¹ E. g., zoologists: Lorenz, Konrad, Studies in Animal and Human Behaviour, Vol. II, trans, by Martin, Robert (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Tinbergen, N., “On War and Peace in Animals and Man,” Science, 160 (June 28, 1968), 1411–1418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Bigelow, Robert, “The Evolution of Cooperation, Aggression, and Self-Control,” in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1972, ed. Cole, James K. and Jensen, Donald D. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1972), pp. 1–57Google Scholar; psychologists: Nash, John, Developmental Psychology: A Psychobiological Approach (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Prentice-Hall, 1970)Google Scholar; Hebb, Donald O., Textbook of Psychology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 3rd ed., 1972), esp. chap. 11Google Scholar, “Emotion and Motivation: The Social Context”; anthropologists: Spuhler, J. N., “Sociocultural and Biological Inheritance in Man,” in Genetics, ed. Glass, David C. (New York: Rockefeller University Press, 1968), pp. 102–110Google Scholar; Reynolds, V., “Open Groups in Hominid Evolution,” Man, 1 (December, 1966), 441–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tiger, Lionel and Fox, Robin, The Imperial Animal (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971)Google Scholar; sociologists: Eckland, Bruce, “Genetics and Sociology: A Reconsideration,” American Sociological Review, 32 (April, 1967), 173–194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Mazur, Allan and Robertson, Leon S., Biology and Social Behavior (New York: Free Press, 1972)Google Scholar.

² E. g., Corning, Peter A., “The Biological Bases of Behavior and Some Implications for Political Science,” World Politics, 23 (April, 1971), 321–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Masters, Roger D., “Genes, Language, and Evolution,” Semiotica, 2, 4 (1970), 295–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Willhoite, Fred H. Jr., “Ethology and the Tradition of Political Thought,” Journal of Politics, 33 (August, 1971), 615–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a cataloguing of political science articles influenced in a variety of ways by biological considerations, see Somit, Albert, “Review Article: Biopolitics,” British Journal of Political Science, 2 (April, 1972), 209–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ I would especially recommend to the curious reader, however, two of the most clearly written introductions to biobehavioral thinking: Fox, Robin, “The Cultural Animal,” in Man and Beast: Comparative Social Behavior, ed. Eisenberg, J. F. and Dillon, Wilton S. (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971), pp. 273–296Google Scholar; Bigelow, “The Evolution of Co-operation, Aggression, and Self ‘Control.” A work that may become a basic point of reference for all bio-behavioral thinking is Wilson, Edward O., Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1975)Google Scholar.

⁴ For lucid explanations of this theory, see Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Mankind Evolving (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962)Google Scholar; Simpson, George Gaylord, The Meaning of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, revised ed., 1967), esp. chap. 14Google Scholar, “Forces of Evolution and Their Integration.”

⁵ For a review and explanation of some of the experimental evidence and basic theory on this point, see McClearn, Gerald E., “Behavioral Genetics: An Overview,” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 14 (January, 1968), 9–24Google Scholar.

⁶ Nash, , Developmental Psychology, pp. 59, 116, 158, 233Google Scholar; Hamburg, David A., “Emotions in the Perspective of Human Evolution,” in Expression of the Emotions in Man, ed. Knapp, Peter H. (New York: International Universities Press, 1963), 300–317Google Scholar; Washburn, Sherwood L. and Hamburg, David A., “The Study of Primate Behavior,” in Primate Behavior: Field Studies of Monkeys and Apes, ed. DeVore, Irven (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), pp. 5–6Google ScholarPubMed.

⁷ The computer “programming” analogy is developed in effective heuristic fashion in Tiger and Fox, The Imperial Animal, chap. 1, “Beginning Biogrammar.” For a wealth of clearly explicated experimental evidence for the biobehavioral perspective, see Biological Boundaries of Learning, ed. Seligman, Martin E. P. and Hager, Joanne L. (New York: Appleton-Century-crofts, 1972)Google Scholar.

⁸ For a helpful attempt to specify the levels of comparison between human behavior and that of other species, see Masters, Roger D., “Functional Approaches to Analogical Comparison Between Species,” Paper presented at Conference on the Logic of Inference from Animal to Human Behavior, sponsored by the International Council on the Social Sciences, 1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Masters distinguishes between a biological “analogy,” which refers to common functions served by similar behaviors, and “homology,” in which similarities between species stem from a common evolutionary ancestry. (Thus “those characteristics which are more or less common to all primates” might well constitute homologies. [Masters, personal communication.])

