Pouvoir, alliances et politique : des primates à l'homme

Pouvoir, alliances et politique : des primates à l'hommeNous présentons une synthèse des rapports de pouvoir et des alliances chez les primates non humains dans le but d'identifier quelques-uns des antécédents évolutifs du phénomène politique humain. Le pouvoir chez les primates est de nature essentiellement coer-citive et donne lieu à de nombreux types d'alliances: protection ou défense unilatérale, coalitions révolutionnaires, rebelle, conservatrice, xénophobe, etc. Après avoir décrit cet arrière-plan phylogénétique, nous tentons de cerner l'originalité humaine dans ce domaine. Le degré de dépendance de l'être humain par rapport aux ressources et aux techniques, sans précédent dans l'évolution, semble être le facteur clé qui a entrafné l'avènement des formes non coercitives de pouvoir et, concurremment, l'explosion de la complexité des coalitions.Power, Alliances and Politics : From Primates to HumansThe dynamics of power relationships and alliances in primates is reviewed with the goal of identifying some of the phylogenetic precursors of human politics. Power in primates is essentially coercive by nature and is reflected in various types of alliances: unilateral protection and defense, revolutionary, rebellious, conservative or xenophobic coalitions, etc. Sketching this phylogenetic background makes it possible to attempt defining the original characteristics of human politics. The degree of dependence of human beings on ressources and techniques, unprecedented in evolution, seems to be the key factor that led to the advent of non coercive forms of power and, concurrently, to the explosion of the complexity of coalitions

Evolution of Multilevel Social Systems in Nonhuman Primates and Humans

Multilevel (or modular) societies are a distinct type of primate social system whose key features are single-male-multifemale, core units nested within larger social bands. They are not equivalent to fission-fusion societies, with the latter referring to routine variability in associations, either on an individual or subunit level. The purpose of this review is to characterize and operationalize multilevel societies and to outline their putative evolutionary origins. Multilevel societies are prevalent in three primate clades: papionins, Asian colobines, and hominins. For each clade, we portray the most parsimonious phylogenetic pathway leading to a modular system and then review and discuss likely socioecological conditions promoting the establishment and maintenance of these societies. The multilevel system in colobines (most notably Rhinopithecus and Nasalis) has likely evolved as single-male harem systems coalesced, whereas the multilevel system of papionins (Papio hamadryas, Theropithecus gelada) and hominins most likely arose as multimale-multifemale groups split into smaller units. We hypothesize that, although ecological conditions acted as preconditions for the origin of multilevel systems in all three clades, a potentially important catalyst was intraspecific social threat, predominantly bachelor threat in colobines and female coercion/infanticide in papionins and humans. We emphasize that female transfers within bands or genetic relationships among leader males help to maintain modular societies by facilitating interunit tolerance. We still lack a good or even basic understanding of many facets of multilevel sociality. Key remaining questions are how the genetic structure of a multilevel society matches the observed social effort of its members, to what degree cooperation of males of different units is manifest and contributes to band cohesion, and how group coordination, communication, and decision making are achieved. Affiliative and cooperative interunit relations are a hallmark of human societies, and studying the precursors of intergroup pacification in other multilevel primates may provide insights into the evolution of human uniquenes

Anthropologie et sociobiologie : les fondements d'une possible intégration

RÉSUMÉ/ ABSTRACTAnthropologie et Sociobiologie : Les fondements d'une possible intégrationDans cet article, nous comparons les épistémologies respectives de la sociobiologie et de l'anthropologie afin de situer leurs points d'articulation et d'établir les fondements de leur éventuelle intégration. Ces deux perspectives nous paraissent se rejoindre en ce qu'elles supposent toutes deux l'existence d'une unicité psychique humaine organisant la variabilité culturelle. Elles diffèrent toutefois au niveau des chemins qu'elles empruntent pour caractériser cette unicité et arriver à des théories du social. Nous mettons en lumière les faiblesses inhérentes à chacune de ces perspectives prises isolément et nous suggérons, au-delà de la polarité réductionnisme/" irréductionisme ", une intégration disciplinaire de type vertical, telle qu'elle se pratique couramment dans le monde scientifique.Anthropology and Sociobtology : The Bases of an Eventual IntegrationIn this paper, we compare the respective epistemological tenets of sociobiological and anthropological theory, in order to shed some light on their common elements and in hope of setting the grounds for their 'eventual integration. These two theoretical approaches are seen as convergent in their shared assumption of a psychic unity of mankind, a unity that nevertheless expresses itself in the rich cultural variability that we observe. These two perspectives differ however in the path they take to characterize this unity, and in the way they generate theories of social behaviour. We focus on the inherent weaknesses of each approach when applied separately, and we try to go beyond the sterile reductionnistic/holistic opposition in an effort to foster some form of vertical interdisciplinary integration - of the kind that commonly prevails in most other scientific endeavours

