Explaining Religion without Explaining it Away: Trust, Truth, and the Evolution of Cooperation in Roy A.

Rappaport's "The Obvious Aspects of Ritual" Author(s): John M. Watanabe and Barbara B. Smuts Reviewed work(s): Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Mar., 1999), pp. 98-112 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/683344 . Accessed: 16/07/2012 11:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

JOHNM. WATANABE Departmentof Anthropology College Dartmouth Hanover,NH 03755 B. SMUTS BARBARA Departmentof Psychology Universityof Michigan Ann Arbor,MI 48109

It Away:Trust,Truth,and Explainillg without Religion Explaining "TheObvious in RoyA. Rappaport's of Cooperation the Evolution of Ritual" Aspects
subsequentwork on ritualexRoy Rappaport's of Pigsfor theAncestors, Moving beyond the ecological functionalism exploredhow the "obviousaspects"of ritual'sformalismand the need to performit literallyembody in its performers He inherentin symbolic communication. pressionsof sanctityand truththat counterthe threatsof lying and alternative andritualserves andtrustbetweenindividuals, social cooperation recognizedthatsymbolicmeaningandtruthpresuppose meaning.Througha studyof uniquelyto reaffirmthis mutualityat the level of bothindividualbehaviorandconventional sense how ritualin Rappaport's paper illustrates anubis), this (Papio cynocephalus male greetingsamong olive baboons transparent a behaviorally contextsby establishing in sociallycomplexbutnonlinguistic may indeedintensifycooperation Thus, not only may ritualsanctifysymboliccommunication, meansof certifyingotherwiseopaqueindividualintentions. symbolic religion andsociety, evolution, but it also may have played a crucialrole in its evolution.[ritualsociocultural

socialbehavior] primate olivebaboons, communication,

remainsmost widely known for A. Rappaport espehis seminalworkin ecologicalanthropology, to ritualpig feasting cially the role he attributed and warfarein regulatingthe size of humanand animal New amongthe TsembagaMaringof highland populations analysis Guinea.This early work involved a functionalist of ritualwithina largelyimputedsocial andecologicalsystem (Biersack, introduction,this issue). From the first, recognizedthatsuchneo-functionalist however,Rappaport analyses alone failed to account for the ritual form by withthe sotheirinteractions whichthe Tsembagaordered cial and naturalworld. In asking what made rituala particularlyapt vehicle for fulfilling the functionshe attributed to it, Rappaport tumed increasingly from to formalism(Wolf, this issue). That is, he functionalism of ritual'soutsoughtto traceout the logical consequences wardly distinctive features, especially the way ritual's them behaviorsandthe needto perform highlystereotyped in could counterthe potentialfor lying anddeceit inherent focused speWhile Rappaport symbolic communication. of ritualformandperformance cificallyon the relationship to sanctity that is, unverifiableyet unfalsifiableparaRoy

digms for conventionalassociations between signs and their significata- his approachalso highlightedthe way between ritualbehaviorcould makesocial communication individualsmore reliable.Indeed,he suggestedin passing role in that ntual may have played a crucialevolutionary of muintensifyingthe complex, reciprocalrelationships and social action tual trustthat symbolic communication presuppose. To investigatethis possibility,we spentthe summerof a small cornerof Kenya's Rift Valley in 1983 traversing baboons.We wantedto study of a troopof savanna pursuit ortiying one another why adultmalesgreetedby mounting to pat each other'stesticles, and whetherthese behaviors betweenthem.Thiscusocialcooperation reflectedfurther riousfocus aroseinnocentlyenoughone day in the spring Smuts,then lectunngon pnmatolof 1982, when Barbara at Harvard,invited department ogy in the anthropology to watcha film in which a youthful,cleanJohnWatanabe of shaven Irven DeVore descnbed a "centralhierarchy" the troopof olive threeadultmalebaboonswho dominated anubis)he had studiedin baboons (Papiocynocephalus Nairobi National Park during the late l950s and early

1999, AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation AmericanAnthropologist101( 1)^98-112. Copyright(C)

WATANABE ANDSMUTS /

ITAWAY RELIGION WITHOUT EXPLAINING EXPLAINING

99

1960s (Education Development Center 1965). When Watanabeasked how these males formed their alliance, Smuts respondedthat no one had yet looked at this, althoughshe surmisedthata certainkind of greetingbehavior betweenmales mightplay a role. Havingrecentlyread Rappaport's essays on "The Obvious Aspects of Ritual" (1979b) and "Sanctityand Lies in Evolution"(1979c), s approach might Watanabe suggested that Rappaport' shed light on how, andperhapseven why, formalizedgesandestablishtrust turalgreetingscould serve to coordinate betweenthe malesengagingin them. Like all exchanges between social and biological anthropologists at Harvard in thosedays,ourdiscussionsoon concerns founderedon how to reconcile neo-Darwinian interests andenwiththe pursuit of individual reproductive during Durkheimianinsistence on the constraintssocial conventionsimposed on individualsengaged in cooperative or reciprocal relations. Althoughneitherof us held to a the discontinuities strict genetic or culturaldeterminism, theoryleft us facingthe betweenevolutionary andcultural in society:evolutionage-oldconundrum of the individual ary approaches tendedto envision society as a byproduct self-interested of ecological forces thatdrew autonomous, perspectivestended individualstogether,while culturalist to treatindividuals largelyas creationsof the sociocultural ordersthey inhabited. Rappaport's approachcrosscutthis dichotomy.He artrappingincidentalto its gued that, far from an arbitrary behavioralor symbolic content,the ritualform itself constituteda conventionallygiven contextwithinwhich individualsacted out theircooperativeintentionstowardeach other throughmutuallycoordinatedsocial action. While between"ritual" as forclearlyrecognizingthe distinction malized behavior and "rituals"as culturallyconstituted perceivedin both a simple events (1979b:176),Rappaport capableof transforming butextremelypowerfulformalism individualbehaviorinto meaningfulsocial action in the imbuedby actors Weberian sense of reciprocal interactions withintention andsignificance. between Afterdue deliberation, we agreedthatgreetings malebaboonsmightrepresent a revealinginstanceof ritual injust this sense:although neitherthe causeof socialcoopnor a suff1cient condierationor individualintentionality, ritual tion for the emergenceof symboliccommunication, formalism and performancein Rappaport'sterms suggested a plausiblemechanismby which alreadysocial yet highlycompetitiveindividuals suchas malebaboonscould convey intentionsand perhapseven promisesto one another within a socially complex yet nonlinguisticbehavthatRappaport's theioralcontext.As such, we postulated ory of ritualmightprovidea way of relatingthese baboon not greetingsto the evolutionof symboliccommunication, in any necessarycausal sense but in the sense that ritual flexconstitutedan evolutionarilyavailable,behaviorally couldhaveintensiible meansby which social cooperation

fied into languageand culturein conjunctionwith other phylogeneticchanges in hominidcognitionand self-consciousness.Conversely,it could also providea way of apprimatesocial bethe complexityof nonhuman preciating havior. In this paper,we thus examinethe significanceof Raplong-standing dipaport'stheoryof ritualfor transcending and cultural theorybetweeninchotomiesin evolutionary andculturalist explanations of self and society, dividualist or, as Biersackhas putit (thisissue), the idealist-materialist impasse in anthropologicalconceptions of culture (cf. animals Rodseth1998). In comparingritualin nonhuman we seek herenot to equatethe two but andhumancultures, in order to underthe extentof theirsimilarities to ascertain stand better the processes by which the differencesbetween them might have emerged. Such an exercise may interethologiststhatritualized proveuseful in reminding aboutfuture actionscan involve complex communication social action, and symbolically minded anthropologists thatculturalforms and meaningsremainrootedin enduring problemsof social cooperationbetween willful individuals. behavior We begin with a brief discussionof ritualized in nonhumananimals,then turn to what in Rappaport's sentus to the baboons.We next describemale formulation baboongreetingsanddiscuss our findingsandtheirimplicationsfor ritual'srole in intensifyingsocial cooperation In and trustin the evolutionof symbolic communication. theoretical work to Rappaport's the conclusion,we return and its implications for grand Durkheimianquestions societyuestions aboutthe roleof religionin constituting to that advancesin symbolic and ideological approaches religionover the last thirtyyearshave ironicallytendedto deny. obscureor ignore,if not categorically

Ritualized Behaviorin NonhumanAnimals

Animal behaviorfalls roughlyinto two types instruin ways s environment mentalactionsthatalterthe animal' and that contributedirectly to survival or reproduction, communicativeactions that typically involve little or no butinsteadconof the physicalenvironment manipulation to specific individuals,usually members vey information of the same species.Ethologistshave long recognizedthat or actions,usuallyreferred to as "displays" communicative "signals,"often include highly stereotyped,exaggerated, or repetitivebehaviors. Researchersoriginally believed that marlyof these signals were innate because of their relativeuniformityacross differentmembersof the same species and their highly predictablecontexts of use. Detailed study of ritualizedsignals, however, indicatesthat they, like manyotheraspectsof behavior,involve both an evolutionarypredispositionand individual modification experience,including,in some species, enculturathrough tion (Smith1977).

