Post by Jon Do on Mar 1, 2015 21:25:58 GMT -5
Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory
ABSTRACT. Genetic Similarity Theory extends Anthony D. Smith’s theory of
ethno-symbolism by anchoring ethnic nepotism in the evolutionary psychology of
altruism. Altruism toward kin and similar others evolved in order to help replicate
shared genes. Since ethnic groups are repositories of shared genes, xenophobia is the
‘dark side’ of human altruism. A review of the literature demonstrates the pull of
genetic similarity in dyads such as marriage partners and friendships, and even large
groups, both national and international. The evidence that genes incline people to
prefer others who are genetically similar to themselves comes from studies of social
assortment, differential heritabilities, the comparison of identical and fraternal twins,
blood tests, and family bereavements. DNA sequencing studies confirm some origin
myths and disconfirm others; they also show that in comparison to the total genetic
variance around the world, random co-ethnics are related to each other on the order of
first cousins.
Introduction
Most theories of ethno-political conflict and nationalism focus on cultural,
cognitive and economic factors, often with the assumption that modernisation
will gradually reduce the effect of local antagonisms and promote the growth
of more universalistic societies (Smith 1998). However, purely socio-economic
explanations seem inadequate to account for the rapid rise of nationalism in
the former Soviet Bloc and too weak to explain the lethality of the conflicts
between Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in the
Indian subcontinent, and Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Albanians in the
former Yugoslavia, or even the level of animosity between Blacks, Whites
and Hispanics in the US. Typically, analysts have also failed to consider the
ethno-political repercussions of the unprecedented movement of peoples
taking place in the world today (van den Berghe 2002).
One of the hallmarks of true science is what Edward O. Wilson (1998)
termed the unity of knowledge through the principle of consilience, in
which the explanations of phenomena at one level are grounded in those at
a lower level. Two prominent examples are the understanding of genetics in
terms of biochemistry once the structure of the DNA molecule was worked
out and, in turn, of chemistry in terms of atomic physics. Anthony D. Smith’s
theory of ethno-symbolism unifies knowledge in the consilient manner
through its integration of history and psychology, thereby solving the
problem that nationalism poses for purely socio-economic theories – the
phenomena of mass devotion and the belief that one’s own group is
favourably unique, even ‘chosen’ (e.g. Smith 2000 and 2004; Guibernau and
Hutchinson 2004; Hutchinson 2000). With its emphasis on a group’s preexisting
kinship, religious and belief systems fashioned into a sense of
common identity and shared culture, however mythologised, Smith’s theory
explains what purely socio-economic theories do not, why the ‘glorious dead’
fought and died for their country. It is more robust than other theories
because its research analyses show that myths, memories and especially
symbols, foment and maintain a sense of common identity among the people
unified in a nation.
The ethno-symbolic perspective further unifies knowledge by highlighting
interactions between ethnicity and nationhood. For example, Hutchinson
(2000) described the episodic element in the history of countries as when
national pride is augmented by events such as sudden new archaeological
discoveries. By studying the ethnic character of modern nations over the long
term, it is possible to identify recurring causes of national revivals, the role of
cultural differences within nations, and the salience of national identities with
respect to other allegiances.
The current article presents ‘Genetic Similarity Theory’ to explain ethnic
nepotism and people’s need to identify and be with their ‘own kind’ (Rushton
et al. 1984 and 1986; Rushton 1989a, 1995, 2004; Rushton and Bons 2005).
Nationalists often claim that their nation has organic continuity and ‘ties of
blood’ that make them ‘special’ and different from outsiders, a view not fully
explained by ethno-symbolism. Although the term ‘ethnicity’ is recent, the
sense of kinship, group solidarity and common culture to which it refers is
often as old as the historical record (Hutchinson and Smith 1996). Genetic
Similarity Theory extends Smith’s theory and the unity of knowledge by
providing the next link, the necessary biological mooring.
Patriotism is almost always seen as a virtue and extension of family loyalty
and is typically preached using kinship terms. Countries are called the
‘motherland’ or the ‘fatherland’. Ethnic identity builds on real as well as
putative similarity. At the core of human nature, people are genetically
motivated to prefer others genetically similar to themselves. I will support
490 J. Philippe Rushtonthis contention with current findings from evolutionary psychology and
population genetics.