Degrees of freedom in social bonds of crested macaque females

Social bonds between group members can affect individual fitness and well-being. While the impact of bond strength is well studied, the consequences of bond predictability and equitability are often overlooked. Similarly, whether bonds reflect short-term contingencies and/or long-term social strategies remains understudied. We investigated these questions in female crested macaques (Macaca nigra), which display a tolerant social style within a nepotistic hierarchical social structure. We analysed the structure of dyadic social bonds by testing whether similarity within dyads - in kinship, dominance and age - predicted the strength, predictability and equitability of bonds. We then tested the value of social bonds by analysing the effect of their characteristics on three fitness-related behaviours: coalitionary support, feeding-in-proximity and aggression. We found that the bond characteristics of females differed substantially from those of other species with comparable data: bonds were of average strength, of moderate endurance and relatively balanced. Stronger bonds were more equitable but less predictable than weaker bonds. Closely-ranked females, but not kin or age peers, had stronger, more predictable and more equitable bonds than others. Coalitionary support was not related to any of the bond characteristics, feeding-in-proximity was positively associated with strength and predictability and aggression was positively linked to strength and equitability. These results highlight the complex picture of the benefits of social bonds in this species. They reflect the degrees of freedom tolerant macaque females can express in their social relationships within their stable social structure, a pattern that may not be given enough consideration in stable nepotistic hierarchical societies. Comparative research is necessary to establish whether these patterns are more general than previously thought or a specific feature of tolerant macaques. Investigating various characteristics of bonds together is paramount in order to appreciate the dynamics of social relationships and to better understand the social components of fitness

The Evolutionary Origins of Kinship Structures

Patrilineal kinship structures are among the most complex manifestations of the impact of kinship on human social life. Despite the fact that such structures take highly diverse forms across cultures, that they are absent in many human societies and, moreover, that they are not observed in other primate species, a comparative analysis of human and nonhuman primate societies reveals that human kinship structures have deep evolutionary roots and clear biological underpinnings. I argue here that the first patrilineal kinship structures came into being as the emergent products of the combination, in the course of human evolution, of ten biologically grounded components, seven of which are observed in our closest relative, the chimpanzee, the remaining three being consequences of the evolution of pair-bonding in humans. This indicates that contemporary patrilineal kinship structures are not cultural creations, but cultural constructs that built upon, and diversified from a rich biological substrate. The same reasoning applies to many other complex human kinship phenomena, such as marital arrangements. I conclude that models and theories from cultural anthropology must be compatible with the relevant biological evidence

The Evolutionary Origins of Kinship Structures

Patrilineal kinship structures are among the most complex manifestations of the impact of kinship on human social life. Despite the fact that such structures take highly diverse forms across cultures, that they are absent in many human societies and, moreover, that they are not observed in other primate species, a comparative analysis of human and nonhuman primate societies reveals that human kinship structures have deep evolutionary roots and clear biological underpinnings. I argue here that the first patrilineal kinship structures came into being as the emergent products of the combination, in the course of human evolution, of ten biologically grounded components, seven of which are observed in our closest relative, the chimpanzee, the remaining three being consequences of the evolution of pair-bonding in humans. This indicates that contemporary patrilineal kinship structures are not cultural creations, but cultural constructs that built upon, and diversified from a rich biological substrate. The same reasoning applies to many other complex human kinship phenomena, such as marital arrangements. I conclude that models and theories from cultural anthropology must be compatible with the relevant biological evidence