On the human ethology of food sharing

• Authors: Wulf Schiefenhövel
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper compares various explanatory concepts of food sharing in humans. In many animal species, parents share food with their offspring, thus investing into the 50% of their own genes present in each child. Even in modern families of industrialised societies, there is a very significant flow of material goods from the parent to the offspring generation. Sharing food between reproductive partners is also easily explainable in evolutionary terms: „food for sex“ as male strategy is observed in some primate species. Sharing within one’s group in small-scale societies can be explained also as consequence of its members being actually rather closely related to each other; this, among others, gives credit to the concept of group selection which gains attention again after having been discarded by classic sociobiology. The ethos of individual and group sharing can quite readily be transferred to larger groups, i.e. a whole nation or, especially in the case of unusually devastating natural disasters, to members of other societies. Food sharing beyond genetic relationship or reproductive interest has been explained as „tit for tat“ and „reciprocal altruism“. Events of give and take, however, are, how the last example demonstrates, quite often non-symmetrical, i.e. one partner shares much more than the other. „Tolerated theft“, a behavioural trait in non-human primate species thought to be a stepping stone for the typical preparedness of humans to share, does not play a big role in traditional societies, which provide an important base to discuss the topic. The Trobriand Islanders, e.g., have a very complex system of sharing. In the years of competitive harvest, their yield of yam is distributed to close relatives, especially to fathers and elder brothers. The donors keep almost nothing for themselves, are however given as well, so that everybody has enough to live. High rank men receive a partly enormous surplus, by which their status is increased. Western farmers would find this generosity quite strange. It is one outcome of the human tendency to create bonds through food gifts. It is interesting, that Marcel Mauss has well described the power of the gift which generates a counter gift, but did not inquire evolutionary nor ontogenetic building blocks of the often very complex acts and rituals of giving and receiving one finds in all cultures. It seems reasonable to take an evolutionary position and argue that those of our ancestors who were generous and socially competent with a well-developed emphronesis (Theory of Mind) were preferred interaction and marriage partners and that this sexual selection was the ultimate mechanism spreading the motivations and behaviours involved in sharing. To counteract cheaters humans have a rather sharp perception to detect those who don’t play by the rules and a very strong motivation to punish them, even accepting, in doing so, high costs for themselves. This strongly disproves the idea that humans mainly act on rationale choice. Rather, we are endowed, one must conclude, with a very powerful, archaic sense of balanced social interaction, of fairness and justice. This raises the interesting question whether the laws governing social conduct, made by all cultures of the world, are contra or secundum naturam. For quite some time, in the wave of sociobiological thinking, the common stand was that humans are dangerously egoistic beings and that their antisocial instincts must be kept in check by powerful laws. As Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, the founder of human ethology as a discipline, has stated and as recent primatological and anthropological research has corroborated, humans are much more social than postulated by some authors. The Ten Commandments are built on not against basic human tendencies. Konrad Lorenz spoke of animals having “morally analogous” behaviours and was criticised for this. Modern research is rehabilitating him. The joy of sharing, a proximate behavioural set of motivation, is typical for our species. Notwithstanding expectations of economic and status gain this biopsychologically rooted tendency most likely is the engine driving the systems of do ut des, so marvellously developed in our species.

Keywords

EN

food sharing; evolutionary concepts; human ethology; cross-cultural anthropology; traditional societies; Melanesia; social competence; emphronesis; sexual selection; group selection; joy of sharing

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Anthropological Review
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 77
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 355-370