100

1999 * VOL. 101, NO. 1 * MARCH ANTHROPOLOGIST AMERICAN

(Darwin1872), JulBuildingon Darwin'sobservations ian Huxley (1914) was the first to propose that highly signals evolved by naturalselection the same stereotyped behaviorsdid. He coined the term way more instrumental ritualization to refer to the process by which selection graduallyalterscertainbehaviorsinto increasinglyeffective signals. Europeanethologists,like Tinbergen(1952) the studyof ritualized andLorenz(1950, 1966), pioneered in fish and behavior in nonhumananimals, particularly has also identifiedntualized research birds,butsubsequent primates(Hinde signalsin mammals,includingnonhuman 1974;Moynihan1956;Smith1977). involvesthe way doA familiarexampleof ritualization Among in greeting. mesticdogs lick theirhumanassociates adults wolves, the ancestorsof domesticdogs, subordinate greetdominantmembersof the packby nippingand licking the mouth area. Researchershypothesize that this greetingderivesfrom the beggingbehaviorof canidpups, who touch theirmuzzlesto the mouthareaof adultsin orof well-chewedpieces of meat der to induce regurgitation (Mech 1970; Schenkel 1967). This example illustrates (Smith1977).First,a threeessentialaspectsof ritualization funcbehaviorthat originallyserved a specific utilitarian tion appearsin a new social context.Second, in this new context,the behaviortypicallybecomes simplified,exagThird,the new functionof the beandstereotyped. gerated, instrumenhaviorhas less to do with achievingimmediate, or intentionthat,in tal ends thanwith signalingan attitude individual. turn,may influencethe behaviorof another At one extreme, these social signals take the form of highly stereotyped"one-way"displays meant to elicit a simple response from the recipient,as in aggressivedisbirdsthat warnoff potentialintruders. plays by territorial At the other extreme,more complex ritualizedbehaviors who betweentwo or moreindividuals demandcooperation signals.Wilson(1975:224)terms oftenelaborate excharlge and sees them as "a highly such exchanges "ceremonies" conciliateandto establish to used behaviors of evolved set instarlce,potentialfoes For bonds." and maintainsocial inhabitingneighmales as such who interactrepeatedly, boringterntones, may settle disputesthrough"ntualized potentialmates develop fighting"or "agonisticdisplays"; through of toleranceand social coordination mechaIlisms displays." "courtship interAs Smith(1977:426 427) writes,suchformalized actionsare
predictablein generalpattern. . . rules constrainthe participantsto accommodateto each otherto begin, sustain,and (in some cases) to completethe interaciion.... [Eachparticipant set of partsor roles fromwhich to is allotted]a predetermined select; each partdeterminesa rangeof moves and responses the parts In being performed, thatmust or may be performed. jointly affect each otherin orderlyways thatfit withinthe inemploys a very fixed format.... [The interaction] teractional repertoireof componentacts . .. [and proceeds] in a prob-

fashion.... [Therulesof interaction] predictable abilistically they activity: are specificto the ... kind of interactional to itsorganizaof itsparticipants theactions it,fitting "frarne" tion. Smithgoes on to point out, however,thatwithinany such can exerparticipants formalizedprogramor framework, (1977: cise "a greatdeal of freedomof detailedbehavior" 426). In additionto this formal framing,Smith (1977:428) makesthe crucialobservationthatthe componentbehaviors of nonhumananimal displays pertaindirectlyto the In itself, not to some externalreferent. ritualperformance disthe wolf greetingsmentionedabove, the stereotyped animalsreflectsthe play of lickingthe muzzleof dominant gesture'spossible not the greeting, of context immediate relaparent-offspring or in feeding behavior antecedents actions, of events, tions.Similarly,despitethe presumption beyond theirbounds,humanritualsretain and authorities the same immediacy-or what semioticianscall "indexiThatis, the properandefficality"or "self-referentiality." spirit,for example,depends cacioussacrificeto a guardian use of ritualobjectsand obseron preciseand prescribed the spiritis the cropland vances,not literallymanipulating to protect,muchless the spirititself. supposed anithusemergefromnonhuman Severalcharacteristics mal rituals that suggest the evolutionatysubstratethey constitutefor human culturalrituals.First, they draw on gesturesor behaviorsfrom other social contexts and recombinetheminto distinctivedisplaysor signals.Second, actividisplaysrelatenotto instrumental theserecombined conspewith most often ties butto social communication, to the extent cifics. Third,these displaysbecomeritualized a repertoireof possible behaviorsand they circumscribe recognized of interaction framework establisha formalized throughtheirvolitionalconformity as suchby participants Finally, these displaysremainrooted to these constraints. and literallyembody in participants in the here-and-now they entail. mutualcoordination whatever it is preciselyon these groundsthatRapSignificantly, paportbegins his analysis of ritual, working not from model ethologicaldatabut from his own "formal-causal" of the derivedfrom the "logicallynecessaIy"entailments ritualform itself (1979b:173-174). We now turnto Rapanalysisof these obviousaspectsof ritual. paport's

Ritual Form and Performance

arguesthat thereare two obvious aspectsof Rappaport ritual (1978b:175-179). First, ritualconsists of more or thatthe parsequencesof acts andutterances less invariant ticipantsthemselvesdo not inventbut to which they must conform.Second, in orderto have a ritualat all, participants must actuallyperformthese sequencesratherthan simply invoke or acknowledgethem. Ritual'sformalism, actionsand commonlyexpressedin its stylized,stereotypic

WATANABE ANDSMUTS /

RELIGION WITHOUT EXPIAINING ITAWAY EXPLAINING

101

fixed sequences,not only sets ritualoff fromeverydaybeof conductbeyondthe haviorbut also imposes a standard will of its individual participants. By so holdingindividual performersto a mutuallyinduced conformity,ntual formalism begets behavioralinvariance,and mutually enof inacted invariancecan become iconic representations terindividual reliability,certainty,and perhapseven truth (1979b:208-211).
In sum, ritualis unique in at once establishingconventions, thatis to say enunciatingand acceptingthem, and in insulatconventionsandacing themfromusage.In bothenunciating cepting them, it containswithin itself not simply a symbolic representation of social contract,but a consummationof social contract. As such, ritual ... is the basic social act. [1979b:197, emphasisin the original]

of havingto perform a Similarly,the secondprerequisite ritualdemonstrates participants' acceptanceof its conventions because they must literallyact them out. Although such acceptanceneed say nothing about the performers' sincenty (much less their belief) in what they perform, a clearpublicacconformityto ritual'sdictatesrepresents standards of performceptanceof commonlyagreed-upon ance, not simply willful individual behavior (1979b: enacted 193-195). These standards, howeverrudimentary, literallyembody within a clearlydelimitedhere-and-now, in ritualperformers theirmutualacceptanceof an agreedmightsubupon form on which further social cooperation sequentlybe built. At the same time, this tangibleexpenence of mutualconformityconstitutesinclusion within a than largerwhole, which can come to hold positive rather simplycoerciveimport,as reflectedin the emotionallypersuasive "numinous"force often associated with ritual (1979b:211-213; 1979c:23>238).l of ritualform and In tracingout the logical entailments performance, Rappaport focuses primarilyon how ritual amelioratesthe problemsof lying and alternativewithin the very flexibilityof systemsof symboliccommunication, of which makes truth and thereforethe trustworthiness communications-problematic. The geniusof his approach lies in recognizingthat symbolic meaningand truthpresuppose social cooperation and trustbetween individuals, and ritualserves powerfullyto intensifyand reaffirmthis mutuality on a behavioral, notjust symbolic,level. Indeed, such willing coordination of behaviorcan itself become a prototype of promising(cf. 1979b: 188-194). Ritual's most obvious featuresof behavioralform and performance thus precipitate a microcosmicsocial order, minimally but therefore unequivocally-defined by muin which performtually constrained acts and interactions ers caxlsimultaneouslymake and keep promisesto each othersimply by coordinating theiractionsand performing the ritual.Clearlytautologous,such speechlessyet public social compliance,but promisingnever guarantees further it can at least suggestthe possibilityof futurecooperation.

liable for punishment if they It can also make performers they or otherscome to assoviolatewhateverexpectations Unable to insure absolute ciate with their performance. ritualcan still establishgroundsfor moral trustworthiness, indignation and righteousretribution shouldpresumed promisesprovefalse. it is the behavioralsimplicity,not the For Rappaport, of ritualthatlies at its core and ensymbolicelaboration, ables otherwiseautonomousindividualsto communicate theirwillingnessto cooperatewith each othereven in the in andperformance absenceof language.Ritualformalism individualbehavior and of themselvescan accord"mere" essential the potentialof conveyingintentandimplication argues,"Theinvariance to truesocial action.As Rappaport the development of language,is of ritual,which antedates the foundationof convention,for throughit conventions accepted,investedwith morality, are not only enunciated, but also sanctified'' (1979b:211).Conseand naturalized, in the very quently,"Itis plausibleto suggest. . . thatritual, areimplicit, structure of which authontyandacquiescence meansby which men, divestedof gewas the primordial order,established the conventionsby neticallydetermined (1979b: 197). whichthey orderthemselves" Although Rappaportsays that his argumentrests on "logical necessity ratherthan empincal demonstration" priority he grants to promise (1979b:173),the evolutionary overmeaningand andtrustin ritualformandperformance, symbols,admitspossible,if necessarilyintruthin cultural baIf ritualdoes indeedrepresent "the direct,investigation. sic social act,"then we expectedthat greetingritualsbetween adult male baboons might well relate directly to theirformationof cooperativealliances.This expectation, however, carriedfour caveats: first, althoughwe clearly had the evolution of human rituals(and Culturewith a our research,our capital"C")in mind when formulating choice of baboonsimpliednothingaboutwhich model of primatesocial organizationwe think best contemporary The millionsof yearsand appliesto ourhominidancestors. phylogeny separating us from even chimpanreticulated zees as our nearestliving primaterelatives,to say nothing related baboons,makeit impossibly of even moredistantly naive to projectthe social behaviorof any living primate directlybackinto ourhominidpast(cf. Moore 1994). Second,we did not presumethatritualalone causedthe evolution of humanlanguageand culture.If it had, why thenmightbaboonshave ritualsbutno spokenlanguageor elaborate cultureof theirown? Clearly,otherphylogenetically derivedcapacitiesof early hominidperception,reason, andmemorycruciallyinfluencedthe evolutionof human symbolic communication, but ritual may have an important social (notjust physical)environconstituted ment that selected for such capacitiesand enabledhomicooperationinto more nids to intensify interindividual systems of symcomplex, increasinglyconventionalized, bolic communication.

