Sociobiology and human nature

Abstract

One of the main theses of sociobiology is that between human beings and the so called ‘social’ animals there are no qualitative differences, and it is for this reason that it is possible to identify in human beings and social animals essentially similar behaviours, all of which are genetically determined. Sociobiologists often take this idea as a basis for the belief that there exists in the universe an ontological unity that can be understood by means of the scientific empirical method. In this sense, sociobiologists attempt to build a model of human nature in which the fundamental goal of all human action is biological survival, to be understood in terms of the preservation and transmission of genes. In this paper I present a critical approach to these sociobiological theses. Employing a dialectical method, I start from the idea that human beings are qualitatively different from the social animals. Without denying their biological foundations, I affirm that human behavioural characteristics should be understood as products of historical–cultural relations. Even phenomena considered to be the most basic and essential for biological survival, for example diet, rest, and sexuality, possess a fundamental cultural character in which biological survival does not necessarily play an important role. The same can be said of human attitudes towards death and pain. Sociobiology underestimates this historical–cultural dimension of human existence and, despite being a discipline grounded in the theory of evolution, it takes for granted a series of essential principles as unchangeable realities. In this way sociobiology produces an ideological discourse on human nature, a false representation of the world which can be of great utility for legitimising many oppressive and discriminatory practices.