The evolutionary background
Starting with Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent
of Man (1871), evolutionary explanations of the moral sentiments have been
offered for both humans and other animals. Nineteenth century evolutionists
such as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner built on the concepts
of in-group-amity and out-group-enmity, group competition and group
replacement. Tribes, ethnic groups, even nations were seen as extended
families (see van der Dennen 1987, for a review). However, evolutionary
explanations went out of favour during the 1920s and 1930s with the rise of
fascism in Europe, largely because they were seen as providing a justification
for racially based politics (Degler 1991). During the 1960s and 1970s, most
biologists eschewed theories of group competition in favour of the mathematically
‘cleaner’ theories of individual adaptation, since the genetic mechanisms
necessary for ethnocentrism to evolve remained quantitatively
problematic. After several decades of neglect, evolutionary psychology has
now regained scientific respectability (e.g. Badc**k 2000; Buss 2003; Pinker
2002; Wilson 1998).
In The Descent of Man (1871: 489–90), Darwin proposed the radical and
far-reaching hypothesis that human morality rested on the same evolutionary
basis as did the behaviour of other animals – reproductive success – described
as the ‘general good’:
The term, general good, may be defined as the rearing of the greatest number of
individuals in full vigour and health, with all their faculties perfect, under the
conditions to which they are subjected. As the social instincts both of man and the
lower animals have no doubt been developed by nearly the same steps, it would be
advisable, if found practicable, to use the same definition in both cases, and to take as
the standard of morality, the general good or welfare of the community, rather than
the general happiness; but this definition would perhaps require some limitation on
account of political ethics.
Historian Carl Degler (1991) observed that Darwin’s equating of human and
animal morality with the reproductive success of the community had the effect
of biologising ethics. Suddenly, far-flung notions of economics, demographics,
politics and philosophy, some of which had been centuries in the
making, now revolved around a Darwinian centre, capturing the nineteenth
century imagination and inspiring new analyses of the way society worked.
The philosophy termed ‘Social Darwinism’, with its emphasis on the reproductive
success of groups as well as of individuals, was taken up at every point
along the political spectrum – from laissez-faire capitalism to communist
collectivism to National Socialism (again see van der Dennen 1987, for a
review).
It was crucial for Darwin to emphasise the moral continuity between
humans and other animals because the opponents of human evolution
had argued for their discontinuity in both the moral and the intellectual
spheres. Darwin departed from utilitarian philosophers such as John Stuart
Mill and Jeremy Bentham who believed that human morality was based on
making informed choices about the greatest happiness for the greatest
number. As Darwin pointedly observed, that basis was rational rather than
instinctive. Since human beings alone were said to follow it, Darwin took
exception to it.
In The Descent, Darwin provided numerous examples of how animal
morality led to reproductive success. All animals fight by nature in some
circumstances but are altruistic in others. Acts of altruism include parental
care, mutual defence, rescue behaviour, co-operative hunting, food sharing
and self-sacrificial altruism. Darwin described how leaders of monkey troops
act as sentinels and utter cries of danger or safety to their fellows; how even
male chimpanzees might rush to the aid of infants that cried out under attack,
even though the infants were not their own.
Animal altruism – even to the point of self-sacrifice – has been massively
confirmed since Darwin wrote The Descent (see E. O. Wilson 1975, for
extended discussion). Altruism involves self-sacrifice. Sometimes the altruist
dies. For example, when bees defend their hive and sting intruders, the entire
stinger is torn from the bee’s body. Stinging an intruder is an act of altruistic
self-sacrifice. In ants, if nest walls are broken open, soldiers pour out to
combat foragers from other nests; at the same time, worker ants repair the
broken walls leaving the soldiers outside to die in the process.
Human warfare appears to be rooted in the evolved behaviour of our
nearest primate relatives. Male chimpanzees patrol their territories in groups
to keep the peace within the group and to repel invaders. Such patrols, of up
to twenty bonded males at a time, raid rival groups, kidnap females and annex
territory, sometimes fighting pitched battles in the process (Wrangham and
Peterson 1996).
Solving the paradox of altruism
In The Origin, Darwin (1859) saw that altruism posed a major enigma for his
theory of evolution. How could altruism evolve through ‘survival of the
fittest’ if altruism means self-sacrifice? If the most altruistic members of a
group sacrifice themselves for others, they will have fewer offspring to pass on
the genes that made them altruistic. Altruism should not evolve, but selfishness
should. Darwin was unable to resolve the paradox of altruism to his
satisfaction because to do so required greater knowledge of how heredity
worked than he had available (the word ‘genetics’ was not coined until 1905).
Nonetheless, in The Descent, Darwin (1871) intuited the solution when he
wrote, ‘sympathy is directed solely towards members of the same community,
and therefore towards known, and more or less loved members, but not all the
individuals of the same species’ (Vol. 1: 163).
