Searching for Motivation

A midterm paper for 'Nature, Society, and Adaptation'

Searching for Motivation

            The foraging, or hunting and gathering, way of life has been dominant for the majority of human existence (Bates 2005, p. 84). Foraging and living off of only what the Earth has to offer is a lifestyle few still live today. Most of our primate relatives practice this method of sustenance as well, but what sets us apart is the fact that we often share what we collect; whereas primates like chimpanzees typically keep what they find for themselves. Humans are more complex than our primate relatives, hence the name Homo sapiens—or “wise man.” With complex cognition and social structures, the quest for food may not be as simple as we once thought. Anthropologists have long assumed the primary goals of foraging are to provide for families and communal social groups. Some research, however, suggests that maybe man’s motivation for foraging and sharing is the opportunity to showcase their masculinity (Hawkes 1991).

            Humans had been foraging for thousands of years, and the average human lifestyle became well established and relatively constant compared to the variety we have today. What we know about the lifestyles of these ancient peoples we have learned from foraging societies that still exist in many parts of the world today. American anthropologist Marjorie Shostak spent a long time with the !Kung foragers still living in the Kalahari desert of Africa. In her discussion on the gendered labor divisions in foraging societies, she quotes noteworthy anthropologist Margaret Mead who said, “in every known society, the males’ need for achievement can be recognized” (1949, pp. 157-158). While in this context, Shostak draws on Mead to point out that the !Kung men are an anomaly among foraging societies in a sense that they display “a striking degree of equality between the sexes,” she mentions that !Kung men hold more influence and have the upper hand in every aspect of their society, (Shostak 1981, p. 213). There is a wide variety of gendered labor divisions among foraging societies, but it just goes to show that even foraging societies with drastically more equity still idolize males. Maybe the idolization of males provoked males’ desire to maintain that perception by providing for their communities. It’s also possible that the praise males received from providing and hunting provoked them to continue to do so by classical conditioning. While it is hard to determine a cause and effect, clearly societies thrive on male achievement, especially in foraging ability. Achievement depends on a source of praise, and for foraging societies that source is simply this: without hunting, people don’t eat meat.

            In response to appreciation, it makes sense that men might begin to share their foraged goods with a broad range of people: more people means more praise. Professor of Anthropology at the University of Utah Kristen Hawkes says these foraging men have “more to gain by giving food to a wide range of companions who treat them favorably in return” (1991, p. 29).  In fact, many tribesmen would intentionally target resources that were frequently more widely shared (Hawkes 1991, p. 29). The resulting favorable return is evidence of reciprocity practices among humans; a dynamic form of sharing, giving, and receiving that other primates don’t commonly, if ever, practice (Bates 2005, p. 63). Reciprocity is the non-market sharing of goods or services followed by some form of return like favors or gifts. Positive reciprocity usually involves an exchange or a favor on part of one party without the expectation of return from the other. Balanced reciprocity is when the action is not rewarded until a later date, becoming social storage. Negative reciprocity, however, is arguably the most common in America today. Negative reciprocity is not a bad thing, but it involves the transfer of something someone may not want to give up in exchange for something of more value (Bates 2005, p. 64). As with any human society, the type of reciprocity or social exchange depends on the relationships between people. Within foraging societies, especially among the Aché of Eastern Paraguay that Hawkes studied, I believe the favorable return is balanced reciprocity. It might be nice to think that the hunters practice positive reciprocity when they share food, but their motivations for sharing seem to be based on the return they receive upon doing so.

            The search for the motivation behind foraging reaches out to our primate cousins like chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas. These great apes typically forage for themselves. In some cases, chimpanzees might share meat, but some ape practices sharing in the way humans do. Humans have advanced social cognition beyond that of any other primate; leading to more advanced social structures and systems. The fact that humans have been called the “social ape” (Herrmann et. al. 2007) supports the idea that the goals of foraging serve more social ends outside of sustenance.  Just the act of providing for a community leans towards the unconstrained view of human nature; where man is selfless and pure (Sowell 2007, p. 15). Something deeper speaks to the social nuances of foraging for personal gain if hunters do in fact forage to showcase masculinity or receive special treatment. This suggests the question then, even though humans are sharing, is it inherently selfish?

References

Bates, D.  (2005). Human adaptive strategies: Ecology, culture and politics. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

Hawkes, K. (1991). Showing Off: Tests of an Hypothesis About Men’s Foraging Goals. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12(1), pp. 29-54.

Herrmann, E. and Josep Call, Maria Victoria Hernandez-Lloreda, Brian Hare, Michael             Tomasello (2007). Humans Have Evolved Specialized Skills of Social Cognition: The Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis. Science, 317(5843), pp. 1360-1366.

Mead, M. (1949). Male and Female. New York: Harper Collins.

Shostak, M. (1981). Nisa: The life and words of a !Kung woman. Cambridge: Harvard.

Sowell, T. (2007). A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. New York: Basic Books