Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 401–412 | Cite as

Holism and reduction in sociobiology: Lessons from the ants and human culture

  • Edward O. Wilson
  • Charles J. Lumsden


Most research in the natural sciences passes through repeated cycles of a analytic reduction to the next lower level of organization, then resynthesis to the original level, then new analyticareduction, and so on. A residue of unexplained phenomena at the original level appears at first to require a “holistic” description independent of the lower level, but the residue shrinks as knowledge increases.

This principle is well illustrated by recent studies from the social organization of insects, several examples of which are cited here. In theory it should also apply to human social organization. Culture is biological: meaning in culture can be approached as the outcome of mechanism-based causation, because culture stems from individual cognition, which has a biological basis. It would seem to follow that the most effective way to study culture is across all levels of organization from gene to society, passing repetitively through a cycle of reduction and synthesis in the manner of the natural sciences. Reductionistic analysis is favored by the tendency of semantic memory and culture to occur in discrete units that are arranged hierarchically.

Key words

Ants behavior culture Holism human meaning reduction sociobiology symbol 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alberts, B., D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Ruff, K. Roberts, and J. D. Watson: 1989, Molecular Biology of the Cell, (2nd Ed.), Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Ayala, F.J.: 1974, ‘Introduction’, in F. J. Ayala and T. Dobzhansky (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Problems, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. vi-xvi.Google Scholar
  3. Dawkins, R.: 1988, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Findlay, C. S. and C. J. Lumsden: 1988, The Creative Mind, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  5. Goodman, N.: 1968, Languages of Art, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Indianapolis. IN..Google Scholar
  6. Green, D. M.: 1983, ‘Profile Analysis A Different View of Auditory Intensity Discrimination’, American Psychologist 38, 133–142.Google Scholar
  7. Hölldobler, B. and E. O. Wilson: 1990, The Ants, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Johnston, A. B. and E. O. Wilson: 1985, ‘Correlates of Variation in the Major/Minor Ratio of the Ant, Pheidole dentata (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)’, Annals of the Entomological Society of America 78, 8–11.Google Scholar
  9. Lumsden, C. J.: 1982, ‘The Social Regulation of Physical Caste: The Superorganism Revived’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 95, 749–781.Google Scholar
  10. Lumsden, C. J.: 1985, ‘Color Categorization: A Possible Concordance Between Genes and Culture’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 82, 5805–5808.Google Scholar
  11. Lumsden, C. J.: 1986, ‘The Gene and the Sign’, Semiotica 62, 191–206.Google Scholar
  12. Lumsden, C. J.: 1989a, ‘The Gene's Tale’, Biology and Philosophy 4, 495–502.Google Scholar
  13. Lumsden, C. J.: 1989b, ‘Does Culture Need Genes?’, Ethology and Sociobiology 10, 11–29.Google Scholar
  14. Lumsden, C. J. and E. O. Wilson: 1981, Genes, Mind, and Culture,, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  15. Lumsden, C. J. and E. O. Wilson: 1983, Promethean Fire, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  16. Lumsden, C. J. and E. O. Wilson: 1985, ‘The Relation Between Biological and Cultural Evolution’, Journal of Social and Biological Structures 8, 343–359.Google Scholar
  17. Minsky, M.: 1985, The Society of Mind, Simon and Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Nagel, E.: 1961, The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Nathans, J. D. Thomas, and D.S. Hogness: 1986 ‘MatMolecular Genetics of Human Color Vision: The Genes Encoding Blue, Green, and Red Pigments’, Science 232, 193–202.Google Scholar
  20. Oster, G. F. and E. O. Wilson: 1978, Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects, Princeton University Press, NJ.Google Scholar
  21. Schoener, T. W.: 1986, ‘Overview: Kinds of Ecological Communities — Ecology Becomes Pluralist’, in J. Diamond and T. J. Case (eds.), Community Ecology, Harper and Row,New York, pp. 467–479.Google Scholar
  22. Simon, H. A.: 1981, The Science of the Artificial (2nd Ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Sorenson, A. A., T. M. Busch, and S. B. Vinson: 1985, ‘Control of Food Influx by Temporal Subcastes in the Fire Ant, Solenopsis invicta’, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 17, 191–198.Google Scholar
  24. Wheeler, D. E.: 1986, ‘Developmental and Physiological Determinants of Cast in Social Hymenoptera: Evolutionary Implications’, American Naturalist 128, 13–34.Google Scholar
  25. Wickelgren, W. A.: 1979, Cognitive Psychology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  26. wilson, E. O.: 1971, The Insect Societies, Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  27. Wilson, E. O.: 1984, Biophilia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Wilson, E. O. and Hölldobler, B.: 1988, ‘Dense Heterarchies and Mass Communication as the Basis of Organization in Ant Colonies’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3, 65–68.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward O. Wilson
    • 1
  • Charles J. Lumsden
    • 2
  1. 1.Museum of Comparative ZoologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations