Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:43:13.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kin Selection, Socialization, and Patriotism: An Integrating Theory1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Gary R. Johnson
Gary R. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, Lake Superior State College, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783
Get access

Abstract

Patriotism may be interpreted as one brand of human altruism. Contemporary evolutionary theory suggests that the roots of human altruism lie in kin selection. However, patriots in contemporary large-scale societies make their patriotic sacrifices on behalf of groups that are composed predominantly of non-kin. This fact appears to call into question the view that human altruism is founded on kin selection. This article attempts to resolve the problem by linking kin recognition cues to the socialization process. The result is a theory which integrates kin selection and socialization as foundations of human altruism. Since patriotism is a noteworthy example of human altruism, and one especially relevant for political science, the theory is applied to patriotism in order to generate hypotheses about the process of patriotic socialization.

Type
Articles and Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , February 1986 , pp. 127 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

2. Campbell's position is a change from an earlier position (1965) in which he argued that humans inherit genetically based dispositions for both selfishness and altruism.Google Scholar

3. In attributing the military tenacity of the German army in World War II to the strength of primary group ties within combat units, Shils and Janowitz note: “German combat soldiers almost always stressed the high level of camaraderie in their units. They frequently referred to their units as ‘one big family”’ (1975:218).Google Scholar

4. Although he does not provide a full theoretical discussion of kin recognition, nor discuss relevant animal research, van den Berghe, (1981) has proposed a theory of human kin recognition that is fundamentally the same as that proposed here (both in regard to association and phenotypic matching, the discussion of which follows). I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer of an earlier manuscript for bringing van den Berghe's masterful work to my attention. Alexander has proposed a social learning model based upon association as a kin recognition mechanism in humans (1979:108–112). If I understand his argument correctly, he hypothesizes that the family would normally be a source of positive reinforcement, and that therefore a correlation would exist between positive reinforcement and kinship. Thus, positive reinforcement by associates would become the cue for altruistic behavior. While I agree with Alexander that the nature of the experience with close associates (in many cases biological kin) is important, it seems to me that rather than the nature of the experience constituting the mechanism, it probably conditions the mechanism. Thus, if we had refined concepts of association and altruistic behavior, I would wish to formulate an ideal case law in terms of these concepts. Research would then be directed to how the particular experience of the individual with close associates alters the relationship. This conceptualization would help explain the seemingly paradoxical protective behavior that brutally abused children frequently demonstrate toward their abusing guardians. Because of genetic programming, close association with the guardian elicits some protective and caring behavior on the part of the child despite the abuse.Google Scholar

5. Van den Berghe rightly points out that the gross differences in physical phenotype between races would not have been useful kinship discriminators for most of hominid evolution, because until the time of mass migrations, humans would not have come into contact with those of other races (1981:29–33). This fact should not obscure, however, the possible broader importance of phenotypic matching on physical characteristics. We can reasonably expect that physical phenotypic matching would occur even in racially homogeneous populations on the basis of physical characteristics that determine what we often call “family resemblance.” These relatively subtle similarities and differences between individuals may have been, and may continue to be, relevant cues in guiding day-to-day social interactions within populations.Google Scholar

6. Van den Berghe, (1981:241–247, 257–261) maintains that class and ethnicity are basically “antithetical principles.” He stresses that classes are founded on overlapping economic interests, and that class-relevant behavior is economically utilitarian. I find myself in basic agreement with his analysis, but it seems he implicitly underestimates the extent to which phenotypic matching plays a role in class-relevant behavior. Classes may be created by convergent economic interests, but the day-to-day behavior of class members vis-a-vis members of their own and other classes is probably influenced by dispositions based upon phenotypic matching. The solidarity of groups created by converging economic interests is probably reinforced by dispositions activated by similarities of dress, etiquette, language, etc. Likewise, discriminatory behavior toward members of other classes is probably based, in part, upon differences in dress, etiquette, language, etc.Google Scholar

7. I do not propose association and phenotypic matching as the only biological sources of human behavioral discrimination. Heiner Flohr (1984) has discussed several possible biologically based sources of prejudice. Association and phenotypic matching would help explain several of these—group orientation, xenophobia, and discrimination against nonconformists. However, reduction of cognitive uncertainty and pre-judgment as a probabilistic survival device could be at least partially independent sources of behavioral discrimination.Google Scholar

