It is time to explore the principles on which human nature has been constructed and the social structures that are derived from behaviors embedded in the human genome.—Nicholas Wade, The Origin of Politics (46)
Nicholas Wade is concerned that we are attempting to establish cultural norms and political structures that stray too far from traditions that are consistent with evolutionary biology and psychology.
Two fateful collisions between politics and human nature are at present in progress. One is the steady fraying of the social cohesion required to hold together the multiethnic society that the United States has become.
The other is a worldwide decline in fertility that has set almost every country outside Africa on the path to eventual extinction (1)
Humans, like other species, come with a set of instincts and drives that were shaped by evolution.
The desire to reproduce and successfully raise children is one that may not dominate our waking thoughts, but it’s the prime motivator of actions throughout life. (53)
We can connect some of our behavior to evolutionary prehistory.
A striking link between early and modern armies is that of movement in unison. Moving the body in synchrony with others engenders a feeling of unity and common purpose. War dances were doubtless held for this reason. The modern army’s equivalent is marching on the parade ground. (62)
Wade argues that our moral outlook has evolutionary origins.
A society cannot function if its members have no compunction about harming or murdering one another, so evolution instilled in our minds a moral sense that such actions are prohibited. (85)
He says that the same holds true for social arrangements at large. Humans have built large-scale social structures,
by drawing on such features of human nature as kinship, religion, warfare, the instinct for following rules and punishing violators, and the desire to pass on wealth and status to one’s children. (97)
What happens when culture conflicts too much with our deep desires? Wade discusses the social experiment of the kibbutz in Israel, which attempted some cultural modifications that could not be sustained.
The kibbutzim regained their footing only after they had abandoned their two primary policies that conflicted with human nature—the abolition of the family and separating work from reward. (12)
Other cultural changes have turned out to be more workable. Substituting monogamy for polygamy served to reduce violence within groups and helped strengthen group solidarity with respect to external groups. Replacing tribal society with formal political structures allowed societies to enlarge their economies and to increase wealth. These effects had survival value.
Wade insists that sex differences are natural and important.
The two sexes have different aptitudes and interests, as would be expected from their long evolutionary history of specialization. A society that substantially reallocates these natural choices according to feminist or any other ideology will raise social tensions and will risk deranging the natural distribution of talents within a society. (109)
He asserts that the drive to place women in high positions in organizations, especially universities, has had adverse consequences.
Almost all social institutions have been created by men. This is because men have always been concerned with forming coalitions with other men for reasons of governance and defense…
The idea that men are on average better adapted than women for running institutions is therefore a reasonable hypothesis, though one that has yet to be proved…
Two thirds of college administrators were female in 2021. A principal function of these shadowy groups is to diminish the success of white male applicants in applying for faculty positions. They also issue requirements for “safe spaces” and speech codes that make the campus resemble as much as possible the optimal female environment of security…
There is scant evidence that today’s feminized universities place top priority on the pursuit of knowledge…
Institutions that propel women into leadership positions for reasons other than merit risk slipping into the same disarray as that into which many once-renowned universities have collapsed. (117–119)
Such claims are inflammatory. But I would note that Helen Andrews spoke similarly at a conference in the fall of 2025. See also my review of Warriors and Worriers, by Joyce Benenson.
Wade speculates that liberal and conservative political beliefs are sprinkled through humanity because circumstances vary.
A group pressing into new territory would benefit if the “liberal” alleles became more common in the population, encouraging it to keep exploring. But suppose the new territory is fraught with danger, whether of hostile neighboring groups or climactic variability. In these circumstances, the “conservative alleles will start to become more common in the population because those who practice caution and traditional ways of doing things will have better chances of survival. (158)
In his final chapter, Wade backs away from the seemingly conservative implications of the evolutionary perspective.
Politics has to promote and govern change as well as the conservation of values and traditions. The evolutionary perspective provides no basis for favoring conservative over liberal politics. (211)
But he concludes with a plea to pay heed to our evolutionary inheritance.
The evolutionary mismatch between human nature and culture continues to widen, creating serious stresses…
Lasting solutions will be found only within the framework of human nature. This set of behaviors, whatever its frailties and failings, is the best that evolution could devise for constructing human societies and ensuring their survival. Politics and culture can sometimes moderate these behaviors for the better. But, stretched too far, the natural bonds that sustain the fabric of society will tear asunder. (213)
If I had written a book on these themes, I would have taken more care to take a stance of “Often, but not always.”
Often, cultural experiments fail when they go against evolutionary instincts, but not always (we have found ways to overcome nepotism).
Often, the way that women approach cooperation and competition differs from men’s approach, but not always (personality differences are prevalent among women and among men that may be as large or larger than average differences between the sexes).
Often, evolutionary mismatch is exacerbated by liberal policies, but not always (one can argue that dramatic income inequality is an example of a phenomenon that is an evolutionary mismatch that is exacerbated by conservative policies).
That said, one should not reject Wade’s speculations out of hand.
