The Primate Myth: Why the Latest Science Leads Us to a New Theory of Human Nature (Bombardier Books), is a well-marshaled argument that behaviors of chimpanzees, gorillas and other great apes don’t give much insight into how humans act. Its author, Jonathan Leaf, makes a strong case that primatologists have overstated similarities between human and great-ape behavior and biology over the past half-century. Leaf provides a current, well-informed brief against a school of thought once mocked by neurobiologist Steven Rose as “chimpomorphs.”
Humans are far more social and cooperative than chimps and gorillas, as Leaf details. Our ancestors spread into the savannah and became hunters, whereas apes, monkeys and other primates stayed in the trees and ate less meat. Unlike other primates, we lack prehensile, or grasping, feet. Our behavior has similarities to elephants, dolphins and other animals living in herds, pods or packs. Humans shouldn’t be classified as primates, Leaf contends plausibly, but in a separate order alongside extinct relatives like Neandertals.
Humanity’s capacities to build civilization and transmit culture, Leaf argues persuasively, are reflections of our status as domesticated “herd animals,” something with negative as well as positive implications. Much human activity involves following crowds or obeying orders. We’re far less inclined to violence than chimps or gorillas, but our tendency to cooperate makes us uniquely capable of large-scale violence, as in war or genocide. “Our tameness makes us susceptible to the war fever promoted by autocrats, as it makes use of young men ready and willing to follow their commands,” Leaf writes. He observes that democracies with female suffrage refrain from fighting each other.
Leaf’s a right-leaning thinker (and Bombardier a conservative imprint) dismissive of Marxism and other academically popular doctrines as products of herd mentality. He lauds traditionalism for preventing crowds from embracing bad ideas. He worries democracies underestimate dangers from dictatorships, putting undue faith in diplomacy. “The primate model of our species inclines us toward the belief that humans will always be crooked, rational, and individualistic. Yet few people are consistently any of these things,” he writes. One consequence is underestimating risks of panic trading in financial markets. More broadly, the “mistaken belief that we are not a herd animal” partly explains “the failure of our elites to think substantively about the risks, problems, and issues that face us.”
“This book is not an attack on the theory of evolution,” Leaf points out. He recognizes the common ancestry of humans and apes, noting their differences result from hundreds of thousands of generations since species separated. Similarly, Leaf invokes convergent evolution, in which organisms develop parallel characteristics in response to similar challenges, as key to understanding our similarities to elephants and dolphins.
Still, a capsule review at The New Criterion implies that the book strikes a blow against evolution, reading in full: “For over a century, scientists have been aping mankind’s connection to the monkey while ridiculing those who think otherwise. The Scopes trial of 1925, sensationalized by H. L. Mencken and immortalized by the play Inherit the Wind, was the final blow for those doubters of Darwinism. The Primate Myth, a new book by Jonathan Leaf, looks at recent studies that bring into question the long-accepted doctrines of human evolution and our supposedly close connection to primates. By considering our socialization, our daily patterns, and our pastimes, this revelatory book explores the latest science of human development and argues for a better understanding of mankind’s unique place in the world.”
Another review, from the Acton Institute, offers praise for The Primate Myth mixed with regret that it doesn’t go far enough in separating humans from animals, and doesn’t invoke the divine: “Leaf’s book gets us away from some animals but nearer to others, and nearer to others but no nearer to God, and because no nearer to God, perhaps no nearer to our true or best selves.”
I’m curious to see how the book may be received in left-wing circles. Seeing a similarity between Leaf’s views on war and those of John Horgan, a science writer and anti-war progressive, I recently recommended that Horgan read the book. A virtue of a thought-provoking book such as The Primate Myth is that it may cut across ideological lines in unpredictable ways.