Darwinism and the Study of Human-Animal Interactions

Harold Herzog 1

The geneticist Dobzhansky (1973) once wrote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” A growing number of social scientists believe that the same could be said of psychology. Based on the theoretical foundations laid by sociobiologists in the 1970s and 1980s, evolutionary psychology has emerged as a recognized paradigm in the behavioral sciences (Buss, 1999; Tooby & Cosmides,1992). Although evolutionary psychologists are not always of like mind, most of them would agree with the following tenets:

The forces of natural and sexual selection shaped the human brain over millions of years. These processes have produced evolved psychological mechanisms influenced by both genes and culture.
For the vast majority of human history, we lived as hunter-gathers. Our mental mechanisms evolved in the context of this environment of evolutionary adaptation. As Cosmides and Tooby (1997) put it, “Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.”[page number]]
Our ancestors confronted sets of specific problems (avoiding predation, finding food, detecting liars, attracting mates). Thus, the human brain is not a general-purpose problem solver. Rather, our minds are composed of somewhat separate modules that have evolved to deal with various adaptive problems. In other words, the mind is “domain specific.”
Not surprisingly, evolutionary psychology is controversial and has been criticized on methodological, theoretical and political grounds (Rose & Rose, 2000). However, as illustrated by increased coverage in introductory psychology textbooks and courses taught in psychology departments, the field rapidly is joining the intellectual mainstream. In this essay, I briefly discuss three intellectually exciting Darwinian ideas that are particularly germane to the study of human-animal interactions.

Biophilia

In a slim volume, Harvard zoologist Wilson (1984) argued that, as a group, humans possess biophilia, a trait he defined as, “the innate tendency to focus on life and life-like processes” (p. 1). Wilson’s hypothesis has caught on; several recent books on the psychology of human-animal relationships and many Internet sites feature it prominently. The idea is powerful. It is comforting to think that humans have a built-in respect for the natural world. But is this idea tenable? I think not.

The problem is domain specificity. On the plains of Africa, the environment in which our species originally evolved, some animals were helpers (wild canids who may have warned against predators or cleaned up the garbage around the campsite), some were foes (large carnivores, venomous snakes), and still others were prey. I find it unlikely that a mental module endowing early humans with a general respect for other life forms would have adaptive value. On the other hand, it is reasonable to think that our ancestors evolved behavioral tendencies to fit the different types of interactions they had with various types of animals. Hence, as typified by the adverse reactions people typically have toward snakes and spiders, our interactions with other species can be “biophobic” as well as biophilic (Ulrich, 1992). As Kellert (1993) has pointed out, our attitudes toward other creatures are often utilitarian, domininionistic, and negativistic.

In reality, there is little evidence to support Wilson’s (1984) notion that humans have evolved a general instinctive affiliation for all things wild and wonderful. Wilson himself seems to have modified his original view of biophilia. In a more recent treatment he wrote, “Biophilia is not a single instinct but a complex of learning rules that can be teased apart and analyzed individually” (Wilson, 1993 p. 31).

Perhaps it would be better to think of our interactions with animals as analogous to taxis – the term biologists use to describe the tendency of insects to orient toward (positive taxis) or away from (negative taxis) a category of stimuli. Attraction to exotic tropical reef fish would be an example of a positive biotaxis whereas spider phobias would exemplify a negative biotaxis. I would expect that these hypothetical approach/avoidance tendencies wouldClike our facility for languageChave a genetic basis but also be modified readily by culture and experience.

For me, the biophilia hypothesis remains just thatCan hypothesis. However, it is an intriguing notion that will certainly spur research in human-animal interactions.

Anthropomorphism, Hunting, and Guilt

A second compelling evolutionary idea comes from Serpell (1996). One of the more intriguing attributes of human-animal interactions is the inconsistency of our attitudes toward other species (Herzog, 1993). Serpell argues that confusions in our moral stances toward animals ultimately stem from an intrinsic attribute of the human mindCa tendency to anthropomorphize. Humans, more than any other creature, have the capacity to imagine the perspective of others. Indeed, Tomasello (1999) has argued that the ability of early Homo sapiens to project themselves into the mental shoes of another being made the development of culture possible.

According to Serpell (1996), the natural consequence of the ability to put your self into another person’s (or another animal’s) skin is empathyChence, the moral crunch. Take hunting. Many (though not all) paleoanthropologists believe that for much of human history, hunting prowess was directly related to survival and reproductive success. A hunter who could think like a wild boar would be the one most likely to bring home the proverbial bacon. But the tendency for the hunter to project himself into the head of his prey leads him to empathize with the prey and, according to Serpell, feel guilty for killing the prey. He writes,

Highly anthropomorphic perceptions of animals provide hunting peoples with a conceptual framework for understanding, identifying with, and anticipating the behavior of their prey…. But they also generate moral conflict because if animals are believed to be essentially the same as persons or kinsmen, then killing them constitutes murder and eating is the equivalent of cannibalism. (p. 177)

In essence, Serpell (1996) suggests that paradoxes in our attitudes toward other species stem from two conflicting traits: (a) our natural predilection for animal flesh and (b) our innate tendency to anthropomorphize, itself the product of an evolutionary experimentCthe big brain. The result is that much of our thinking about the treatment of other species consists of intellectual shucking and jiving that rationalizes why, in our culture, pig meat is tasty and dog meat disgusting. Serpell’s hunting-anthropomorphism-guilt hypothesis places paradoxes in our thinking about animals squarely within the domain of evolutionary psychology.

