Books make a lot more sense when you talk about the elephant in the corner of the room, and in this case, that means sex. About the time that EO Wilson published
Sociobiology
, biologists have been applying evolutionary analysis to human beings. And the lesson has been, quite frankly, conservative. Franz de Wall writes in
Our Inner Ape
that "The dilemma of how to engender cooperation among sexual competitors was solved in a single stroke with the establishment of the nuclear family. The arrangement offered almost every male a chance at reproduction, hence incentives to contribute to the common good. We should look at the human pair-bond, therefore, as the key to the incredible level of cooperation that marks our species." The biologist Sarah Blaffer-Hrdy wrote
Mother Nature
to reconcile feminism with sociobiology, but even she conceded that "Sociobiology is not a field known for the encouraging news it offers either sex. Yet its most promising revelation to date has to be that over evolutionary time, lifelong monogamy turns out to be the cure for all sorts of detrimental devices that one sex uses to the exploit the other."
Needless to say, sociobiology is not great news for people who think that alternatives to monogamy are good. And that is where Joan Roughgarden enters the picture. She summarizes her main thesis as "Overall, sex is essentially cooperative - a natural covenant to share the genetic wealth. Sexual reproduction is not a battle." This does not fit very well with males fighting for dominance and coy females gratefully joining the harem of the winner. Traditional sociobiology teaches that sex is the ultimate winner-take-all economy. Roughgarden disagrees.
Roughgarden's main line of attack is to point out the value of genetic diversity. According to Darwinist theory, asexual species should outperform sexual species. After all, those with "great genes" should be able to donate 100% of their genetic wealth to their offspring. By contrast, a member of a sexual species can only donate 50% of their genetic wealth. So you would expect the asexual species to out compete their sexual rivals. But with a few rare exceptions, they don't. Why not? Because of the value of diversity. One butterfly may be larger and stronger than other butterflys, but only because it has enzymes optimized for a cold, damp, and dark environment. If the climate gets warmer and sunnier, its rivals with "inferior" enzymes will outcome it. Asexual species are force to put all their eggs in one basket (pun intended). When the environment changes, they die. The reason why sexual species do better is because of their genetic diversity.
Roughgarden argues (p.21) that this puts sociobiologists into a tough spot. On one hand they agree that genetic diversity is good for adapting to a changing environment, but on the other hand, they say that females prefer the alpha males with "great genes". Sociobiologists can't have it both ways, Roughgarden says. The essence of her theory is that sex and alternatives to monogamy are ways for this rich genetic diversity to be shared by the group. So the battle lines are drawn. Orthodox sociobiology has a dark vision of sex and human nature. It holds that males fight to demonstrate their "great genes" to females. Thus monogamy is really a type of detente. Monogamy deescalates the sexual competition between males. Roughgarden stands this on its head. She says that promiscuity is good because it spreads the genetic diversity widely. And beta males are not genetic losers; they just have novel reproductive strategies, such as by adopting feminine traits as a way to show females that they would be devoted caregivers rather than goonish alpha males.
However, there is no paradox in orthodox sociobiology and sociobiologists can have it both ways. I'm sure everyone has heard of the prisoner's dilemma - the most famous problem in game theory. The police arrest two bank robbers but they only have enough evidence to convict them for a minor crime. So they separate the two prisoners and make each of them a deal: testify against your partner and your jail sentence will be reduced. If you stay silent and your partner testifies against you, then you will go to jail for bank robbery while he gets the light sentence. I don't want to get too bogged down in the details of the prisoner's dilemma, but the main point is that no matter what the other guy does, your best play is to testify against him. But since the other guy faces the same incentives, he will also testify against you. The upshot is that the police end out getting the testimony of both prisoners and they both go to jail for robbery.
The prisoner's dilemma highlights a crucial problem in the social and behavioral sciences. Sometimes what is good for individuals is bad for the group. The good of the group would be advanced if the prisoners could both cooperate (stay silent). But the good of the individual is advanced if they choose to defect (testify). In these cases, individuals tend to choose their own self-interest and the group suffers. And that's exactly what happens in matters of sex and reproduction. The good of the group is promoted by females making choices that value sexual diversity, but it is in the self-interest of each female to choose the fittest male butterfly possible. Sure, the environment may change, but it probably won't. So her best odds are by choosing males adapted to the current environment. So the prisoner's dilemma leads to males fighting battles for dominance and females choosing the alpha males. They are the fittest strongest males in the current environment. The only way to solve the prisoner's dilemma is to force people to stop defecting. Sometimes the government can do this (such as by regulating environment pollution). But in this case, the solution comes from sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction promotes genetic diversity in comparison to asexual reproduction. But only partially. Females can still free ride by choosing to reproduce with the most dominant male. Thus traditional sociobiology is not in a bind at all. Genetic diversity is good for the species, but bad for individuals.