102

1999 * VOL. 101, NO. 1 * MARCH ANTHROPOLOGIST AMERICAN

clearlylackedcompoThird,male baboongreetings disas Rappaport sanctity especially ritual, nentsof human logicallynecessary cussesit. In the spiritof Rappaport's in a sothatwhenfound we surmised however, argument, intencapable of individuals cial contextof recognizable might tionalsocial action,ritualformand performance insuspicions andenduring serveto allaytheunavoidable groundandthuslayimportant in socialcooperation herent of symbolic essential for the evolution workfor the trust communication. ritualspresumed Finally,our focus on male greeting andculoriginsof language aboutthe gendered nothing inof theirstriking because We chosemalegreetings ture. comaggressive, relentlessly withtheotherwise congruity also of male baboons.The greetings petitivebehavior in purpose, utilitarian to servelittleimmediate appeared and, infemales, among grooming to,forexample, contrast riskin the at considerable deed,theyplacedmalegreeters further inconsistency Thisseeming of their partners. hands As disaspects. communicative the greetings' suggested stylized interacreflect other below,malegreetings cussed and infantsand mating tions betweenbaboonmothers playa role doesindeed If ritual pairs of malesandfemales. beit is undoubtedly cooperation, malebaboon in fostering mother-infant involving causeotherkindsof cooperation of thesedyads pairsandmates(andthe ntualsmembers maleswitha reperhaveprovided havewitheachother) on whichto drawfor their behaviors toire of potential our it is because rituals, theseother If we neglect greetings. a formalaspectof Rapintentherelies in substantiating pointof a substantive notin establishing theory, paport's language. culture and evolution of forthe departure

Testesand Testamentin BaboonGreetings

our four-month To the extentof its limitedduration, beabout therelationship studyboreoutoursuppositions in thistroop formation andalliance tweenmalegreetings Themalegreetings (cf. Smuts1985).2 baboons of savaIma ritualsin thattheyconclearlyconstituted we observed thatset gestures formalized identifiable, sistedof readily A greeting themapartfromotherkindsof interactions. witha another beganwhenonemaleapproached typically male rollinggait. The approaching rapid,exaggerated (a at the otherand often lip-smack wouldlook directly face friendlygesture)while makinga "come-hither" (Strum1987)withearsbackandeyes narrowed a baraisedeyebrowgreeting. of the human boon equivalent or reavoided the approach The secondmalesometimes away,in whichcase the firstmale jected it by turning male othertimes,the approaching ceasedhis approach; male the second himselfveeredaway.Morecommonly, eye contactand by maintaining acceptedthe approach facein re^ thecome-hither andmaking oftenlip-smacking turn.

the males would exchangea senes Upon approaching, of gesturesthat could includepresentingthe hindquarters (rotatingthe body so that the hips faced the other male), with one or both hands,mountgraspingthe hindquarters pullingthe penis,and,less often, ing, touchingthe scrotum, face-to-bodynuzzling or, rarely,embracing.Usually, the roles adoptedduringa single greetingremainedasymmetrical,with one male takingthe moreactiverole. Occasionally, a mutualexchange occurred,as when each touched or in rapidsuccession. the other'sscrotumsimultaneously afterthe exchange,one (or occasionallyboth) Immediately of the maleswouldmove rapidlyawayusingthe samerollThe entiresequence of the approach. ing gaitcharacteristic took no morethana few seconds.Eithermale could break off the greetingat any time simply by moving away, and occasionally(seven percentof the greetingswe recorded) chases, or fights (Smuts attempts to greetendedin threats, however, of and Watanabe1990:152-153). Remarkably, the 637 greetings documentedin our study (as well as roughly 400 additionalmale-malegreetingsrecordedon videotapeby Smutsin 1993),not one resultedin a discernible injury. The significanceof these greetingslies in the fact that between male baboonsinvirtuallyall other interactions volve antagonisticexchanges. Male baboons most typichase, and attackone another.Outsidethe cally threaten, greetings,they almostneverengage in friendlybehaviors, like lip-smackingor grooming,and when one male apor the otherusuallyavoidsthe approach proachesanother, Fightsroutinelyoccur,as do mithe approacher. threatens nor wounds,andseriouswoundsarenot uncommon.Such mutual hostilitymay explainwhy greetingstypicallyoccur in a neutral social context as males peacefully forage, travel,or rest, and why males wishingto greetadopttheir The absence of a contestedrehighly stylized approach. male's distinctiveposturing source and the approaching withmalesto move towardsubordinates enabledominant to out evoking an avoidanceresponse and subordinates and (Smuts risking attack without dominants move toward 1990:1 59). Watanabe The frequencyand natureof the greetings varied dependingon the types of males involved.To make sense of to note that olive (savanna) this variation,it is important in which socialorganization baboonshavea female-bonded formthe perandgranddaughters females,theirdaughters, out of their manentcore of the troop,while males transfer nataltroopsand into othertroopsas adolescentsor young adults.3 The 12 fully adult males in our troop comprised two classes. Older residents("old males")includednonnatalmales past theirphysicalprimewho had lived in the troopfor at least two years,usuallymuch longer."Young males" in their physical prime had either recently transferredinto the troop or were natal males who would all to othertroops.Based on the outcomes eventuallytransfer

ANDSMUTS / WATANABE

ITAWAY EXPLAINING RELIGION WITHOUT EXPLAINING

103

all young males individuof dyadic agonisticencounters, all old males. ally outranked males mate Among baboonsin general,higher-ranking more often with estrous females than do lower-ranking males, but in this populationof baboons, lower-ranking, older residentstend to mate as often, or more often, than (cf. Bulger 1993). This counterparts their higher-ranking was the case duringour study:the mediansexual consort score for old males was slightly higher than the median males achievedthis score for youngmales.Lower-ranking forming coalitionsin success by highmating unexpectedly malesin consortwithfertilefewhichtheyjointlyharassed All of these chaloccurred. males until a consortturnover youngmales;we neversaw old maleschallenges targeted the lenge one another'sconsortships.After the turnover, female almostalways endedup with one of the old males involved in the coalition. Over the long term, old males to the frequencywith gained females in roughproportion in coalitions (Berkovitch1988; which they participated Smuts and Watanabe1990). Thus, althoughyoung males individuallypossessed superiorfightingability,old males by cooperating for anyphysicaldisadvantage compensated with one another(Smuts and Watanabe1990; cf. Bulger 1993). tendedto reflectthese social dynamics.If they Greetings occurredat all, greetingsbetween young adult males altension. Young adult most always displayedconsiderable males had the lowest percentageof completedgreetings jockeybecausethey often circledone another, (one-third) without to whom, often ing over who was goingto do what success;incompletegreetingsresulted.Youngmalesnever and,exceptfor theiratformedcoalitionswith one another tempted greetings, studiously avoided interactingwith each other or even associatingwith the same females. In contrast,the older, long-termresidentmales who formed coalitionswitheach othertendedto have relativelyrelaxed of them. greetings,and they completedmost (two-thirds) Old and young males also greeted, with the younger, male almost always initiatingand taking higher-ranking the more active role, usuallyby mountingor graspingtlle and occasionallyby touching other male's hindquarters, the other male's genitals. While this asymmetryin roles dominance mayhave simplyreflectedthe alreadyclear-cut betweenyoungandold males,it seemedto us relationships that,at least some of the time, young males soughtin these greetingsto establishrelationswith older males who, by virtue of their affiliative relationshipswith females, infants, and other old males in the troop, might prove the most valuableallies (SmutsandWatanabe1990:162-163; cf. Smuts 1985). dygenerallyapplied,particular Althoughthesepatterns distinctivegreetingstyles. For example, ads demonstrated males, at the time engaged in a the two highest-ranking tense standoff for the dominantposition, repeatedlyattemptedto greet,but we never saw them succeedbecause

