How Sociobiology Ruined ‘Story’: A Critique of Reductionist Narratives
The concept of ‘story’ has long been a cornerstone in understanding human culture, psychology, and social dynamics. However, a recent comment by a speaker at a workshop I attended rankled with me. The comment, made as an aside during a presentation rankled with me. It posited story as an evolutionary imperative and got me thinking. For me this perspective arises from lack of critical understanding on the debates that circulate around the topic. The dominance of sociobiology in our folk understanding of of how humans are, with its focus on evolutionary imperatives, has positions storytelling within a purely biological discourse. This blog post aims to critique the sociobiological stance on storytelling, arguing that reducing ‘story’ to an evolutionary strategy undermines its rich, multifaceted nature.
Sociobiology posits that storytelling is an evolutionary tool. It suggests that stories serve functions like enhancing social bonding, transmitting culture, teaching survival skills, moral education, and contributing to emotional well-being. From this viewpoint, storytelling abilities could even influence mate selection, suggesting those adept at storytelling are more attractive for their perceived intelligence and knowledge.
While the sociobiological view offers insights into the evolutionary benefits of storytelling, it’s crucial to examine its limitations:
Cultural Oversimplification: Anthropologists argue that reducing storytelling to an evolutionary function overlooks its cultural richness. Stories differ vastly across societies, each imbued with unique meanings and purposes that an evolutionary lens might miss.
Biological Reductionism: This approach risks explaining complex cultural phenomena solely through biology. Human behaviors, including storytelling, emerge from a blend of biological, social, cultural, and individual influences, not just evolutionary imperatives.
Underestimation of Human Agency: Sociobiology often overlooks the role of human creativity and consciousness in storytelling. People are active creators and interpreters of stories, not mere vehicles of evolutionary strategies.
Neglect of Historical and Contextual Dynamics: Sociobiology tends to ignore how storytelling evolves in response to specific historical and environmental contexts. Understanding stories requires situating them within their temporal and geographical realities.
Universalism in Morals and Values: The idea that stories universally transmit morals overlooks cultural relativism. What constitutes a moral story varies across cultures.
Gender and Power Dynamics: Sociobiology’s focus on evolutionary imperatives may neglect how stories intersect with issues like gender, power, and inequality.
By framing storytelling primarily as an evolutionary strategy, sociobiology risks ‘ruining’ the essence of ‘story’. It strips away the cultural, historical, and artistic dimensions that give stories their depth and resonance. Stories are not just tools for survival; they are windows into the human experience, reflecting the complexities, joys, and struggles of life across cultures and times.
While sociobiology contributes valuable perspectives on the evolutionary aspects of storytelling, it’s essential to approach this topic with a broader lens. Acknowledging the intricate tapestry of biological, cultural, historical, and personal factors that shape stories is crucial. By doing so, we preserve the integrity of ‘story’ as a rich, dynamic element of human culture, transcending mere evolutionary utility. In the realm of human creativity and cultural expression, stories deserve to be seen in their full, vibrant colors, not just through the monochrome lens of evolutionary necessity.