That takes me back to Franz de Waal's quote. The way to get a group to cooperate is to find a way to stop sexual competition between males. Some species like birds and humans do this with monogamy, which works pretty well (as long as people go along with it and don't have affairs). The eusocial species like leafcutter ants solve the problem of sexual competition by creating a special reproductive caste. The queens and male drones can reproduce but the workers cannot. Either way, you've cut down on sexual competition dramatically.
Thus, I think the core of Roughgarden's thesis is flawed. But it is in the details where she truly shines. She points to some fascinating examples of species that seemingly violate the paradigm of competing males and coy females. She points to cliff swallows where females openly commit adultery, fish species in which females prefer "feminine, beta" males over the "masculine" and "alpha" males, and many other cases. And in doing so she builds on Sandra Vehrencamp's theory of a sexual labor market. Roughgarden writes (p.70)
"the basic idea is that an animal helps another in exchange for access to reproductive opportunity. Some individuals, the privileged, are envisioned to have control of reproductive opportunity, and to pay out some of that opportunity to others who do not have similar access. In return for this paycheck, the underprivileged contribute labor to assist the privileged in their reproduction."
A good example of this is that some female fish prefer beta males to alpha males with "great genes." That is because the beta males will stick around to raise the children, but the alpha males will not. The alpha male will abandon her to look for other females to procreate with. Thus the beta male offers help raising the children and "outbids" the alpha male. An even more radical example comes from cliff swallows. Female cliff swallows sometimes openly commit adultery, but their mates do not seem to mind. This doesn't make any sense at all under traditional sociobiology, which predicts that a jealous male will "mate-guard" his spouse in order to prevent adultery. Instead he goes along with it. But Roughgarden suggests that the correct way to think about it is that the female is buying "dead spouse" insurance. If the male dies then a rival male might destroy her eggs. But if the rival male has copulated with the female, he won't do want to do that. He might destroy his own eggs.
I think that Roughgarden and Vehrencamp's view of a labor market for sexual opportunity is powerful (who hasn't talked about the "marriage market" or the "sexual marketplace"), but it is flawed for two reasons. I've already pointed out the first flaw: that there is such a thing as "great genes". A promiscuous world gives males with "great genes" a lot of power, and it creates an incentive for males to fight for dominance to prove that they have the "great genes." That gives us a second reason why a female might openly commit adultery. It could be that the cuckolded male is a "beta male" with low quality genes and he simply does not have the bargaining power in the sexual marketplace to negotiate for his wife to be faithful. Basically the beta male says, "Look, I get it. You're out of my league. But we can still be together. You can see other men and I'll raise your children regardless of whether they are by me or some other man." Personally I think both models correctly predict adultery. Supposedly the swinger movement started with fighter pilots in World War II. They had an extremely high mortality rate and were realistically worried that they might not be around to raise their children. So they slept with each others' wives. They didn't know who their biological kids were. That would make it easy for the other pilots to take on the role of second father for the pilots who died - they might be raising their own biological children. But I do not think that most cuckolds are like fighter pilots, who are prototypical alpha males. Although I'm not aware of any empirical research, I suspect that most cuckolds are beta males, not alpha males. In that sense, applying Roughgarden's insights to orthodox sociobiology gives us the richest and most powerful theory of sex and reproduction yet.
That's why I believe that her book is incredibly brilliant and insightful even when I disagree. I think that Roughgarden's ideas on the labor market theory of reproduction are powerful, but they make much more sense light of the fact that alpha males have good genes and beta males have (relatively) bad genes. And that just takes us back to the view of males as sexual competitors and coy females siding with alpha males. What Roughgarden does do is show that sometimes males don't have to fight. Sometimes low status beta males develop feminine traits as a way of internalizing their low status. And that takes me to the biggest problem with her theory, which is that inequality would always be with us. The price of feminine males and dividing males into those who are high status and those who are low status. You can have sexual diversity or you can have sexual equality. But not both.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
| Paperback, April 1, 2009 | $39.59 | — | $39.57 |
|
Audio CD, CD, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $14.30 | — |
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on April 27, 2011
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on February 20, 2016
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on October 12, 2006
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on November 10, 2017
Top reviews from other countries
Linda Sutherland
A fascinating book
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on August 19, 2012
Isabelly Cabral
O preço do Dóllar o transforma em artigo de luxo
Reviewed in Brazil 🇧🇷 on December 18, 2020
Isabelly Cabral
Reviewed in Brazil 🇧🇷 on December 18, 2020
Images in this review