neitherappearedwilling to take on the passive role. Another pair of males, Alex and Boz, greeted much more often thanany otherpairin the troop.These old males,unafterseven yearsof livrelatedbut familiarto one another most ing togetherin this troop,had the longest-standing, reliableallianceof any pairof males and routinelyhelped each othertake fertilefemales away from youngerrivals. Unlike all other male pairs,neithertried to dominatethe other,and they remainedthe only pairof males observed defendingone anotherin fights with othermales. In conof trastto the asymmetryof greetingroles characteristic most male-maledyads,theirgreetingroles reflectednearperfect symmetry.Indeed,wheneverwe saw them greet twice in rapidsuccession,the malewho tookthe activerole in the first greeting initiatedthe subsequentgreetingby graciously inviting his partnerto adopt the active role. to have theirgreetings soughtpurposively They apparently in the contextof coalitions. paralleltheirturn-taking Several points bear noting. First, since these baboons represent a female-bondedspecies, adult males spend and initially with unrelated much of theirlives interacting unfamiliarothers. Consequently,male-male cooperation primatespeshouldoccur less often thanin male-bonded (conin which male philopatry cies, such as chimpanzees, tinuingresidencein the nataltroop)facilitatescooperation kin selectionanddevelopmenthrough bothevolutionarily (Goodall1986;Nishida long-term familiarity tally through one of the and Hosaka 1996). Savannababoonsrepresent They are most strikingexceptionsto this generalization. the only known female-bondedspecies in which older malesroutinelyformaggressivecoalitionsagainstyounger (Smuts matingopportunities males as a way of acquiring 1987:390). Second, such female-bondednesshighlights the dilemma faced by a slightly over-the-hill male baboon whose canineshave dulled,whose speedandstaminahave waned, yet who nonethelessremainsperfectlyable and highly motivated to matewith as manyfertilefemalesas he can. To do so, however, he must risk injury or even rivalswhose two-inch-long, deathfrom younger,stronger razor sharp canines easily rank among the most lethal weapons on the African savanna.Alternatively,he can but mostly celibate middle choose to settle into a tranquil age or ally himself with other older males and together challenge the individuallydominantyounger males. The second alternativewould appearmore desirable,but his potentialallies consistof the very rivalswhom he has long bluffs,counterincessantharassment, triedto cow through bluffs, deception(Byrneand Whiten1990), and the occasional bloody battle(Smuts 1985:151-155). The dilemma for these males centerson how to overcomethis legacy of and deceptionin order mutualantagonism,manipulation, beneficial,cooperativerelato establishreliable,mutually tionships.4

104

1999 * VOL. 101, NO. 1 * MARCH ANTHROPOLOGIST AMERICAN

Herethe greetingritualscan play a decisive role. When one male moves towardanotherwith the distinctivegait greetings,he communicates andgesturesthatcharacterize lies in neithatthe purposeof his approach unambiguously a fightbutin enterthercontestinga resourcenor initiating ing into relatively low-risk negotiationsconcerningthe with and possibly future,state of his relationship current, the other male. If the other male respondsappropriately througheye contact, lip-smacking,and the come-hither As mentioned the same intentions. face, he communicates above, none of the greetings we observed among adult males resultedin a wound.5In contrast,when engagedin contestsover resources,malesroutinelyinflict high-stakes of injurieson each other.Thus,throughmutualenactment the ritualform, male greetersappearto establisha temporarytruceor neutralgroundon which to explore,or even relationsbetweenthemwith minimalriskof inconstitute, the variousgesturesthatoccurmay injury. Furthermore, dicate how far negotiationshave gone. We suspect that, more often than not, greeting partnersachieve only the of an uneasytruce.Ocaccommodation most rudimentary casionally,however-and perhapsonly aftergreetingrepeatedlyoveran extendedperiodof time-males like Alex rivalryanddeveloptruly andBoz overcometheirinherent adthatgive thema considerable relationships cooperative vantageover those males less successful in coordinating theiractions. Several lines of evidence supportthis interpretation. eviFirst, as exemplified by Alex and Boz, quantitative demgreetings whose dence indicatesthat pairsof males onstratereciprocalsymmetryof roles form coalitionssigless nificantlymoreoften thanexpectedandareopponents often than expected, whereas males with asymmetrical greetingsshow the oppositepattern(DeVore 1962, as describedin Smuts and Watanabe1990:165).Second,when two or more male baboonsattemptto form an aggressive coalition,they solicit one another'said by "head-flagging" (a rapidturningof the headback andforthfromthe potential ally to the opponent)(Packer 1977) in combination with brief, telegraphicversions of some of the same postures employed in greeting rituals. In particular,allied and to one another, males often presenttheirhindquarters the rapid hip-graspingand mountingthat occurs in reagainst theirjointthreats sponseseems to help synchronize a commonrival(Packer1977;Ransom1981;Smuts1985). back usage may hearken We suggestthatsuch telegraphic alreadyachievedduringroutinegreetings. to agreements Finally,a single anecdotesuggeststhe possibilityof retagainstdefectors.One day,Alex andtwo otherold ribution of a youngmalein harassment malesengagedin prolonged consortwith an especially popularfemale. Over and over they chargedthe consortingmale, buthe managedto hold Finally,afterseveralhours,Boz (who hadbeen his ground. on the top of a smallrise off by himselfforaging)appeared from which he surveyedthe scene below. The coalition

through solicitedhis participation simultaneously partners Boz chargeddown methodof head-flagging. the standard male lost his nerve the hill towardthem,andthe consorting him closand ranaway. Boz's greatermomentumcarried est to the female, andhe thenbeganto move off with her, Alex caughtup with Boz as if to form a new consortship. andhurledhimselfon top of his friendwith suchforcethat they both collapsed onto the ground.Boz stood up and walkedaway,leavingAlex withthe female. with a consortingmaleis virtuSuch directinterference becauseundernorpresumably baboons, of in ally unheard it risks escalated aggressionthat can mal circumstances leave both males seriously wounded (Smuts 1985:152to us that Boz cheated 153). In this instance,it appeared when he took the female, because unlike the othermales, coalition.Alex rehe had investedlittle in this particular spondedto Boz's defection with what looked like rightto Alex's retribution andBoz responded eous indignation, his to acknowledge simultaneously in a way thatappeared defectionand the fact thathe valuedan ongoingcooperato with Alex more than the opportunity tive relationship limitsof female.The anecdotal consortwith this particular this accountreflect perhapsas much the rarityof stable male alliancesas defectionsbetweensuch allies. We hope futureresearchwill follow up our admittedlyspeculative of theseevents. interpretation

The RitualAspectsof Greeting

for criteria Formally,these greetingsfulfill Rappaport's notions baboonsobviouslylack articulated although ritual: the male greetingsconformto a limited of truthor sanctity, set of possible gesturesclearly framedby the distinctive combinationof exaggeratedapproach,vocalization,and of whento greetandwith The variability facialexpression. of who will do what(if anything) whom,the indeterminacy all social contextof the greetings, to whom,andtheneutral In ornature. thaninstinctual suggesttheirvolitionalrather a greeting,bothmales mustacceptthe der even to attempt formso thateachcan of the greeting'soutward constraints recognizethe other'sactionsas a greetingin the firstplace. of the greeting'sformby no At the same time, acceptance role in any meansobliges eithermaleto accepta particular given greeting. the actualcompletionof a greetingdoes Consequently, about convey a message,howeverminimal,to the greeters their willingnessto "playby the rules"in the context of off the greetingat any greeting.The possibilityof breaking mechanismfor testing time also providesan incremental anothermale's willingnessto cooperatewhile minimizing In this sense, the in the relationship. one's own investment greetingsprovidemales who mightbenefitfromcooperain to expresstheirgood intentions tion withthe opportunity a world of otherwise unpredictable,highly competitive individuals. This in turn may raise the possibility of

ANDSMUTS / WATANABE

ITAWAY EXPLAINING WITHOUT RELIGION EXPLAINING

105

cooperation or social coordinationin other situations, while, conversely,an incompletegreetingclearlyindicates arHere again,as Rappaport a currentlack of mutuality.6 functionof ritual'sform andpergues, the disambiguating formancemeans that the "verylimitationsof display . . . enhance[the] clarity"of any messagesconveyed withinit (1979b:199). betweenmale baThe greetingsalso fosterinteractions and making more freboons by simplifying, clariifying, quent their encounters. Significantly,Robert Axelrod's (1984) study of the evolution of cooperationreveals that self-inin a universeof autonomous, effective cooperation terested individuals involves precisely these features of Accordingto Axelrod,a simplicity,clarity,andfrequency. shouldbe friendlybut firm, robuststrategyof cooperation but forgiving thatis, initiallywilling to coopforthright quick to punishdefectorsby ceasingto cooperate; eratebut butreadyto clearlyconsistentaboutwhen not to cooperate reestablishcooperationwith defectors once they prove willing to mend their ways. Regardlessof strategy,howcan only thatcooperation ever, Axelrodalso demonstrates evolve when the futurelooms largeenough thatis, when of withinpartnerships the chancefor repeatedinteractions payoffsof cooperamakethe long-term indefiniteduration to cheat on parttemptation tion outweighthe short-term ners(1984:128-129). Ritualelegantlyestablishesacontext its formalismsimrelations: in whichto build cooperative its invarianceprointeractions; plifies and disambiguates vides a model for reliability and trust-and ultimately natureposes minimal truthfulness and its self-referential risks but makes possible furthercommitmentwith each successfulrepetition. of the specificgesturesinvolvedin Closerconsideration coopsuggeststheirrolein facilitating the greetingsfurther assohold clear themselves gestures The greeting eration. bain relationships social two primary with ciations the from and nuzzling embracing, boons lip-smacking, grasping hindquarters, bond;andpresenting mother-infant matandgenitalcontactfromheterosexual hips,mounting, While male-malegreetingsmay indeed ing relationships.7 interestsof the males involved, relateto the reproductive or sex. Why, they do not directlyentail eithernurturance then, employ maternaland sexual gestures?Evolutionarbonds constituteparadigily, sex and mother-offspring matic,indeeduniversal,baboonsocial experiences.While baboonmothersand infantshave theirconflicts (Altmann relation1980; Nicolson 1982), the baboonmother-infant interests,and ship entailsa greateroverlapin evolutionary thanany othersocial relationthereforegreatermutuality, involve males ship. Similarly,baboonsexualrelationships who can typically twice the size of their female partners anddo inflict injurieson femalesin othercontexts(Smuts 1985:87-102). In orderto copulate,the male mustreassure intentionssufficiently a waryfemale of his nonaggressive participation.8 to elicit hervoluntary