⁹ Chance, Michael R. A. and Jolly, Clifford J., Social Groups of Monkeys, Apes and Men (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1970), p. 209Google Scholar. The following are examples of anthropologists' attempts to reconstruct the origins of man and of his species-typical behavioral propensities, largely on the basis of primate studies: Reynolds, “Open Groups in Hominid Evolution”; Fox, Robin, “In the Beginning: Aspects of Hominid Behavioural Evolution,” Man, 2, (September, 1967), 415–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jolly, C. J., “The Seed-Eaters: A New Model of Hominid Differentiation Based on a Baboon Analogy,” Man, 5 (March, 1970), 5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Napier, John, The Roots of Mankind (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1970), p. 219Google Scholar. An important animal behavior approach that supplements significantly the primatologists' efforts to understand human behavior is the study of predators. Since man evolved as a hunter-gatherer, “human social systems are the product of the selective forces operating on man the primate and man the carnivore …” (Schaller, George B. and Lowther, Gordon R., “The Relevance of Carnivore Behavior to the Study of Early Hominids,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 25 [Winter, 1969], 336)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Study of hunting species may reveal types of selective forces and convergent patterns of adaptation intrinsic to this way of life — despite the enormous phylogenetic distance between predators and man. Evidence thus far is somewhat equivocal, but there appear to be intraspecies competition and some forms — widely varying — of dominance-submission behavior in lions, hyenas, wild dogs, and wolves. The analogies between wolf pack structure and behavior and human social groups are especially striking. On lions, see Schaller, George B., The Serengeti Lion: A Study of Predator-Prey Relations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), esp. chap. 5Google Scholar; on hyenas, Kruuk, Hans, The Spotted Hyena: A Study of Predation and Social Behavior (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), esp. chap. 6Google Scholar; on wild dogs, Hugo, and van Lawick-Goodall, Jane, Innocent Killers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), pp. 49–101Google Scholar; on wolves, Woolpy, Jerome H., “The Social Organization of Wolves,” Natural History, 77 (May, 1968), 46–55Google Scholar, and Mech, L. David, The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species (Garden City, New York: Natural History Press, 1970), esp. chap. 3Google Scholar. For a preliminary attempt to compare the behavior of primates and carnivores to presumed behavior patterns of man's ancestors, see Schaller and Lowther, “The Relevance of Carnivore Behavior to the Study of Early Hominids.”

¹¹ Masters, Roger D., “On Comparing Humans — and Human Politics — with Animal Behavior,” Paper presented to 1973 International Political Science Association Congress, p. 10Google Scholar.

¹² Bernstein, Irwin S., “Primate Status Hierarchies,” in Primate Behavior: Developments in Field and Laboratory Research, Vol. I, ed. Rosenblum, Leonard A. (New York and London: Academic Press, 1970), pp. 71–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ Kummer, Hans, Primate Societies: Group Techniques of Ecological Adaptation (Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1971), pp. 58–61Google Scholar. The tentativeness of all generalizations must be persistently kept in mind in considering observational data from such a recently developed and rapidly changing field as primate behavior study.

¹⁴ For such assertions about baboons and macaques, see Napier, p. 219; about chimpanzees, see Jolly, Alison, The Evolution of Primate Behavior (New York: Macmillan, 1972), p. 132Google Scholar.

¹⁵ For a study of this species in one of its native habitats, see Southwick, Charles H., Beg, Mirza Azhar, and Siddiqi, M. Rafiq, “Rhesus Monkeys in North India,” in Primate Behavior, ed. DeVore, , pp. 111–159Google Scholar. Most of the description and analysis of rhesus behavior in the text is drawn from one of the Cayo Santiago studies: Kaufmann, John H., “Social Relations of Adult Males in a Free-ranging Band of Rhesus Monkeys,” in Social Communication Among Primates, ed. Altmann, Stuart A. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), pp. 73–98Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Southwick et al, pp. 144–151.

¹⁷ Kaufmann, passim.

¹⁸ This account is based on Hall, K.R.L. and DeVore, Irven, “Baboon Social Behavior,” in Primate Behavior, ed. DeVore, , pp. 53–110Google Scholar; and on DeVore, I., “Male Dominance and Mating Behavior in Baboons,” in Sex and Behavior, ed. Beach, Frank A. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), pp. 266–289Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Such a structure was reported in five troops by Hall and DeVore, p. 54.

²⁰ DeVore, , “Male Dominance and Mating Behavior in Baboons”, p. 269Google Scholar.

²¹ DeVore, p. 280.

