A decade after the publication of Chimpanzee Politics, scientists began to fill in more blanks. Research on bonobos revealed that these primates are predisposed to cooperation, tolerance and negotiation.
Scientists trying to understand why human societies are both altruistic and competitive often turn to insights from primatology. For long, human capacity for aggression was explained as evolutionary preconditioning. In his 1982 classic, Chimpanzee Politics, Dutch primatologist Francis de Waal described the brutality with which the humans’ closest ancestors raided and ambushed other members of their species.
A decade after the publication of Chimpanzee Politics, scientists began to fill in more blanks. Research on bonobos revealed that these primates are predisposed to cooperation, tolerance and negotiation. The more than 98 per cent genetic affinity with these laidback apes, it appeared, had hardwired humans for empathy and selflessness.
It turns out that the evolutionary jigsaw is a little more complex. A study published last week in Current Science shows that bonobos live a more aggressive life than their reputation suggests. The research led by University of Boston anthropologist Maud Mouginot revealed that these apes are nearly three times as violent as chimpanzees. Bonobo aggression usually involves a male attacking another male. Chimps, in contrast, gang up against their victim. And the nicer bonobos do not fare well when it comes to getting partners.
Mouginot and her colleagues do not completely overturn earlier theories. Their research aligns with the current thinking which holds that, unlike chimps, bonobos rarely use coercive mating strategies. But this is because the females don’t hesitate to quell male aggression when it’s directed at them, even though they like their suitors to be feisty. Conflicts aren’t decided by sharing partners as the “hippie ape” theory had assumed.
The findings also challenge the belief that bonobos took the evolutionary route to cooperation. Animal societies do have similarities with those of humans. Merely underlining shared ancestry, however, doesn’t do justice to the complexities of human — and ape — behaviour.