ABSTRACT. Genetic Similarity Theory extends Anthony D. Smith’s theory of
ethno-symbolism by anchoring ethnic nepotism in the evolutionary psychology of
altruism. Altruism toward kin and similar others evolved in order to help replicate
shared genes. Since ethnic groups are repositories of shared genes, xenophobia is the
‘dark side’ of human altruism. A review of the literature demonstrates the pull of
genetic similarity in dyads such as marriage partners and friendships, and even large
groups, both national and international. The evidence that genes incline people to
prefer others who are genetically similar to themselves comes from studies of social
assortment, differential heritabilities, the comparison of identical and fraternal twins,
blood tests, and family bereavements. DNA sequencing studies confirm some origin
myths and disconfirm others; they also show that in comparison to the total genetic
variance around the world, random co-ethnics are related to each other on the order of
first cousins.
Introduction
Most theories of ethno-political conflict and nationalism focus on cultural,
cognitive and economic factors, often with the assumption that modernisation
will gradually reduce the effect of local antagonisms and promote the growth
of more universalistic societies (Smith 1998). However, purely socio-economic
explanations seem inadequate to account for the rapid rise of nationalism in
the former Soviet Bloc and too weak to explain the lethality of the conflicts
between Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in the
Indian subcontinent, and Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Albanians in the
former Yugoslavia, or even the level of animosity between Blacks, Whites
and Hispanics in the US. Typically, analysts have also failed to consider the
ethno-political repercussions of the unprecedented movement of peoples
taking place in the world today (van den Berghe 2002).
One of the hallmarks of true science is what Edward O. Wilson (1998)
termed the unity of knowledge through the principle of consilience, in
which the explanations of phenomena at one level are grounded in those at
a lower level. Two prominent examples are the understanding of genetics in
terms of biochemistry once the structure of the DNA molecule was worked
out and, in turn, of chemistry in terms of atomic physics. Anthony D. Smith’s
theory of ethno-symbolism unifies knowledge in the consilient manner
through its integration of history and psychology, thereby solving the
problem that nationalism poses for purely socio-economic theories – the
phenomena of mass devotion and the belief that one’s own group is
favourably unique, even ‘chosen’ (e.g. Smith 2000 and 2004; Guibernau and
Hutchinson 2004; Hutchinson 2000). With its emphasis on a group’s preexisting
kinship, religious and belief systems fashioned into a sense of
common identity and shared culture, however mythologised, Smith’s theory
explains what purely socio-economic theories do not, why the ‘glorious dead’
fought and died for their country. It is more robust than other theories
because its research analyses show that myths, memories and especially
symbols, foment and maintain a sense of common identity among the people
unified in a nation.
The ethno-symbolic perspective further unifies knowledge by highlighting
interactions between ethnicity and nationhood. For example, Hutchinson
(2000) described the episodic element in the history of countries as when
national pride is augmented by events such as sudden new archaeological
discoveries. By studying the ethnic character of modern nations over the long
term, it is possible to identify recurring causes of national revivals, the role of
cultural differences within nations, and the salience of national identities with
respect to other allegiances.
The current article presents ‘Genetic Similarity Theory’ to explain ethnic
nepotism and people’s need to identify and be with their ‘own kind’ (Rushton
et al. 1984 and 1986; Rushton 1989a, 1995, 2004; Rushton and Bons 2005).
Nationalists often claim that their nation has organic continuity and ‘ties of
blood’ that make them ‘special’ and different from outsiders, a view not fully
explained by ethno-symbolism. Although the term ‘ethnicity’ is recent, the
sense of kinship, group solidarity and common culture to which it refers is
often as old as the historical record (Hutchinson and Smith 1996). Genetic
Similarity Theory extends Smith’s theory and the unity of knowledge by
providing the next link, the necessary biological mooring.
Patriotism is almost always seen as a virtue and extension of family loyalty
and is typically preached using kinship terms. Countries are called the
‘motherland’ or the ‘fatherland’. Ethnic identity builds on real as well as
putative similarity. At the core of human nature, people are genetically
motivated to prefer others genetically similar to themselves. I will support
490 J. Philippe Rushtonthis contention with current findings from evolutionary psychology and
population genetics.