²² Ibid., pp. 274, 281.

²³ Hall and DeVore, p. 71.

²⁴ For a lucid explanation of the evidence for this evolutionary relationship, see Washburn, S. L. and Moore, Ruth, Ape Into Man: A Study of Human Evolution (Boston: Little, Brown, 1974), pp. 11–29Google Scholar.

²⁵ This description is based primarily on Schaller, George B., “The Behavior of the Mountain Gorilla,” in Primate Behavior, ed. DeVore, , pp. 324–367Google Scholar. For a much more elaborate account of the same study, see Schaller, George B., The Mountain Gorilla: Ecology and Behavior (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Much more aggressiveness and activity than Schaller noted has been observed by Dian Fossey, who is currently engaged in a much longer-term study of mountain gorillas than was Schaller's. E.g., she observed some skirmishes between gorilla groups and, in three cases, saw lone males enter a group and engage in fights in which infants were killed (Goodall, Jane, “Intra-specific Aggression,” Lecture delivered to Human Biology Core Course, Stanford University, October 17, 1975)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Most of our information on chimpanzee behavior comes from studies done by or under the direction of Jane Goodall, whose observations in the field began in 1960 and are still continuing. To date (January, 1976) her most comprehensive scientific report is Jane van Lawick-Goodall, , “The Behaviour of Free-Living Chimpanzees in the Gombe Stream Reserve,” Animal Behaviour Monographs, 1, part 3 (1968), 165–311Google Scholar. See also Goodall, Jane, “Chimpanzees of the Gombe Stream Reserve,” in Primate Behavior, ed. DeVore, , pp. 425–473Google Scholar (Jane Goodall and Jane van Lawick-Goodall are the same person); also Reynolds, Vernon and Reynolds, Frances, “Chimpanzees of the Budongo Forest,” in the same volume, pp. 368–424Google Scholar.

²⁸ Van Lawick-Goodall, p. 167. In their study, the Reynoldses concurred (pp. 393–396).

²⁹ Goodall, “Intra-specific Aggression”; see also Malloy, Michael T., “Man See, Man Do,” National Observer (December 6, 1975), 1, 18Google Scholar.

³⁰ Those of Goodall and the Reynoldses in Primate Behavior.

³¹ Goodall, Jane, “Social Hierarchy and Dominance,” Lecture delivered to Human Biology Core Course, Stanford University, October 13, 1975Google Scholar.

³² Van Lawick-Goodall, p. 212.

³³ Van Lawick-Goodall, p. 212; Goodall, “Social Hierarchy and Dominance.”

³⁴ According to Robin Fox, recent Japanese work indicates that the chimpanzee once had a wider distribution and lived in open territory. When faced with open country, chimpanzee groups became tightly organized in apparent expectation of predatory attacks; for example, such groups exclude young, subadult males. (Fox, Robin, “Alliance and Constraint: Sexual Selection in the Evolution of Human Kinship Systems”, ın Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971, ed. Campbell, Bernard [Chicago: Aldine, 1972], p. 295.Google Scholar)

³⁵ Mazur, Allan, “A Cross-Species Comparison of Status in Small Established Groups,” American Sociological Review, 38 (October, 1973), 513–530CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

³⁶ Ibid., pp. 513-514, 517-525, 526. Mazur's argument strikes me as consistent with the primate data and as logically persuasive. I believe that he is unnecessarily restrictive, however, in asserting that “there is no biological justification” for concluding that “large-scale social stratification must also be a noncultural characteristic” (p. 527). While it is certainly correct that macro-stratification has not been observed in non-human primates, that is fundamentally because of man's most important species distinction — an enormously developed symbolizing capacity, manifested primarily through language. In a book which Mazur cites because of his apparent disagreement with its authors on this point, Tiger and Fox argue cogently that the macrostructures of human societies exist only because of man's symbolic-cultural capacities but that symbolism mainly and fundamentally expresses variations on a finite number of behavioral themes which may be discerned by means of thorough and careful cross-species comparisons. (The Imperial Animal, pp. 10–20, 34–35, 217–18.)

³⁷ Bernstein, , “Primate Status Hierarchies,” p. 74Google Scholar.

³⁸ Bernstein, Irwin S. and Gordon, Thomas P., “The Function of Aggression in Primate Societies,” American Scientist, 62 (May–June, 1974), 308Google ScholarPubMed.

³⁹ The initial formulation occurs in Chance, M. R. A., “Attention Structure as the Basis of Primate Rank Orders,” Man, 2 (December, 1967), 503–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Chance, and Jolly, , Social Groups of Monkeys, Apes, and Men, pp. 173–175Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Chance, p. 509. Emphasis in the original.