Dates

published

2014-12-01

online

2014-12-20

Contributors

author

Wulf Schiefenhövel

• Human Ethology Group, Max Planck Institute for Ornithology, Seewiesen, Germany

References

• Alexander RD. 1987. The Biology of Moral Systems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
• Axelrod R. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
• Bell I. 1990. Haben um zu geben. Eigentum und Besitz auf den Trobriand-Inseln, Papua New Guinea. Basel: Wepf.
• Bell-Krannhals I, Schiefenhövel W. 1986. Repu et de bonne réputation - Système de partage du yam aux îles de Trobriand, Nouvelle Guinée Papou. Bulletin d’Ecologie et Ethologie Humaines 5(1/2):128-40.
• Bird RL, Bird DW. 1997. Delayed Reciprocity and Tolerated Theft. The Behavioral Ecology of Food- Sharing Strategies. Curr Anthropol 38(1):49-78.[Crossref]
• Blurton Jones NG. 1984. A Selfish Origin for Human Food Sharing: Tolerated Theft. Ethol Sociobiol 5(1):1-3.[Crossref]
• Byrne R, Whiten A editors. 1988. Machiavellian Intelligence, Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes and Humans. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Byrne RW. 1996. Machiavellian Intelligence. Evol Anthropol 5(5):172-80.[Crossref]
• Cosmides L. 1989. The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how human reason? Studies with the Wason selection task. Cognition 31:187-276.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Darwin Ch. 1872. The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. London: Murray.
• Dawkins R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. 1975. Krieg und Frieden aus der Sicht der Verhaltensforschung. München: Piper.
• Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. 1984. Die Biologie des menschlichen Verhaltens. Grundriss der Humanethologie. München: Piper.
• Fehr E, Fischbacher U, Gächter S. 2002. Strong Reciprocity, Human Cooperation, and the enforcement of Social Norms. Human Nature 13(1):1-25.[Crossref]
• Fehr E. Gächter, S. 2002. Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415(6868):137-40.
• Fehr E, Fischbacher U. 2003. The nature of human altruism. Nature 425(2043):785-91.
• Fehr E, Bernhard H, Rockenbach B. 2008. Egalitarianism in young children. Nature 454(7208):1079-83.
• Feistner ATC, Price EC. 1999. Cross-generic food sharing in tamarins. Int J Primatol 20(2):231-36.[Crossref]
• Feistner ATC, McGrew WC. 1989. Food-sharing in primates: a critical review. In: PK Seth and S Seth, editors. Perspectives in primate biology, vol 3. New Delhi: Today and Tomorrow’s Publishers. 21-36.
• Fossey D. 1983. Gorillas in the Mist. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
• Fragaszy D, Izar P., Visalberghi E, Ottoni EB, Gomes de Oliveira M. 2004. Wild capuchin monkeys (Cebus libidinosus) use anvil and stone pounding tools. Am J Primatol 64:359-66.[Crossref]
• Frank RH. 1988. Passion within Reason. The Strategic Role of Emotions. New York: Norton.
• Hamilton WD. 1963. The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior. Amer Nat 97(896):354-56.
• Hamilton W. D. (1964) The genetical evolution of social behavior. J Theor Biol 7:1-52.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Heeschen V, Schiefenhövel W. Eibl-Eibesfeldt I. 1980. Requesting, Giving and Taking. The Relationship Between Verbal and Nonverbal Behavior in the Speech Community of the Eipo, Irian Jaya (West-New Guinea). In: MR Key, editor. The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication - Contribution to the Sociology of Language. Paris, New York: Mouton, Den Haag. 139-66.
• Heeschen V, Schiefenhövel W. 1983. Wörterbuch der Eipo-Sprache. Eipo-Deutsch- Englisch. Berlin: Reimer.
• Hölldobler B, Wilson EO. 2009. The Superorganisms. The Beauty, Elegance and Strangeness of Insect Societies. New York: Norton.
• Isaac G. 1978. The Food-Sharing Behavior of Protohuman Hominids. Sci Am 238(4):90-108.