The evolutionary background
Starting with Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent
of Man (1871), evolutionary explanations of the moral sentiments have been
offered for both humans and other animals. Nineteenth century evolutionists
such as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner built on the concepts
of in-group-amity and out-group-enmity, group competition and group
replacement. Tribes, ethnic groups, even nations were seen as extended
families (see van der Dennen 1987, for a review). However, evolutionary
explanations went out of favour during the 1920s and 1930s with the rise of
fascism in Europe, largely because they were seen as providing a justification
for racially based politics (Degler 1991). During the 1960s and 1970s, most
biologists eschewed theories of group competition in favour of the mathematically
‘cleaner’ theories of individual adaptation, since the genetic mechanisms
necessary for ethnocentrism to evolve remained quantitatively
problematic. After several decades of neglect, evolutionary psychology has
now regained scientific respectability (e.g. Badc**k 2000; Buss 2003; Pinker
2002; Wilson 1998).
In The Descent of Man (1871: 489–90), Darwin proposed the radical and
far-reaching hypothesis that human morality rested on the same evolutionary
basis as did the behaviour of other animals – reproductive success – described
as the ‘general good’:
The term, general good, may be defined as the rearing of the greatest number of
individuals in full vigour and health, with all their faculties perfect, under the
conditions to which they are subjected. As the social instincts both of man and the
lower animals have no doubt been developed by nearly the same steps, it would be
advisable, if found practicable, to use the same definition in both cases, and to take as
the standard of morality, the general good or welfare of the community, rather than
the general happiness; but this definition would perhaps require some limitation on
account of political ethics.
Historian Carl Degler (1991) observed that Darwin’s equating of human and
animal morality with the reproductive success of the community had the effect
of biologising ethics. Suddenly, far-flung notions of economics, demographics,
politics and philosophy, some of which had been centuries in the
making, now revolved around a Darwinian centre, capturing the nineteenth
century imagination and inspiring new analyses of the way society worked.
The philosophy termed ‘Social Darwinism’, with its emphasis on the reproductive
success of groups as well as of individuals, was taken up at every point
along the political spectrum – from laissez-faire capitalism to communist
collectivism to National Socialism (again see van der Dennen 1987, for a
review).
It was crucial for Darwin to emphasise the moral continuity between
humans and other animals because the opponents of human evolution
had argued for their discontinuity in both the moral and the intellectual
spheres. Darwin departed from utilitarian philosophers such as John Stuart
Mill and Jeremy Bentham who believed that human morality was based on
making informed choices about the greatest happiness for the greatest
number. As Darwin pointedly observed, that basis was rational rather than
instinctive. Since human beings alone were said to follow it, Darwin took
exception to it.
In The Descent, Darwin provided numerous examples of how animal
morality led to reproductive success. All animals fight by nature in some
circumstances but are altruistic in others. Acts of altruism include parental
care, mutual defence, rescue behaviour, co-operative hunting, food sharing
and self-sacrificial altruism. Darwin described how leaders of monkey troops
act as sentinels and utter cries of danger or safety to their fellows; how even
male chimpanzees might rush to the aid of infants that cried out under attack,
even though the infants were not their own.
Animal altruism – even to the point of self-sacrifice – has been massively
confirmed since Darwin wrote The Descent (see E. O. Wilson 1975, for
extended discussion). Altruism involves self-sacrifice. Sometimes the altruist
dies. For example, when bees defend their hive and sting intruders, the entire
stinger is torn from the bee’s body. Stinging an intruder is an act of altruistic
self-sacrifice. In ants, if nest walls are broken open, soldiers pour out to
combat foragers from other nests; at the same time, worker ants repair the
broken walls leaving the soldiers outside to die in the process.
Human warfare appears to be rooted in the evolved behaviour of our
nearest primate relatives. Male chimpanzees patrol their territories in groups
to keep the peace within the group and to repel invaders. Such patrols, of up
to twenty bonded males at a time, raid rival groups, kidnap females and annex
territory, sometimes fighting pitched battles in the process (Wrangham and
Peterson 1996).
Solving the paradox of altruism
In The Origin, Darwin (1859) saw that altruism posed a major enigma for his
theory of evolution. How could altruism evolve through ‘survival of the
fittest’ if altruism means self-sacrifice? If the most altruistic members of a
group sacrifice themselves for others, they will have fewer offspring to pass on
the genes that made them altruistic. Altruism should not evolve, but selfishness
should. Darwin was unable to resolve the paradox of altruism to his
satisfaction because to do so required greater knowledge of how heredity
worked than he had available (the word ‘genetics’ was not coined until 1905).
Nonetheless, in The Descent, Darwin (1871) intuited the solution when he
wrote, ‘sympathy is directed solely towards members of the same community,
and therefore towards known, and more or less loved members, but not all the
individuals of the same species’ (Vol. 1: 163).