory of social behaviour, "Journal of Theoretical
Biology" v. 7, no. 1-2.
Scudo F.M., Ziegler J.R., eds. (1978), The golden age of theoretical ecology: 1923-1940,
(Lecture Notes in Biomathematics), Berlin: Springer.
S pencer H. (1862), First principles, London: Williams & Norgate.
W ilson E.O . (1975), Sociobiology. A new synthesis, Cambridge MA: Harvard University
Press.
W ynne-Edw ards V .C . (1962), Animal dispersion in relation to social behaviour, Edin­
burgh: Oliver & Bond.
W ynne-Edw ards V .C . (1986), Evolution through group selection, Oxford: Blackwell.
-
244-
http://rcin.org.pl/ifis