Culture by Nature. Familial roots of ambivalent human social behavior and its cultural extensions in large-scale societies. A contribution of Human and Cultural Ethology.

Since Hobbes' dictum of "homo homini lupus" in 17 century the tenor in European philosophy was the one of human nature in need of strong external rules to restrain from mutual aggression, inter-personal and inter-group. Behavioral measures and rules limiting a presumably aggressive human nature were perceived as purely moral and cultural. Evolutionary theory in the 19 century seemed to confirm the notion of a self-interested individual, at least in parts. By contrast, new models of cooperation later on modified the concept of a selfish human nature. Under conditions of reciprocity, immediate or delayed, cooperative behaviors tend to function better than egoistic ones. According to Human Ethology, comparable conditions are found in the first nuclear small group that is the extended family. Kin-based societies hence shape the original form of sociability. The key for understanding the ambivalence of pro-social and asocial behaviors, trust and mistrust, is the evolution of parental care and individual bonding. With parental care friendly dispositions and signals came into being, already in vertebrate sociability, but the differentiation of "we and the others" as well. The appetence to bond is opposed by dispositions of mistrust that tend to keep a distance and defend primary resources. Hence, small-group sociability could be handled quite well. Rituals of appeasement and the leveling of dominance were cultural means that evolved to nurture group cohesion. As for the rise of Neolithic larger groups of heterogeneous populations living together, new cultural rules had to arise. This process includes forms of customs, of religion, monuments and sacred objects. We may observe comparable phenomena in traditional cultures that exist today. The construction of group identity depends on myths that explain the group's identity by means of the cultural creation of common ancestors. The earlier kinship-relations of group members are extended to become culturally co-defined relations. Materially, these myths are made manifest by sacred objects. Through such symbols, the group communicates its "identity". The small-group ethos is thereby transferred to a larger group. On another level, artifacts and monuments that derive their expression from the repertoire of ritual "hostility displays" are used to secure the group's territory. Both forms of symbolic practice serve to maintain group identity internally by binding through common descent and externally by territorial demarcation through agonistic symbols.