Social Darwinism

Hello Daddy? I've got his nose

I often scroll through YouTube for ideas and enlightenment. Today, I came across a brief post in which a professor lectured to students about a hypothesis concerning male aggression, its social consequences, and its implications for social evolution. I was intrigued by the post and decided to outline his thesis to provide fodder for further discussion and, perhaps, debate.

Here goes: The goodly professor begins with an observation about our primate cousins, then extends his ideas to encompass Darwinian Selection. I confess, I do not have the name or credentials of the lecturer to hand, but that is immaterial for the thrust of the discussion. All I can offer is that the lecturer under scrutiny is not named Dr Mugumbo, of that I'm sure. Let your imagination run free and wild. If your curiosity remains unrestrained, then Gogle is your friend. Let it loose to satisfy an urge that is difficult to articulate but remains rampant. Sometimes an itch must be scratched, even if the pruritus is non-afferent in character and lies unrestrained within the conscious portion of the cerebral cortex. Moving on.  

The lecturer noted that our closest primate relatives, including chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas, operate on the principle of 'The Alpha Male Hierachy'. In primate troops, there is invariably a prime alpha male who corrals and enforces exclusive access to the sexually mature females of the troop. This primacy is maintained by hyperaggressive behaviour. Under these circumstances, the alpha male will rely on behavioural intimidation tactics to discourage other aggressive males from challenging his enviable position of excessive female appropriation. Ultimately, if posturing and bellowing fail to deter, then the ultimate recourse is physical violence. This is not something that is casually undertaken by the challenger. The alpha male has ultimate control for a reason. Hyperaggression is not the only attribute required. This male is likely to be very large, quick and tough. And after many encounters, he is likely to be a battle-hardened veteran. The potential interloper must pick his fights with due care and prudence. If injured, it is not only pride that is at stake. 'A Good Sound Kicking' can lead to infection and death. The impudent male challenger must pick his fights with deliberation. However, a young 'buck' flooded with testosterone is an impetuous fellow.  Eventually, the top male will teeter, fall, and be replaced by a younger, alpha male. Ultimate failure is written in the genetic code. Age and time are relentless and make failures of us all, in the end. 

The social system, as described, results in sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism refers to differences in physical size and strength between the sexes of the same species, and, within mammalian species, the male is invariably the larger as determined by these genetically controlled characteristics. Large, aggressive males will, all things being equal, sire large, aggressive males. The genetic lottery is rigged in their favour. While sexually mature females of the troop suffer the indignity of forced sexual exclusivity, they also can be assured that the genes passed on will tend towards hypergressive traits in their sons. Hyperaggression does not ensure troop dominance. Indeed, most males, even those with favourable attributes, will fail to breed under this social system. With that said, hyperaggressive behaviour is an essential characteristic for a male, together with an imposing physique, for him to gain ascendancy of the troop. The rest of the males of the troop are denied the powerful urge to reproduce by his presence. Interestingly, some males, by dint of stealth and opportunity, may gain sexual access to the females, albeit intermittently- so-called 'Sneaky Maters'. The alpha male must remain constantly vigilant to ensure exclusive access to his valuable resource. By virtue of the system, the alpha male has no allies to help sustain his position, and 100% attentive and covetous surveillance is a fiction. Thus, smaller, agile males may take advantage of the alpha males' downtime to secure a brief romantic interlude; however, hurried and rushed it may be. Therefore, genetic flow within the troop is not necessarily maintained exclusively by the alpha male; 'Genetic Leakage', though small, is virtually assured.  

At this stage, we must ponder why humans do not follow the 'Alpha Male' social structure as practised by our primate cousins. Clearly, this system is highly disadvantageous to the vast majority of males within the troop, as they lose the opportunity to mate. We differ fundamentally from our close relatives by virtue of our superior intelligence. We are capable of higher-order communication that, in turn, facilitates social organisation. Thus, by collective male action, any potential alpha male takeover of the breeding pool can be easily curtailed by concerted, higher-order action. Alpha males do well, but 10 beta males with pointed sticks do better. 

Let us go back 12,000 years, when humanity was beginning to transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a settled, habitual way of life. 

 With human settlement, as a natural consequence of the introduction of agriculture, and the expansion of the population due to the availability of a predictable food supply, a higher order of societal cohesion and development would be required. Autocratic, 'one man rule' (kingship) seems to have become invariable, for reasons not to be considered here. The institution of kings, whether hereditary in nature or by other means, can only be sustained with the cooperation of others. This is in stark contrast to our primate cousins, where the lack of concerted cooperation is essential to the maintenance of alpha male control. With a settled society and greater societal collaboration comes the development of an institutionalised justice system, albeit crude and highly reliant on the sanction of death, for even minor infractions. The good professor argued that individuals so inclined by temperament and genetics to exhibit and respond with hyperaggression would be quickly sought out and subject to judicial assassination by decree. This would not only act as a deterrent to those similarly inclined but also prevent the establishment of the primate model of alpha-male usurpation within the society. Also, as a consequence, there would be a reduction in the flow of genes into the population that are responsible for hyperaggressive behaviour. Monogamous mating would be the consequence. Most men in a population would be able to exercise their powerful urge to procreate. Sadly, there will always be outliers who, for various reasons, are unable to sample the pleasures of sexual congress. I am not suggesting that the advent of agriculture initiated a change in human mating strategy. Undoubtedly, the impetus to move from alpha-male status to egalitarian sexual behaviour arose much earlier, when humans relied on the erratic bounty of hunting and gathering wild herbs. The ability to employ a Beta Male cooperative strategy came about when humans, or proto-humans, gathered enough intelligence to plan and execute the execution of alpha males. The days of Alpha Male Sexual Usurpation were doomed.  

In modern society, hyperaggressive males, who are unable to control their violence towards others, are quickly identified and subject to neutralisation and removal from polite society in order to cauterise, nay curtail, potential harm. Need I say more?

Is there any evidence to support the hypothesis as outlined above? Remember, for a hypothesis to become a theory, we need evidence, experimental or otherwise, that supports the contention. We know from genetic evidence that in humanity's remote past, very few males contributed to the gene pool. Undoubtedly, we observe sexual dysmorphosis in humans. As a general rule, the male of our species is naturally taller and stronger than the female. This is genetically determined. Though there could be a number of plausible reasons why this might be the case.

I am interested in what my readers make of the speculative hypothesis as outlined above. Is it worthy of further inspection or does it crumble under the weight of inconsistencies, contradictions and implausibility?  Let me know your thoughts in the comment section.