尋洋之南。躬耕之境

The major problem in Hibbing and Alford’s article is that, as they have acknowledged in the footnote (p.66), the behavior of those participants in the Ultimatum Game cannot be justifiably regarded as a consequence of biological factors. Inability to show the casual relationship between biological factors and its behavioral implication is a problem current political scientists who rely on the approach of evolutionary biology to conduct research frequently face; those political scientists might have underestimated the importance of social factors that have significantly shaped human behaviors.

The argument above does not deny the possibility of some human behaviors that are biologically programmed. Rather, as Samuel Bowles recognizes, biological factors, like social or culture factors, have equal importance regarding how human behaviors develop. The point however is that we should cautiously draw a line between “socially constructed behavior” and “genetically driven behavior.”

It is probably safe to say that heartbeat or breath is genetically driven even though we can intentionally hold our breath for some minutes. It is however dubious to argue that altruist or egoist behavior is purely genetically driven since the behavior is also likely to be socially constructed. For example, compared with an American, a Chinese is more likely to be aware of the importance of the collectivity that is often implied in the Chinese society; this example leads to my second point.

Even if different types of genes determine different physical traits, positive or negative meanings of these traits are still “socially defined.” A person with the height of seven feet, for example, could be considered deviant in South China seven hundred years ago. But a person with that height can be a popular basketball or football player in the 21st century America. Similarly, even if we assume that Anglo-Saxon whites are good at producing offspring who are “genetically” individualistic, we cannot deny the possibility that, if a newborn white baby will be raised in Japan all throughout his life, his personality probably will be developed in a way that corresponds to the Japanese social norm, that is, respecting collectivity.

My point here is that, without considering social contexts, explaining political behaviors solely based on genetic theories is meaningless. Certainly, physical characteristics of a person preset where he stands in a society. A person who is disabled by the effects of postpolio syndrome might expect to be frequently discriminated against in many circumstances. But indifferent or even negative attitudes toward disabled people are still socially defined.

A utility of drawing a demarcation line between socially constructed and biologically driven behaviors is to better analyze if cooperative behavior among ordinary people is biologically driven. Ridley would argue that people are willing to become cooperators simply because of human nature: self-interest. Ostrom’s and Thaler and Dawn’s articles show us types of “conditional” cooperators.

If it is assumed to be true that humans are genetic cooperators, then this paper argues that humans “learn” how to be smart cooperators in different contexts. That is to suggest, conditional cooperation is the consequence of interplay between biological factors and social factors.