In seeking to establish nonagonistic interactionand context,malesmay well borin a different communication row the greetinggesturesthey do for threereasons.First, universallyexpenenced,and represent sex and mothering of mutualinterestand relations thus readilyrecognizable, affiliationin baboon society. Second, these relationships necessarilyentail a significantdegree of cooperationand Mothers trust.Third,they also involve powerdistinctions. dominatetheir infants, and in sexual relationsmale baso greetinggestures boons dominatetheirfemale partners, can also betokensocial asymmetnes,as in those greeting role dyadsin whichone maleusuallyadoptsthe presenting while the otherusually adoptsthe mountingrole; or conversely,they can convey the absenceof such asymmetries as in the greetingsbetween when they become reciprocal, Alex andBoz.9Male as well as female,juvenile,andinfant baboon greetingsmay thus take the specific form thatthey do, not simply becausethese gesturesare necesorbecausethey dealdirectlywithmothersarilyinstinctual ing or sex. Instead,to the extentthatsuchgesturesbecome freedfromtheiroriginalcontextto convey related,but by no means identical, social meanings, baboon greetings symboliccommumighteven be saidto entailrudimentary nication.Thatis, baboonsmay evidencein theirgreetings the ability to conventionalize acts and interactionsas to be. otherthanwhatthey manifestlyappear something Individuals in Society Our studyof baboongreetingritualssuggestsa way to formal accountof ritual'srole in generalizeRappaport's sanctityand truthin symboliccommunication. generating and trustin agreements Ritualalso fosters interindividual whichevolutionarthe widercontextof socialcooperation, ily- and logically must precede symbolic communicathatit is tion as the intensifiedform of social cooperation formulaRappaport's (amongotherthings).Consequently, in two, seeminglyoption enablesus to move theoretically conundrum to resolvethe chicken-or-egg posite,directions for explaining paradigms versusculturalist in individualist society and culture.On the one hand,it enablesus to discernin the baboongreetingshow individualsmightcome witheachotherin the to cooperate to conveytheirintention absence of articulatespeech while also suggestinghow may communication deeply rootedsuch conventionalized as Raphand, other On the lie in our phylogeneticpast. himself so ably argues,preciselybecausethe cooppaport enables indeed erative act of symbolic communication demands (cf. Wagner 1981)individuals' continualins speechlessformandperritual' ventionof new meanings, formance persist within already establishedsystems of as a way of defendingourselves symboliccommunication power of our own symbolic formulafrom the arbitrary tions to imagine alternatives,sanctify the inappropri1979c). lie (Rappaport ate andintentionally

106

1999 * VOL. 101, NO 1 * MARCH ANTHROPOLOGIST AMERICAN

Fransde Waal (1996) sees the anteceEvolutionarily, and thus morality,in sodents of humanconventionality, cial abilities and propensitiescommon to monkeys and social rules; interchanges apes, among them prescriptive andrevenge;moralisbasedon conceptsof giving,trading, tic aggression against violators of expected reciprocity; reconciliationsafter fights; and accommodationof conflicting intereststhroughnegotiation(de Waal 1996:211). thatthis wide varietyof coResearchclearlydemonstrates to individsigniElcantly contributes operativerelationships ual survival and reproductionamong nonhuman primates.l?De Waal (1996) furtherreminds us that such extensive cooperationdependson the ability to maintain friendlyrelationswith othergroupmembersin the face of socieIn highlycooperative inevitableconflictsof interest. social interacties like those of baboonsandchimpanzees, tions come to be govemed as much (if not more)by relational imperatives as by individual self-interests, and mutual agreementsachieved throughreciprocal"persuasion" often replaceexploitativeexpectationsarisingfrom "coercion" (1996:173, 19(}191). Thus,"coasymmetrical dependon trustthat the otherparoperativerelationships circumway underparticular ties will act in a particular have difficultygaining such trust" stances;troublemakers (1996:170).ll We have arguedwhy ritualshouldplay a criticalrole in ways conventionalized fosteringsuch trustby establishing of expressingindividualintentionsto others.Such intengiventhe opacityto othersof tionalityremainsproblematic behaviors individualmotives and the rangeof alternative availableto any given individual.The voluntaIysubmission to ritual'sform-itself perhapsmodeledprimordially reon gesturesdrawnfromstill morebasic interlndividual a willing bondsor sex represents lationsof mother-infant possibilitiesthatthen enchoice in the face of alternative ables other individuals to perceive that behavior as a social action in Wechoice, and thereforeas mdimentary thatconveys berianterms thatis, as a mutualinteraction intentwhiletakingintoaccountthe presumed a meaningful intentionsof others.Once this possibilityexists, the latifurther comtudeof individualactioncan increasethrough mitmentsto others,actualcooperationwith them, and, in turn, greaterconscious intent and, paradoxically,more by becoming of others.Ironically, purposivemanipulation become more inmore social, individualssimultaneously dividuallyinventive.At the same time, such inventiveness requires playingby the rulesat leastoftenenoughto mainto remaineffectivelyinventainsome minimalcredibility: social. mustactresponsibly tive, individuals Out of such strugglesfor social trusteventuallyevolved symbols, language,and equally problematicstrivingsfor culturaltruthson which to affirmthe otherwisearbitrary, associationsintrinsicto symand thereforemanipulable, Once signs no longerhold any necbolic communication. cancome to whatthey signify,anything essaryrelationship

to standfor anythingelse, and symbolic communication (Rapnsks founderingon the evils of lie and alternative paport1979c). Ritualthuscomes intoplayagain,no longer trustbut also, on this simply to promote intenndividual newly emergentlevel, to validatethe mutualconventions, andultimately symbols,thatsocialtrusthas madepossible. intenndividual Justas ritualfirstcame iconicallyto capture iconlcallyon the symintent,it now bestowsits invariance embeddedin it as a way of makingthem bolic associations certainand thus unquestioned-and thereforeappropnate ground on which other as the paradoxicaltranscendent symbolicassociationsmaybe sanctified.
althoughthe conceptof the sacredandthe notionof the divine withoutlanguageit may also would be literallyunthinkable be that language and social ordersfounded upon language could not have emergedwithoutthe supportof sanctity.... I have thereforearguedthatif thereare to be words at all it is necessaryto establishThe Word,and thatThe Wordis established by the invarianceof [ritual].It may at least be sugas some thatit emergedphylogenetically gested,furthermore, expressionsdrawnfrom the burgeoninglanguageof the earto, the ininto, andsubordinated lier hominidswere absorbed ritualswhich seem to varianceof alreadyexisting nonverbal 1979b:21W211, be commonin the animalworld.[Rappaport emphasisin the original]

formal account of ritual thus provides a Rappaport's the evofor conceptualizing powerful,unitaryframework of as an intensification lutionof symboliccommunication This framalreadyexisting pattemsof social cooperation. exversusculturalist ing obviatesany purelyindividualist planations of social and culturallife becauseit revealsthe as opposedto abidingissue to be not one of the Individual Society but of individualsin society. If anythingwe have said about male baboon greetingsholds merit, it would hominidindividuals suggestthatno pristinelyautonomous ever existed from which human societies eventuallyderived or to which humansociality may ultimatelybe reInstead,protohuman regression. ducedin some primordial individuals had alreadylong enmeshedthemselvesin networks of social cooperationmediatedby ritual, which, once established, inevitably became contagious- or, self-escalating as an evolutionperhaps moreaccurately, anly stable strategy impervious to invasion by purely self-interestedalternatives(cf. Axelrod 1984; Boyd and remindsus that Richerson1990). Conversely,Rappaport even sacredsymbols do not exist simply in and for themselves. Instead,ntual links them to the largerproblemof society itself, not in any necessaryor functionallyreduccontionisticsense but in an evolutionary and therefore tingent sense of having emergedin relationto the problem of reaffirmingand intensifying social cooperation individuals. betweenself-interested Withall this in mind,it makessense why an otherwise highly competitiveand testy male baboonshouldever allow anothermale literallyto hold his futurereproductive

WATANABE ANDSMUTS /

EXPLAINING RELIGION WITHOUT EXPLAINING ITAWAY

107

success in the palmof his hand.It is hardto imaginea more tangibleexpressionof trustthanto inviteexcruciating punishment for a real or perceived slight or betrayal;conversely, each time males greetwith restraint, they demonstratetheir trustworthiness (cf. Zahavi 1977). We should also not be surprised to find thatan analogousassociation between pledging and penises exists in human societies. Among the Walbiriof centralAustralia,men from different communitiesexpresstheirwillingnessto support each other througha public presentation and graspingof the supplicant'ssubincisedpenis (Meggitt 1965:262).l2 Similarly,in Genesis (24:9),Abraaham's servantswearsan oath while placinghis handunderhis master's"thigh," a probable euphemismfor the genitals(cf. The New EnglishBible 1976:22n.;The New Oxford AnnotatedBible 1991: 29n.). And finally, the OxfordEnglish Dictionary(1989) suggests that "testicle,""testify,"and "testimony"may sharethe same Latinroottestis, meaning"witness," a possible reflectionof the Romanpracticeof a manswearingto tell the truthby touchinghis forefingerto his testicles to call down uponhimself "sterility or lack of postenty"if he lies (Burke 1982:452).Of course, Australian Aboriginals are no more baboonsthanthey are Old Testamentprophets andcertainly none of thesethreeunderstands Latinbut their very incongruitysuggests an enduringnexus in ritualbetweenformalized acts andexpressedintent,willful individualsand social promises,fragiletrustandever elusive truths.

