| | | It’s good to talk |
| | | GROOMING, GOSSIP AND THE EVOLUTION |
| | | OF LANGUAGE |
| | | Robin Dunbar |
| | | Faber & Faber, £15.99 |
| | | MAREK KOHN |
1 | | | James Burke, that irrepressible Guru of Glib, |
| | | pops up this month in a corporate computer |
| | | magazine asserting that language evolved so that |
| | | early humans could tell each other how to make |
| 5 | | stone tools. The idea that there is a direct line of |
| | | descent from Man’s first utterances to computer |
| | | manuals is only a new take on an elderly theory, |
| | | though. Darwin himself speculated that the expansion |
| | | of the brain in early humans had proceeded in |
| 10 | | conjunction with the shift to an upright stance, |
| | | which had freed the hands to hold tools. His successors |
| | | generally assumed the hands to be male, |
| | | and the tools to be for hunting. |
2 | | | Since the 1970s, however, tool use has fallen from |
| 15 | | favour as the privileged focus of human evolution. |
| | | In 1978, Mary Leakey discovered a set of footprints |
| | | in volcanic ash at Laetoli, in Tanzania. The |
| | | tracks had been left by Australopithecines, the |
| | | creatures from which the human lineage arose. |
| 20 | | They had walked upright, yet they had brains of similar |
| | | size to those of chimpanzees, and a similarly |
| | | rudimentary capacity for tool use. Whatever had |
| | | caused apes to stand up on their hind limbs, it was |
| | | not the urge to wield tools. |
3 | 25 | | Meanwhile, the 1970s and 1980s saw feminist |
| | | scholars give “Man the Hunter” a drubbing from |
| | | which he is unlikely to recover. Nowadays, females |
| | | are not only recognised as essential to the evolution |
| | | of what makes us human, but are seen as |
| 30 | | prime movers in that process. For Robin Dunbar, |
| | | they were the driving force behind language, which |
| | | they developed to bind their societies together. |
| | | Gossip, he argues, is not idle; it is the thread with |
| | | which the social fabric is woven. |
4 | 35 | | Dunbar has an absorbing story to tell, and he |
| | | tells it attractively, striking a happy balance between |
| | | the theoretical and the popular. It is based |
| | | on his discovery that the size of the neocortex of a |
| | | mammal’s brain - the evolutionarily newer area, |
| 40 | | and a bigger proportion of the brain in humans |
| | | than any other species - is related to the size of the |
| | | group in which it lives. Dunbar’s findings lend support |
| | | to the newer view of human abilities as driven |
| | | by social pressures. |
5 | 45 | | Dunbar reasons that primates had evolved their |
| | | extra “thinking” layers of brain in order to function |
| | | better within groups. They became able to develop |
| | | their sense of who was who, who was related |
| | | to whom, who owed what to whom; their ability to |
| 50 | | do so depended on their neocortex size, which determined |
| | | the size of their social groups. |
6 | | | The most important activity primates undertake |
| | | to maintain relations is grooming, performed |
| | | according to the closeness of relationships between |
| 55 | | individuals. This takes up to a fifth of their |
| | | time, which appears to be as much as they can |
| | | spare while maintaining the other essential functions |
| | | of life. The size of grooming cliques correlates |
| | | with the size of the neocortex, and of the group as a |
| 60 | | whole. |
7 | | | Dunbar saw this finding as support for the |
| | | so-called Machiavellian theory of intelligence: that |
| | | it evolved to permit individuals to manipulate each |
| | | other. The purpose of extra neocortex was to |
| 65 | | strengthen coalitions within groups, giving individuals |
| | | a better chance of coping among large numbers |
| | | of their fellows. |
| | | The theory predicts that, going on neo-cortical |
| | | size, humans ought to live in groups of about 150. |
| 70 | | And so they do, Dunbar argues: within larger societies, |
| | | groups of around 150 are a persistent feature, |
| | | from clans to companies of soldiers. |
8 | | | It also predicts that modern humans ought to |
| | | spend about 40 per cent of their time grooming |
| 75 | | each other. Agreeable as this might be, it is not |
| | | practical. Language therefore arose among the |
| | | earliest modern humans as a sort of transcendent |
| | | grooming, by which social interaction could be enhanced. |
| | | About two-thirds of the time spent in conversations |
| 80 | | is devoted to what could be classified as |
| | | gossip. Our favourite topic is not the weather, but |
| | | who’s done what with whom. |
9 | | | In order for language to realise its potential, |
| | | Dunbar suggests, special mental devices came into |
| 85 | | being that greatly enhanced humans’ abilities to |
| | | comprehend the mental life of others. Whereas a |
| | | baboon may be able to keep track of who has done |
| | | what with whom, a person can also imagine what |
| | | they were thinking. |
10 | 90 | | The use made of such insights may often fit the |
| | | Machiavellian bill. But the very same applications |
| | | may also be viewed as essentially cooperative if |
| | | they cement coalitions. It would be nice to see a |
| | | vision of language as women’s first great invention, |
| 95 | | designed to promote social cohesion, forming |
| | | the basis of a new research endeavour. That might |
| | | ask how, if women first made language, they subsequently |
| | | lost it to men. |
| | | ‘New Statesman & Society’, March 22, 1996 |
| | | |