8. Trivers, (1974) has shown that parental socialization should not be viewed as a process in which children are mere passive recipients of indoctrination. Since there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the inclusive fitness interests of the parent and child, some conflict is to be expected. Thus, as Elliott White has convincingly argued, children are no doubt active participants in the socialization process (1981a, 1981b). However, the nature of their participation in the process is probably constrained by cognitive developmental processes (Piaget, , 1951; Peterson, and Somit, , 1982; Peterson, , 1983). Even nutrition would probably play a role. (Davies, , 1977)Google Scholar

9. When soldiers of large-scale societies sacrifice themselves on behalf of their societies, what are the implications for biological evolution? It might be argued that since kin are included in the large group that benefits from such sacrifice that the soldier is still enhancing his inclusive fitness. In the case of a small-scale society, in which the ratio of non-kin to kin is low, such enhancement might be possible. However, for large scale societies, in which the ratio of non-kin to kin is high, the soldier will be related to relatively few of those on behalf of whom he fights. Thus, it seems doubtful that such soldiers (e.g., American soldiers in Vietnam) are enhancing their inclusive fitness. Indeed, relative to those who stay at home, it seems they would be decreasing their inclusive fitness.Google Scholar

If this is true, it would seem that sacrificial behavior on the part of soldiers of large-scale societies would result in selection against altruistic genes or a gene complex. One would hypothesize, on that basis, that the population of contemporary large-scale societies would be, on average, less altruistic than populations of small hunting and gathering societies that have been relatively isolated. However, there are several reasons for thinking that such selection would have been mild, and perhaps even counteracted entirely. First, it must be remembered that it is typically only one sex that engages in life-sacrificing altruism on the battlefield. Thus, if mothers and sisters of the sacrificers carry the same genes, selection against genetically based altruism may have been relatively mild in the roughly 12,000 years of large-scale societies. Second, since wars are intermittent, it is likely that some male siblings and/or offspring will not be called upon to take up arms. Third, social institutions at home may compensate for negative selection by providing financial or other rewards that enhance the fitness of the surviving soldier or the dead soldier's relatives. The society may also provide social sanctions against the male stay-at-home that reduce his inclusive fitness (e.g., social ostracism, imprisonment, lack of benefits). Fourth, and finally, higher rates of altruism toward kin than non-kin within a society on a day-today basis would also tend to offset selection against genetically-based altruism produced by occasional life-sacrifice on behalf of the large-scale society. Given these four considerations, it seems reasonable to assume that any negative selection would be at least mild, and that it might be offset altogether.Google Scholar

10. Future research should investigate whether men are, on average, more susceptible to the appeals of patriotism than women. Given that males are usually the active defenders of primate groups, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that differences are likely between men and women in this area. For a useful introductory discussion of sexual dimorphism and defense, especially among primates, seeBarash, , 1982:195.Google Scholar

11. Dawson, , Prewitt, , and Dawson, (1977:148–149) have drawn attention to the fact that patriotic rituals in the school are performed as group activities.Google Scholar

12. I am reminded that Eric Hoffer noted in The True Believer (1951) that mass movements must produce united action and self-sacrifice on the part of their followers. For that reason, Hoffer notes, such movements need to break down prior allegiance. One such allegiance would be to the family: “Almost all our contemporary movements showed in their early stages a hostile attitude toward the family, and did all they could to discredit and disrupt it” (p. 40). Hoffer offers early Christianity as an example. It is worth quoting him, and thereby Matthew, at length…. not one of our contemporary movements was so outspoken in its antagonism toward the family as was early Christianity. Jesus minced no words: “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” When He was told that His mother and brothers were outside desiring to speak to Him He said: “Who is my mother? and who are my brethern? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother, and my brethren!” (1951:40; emphasis added) From the perspective of this article, it is not surprising that the symbols used to help break the bonds of individuals with their natal families were the symbols of kinship. It hardly needs pointing out, in addition, that these are not the only kinship terms used by Christianity. Although the emphasis in this article is on patriotism, the observation at this point regarding revolutionary and religious movements illustrates the broader applicability of the theory. Bonds created by association may elicit altruistic behavior on behalf of friends, institutions like schools (note the kin term usage in “alma mater,” which means, literally, “fostering mother”), and others. Thus, while patriotism may be facilitated by association cues, the same cues may help motivate an individual to “betray” his country on behalf of friend or family, or to participate in a revolutionary movement.Google Scholar