⁴¹ A particularly dramatic instance of rank-order change — one male's displacing another in the alpha position — can be readily interpreted as demonstrating the importance of attention structure among chimpanzees. This transformation was caused by an adult male's discovering some empty kerosene cans, seizing them, and using them to make an unusually horrendous noise during a ritualistic “charging run,” one of the principal forms of dominance competition among adult males of this species. The attention that he thereby drew to himself persisted, and — after several nonviolent agonistic contests — he was deferred to by all other group members, including the previous alpha male. See van Lawick-Goodall, Jane, “Some Aspects of Aggressive Behaviour in a Group of Free-living Chimpanzees,” International Social Science Journal, 23, 1 (1971), 93–95Google Scholar; also van Lawick-Goodall, , In the Shadow of Man (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), pp. 112–117Google Scholar.

⁴² Chance and Jolly, p. 174. Some criticisms of the “attention structure” conception are mentioned briefly in Jolly, Alison, The Evolution of Primate Behavior, pp. 192–193Google Scholar.

⁴³ Chance, p. 511. My emphasis.

⁴⁴ Chance and Jolly, pp. 208-209.

⁴⁵ See, e.g., Tiger, Lionel, “Dominance in Human Societies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1 (1970), 298–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tiger, and Fox, , The Imperial Animal, pp. 39–51Google Scholar; Larsen, R. R., “Leaders and Non-Leaders: Speculation on Charisma,” Paper presented to 1973 Southern Political Science Association MeetingGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ Larsen, p. 3.

⁴⁷ Ibid., pp. 7–8.

⁴⁸ For some other representative viewpoints, see fn. 9.

⁴⁹ See fn. 1.

⁵⁰ Bigelow, pp. 1–3. That there was an important degree of prehistoric intergroup violence is perhaps Bigelow's most controversial — and controverted — point. This is a fairly typical critique of it by an anthropologist: “ … the evidence for intergroup violent competition is exceedingly weak when we look at modern hunter-gatherer groups, the pre-historic tool assemblages, and fossil remains. I do agree, however, that there probably was competition between groups and that it was most likely linked to relative efficiency of resource exploitation and rate of population growth rather than aggressive interaction.” (R. R. Larsen, personal communication.) Goodall's recent observations, discussed above, of group-territorial aggression in chimpanzees may provide some support for Bigelow's speculations.

⁵¹ Note the stress on the evolutionary importance of predation pressures on savanna baboons, in DeVore, Irven and Hall, K. R. L., “Baboon Ecology,” in Primate Behavior, ed. DeVore, , p. 49Google Scholar.

⁵² Bigelow, pp. 3–4.

⁵³ Ibid., pp. 4–5.

⁵⁴ For relevant speculations, see Hockett, Charles F. and Ascher, Robert, “The Human Revolution,” Current Anthropology, 5 (June, 1964), 135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁵ Bigelow, pp. 42–43.

⁵⁶ Bigelow, p. 6.

⁵⁷ Ibid., pp. 27, 29, 31.

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 52.

⁵⁹ Cowley, W. H., “Three Distinctions in the Study of Leaders,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 23 (July-September, 1928), 144CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted in Fiedler, Fred E., “Leadership” (Morristown, New Jersey: General Learning Press, 1971), p. 2Google ScholarPubMed.

⁶⁰ Fiedler, pp. 1, 2.

⁶¹ Ibid., p. 2.

⁶² A popularized but stimulating discussion of this idea is presented in Ardrey, Robert, The Social Contract (New York: Atheneum, 1970), pp. 102–136Google Scholar.

⁶³ Fiedler, p. 4.

⁶⁴ Bigelow, pp. 48–51.

⁶⁵ Lévi-Strauss, Claude, “The Social and Psychological Aspects of Chieftainship in a Primitive Tribe: The Nambikuara of Northwestern Mato Grosso,” in Comparative Political Systems: Studies in the Politics of Pre-lndustrial Societies, ed. Cohen, Ronald and Middleton, John (Garden City, New York: Natural History Press, 1967), pp. 61–62Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Gibb, Cecil A., “Leadership,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. IV, ed. Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliot (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 2nd ed., 1969), p. 226Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 252.