Memes, Animals, and Culture

My final candidate for an innovative evolutionary theory of human-animal interactions is the meme, an idea initially proposed in a groundbreaking book by evolutionary biologist Dawkins (1976). Memes are the cultural analogs of genes. Like genes, they are replicators, but their medium is oral tradition and imitation rather than spirals of DNA. To Dawkins, the organism is the “gene’s way of making another gene.” [page number]But, when it comes to culture, the human mind is the meme’s way of making another meme. For a fuller treatment of this idea, see Blackmore (1999).

Let’s apply meme thinking to a perennial question in anthrozoologyCwhy pets? Numerous theories have been proposed to explain pet keeping (Serpell, 1996). For example, it has been proposed that dogs are essentially parasites who have taken advantage of our parental instincts and infiltrated our livesClargely to their advantage, not to ours. From a canine perspective, I suppose it would be correct to say, “humans are the dog’s genes’ way of making more dog genes.” The memes-eye view of pet keeping, however, is a bit different. I inadvertently spread the dog-as-pet meme by raising my children with dogs and by extolling the joys and tribulations of having companion dogs in my classes. In a sense, I am a vehicle through which the dog-as-pet meme replicates.

Although genetic changes take generations, changes in meme frequency can occur at breakneck speed. The I-want-a-Dalmatian meme is a good example. The popularity of this breed increased consistently in the United States between 1968 when it was the 27th most popular breed and 1994 when it had risen to the 9th most popular breed (nearly 43,000 new American Kennel Club registrations annually). Then the bottom dropped out. By 2001, the breed had fallen to 58th in popularity, and there were a mere 2,139 new purebred puppies registered. Thus, the frequency of the I-want-a-Dalmatian meme in the United States plummeted 95% in only 7 years.

Memes offer a conceptual link between genetic and cultural evolution. For example, memesCnot genesCare responsible for stag beetles having recently become popular pets in Japan, but not in the United States (Laurent, 2000). However, genes and memes can interact. The rise in popularity of competitive dog shows over the past 150 years has been a major factor in the extraordinary proliferation of breeds (genetic assemblages) presently seen in the domestic dog.[2] Memes offer a fresh look at changing views of animalsCincluding what is hot and what is not in the domain of the study of human-animal interactions. My subjective assessment is that the presumed connection between animal cruelty and violence directed toward humans has replaced the notion that animals-are-good-for-your-health as the hot meme in our field.

I look forward to the day that the evolution-is-a-vital-perspective-for-anthrozoologists meme invades the intellectual culture of human-animal interaction studies.

* Harold Herzog, Western Carolina University

Notes

References

Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Clutton-Brock, J. (1999). A natural history of domesticated mammals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1997). Evolutionary psychology: A primer. Retrieved February 18, 2002, from The University of California at Santa Barbara Center for Evolutionary Psychology Web site: http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html

Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.

Dobzhansky, T. (1973) Nothing in life makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35, 125-129.

Herzog, H. A (1993). Human morality and animal research: Confessions and quandaries. The American Scholar, 62, 337-349.

Kellert, S. R. (1993). The biological basis for human values of nature. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 42-69).Washington, DC: Island Press.

Laurent, E. L. (2000). Children, ‘insects’ and play in Japan. In A. L. Podberseck, E. Paul, & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion animals and us: Exploring relationships between people and pets. (pp 61-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rose, H., & Rose, S. (Eds.). (2000). Alas, poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology. Harmony Books: New York.

Serpell, J. (1996). In the company of animals: A study of human-animal relationships. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19-136). New York: Oxford University Press.

Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73-137). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31-41). Washington, DC: Island Press.

[1] Correspondence should be addressed to Harold Herzog, Department of Psychology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723. E-mail: herzog@email-wcu.edu. I would like to thank James Serpell and Mac Davis who provided helpful comments on the manuscript. I also would like to thank David McCord who suggested the idea of human-animal interactions as manifestations of biotaxis.

[2] Memes and genes sometimes have conflicting interests. As my friend Mac Davis astutely noted, “Those meme riding dogs and cats probably didn’t foresee the popularity of neutering among pet owners.”


 

For Abstracts of all issues, including the most current, click Article Abstracts

To order Society & Animals Journal, go to our secure online ordering page

You can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA) website,
for topics and keywords of your interest: