Debugging the Link between Social Theory and Social Insects
Diane M. Rodgers
Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA
2008; 214 pages
ISBN 978-8071-3369-9
Price: $22.95 (paper)
What an odd feeling to be the subject of another’s research program! In this
scholarly book, the sociologist Diane Rodgers has provided an invaluable service
to entomology by showing how scientific thinking about social insects is bounded
by and reflects the culture of those who study them.
Social insects hold special interest for sociologists. Via a carefully
constructed argument, Rodgers shows how the study of human social systems and
the science of social insects are necessarily connected and in fact form a
“legitimating loop.” She starts out by deconstructing the definition of
eusociality as the “pinnacle” of insect social evolution. The most commonly
accepted definition of eusociality includes three necessary conditions:
overlapping generations, division of labor, and cooperative brood care. Each of
those conditions is examined with respect to analogous human conditions, and
within the context of an implicit hierarchy of sociality. Rodgers then examines
the concept of hierarchy as a feature of western thought, with its associations
to power and privilege.
Along the way, readers learn how the social sciences and the entomological
sciences co-developed. One hundred years ago, it was accepted practice for those
whose chief study was insects to draw explicit parallels between their subjects
and the human condition; similarly, those most interested in humans often looked
to nature for exemplars of appropriate social systems. That is, human social
structures were legitimized by reference to naturally-occurring phenomena, while
entomological social phenomena were interpreted within the context of
westernized human culture. The two disciplines did not diverge until social
Darwinism was discredited; the disciplines parted company in the 1940s. Even so,
entrenched metaphors, terminology, and ways of framing scientific thought about
social insects continue to this day.
Rodgers uses a variety of lenses to deconstruct our work, including
post-colonialism and feminism. I offer two particularly striking examples.
Western naturalists during the great age of discovery often sought out the
opinions of indigenous peoples about the insects they saw. They learned about
what indigenous peoples called “visiting ants.” These ants were welcomed every
year, as they moved into homes and essentially cleaned them of vermin. Western
scientists, embedded in a culture of colonial exploitation, interpreted the
behavior quite differently and renamed the insects “army ants,” with
militaristic descriptions of bivouacs, raiding columns, and scouts. Similarly,
Rodgers deconstructs gendered language used to describe the roles of males and
females within social insect colonies. The queen is described primarily with
respect to her role as an egg producer, and references to the mating flight
abound with flowery descriptions of the “high point of her life,” a frame of
reference that serves to augment the status of males.
What does such an analysis mean for
today’s entomologists? First, it is important to recognize that our current
science retains many implicit concepts of hierarchy, power, and western
ideology. Those inclined to dispute the point need only read a popular article
about social insects or tune into nature documentaries on television to be
convinced. Just as importantly, Rodgers describes several lines of research that
have only recently broken away from the traditional mindset. For example,
self-organization theory abandons the early conception that the queen (and king,
for termites) directs all activities within the colony from the brood chamber.
We now know that complex social behavior and colony organization can be produced
from very simple decision rules applied flexibly. Similarly, the concept of
caste has become loosened substantially over decades of research that
demonstrate flexibility of roles within larger colonies.
As a reader, I wanted much more discussion of current ideas in social insect
biology. I was especially surprised at the omission of sociobiology’s rise.
Since Wilson’s landmark book (1975), the fields of evolutionary psychology and
social anthropology have used genetic thinking to generate testable hypotheses.
The dividing line between entomology and social science was erased, generating
considerable backlash from those fearing a social agenda founded on the argument
that what is natural is good (i.e. natural law). Readers interested in the
development of sociobiology as a discipline will have to consult other authors,
notably the historian Charlotte Sleigh (2007). A second major movement that
receives no treatment from Rodgers is the application of kin selection to
explain not only cooperation but also conflict within insect societies.
Hamilton’s theory of social evolution (1964), extended by Trivers to
kin-directed conflicts (1976), has opened entire fields of study, both
entomological and sociological.
Rodger’s book certainly made me think about other entomological research
questions hindered by human conventions, and here I offer just one. We humans
have helpless offspring, and the prevailing view is that the grub-like larvae of
hymenoptera are likewise helpless. Yet recent work has shown quite clearly that
those larvae play a crucial role in colony nutrition. Workers bring solid and
liquid food into the colony and feed it to larvae; those workers gain nutrition
themselves during trophollaxis with larvae or with other workers that have been
fed by larvae. Thus larvae provide an important source of adult nutrition. Only
by excruciatingly exacting study of trophollactic exchanges have we come to
appreciate that larvae comprise the digestive organ for a social insect colony.
Rodgers’ book can be a bit of a tough slog for scientists, since it uses
sociological conventions and jargon. However, Rodgers does such a good job of
laying out her argument and bolstering it with liberal quotations from primary
sources, that I found it an enjoyable read overall. Those interested in
additional studies by historians, philosophers, early naturalists, and social
scientists will find an excellent reference list and a good index.
Like other scientists, we entomologists adopt a fiction that our work is a pure
search for the truth. Rodgers shows that it is indeed a fiction. To be sure, we
search for accuracy and authenticity, but the way we search and what we
recognize as accurate or authentic are constrained by the cultures in which we
are embedded.
References Cited
Hamilton, W.D. 1964.
The genetical evolution of social behaviour I,II. J. Theor. Biol. 7: 1-32.
Sleigh, C. 2007.
Six legs better: a cultural history of myrmecology. Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Trivers, R.L. and H. Hare. 1976.
Haplodiploidy and the evolution of the social insects. Science 191:249-263.
Wilson, E.O. 1975.
Sociobiology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Evolution, Ecology & Organismal Biology
The Ohio State University
300 Aronoff Laboratory
318 W. 12th Avenue
Columbus OH 43210
herbers.4@osu.edu
|