⁶⁸ First reported in Milgram, Stanley, “Behavioral Study of Obedience,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (October, 1963), 371–378CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; reviewed, analyzed, and interpreted in Milgram, Stanley, Obedience to Authority (New York: Harper & Row, 1974)Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Milgram, , Obedience to Authority, pp. 30–35Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Milgram, pp. 123–125, 134. The possibility that Milgram had instead tapped a hidden wellspring of sadistic aggression is belied by the outcome of one version of his experiment. Subjects were allowed to choose the shock level they would use to punish the “learner.” Only one of forty moved all the way up the panel to the “450” switch (ibid., pp. 70–72).

⁷¹ Waddington, C. H., The Ethical Animal (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1960), pp. 155–174Google Scholar. Submissive obedience can be, of course, horrendously destructive. E.g., note Hannah Arendt's observation that the vaunted aggressive toughness of Nazi SS men was actually, with few exceptions, “nothing but a myth of self-deception, concealing a ruthless desire for conformity at any price …” (Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil [New York: Viking Press, 1963], p. 157.Google Scholar)

⁷² Wynne-Edwards, V. C., “Population Control and Social Selection in Animals,” in Genetics, ed. Glass, David C., p. 162Google Scholar.

⁷³ Tiger, , “Dominance in Human Societies,” p. 295Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ One of the best brief discussions of the impact of hunting on the evolution of human behavior is Washburn, Sherwood L. and Lancaster, C. S., “The Evolution of Hunting,” in Man the Hunter, ed. Lee, Richard B. and DeVore, Irven (Chicago: Aldine, 1968), pp. 293–303Google Scholar. See also fn. 10, above.

⁷⁵ Etkin, William, Social Behavior from Fish to Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Phoenix Books, 1967), p. 140Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Tiger, and Fox, , The Imperial Animal, pp. 48–51Google Scholar. Therefore it seems likely that, in evolutionary terms, “consent” is as old as, in fact coterminous with, “command” in human authority structures. This may be viewed as some degree of validation of Hannah Arendt's insight into the “elementary dynamics” of political life — namely, her recurrent emphasis upon the spontaneity of small-scale participatory political groups during most modern revolutionary upheavals and her insistence upon popular consent as the basis of effective political power. See Arendt, Hannah, On Revolution (New York: Viking Press, 1963), esp. pp. 259–285Google Scholar; Arendt, , “Reflections on Violence,” Journal of International Affairs, 23, 1 (1969), 14–15Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Barkow, Jerome H.. “Prestige and Culture: A Biosocial Interpretation,” Current Anthropology, 16 (December, 1975), 554CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁸ Aquinas, St. Thomas, On Kingship, in The Political Ideas of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. Bigongiari, Dino (New York: Hafner, 1953), pp. 175, 176Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Mankind (1755)Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Washburn, Sherwood L. and Hamburg, David A., “The Implications of Primate Research,” in Primate Behavior, ed. DeVore, , p. 612Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Emile, or Education, trans. Foxley, Barbara (New York: E. P. Dutton, Everyman's Library, 1911, reprinted 1963), p. 274Google Scholar.

⁸² Engels, Friedrich, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, in Marx and Engels: Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy, ed. Feuer, Lewis S. (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959), p. 394Google Scholar. It should be noted that Engels did not believe that all hierarchical authority would disappear under communism. In an essay on authority, he asserted that authority in the factory was a functional requirement of industrial production and thus unavoidable. In the same essay, however, Engels reiterated: “All socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.” (“On Authority,” in Basic Writings, ed. Feuer, , p. 485.Google Scholar)

⁸³ Wolff, Robert Paul, In Defense of Anarchism (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970)Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Ibid., p. 19.

⁸⁵ Ibid., p. 76.

⁸⁶ Cf. Mazur, p. 526.

⁸⁷ See Edelman, Murray, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ E.g., female savanna baboons were placed within a group of hamadryas baboons; within an hour each female had learned to remain near and follow the male which had threatened or attacked her. This is normal behavior for a hamadryas female but precisely opposite the usual behavior of a female savanna baboon among males of her own species. Conversely, hamadryas females placed among savanna baboons soon learned not to follow individual males as these females had always done among their own kind. (Kummer, , Primate Societies, pp. 99–100.Google Scholar) The example cited above (fn. 41) of a rank order change in a chimpanzee group can be viewed as an individual's learning to use a newly available resource — noise-making tin cans — as a device to inhibit the dominance behavior of the alpha male, making it possible for the innovator to rise quickly to the top of the group hierarchy.

⁸⁹ Aristotle, Politics 1253a, trans. Barker, Ernest (New York: Oxford University Press, 1946), p. 7Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Bigelow, p. 24.

⁹¹ The Federalist, No. 51.