Conclusion
Having stretchedour credibilitythis far, it shouldnow be relativelyeasy to demonstrate the wider relevanceof Rappaport's work for the anthropology of religion.In his classic TheElementary Forms of Religious Life,whichhas shadowedso muchof the anthropology of religion,Emile Durkheim (1995:92) singled out AustralianAboriginal totemism,not becausehe soughtthe primordial originsof religion but because he believed that a single "well-conducted"experiment on an exemplarycase could shed light on all religiouslife as an essentialconstituent of humansociety. In recentyears,however,ethnographic thoughtexperimentsin the anthropology of religionhave turnedincreasingly toward cultumlly and historically particular problems first throughsymbolic,structuralist, and interpretive approaches,then Mazist inquines into the ideological natureof religiousforms.Most recently,postmodern fashions have delighted in the indeterminacies, and thus politics,of symbolicrepresentation andcultureas the performance of self andsociety. These approaches have quite rightlydrawnour attention to, thenenabledus to addresssystematically, the myriad detailsanddiversityof religiousconceptions, practices, andpower.Theirability,however,to engageus in particularlocal systemsof meaning,globalhistoriesof colonialor

postcolonialdominationand resistance,and now transnationalizedculturalpredicaments and pastichescontinually temptsus to explainthesedevelopments in theirown terms as elements within largerwholes, howeverthese come to be defined in symbolic, histoncal,or politicalterms.The very richnessof these approaches ironicallyrisksexplaining religionaway withoutreallyexplainingit, if only because they postpone,if not rejectoutright,the searchfor generalizations across theirhistoricallyparticular, culturally relativized case studies,howevergloballysituated. In contrast,Rappaport's theory of ritual persuasively demonstratesthat explanationdemands not simply discerning(or despairingover) symbolic meaningsbut also accountingfor how somethingas improbable as symbolic communication ever evolved in the firstplace. While evolutionistsandcultural anthropologists tendto dismisseach other as simplemindedreductionistsor muddle-headed mystics, this article-like Rappaport'swork in general has sought to articulate a middle groundthat does equaljustice to the emergentevolutionary processes and problematic conventional constraints thatcharacterize humancultures. Ironically,it was CliffordGeertz,one of the most eloquent and influentialof "anti anti-relativists" (as he so charactenstically putit) (Geertz1984),who long ago noted the relationship betweenhumanevolutionand culture.In 1966,he proclaimed in a now classicessay on "TheImpact of the Conceptof Culture on the Conceptof Man"thathumaIiityis literallynothingif not culturally diverse(Geertz 1973a). He dispensed with what he called the "stratigraphicconceptionof man" as a layering of biological, psychological,social, andcultural components by arguing that the human species did not first evolve biologically then acquirethe cultural trappings of thought,feeling, and language.bstead, the most recentstages of humanevolution attestto a long
overlap. . . betweenthe beginningsof cultureandthe appearance of man as we know him today.... What this means is thatculture,ratherthanbeing addedon, so to speak,to a finished or virtuallyfinished animal,was ingredient,and centrallyingredient, to the production of thatanimalitself.... By submittinghimself to governanceby symbolicallymediated programs for producingartifacts, organizingsocial life, or expressingemotions,mandetermined, if unwittingly, the culminating stages of his own biological destiny. Quite literally, thoughquiteinadvertently, he createdhimself.[Geertz1973a: 47X8]

The lesson Geertzdraws from this coevolutionof humanbiology andcultureis that,becauseculturehas played such an essential role in human evolution and because humanculturesremainso irreducibly diverse,what holds most generallytruefor all humanbeingsresidesnot in any substantivebehavioraluniversalsthat underlie (or transcend)humancultural diversitybutin the systematicways human individuals become the diversely cultural (and

108

1999 * VOL. 101, NO 1 * MARCH ANTHROPOLOGIST AMERICAN

personally idiosyncratic)beings they are. Precisely because we have evolved into a species that biologically plastic, aIldthus so desperately leaves us so behaviorally dependenton learnedcultureto complete ourselves,hudiversein theiressence as manbeingsremainas culturally genthe only admissible Consequently, in theirexpression. abouthumanbeings must come from seeking eralizations among diverse phenomena,not "systematicrelationships substantiveidentitiesamong similar ones" (1973a:44) thatgeneralizeswithincases, thatis, from an ethnography not between them (Geertz 1973b:26). For the last thirty but especially anthropology, years, much of sociocultural of religion,has complied. the anthropology way to readGeertz'sinsightintohuanother In contrast, coevolutionis to recognizenot and cultural man biological simply an intrinsichuman culturaldiversitybut also an abidingspeciesunityin that,howeverdiversetheirexpresculturesmust have all workedsimilarly sion, protohuman organismsin the course of humanevoluon protohuman tion to producea single species so utterlydependenton having one cultureor another.Thatis, alongsidetheirundeniable symbolic distinctiveness,cultures undoubtedly unityin formalsubstantive possess an equallyundeniable, ordersworkon their constituted the way theirsymbolically adherents and demandthat these adherentscontinually work on theirculture-in orderto makehumansocial engagementpossible. thathumanevoluGivenGeertz'scompellingargument tion has inextricablymeshed our biological and cultural selves, his "systematicrelationshipsamong diverse pheto morethansimplyhow all cultures mllstpertain nomena" differin similarways. They mustalso in(or individuals) have come to relatesimiclude how all humanindividuals larly to theirdiverse (and often multiple)culturalworlds. Neitherempty norpointless,such formalabstractions-or at least the tacit assumptionof formalequivalentsacross abidingculturaldiversity are indeed what make anthropological humanismand relativismpossible in the first place.Withoutsomekindof (even implicit)formalcomparabilityto rationalizeit, anthropology'schampioningof culturaldiversity as expressive of a common humanity no serlseat all. wouldmakeabsolutely to the anlastingcontribution It is Roy A. Rappaport's in generalthropologyof religion-and to anthropology betweenemthathe situatesritualpreciselyatthisjuncture bodied acts of individualbehaviorand the disembodied meaningfulnessof sacred,as well as mundane,symbols. pnorityto eitherbehavioror meaning, By refusingto graIlt he explainsneitheraway andrevealshow betterto explain both in terms of each other as the "diversephenomena" leveled againsthim of they are.Despite all the accusations being the grossest kind of functionalist(cf. Friedman knew that,in pointingout the ecological 1974), Rappaport functionsof TsembagaMaringritual,he also had to ask these functionsthroughrituals why the Maring fulE1lled

discusrather thanin some otherway. Froma preliminary (1984:233-237),he pursued sion in PigsfortheAncestors questionto his insights this moredifficult,andspeculative, andhow sanctityarises into ritual'sformandperformance thatin its abilityto fromthese. He could thusdemonstrate establishthe possibilityof trustandtruthin a social world symbols,ritualmay indeed of willful beings and arbitrary have no functionalequivalent.It persists, and therefore of incommensurability in theultimate findsits explanation, their thatunderwrite andthe socialconventions individuals thatcontinuesto plagueus individuality a contradiction no less than it (and perhapsour primatecontemporaries) hominidancestors. bedeviledourprotocultural Farfromthe emptycategoriesthatGeertzonce took any generalizationabout our common humanityto be, Rappaportremindsus thata formalandlogical model Durkexperiment-can indeedmeanheim's one well-conducted in religiousformulations ingfullyrelatethe mostparticular to the most enduringhuman problems of how society emerges from individuals,morality from self-interests, trustandtruthfromsuspicions,lies, anddeceit.No simpleminded functionalist,let alone vulgar materialist,Rappaport'sprogressfrom innkeepingto pig feasts, from cybernetics to sanctity, from adaptive disorders to the 1979a, 1993),bears of trouble(cf. Rappaport anthropology thoroughly thoughtful, a deeply to testimony eloquent answers, with easy humanbeing,neversatisfied committed left unexplained, always aware of what his forrnulations aIld thereforeever-loathto explain anythingaway while to be arlswered. deeper,moredifficultquestionsremained Noten
An earlierversion of this paperwas read Acknowledgments. Retrospective:Assessas partof the panel "Roy A. Rappaport at the annualmeetings of the Politiments and Appreciations" cal Ecology Society and the Society for Applied Anthropology, Seattle, Washington, March 7, 1997. We thank Aletta Biersackfor organizingthe panel, inviting us to join it, and for helpful commentsin revising the paper.We also gratefullyacknowledge the supportwe received from the National Science Foundation,grantBNS-83-03677, IrvenDeVore principalinvestigator,and in Kenya fromJim Else of the Institutefor Primate Researchand Shirley Strum,codirectorof the Gilgil Baboon Project. Joab Litzense and above all Josiah Musau and Francis Milili provided invaluable aid in the field that made our study possible and warmlyrewarding.In addition,Watanabe acknowledgessupportfrom the NationalEndowmentfor the Humanitiesand the Dean of Facultyat DartmouthCollege for a fellowship at the National HumanitiesCenter, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,where he completed his final revisions on this essay. He also wishes to thankHoyt Alverson and Hans Pennerfor close and contestedreadingsof an earlier draft that served to sharpen presentation of the argument, along with EdwardF. Fischer whose comments helped do the same. Smuts wishes to thankR. W. Smuts for perceptivefeedback on an earlier draft.As before, the text makes clear why