• Jaeggi AV, van Schaik CP. 2011. The evolution of food sharing in primates. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:2125-40. Jandrasists N. 2012. Teilen aus evolutionärer und entwicklungspsychologischer Sicht. Diploma Thesis. Faculty of Natural Sciences. Institute of Psychology. University of Innsbruck Kaplan H, Hill K. 1985. Food Sharing among Ache Foragers: Tests of Explanatory Hypotheses. Curr Anthropol 26(2):223-46.
• Kohli M. 1999. Private and Public Transfers between Generations: Linking the Family and the State. European Societies 1(1):81-104.
• Kotrschal K. 2010. In einem Boot: warum soziale Beziehungen zwischen Menschen und Tieren möglich sind. Lecture, Meeting, Catholic Academy of Bavaria in Passau. 7.5.2010.
• Kummer H. 1991. Evolutionary transformations of possessive behavior. In: FW Rudmin, editor. To have possessions: A handbook on ownership and property (special issue). J Soc Behav Pers 6:75-83.
• Lorenz K. 1956. Moralanaloges Verhalten geselliger Tiere. Universitas 11:691-704.
• Lorenz K. 1978. Vergleichende Verhaltensforschung. Grundlagen der Ethologie. Wien: Julius Springer.
• Malinowski B. 1922, 1961. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. An account of native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea. New York: Dutton.
• Mauss M. 1923-24. Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés primitives. L’Année Sociologique, seconde série 30(186):143-279.
• Medicus G. Was uns Menschen verbindet. Humanethologische Angebote zur Verständigung zwischen Leib- und Seelenwissenschaften. Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, Berlin. In press.
• Peterson N. 1993. Demand Sharing: Reciprocity and the Pressure for Generosity among Foragers. Am Anthropol 95(4):860-74.[Crossref]
• Roewer L, Croucher PJ, Willuweit S. Lu TT, Kayser M, Lessing R, de Knijff P, Jobling MA, Tyler-Smith C, Krawczak M. 2005.
• Signature of recent historic events in the European Y-chromosomal STR haplotype distribution. Hum Genet 116(4):279-91.
• Salter F. 2003. On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
• Schiefenhövel W. 1976. Die Eipo-Leute des Berglands von Indonesisch-Neuguinea: Kurzer Überblick über den Lebensraum und seine Menschen. Einführung zu den Eipo-Filmen des Humanethologischen Filmarchivs der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Homo 26(4):263-75.
• Schiefenhövel W. 1991. Eipo. In: TE Hays, editor. Encyclopedia of World Cultures. Vol. II, Oceania. Boston: G.K. Hall & Co. 55-59.
• Silk JB, Brosnan SF, Vonk J, Henrich J, Povinelli DJ, Richardson AS, Lambeth SP, Mascaro J, Schapiro SJ. 2005. Chimpanzees are indifferent to the welfare of unrelated group members. Nature 437(7063):1357-59.
• Trivers RL. 1971. The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. Q Rev Biol 46(1):35-57/ Voland E, Chasiotis A, Schiefenhövel W editors. 2005. Grandmotherhood - The evolutionary significance of the second half of female life. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. [Crossref]
• de Waal F. 1982. Chimpanzee Politics - Power and Sex among Apes. London: Jonathan Cape.
• de Waal F. 1989. Food-sharing and reciprocal obligations in chimpanzees. J Hum Evol 18:433-59. [Crossref]
• de Waal F. 1991. The chimpanzee’s sense of social regularity and its relation to the human sense of justice. Am Behav Sci 34(3):335-49. [Crossref]
• de Waal F. 1996. Good Natured. The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. 3rd edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• de Waal F. 2000. Attitudinal reciprocity in food sharing among brown capuchin monkeys. Ani Behav 60:253-61.[Crossref]
• Wickler W. 1971. Die Biologie der Zehn Gebote. München: Piper Wickler W. 1991. Die Biologie der Zehn Gebote.
• Warum die Natur für uns kein Vorbild ist. München: Piper.
• Wilson EO. 1975. Sociobiology. The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Winterhalder B. 1996. A Marginal Model of Tolerated Theft. Ethol Sociobiol 17(1):37-53 [Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/anre-2014-0026