Evolutionary analyses of ethnic solidarity: an overview

People and Place, June, 2008 by Frank Salter

Inclusive fitness theory was widely accepted in behavioural biology but was not generally taken up by those interested in ethnicity, even by many sociobiologists, partly because Hamilton thought that inclusive fitness could only work among close kin. This caveat was cited repeatedly even after Hamilton abandoned it in 1971. Richard Dawkins, probably the best known interpreter of Hamilton, thought that ethnic altruism was maladaptive. An influential 1972 paper by Richard Lewontin dismissed among-group genetic variation altogether as scientifically irrelevant compared to within-group variation. (22) Theoretical misunderstandings contributed to lack of interest in the subject and held back the study of ethnicity within sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. (23)

Hamilton himself was busy showing how ethnic altruism could be adaptive, confirming the thrust of Eibl-Eibesfeldt's theory. (24) He was interested in ethnicity mainly as a test bed for his models of genetic evolution, though he realised the implications of his work and later noted that even in 1964 he was afraid of politically-inspired attacks. (25) Many considered ethnicity to be a primitive hangover, an irrational passion with much blood on its hands that obscures real interests such as class solidarity and international cooperation. The brilliant geneticist John Maynard Smith blamed such political values for blinding him to kin selection and allowing Hamilton to beat him to the breakthrough. (26)

Some social scientists found Hamilton's 1964 theory compelling. Sociologist Pierre van den Berghe was the first to use inclusive fitness theory to study ethnicity, with a paper in 1978 and a book-length treatment in 1981. (27) As an established sociologist van den Berghe's work appeared in journals of social science. (28) His book found a place alongside other university texts, albeit often as a counterpoint to mainstream theory. His core idea is a sociobiological elaboration of ethnic nepotism theory--that ethnic solidarity is kin selection on a large scale. Despite the terminological inexactitude--kin selection is a process of evolution not a behaviour--this theory takes the important step of recognising the centrality of common descent in ethnic identity. One attraction of the theory is that it accounts for the passion of ethnic conflict, both aggressive and self-sacrificial, behaviour difficult to explain as a rational choice. (29)

Van den Berghe's analysis then applies knowledge about kin recognition to ethnic identity, and draws a distinction between cultural and racial markers. For most of human existence neighbouring populations were racially similar. Recognition of out-groups must have been largely based on culture, often slight differences in language, dress and rituals. This is no longer true in the modern world. The colonial ear brought ethnic groups into contact from different continents. Populations isolated for tens of millennia have visible racial differences which join culture as ethnic markers. This introduced a new dimension to ethnic differentiation, one that could not be erased through conversion to the other's language, religion, or material culture.