ANDSMUTS / WATANABE

ITAWAY EXPLAINING WITHOUT RELIGION EXPLAINING

109

but we remainindebtedto Irven DeVore and Roy Rappaport, no one else should be held to account for what we have done with theirinspirationor counsel. s theoryof obviously follows Durkheim' l . Here Rappaport ritualand religious sentimentsas inherentlysocial ratherthan psychological. Despite long-standingdismissal of Durkheim's theory of the origins of religion as "crowd psychology" (cf. 1965:6748; Levi-Strauss1963:7F71), DurkEvans-Pritchard heim's argumentremainsmore cognitive thanemotional,centered on the way in which religion focuses and channels collective sentimentsthat already exist in individualssimply by virtue of theircontrastingexperience and perceptionsof a social versus a naturalworld: the [social] environmentin which we live seems populated with forces at once demanding and helpful, majestic and kind, and with which we are in touch. Because we feel the weight of them, we have no choice but to locate them outside ourselves, as we do for the objectivecauses of our sensations. But from anotherpoint of view, the feelings they provokein us arequalitativelydifferentfrom those we have for merely physical things.... The two sorts of representation form two kinds of mental state, and they are as separateand distinct as the two forms of life to which they correspond.As a result, we feel as though we are in touch with two distinct sorts of reality with a clear line of demarcation between them: the world of profane things on one side, the world of sacred things on the other. [Durkheim 1995:214] on which the "effercollective It is this preexistingconscience enough,Rapvescence"of collective rites works. Interestingly paport, following Eric Erikson, would root such social awarenessmost incipiently and tangibly in the early dependency of infantson theirmothers an ontogenetic(if not phylo1979b:212). (Rappaport genetic)dyadicrelationship 2. The study resultedin nearly 100 hours of focal samples of the 12 fblly adultmales in the troop,combinedwith ad libitum (free or nonfocal) observations, which produced 637 greetings among adult males. For each greeting, we recorded the identityof the two males, the context in which it occurred, the precise gestures or movements exchanged during the greeting, and the sequence in which they occurred.We then analyzed variationsin the patternof greetings relative to the males involved. For furtherinformationaboutmethodsandresults, see Smuts and Watanabe (1990). Greetings occurred twice as often as any other kind of interactionbetween adult males. Significantly,however, successful initiationof a greetits completion. Nearly half the time, one ing never guaranteed male would pull away and move off rapidly before the exchange was completed; we termed such occurrences"incomplete"greetings. 3. There is no evidence that closely related males (for example, maternalbrothers)tend to transferto the same troop, and thus immigrantmales are typically unrelated. 4. It is importantto note that not all coalitions among savannababoon males necessarily entail the level of reciprocity or trustthat we have describedfor Alex and Boz. Sometimes males apparently foim coalitions opportunistically with appearat hand(Berkovitch1988). whicheversuitablepartners In some troops, coalitions also involve males of disparate

ranks;when this occurs, the highest rankingcoalition member typically claims the female (Noe 1992). At least amongthe olive baboon subspecies, however, different observershave repeatedlydescribedthe occasional pairof males with an unusually "advanced"partnership,characterizedby a very high frequencyof coalition formation,equal access to the fertilefemales gained throughsuch coalitions, and a strong inhibition against challenging one another's consortships (Berkovitch 1988; Ransom 1981; Smuts andWatanabe1990). 5. Similarly,in anotherpopulationof olive baboons,males never inflicted wounds during approximately400 male-male greetingsrecordedon videotape, but they injuredone another frequentlyin othercontexts (Smuts, unpublisheddata). 6. An interesting example of "currentlack of mutuality" occurred during a recent field study of olive baboons at Gombe, Tanzania(Smuts and Gubernick,unpublisheddata). During the course of the study, a young prime male, Chongo, transferredinto the study troop and immediately began to challenge othermales. All of the othermales except the alpha male, Apie, rapidlydeferredto the highly aggressive, extraordinarily confident newcomer by showing submission in agonistic encountersand allowing Chongo to mount them during greetings. Chongo then initiated friendly relationswith some of these males by inviting them to mount him. Apie was the only male in the troop who truly equaledChongo in age, size, canine condition, and social ambition.Chongo avoided challenging Apie directly,but he frequentlyshadowedhim, which clearly made Apie very nervous. Apie repeatedlyapproached Chongo with greeting overtures,only to veer away at the last minute. Finally, Apie approachedChongo with vigorous lipin a smacking, turned around, and lowered his hindquarters typical present. Chongo responded by lip-smacking in turn, Apie jumped, but as he reachedto touch Apie's hindquarters, turnedin mid-air, and landed facing Chongo with his mouth wide open in a high-intensitycanine threatdisplay. Chongo immediately responded in kind, the males grappled briefly with their hands, and then Chongo fled, with Apie in pursuit (unless the fleeing male shows submission,which Chongodid not, such chases represent standoffs). The researchersrecorded this interactionon videotape and a few days later recorded another virtually identical interaction between the same males. When they examined the tapes in slow motion, they found that in both instances, Chongo had played by the rules and done nothing to provoke Apie's aggression. In real time, however, no humanobserver,and probablyno baboon, could have told that Apie, not Chongo, had cheatedby resorting to unprovokedaggressionduring a normallypeaceful ritual. Nothing indicates whetherApie's behaviorrepresenteda spontaneous eruption of emotion or a deliberate attempt to provoke Chongo into submission through a surprise attack that Eitherway, his highly unorthodoxbehaviordemonstrates males can break the rules during a greeting ritual, thereby highlightingthe significanceof the peacefulprogressionof the vast majorityof greetings. Apie and Chongo never managed mutualityin their greetings(perto achieve even rudimentary suspihaps in partbecause Chongo appearedunderstandably cious of Apie's greetingapproachesafterthese incidents),and two months later, in the face of Chongo's relentless shadowing, Apie lost his nerveandranaway, tail up and screaming,in

110

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 101, NO. 1 * MARCH 1999

a humiliatingdisplay of intense fear and submission. At that moment,Chongo became alphamale. 7. The same elements are also found in male-femalegreetings, female-femalegreetings, and greetingsinvolving infants andjuveniles (Hausfaterand Takacs 1987). 8. Male baboons cannot literallyforce a female to copulate (Smuts and Smuts 1993). 9. In other mammals as well, submissive greetinggestures often derive from behaviors typical of subordinatesin other contexts, such as gestures that females display toward males duringcourtshipor thatjuveniles display towardadultsduring food-begging. Similarly, dominantgreeting gestures relate to behaviors typical of dominants,such as gestures males show towardfemales or thatadultsshow towardimmatures(cf. East et al. 1993:364). Evidence from spottedhyenasprovidesan informative variationon this theme. Spotted hyenas are exceptional among mammals in that females consistentlydominate males and behave more aggressively;in addition,females possess a "pseudo-penis"(as a result of unusuallyhigh androgen levels) almost indistinguishable from a true penis. During greetings between females and between females and males, the subordinatemember of the dyad (always the male when the dyad is heterosexual)uses an erect "penis"to indicatesubmission. In contrast,in all of the other(male-dominant) mammalian species that use the erect penis as a social signal, the display connotes dominance(1993:364). 10. Cooperationoccurs in a wide variety of contexts, including but not limited to: hunting, foraging, food-sharing, vigilance against and protection from predators,breakingup of fights (de Waal 1996), protectionof immature animalsfrom conspecifics, aggressionagainstothergroupmembers,andaggression againstothergroups (Smuts et al. 1987; see also Harcourtand de Waal 1992, McGrewet al. 1996). 11. Similarly Robert Axelrod also notes, "A community using strategiesbased upon reciprocitycan actuallypolice itself. By guaranteeingthe punishmentof any individual who tries to be less than cooperative,the deviant strategyis made unprofitable.Therefore, the deviant will not thrive, and will not provide an attractivemodel for others to imitate"(1984: 138). Ironically, however, he also points out that fostering such reciprocityinvolves "enlargingthe shadowof the future" by making relationships more durable and frequent, and a "good way to increase the frequency of interactionsbetween two given individualsis to keep others away"(1984:130). As Claude Levi-Strauss (1985) has argued, the problems of racism, prejudice, and ethnocentrism between human groups may lie rooted in the nature of human social life itself, not simply in ignorance,isolation, or self-servingdiscrimination. 12. Meggitt writes, "When men from anothercommunity or tribe arrivefor ceremonies, they usually f1rstperforma penis-offering ritual with their hosts. Each visitor approaches each of the seated hosts in turn and lifts the latter's arm. He presses his penis againstthe host's hand,so thatthe subincised urethrais in full contact with the palm, and then firmly draws the penis along the hand. A man with a grievance againstthe visitor refuses to raise his hand for the ritual. At this sign of hostility, the visitor at once presents his penis to each of his classificatory 'brothers'among the hosts. Should none of his 'brothers'take it, the outsidermust be readyto fight or to flee; he knows that public opinion is solidly against him. But a

'brother'who touches the visitor's penis consents to sponsor him and must stand and plead his case. If the appeal fails, he must also fight beside the outsider"(1965:262).

