Originally Posted by octothorp
I haven't read this book, but I have taken some social anthropology classes, and I don't really buy what they're selling. (If you've read it, I'd love to hear more detail on this point.) The argument that we were sexually most like the bonobo doesn't really hold up, because we've evolved to be pretty different where it matters most:
Bonobos have the largest phallus-to-mass ratio of any ape, because their orgy style of reproduction meant that larger phalluses were of great reproductive benefit (basically, whoever can get in furthest has the best chance of having his genetic material passed on). By contrast, in gorilla society, where there's no chance for such selection, and little chance for females to execute choice, phalluses are completely minuscule. Humans fit somewhere in the middle in terms of phallus-to-mass ratio, but are actually adapted to be quite different from any other primate: we lack the phallic bone that other primates have, making us somewhat more bendy, and we are relatively girthy compared to other primates. Both the added girth and flexibility suggest that there is some element of female selection and a modest amount of competition (more than gorillas, less than chimps and bonobos). Essentially, what we see in society today. When you're looking at the evolutionary record, it's important not to focus on what's the same across related species (as these may be vestigial devices in some species), but what's different, because differences are always a response to change and don't happen randomly.
I think there's certainly a strong argument to be made that many primitive societies used communal care-giving approaches and less formal male-female relationships and certainly there probably have been some societies that have been more free-loving in their mating, but the evolutionary record just doesn't suggest that a bonobo-style mating system was ever a part of our history.
Although I think that the whole argument is moot, because it attempts to use historical record to explain what is 'natural'. That somehow, what our ancient ancestors did was somehow superior than the behaviours that our more puritan recent ancestors held. (Not sure if that's the message of the book, but that's certainly the tone of the review.)
|