In African Genesis (1961), journalist Robert Ardrey approaches human nature from an evolutionary perspective. He writes (p. 348): ‘We were born of risen apes, not fallen angels, and the apes were armed killers besides. And so what shall we wonder at? Our murders and massacres and missiles, and our irreconcilable regiments?’
His book, the first of his Nature of Man Series, argues for the ‘killer ape’ – the idea that war and aggression were the unique driving forces behind human evolution, and that these instincts remain embedded in human nature today. Although Ardrey’s conclusion was controversial, as well as founded only on a limited sample size, his ideas reflected a greater trend in beginning to rationalise human violence after World War II. The text was met with widespread success, becoming an international bestseller and being named by the 1969 Time magazine as the most notable non-fiction book of the decade. Around the same time, leading ethologists argued for aggression and violence being innate. Korand Lorenz in his book On Aggression (1966) argues humans are programmed to fight over resources, and Desmond Morris argues in The Naked Ape (1969) that apes, and therefore men, are driven by killer instincts.
Despite some aspects of the killer ape theory being disproved and recognised as outdated, the popular understanding of ape behaviour as an explainer for human behaviour remains very dominant. A 2017 review of The Naked Ape speaks of humans concealing their ‘ancestral avatar’ behind a ‘cultural veneer’. Often, our ancestral avatar is described as violent or negative while the human veneer is civilized and good. For example, in our use of language humans who commit morally reprehensible acts are ‘animals’, while a human’s morally good behaviour is described as ‘humane’.
This understanding was bolstered by primatologist Jane Goodall’s work at the Gombe Stream National Park in Tanzania in the 1970s, where she discovered that chimpanzees engage in inter-group warfare and brutal violence. Since then, researchers have recorded instances of cannibalization, infanticide, and murder. From this, the idea of a brutal and violent chimpanzee rose to the mainstream, with the question of a shared ancestral proclivity for warfare.
However, more recently, this has been challenged by the increased study of one of the most recent large mammals to be discovered – the bonobo. Previously classified as the pygmy chimpanzee, bonobos were seen as a diminutive of the chimpanzee species. In 1929, however, the ape species was recognized as a distinct species in both their physical traits and their behavior. The bonobo is as closely related to us as chimpanzees and exhibit a more peaceful nature than its kindred counterparts.
The pioneering primatologist Frans de Waal’s studies lend a new light to exploring the connection between our ancestral ape and the patterns we inherit from them. He argues that in the bonobo we can see a different ancestral model. Unlike the chimpanzee, bonobos are a matriarchy, do not engage in deadly warfare, and display much higher instances of cooperation and empathy. De Waal argues that the bonobo’s peacefulness failed to fit into the established notions of human nature and has led to their underrepresentation in evolutionary discourse.
One aspect that is particularly interesting is the two species’ approach to conflict resolution and peacemaking. Unlike chimpanzees, who often resort to aggression and dominance to settle disputes, bonobos rely heavily on social bonding and sexual behavior as mechanisms to diffuse tension. In chimpanzees, normally peacemaking after a conflict is initiated equally by both the dominant and subordinate chimpanzees. However, in circumstances of more serious physical aggression, peace is made through a form of ‘conditional reassurance’, or what de Waal calls ‘no submission, no peace’ (de Waal, Peacemaking p.45). He points to his observations of five struggles among adult males in the Arnhem chimpanzee colony in the Netherlands. Towards the end of a tense period between the competing males, the emerging dominant male consistently rejects the reconciliation efforts by his rival, turning away from his outstretched hands. Only once the loser displays deference through characteristic pant grunts and deep bowing, do the two make peace (de Waal, Peacemaking p.44). In chimpanzees therefore, peace is made through a reassurance of the rigid hierarchy; the dominant’s reconciliation with the subordinate relies on the subordinate’s acknowledgment of their unequal status.
In contrast, bonobos function within a very different societal nature. De Waal refers to the bonobo’s approach to conflict as “make love not war” (de Waal, Peacemaking p.180). Among bonobos, sex and sexual contact form a frequent part of their everyday interactions, playing the main role in maintaining positive relationships between all members of the community. For bonobos, after an instance of aggression, the rate of embracing, touching and sexual contact increased between the two fighting parties. One example illustrates two males had ten times more intensive contact than usual after a conflict (de Waal, Peacemaking p.215). Another example shows a female offering sex as reconciliation minutes after a fight with a male (de Waal, Peacemaking p.219). Sexual contact as a mechanism for peace, as well as more ready peacemaking, extends to preemptive aversion of conflict. In one instance, after a competitive game between two females became tense, one female offered the other sexual contact as a means to diffuse tension (de Waal, Peacemaking p.219). De Waal points out that unlike chimpanzees, where the subordinate party needs to admit defeat for peacemaking to occur, the dominant bonobo typically initiates peacemaking, suggesting that peacemaking amongst bonobos is less about reinforcing hierarchies and more about reinforcing social bonds.
Stanford’s study supports de Waal’s conclusions. In captivity, bonobos show less violence and display significantly higher rates of reconciliation after conflict compared to chimpanzees. In the field, lethal intercommunity aggression, sexual coercion, and infanticide have never been observed. Meat-eating, while well-documented in chimpanzees, is rare in bonobos.
Primatologists such as de Waal and Stanford have been criticised for the limited amount of bonobo data available and the challenges of extrapolating data from bonobos in captivity. However, they do bring attention to a very distinct alternative ancestral model for humans. While the connection between human behavior and the behaviour of our closest kin is disputable, considering the seemingly more peaceful bonobo in discussions about human violence is critical. While we must be careful not to anthropomorphise our primate ancestors, the bonobo model reminds us that perhaps violence and war are not obvious and inevitable aspects of human nature.
What do you think?
- How important are ancestral models and primate relatives in understanding human behaviour?
- How is popular discourse on human proclivity to warfare affected by discoveries in primate behaviour?
- Is empathy something that is innate or cultivated?
- Hypothetically, if bonobos were proven to be definitively closer primate relative, to what extent do you think discourse around human violence would change?
If you enjoyed this item in our museum…
You might also enjoy (Un)Natural Altruism?, Care for Animals, I love you, and Twenty-Five Years of the Good Friday Agreement and the Challenges of Grassroots Peacebuilding.
Tao Yazaki, May 2023
References
- Flack, Jessica C. and de Waal, Frans B.M. “Any animal whatever. Darwinian building blocks of morality in monkeys and apes.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, No. 1–2, 2000, pp. 1–29.
- de Waal, Frans. Peacemaking among Primates. Harvard University Press, 1989. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjz820k.
- De Waal, Frans. Our Inner Ape: The Best and Worst of Human Nature. London: Granta Books, 2005.