References Cited
Altmann,Jeanne 1980 Baboon Mothersand Infants.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress. Axelrod, Robert 1984 TheEvolution of Cooperation. New York:BasicBooks. Berkovitch,F. B. 1988 Coalitions, Cooperation and Reproductive Tactics amongAdult Male Baboons.Animal Behaviour36:11981209. Boyd, R., and P. J. Richerson 1990 Group Selection among Alternative Evolutionarily Stable Strategies. Journal of Theoretical Biology 145: 331-342. Bulger, J. B. 1993 DominanceRank and Access to EstrousFemales in Male Savanna Baboons.Behaviour127(1-2):67-103. Burke,D. G. 1982 Gesture. In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 2. Pp. 449457. GrandRapids,MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing. Byrne, R. W., and A. Whiten 1990 TacticalDeception in Primates:The 1990 Database. Primate Report27:1-101. Darwin,Charles 1872 The Expressionof the Emotionsin Man andAnimals. London:Appleton. DeVore, IrvenB. 1962 The Social Behavior and Organizationof Baboon Troops. Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology Department, Universityof Chicago. Durkheim,Emile 1995 The ElementaryForms of Religious Life. KarenE. Fields,trans.New York:The FreePress. East, M. L., H. Hofer, and W. Wickler 1993 The Erect'Penis' is a Flag of Submissionin a FemaleDominatedSociety: Greetingsin SerengetiSpottedHyenas. Behavioral Ecology andSociobiology33:355-370. EducationDevelopmentCenter 1965 Dynamics of Male Dominance in a Baboon Troop. Film in the series Man and OtherAnimals.Newton, MA: Education DevelopmentCenter. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1965 Theoriesof PrimitiveReligion. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Friedman,Jonathan 1974 Marxism, Structuralism,and Vulgar Materialism. Mann.s.9:at4/1169. Geertz,Clifford 1973a The Impactof the Conceptof Culture on the Concept of Man.In The Interpretation of Cultures.Pp. 33-54. New York:Basic Books. 1973b ThickDescription: Towardan Interpretive Theow of Culture.ln The Interpretation of Cultures.Pp. 3-30. New York:Basic Books.

WATANABE ANDSMUTS /

RELIGION WITHOUT EXPLAINING ITAWAY EXPLAINING

111

Ameri1984 DistinguishedLecture:Anti Anti-Relativism. can Anthropologist 86:263-278. Goodall, Jane 1986 The Chimpanzeesof Gombe: Patternsof Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress. Harcourt, AlexanderH., and FransB. M. de Waal, eds. 1992 Coalitions and Alliances in Humansand OtherAnimals. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Hausfater,Glenn, and David Takacs Presentations 1987 Structureand Functionof Hindquarter Ethology 74: in Yellow Baboons (Papiocynocephalus). 297-319. Hinde, RobertA. 1974 Biological Bases of Human Social Behaviour.New York:McGraw-Hill. Huxley, Julian 1914 The Courtship Habitsof the GreatCrestedGrebe(Podicepscristatus) Togetherwith a Discussion of the Evolution of Courtshipin Birds. Journalof the LinneanSociety of London,Zoology 53:253-292. Levi-Strauss,Claude 1963 Totemism. Rodney Needham,trans.Boston: Beacon Press. 1985 Race and Culture.InThe View fromAfar.J. Neugroschel andP. Hoss, trans.Pp.3-24. New York:Basic Books. Lorenz, Konrad 1950 The Comparative Methodin StudyingInnateBehaviour Patterns.Symposiumof the Society for Experimental Biology 4:221-268. 1966 Evolutionof Ritualization in the Biological and Culof the Royal SoturalSpheres.PhilosophicalTransactions ciety of Britain251 :273-284. and Toshisada McGrew,William C., LindaF. Marchant, Nishida, eds. Cambridge Univer1996 GreatApe Societies. Cambridge: sity Press. Mech, L. David 1970 The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an EndanHistoryPress. geredSpecies. Garden City,NY: Natural Meggitt, Mervyn J. 1965 The Desert People:A Studyof the Walbiriof Central Australia. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. Moore, J. H. 1994 PuttingAnthropology Back TogetherAgain:The EthnogeneticCritiqueof CladisticTheory.AmericanAnthropologist96:925-948. Moynihan,M. 1956 Notes on the Behaviour of Some North American Gulls I: AerialHostileBehaviour.Behaviour10:12S178. The New English Bible, Oxford Study Edition 1976 S. Sandmel, gen. ed. New York: Oxford University Press. The New Oxford AnnotatedBible, New Revised Standard Version 1991 Bruce M. Metzgerand RolandE. Murphy,eds. New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Nicolson, Nancy 1982 Weaning and the Development of Independencein AnthropologyDepartOlive Baboons. Ph.D. dissertation, ment,Harvard University.

Nishida, T., and K. Hosaka 1996 CoalitionStrategiesamongAdultMale Chimpanzees Tanzania. In GreatApe Societies. of the MahaleMountains, and Toshisada William C. McGrew, Linda F. Marchant, UniverCambridge Nishida,eds. Pp. 114-134. Cambridge: sity Press. Noe, R. 1992 Alliance Formationamong Male Baboons:Shopping In Coalitionsand Alliances in Hufor ProfitablePartners. andFrans mansandOtherAnimals.AlexanderH. Harcourt B. M. de Waal, eds. Pp. 284-321. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. OxfordEnglish Dictionary,2nd ed. 1989 J. A. SimpsonandE. S. C. Weiner,eds. Oxford:Clarendon Press. Packer,C. 1977 Reciprocal Altruism in Papio anubis.Nature 265 (5593):441-443. Ransom,TimothyW. 1981 The Beach Troop of Gombe. Lewisburg,PA: Bucknell UniversityPress. Roy A. Rappaport, 1979a Ecology, Meaning and Religion. Richmond, CA: NorthAtlanticBooks. 1979b The ObviousAspectsof Ritual.In Ecology,Meaning andReligion.Pp. 173-221. Richmond,CA: NorthAtlantic Books. 1979c Sanctityand Lies in Evolution.In Ecology, Meaning andReligion.Pp. 223-246. Richmond,CA: NorthAtlantic Books. 1984 Pigs for the Ancestors:Ritualin the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New, enlargededition. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress. The 1993 DistinguishedLecturein GeneralAnthropology: Anthropologyof Trouble. American Anthropologist95: 295-303. Rodseth,Lars 1998 DistributiveModsls of Culture:A SapirianAlternaAmericanAnthropologist 100:5549. tive to Essentialism. Schenkel,R. 1967 Submission:Its Featuresand Functionin the Wolf. AmericanZoologist7(2): 319-329. Smith,W. John ApAn Ethological 1977 The Behaviorof Communicating: MA.: Harvard UniversityPress. proach.Cambridge, B. Smuts, Barbara in Baboons.Hawthorne, NY: Ald1985 Sex andFriendship Company. ine Publishing 1987 SexualCompetitionand MateChoice. In PrimateSocieties. BarbaraSmuts, DorothyCheney,RobertSeyfarth, Richard Wrangham, and Thomas Struhsaker,eds. Pp. 385-399. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress. B., and RobertW. Smuts Smuts, Barbara 1993 Male Aggression and Sexual Coercionof Femalesin NonhumanPrimatesand OtherMammals:Evidence and In Advancesin the Studyof BeTheoreticalImplications. M. Milinski,and C. havior,22. P. B. Slater,J. Rosenblatt, Snowdon,eds. Pp.143. New York:AcademicPress.

112

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 101, NO. 1 * MARCH 1999

Smuts, BarbaraB., and John M. Watanabe 1990 Social Relationships and Ritualized Greetings in Adult Male Baboons (Papiocynocephalus anubis). InternationalJournal of Primatology11:147-172. Smuts, BarbaraB., DorothyL. Cheney, RobertM. Seyfarth, RichardW. Wrangham,and Ihomas T. Struhsaker, eds. 1987 Primate Societies. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. Strum,Shirley 1987 AlmostHuman: A Journey into the Worldof Baboons. New York: RandomHouse. Tinbergen,N. 1952 "Derived" Activities:TheirCausation, BiologicalSignificance, Origin and Emancipation during Evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology 27:1-32.

Waal,Frans de, B. M. 1996 GoodNatured: The Origins of RightandWrongin Humansand OtherAnimals.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wagner, Roy 1981 The Invention of Culture, revisedandexpanded ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson,Edward O. 1975 Sociobiology: TheNew Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zahavi, A. 1977 The Testingof a Bond.AnimalBehaviour 25:24S 247.