It is time to delve into the principles that shape human nature and the social frameworks that emerge from behaviors hardwired in our genome.
—Nicholas Wade, The Origin of Politics (46)
Nicholas Wade expresses concern that our efforts to forge cultural norms and political frameworks may be veering too far from traditions rooted in evolutionary biology and psychology.
Currently, two critical confrontations between politics and human nature are unfolding. The first is the gradual unraveling of the social cohesion necessary to maintain the multiethnic tapestry of the United States. The second is a global decline in fertility that is nudging nearly every nation outside of Africa toward potential extinction (1).
Like all species, humans carry a set of instincts and motivations that have been sculpted by evolution.
The drive to reproduce and effectively raise offspring may not dominate our conscious thoughts, but it undeniably serves as the primary catalyst for our actions throughout life. (53)
Our behaviors can often be traced back to our evolutionary past.
A remarkable connection between ancient and contemporary military forces is their capacity to move in unison. Synchronizing bodily movements fosters a sense of unity and shared purpose. This is likely why war dances were prevalent in ancient cultures, much like modern armies marching in formation on parade grounds. (62)
Wade posits that our moral framework has origins in evolution.
For a society to function, its members must feel a moral obligation against harming or killing one another, leading evolution to instill a moral compass that prohibits such actions. (85)
He contends that this principle extends to larger social structures.
Human beings have constructed extensive social frameworks by leveraging aspects of our nature such as kinship, religion, warfare, the instinct to adhere to rules and penalize transgressors, and the desire to pass down wealth and status to offspring. (97)
But what occurs when cultural expectations clash too profoundly with our intrinsic desires? Wade references the kibbutz movement in Israel, which experimented with cultural changes that ultimately proved unsustainable.
The kibbutzim regained their footing only after discarding their two main policies that contradicted human nature—the eradication of the family unit and the separation of labor from reward. (12)
Conversely, other cultural shifts have yielded more favorable outcomes. For instance, replacing polygamy with monogamy has mitigated violence within groups and bolstered solidarity against external threats. Transitioning from tribal societies to formal political structures has enabled societies to expand their economies and enhance wealth—an evolution with clear survival benefits.
Wade asserts that recognizing natural sex differences is crucial.
The sexes possess differing aptitudes and interests, a conclusion that aligns with their long evolutionary history of specialization. A society that attempts to significantly redistribute these natural preferences according to ideological frameworks—be it feminist or otherwise—risks heightening social tensions and disrupting the natural distribution of talents within its populace. (109)
Wade argues that the push to elevate women into leadership roles in organizations, particularly universities, has had negative repercussions.
Almost all social institutions have been constructed by men, primarily because they have historically sought to form coalitions with other men for governance and defense…
The hypothesis that men may be better suited for institutional leadership, on average, remains to be conclusively proven… In 2021, two-thirds of college administrators were female. A significant function of these groups is to diminish the success of white male applicants for faculty positions. Furthermore, they impose requirements for “safe spaces” and speech codes that render campuses increasingly reminiscent of a secure environment tailored for women…
There is little evidence that today’s feminized universities prioritize the pursuit of knowledge… Institutions that promote women into leadership roles for reasons beyond merit risk descending into the chaos that many once-reputable universities have experienced. (117–119)
Such assertions may ignite controversy. However, it’s worth noting that Helen Andrews raised similar points during a conference in late 2025. For further reading, see my review of Warriors and Worriers, authored by Joyce Benenson.
Wade speculates that the spectrum of liberal and conservative political beliefs is dispersed throughout humanity due to varying circumstances.
A group venturing into uncharted territory would thrive if “liberal” alleles became more prevalent, fostering exploration. Conversely, if the new environment is rife with dangers—such as hostile neighboring factions or climatic unpredictability—“conservative” alleles are more likely to dominate, as those adhering to caution and tradition have better survival odds. (158)
In his concluding chapter, Wade cautiously distances himself from the seemingly conservative implications of his evolutionary viewpoint.
Politics must embrace both change and the preservation of values and traditions. The evolutionary perspective does not inherently favor conservative over liberal ideologies. (211)
Nevertheless, he ends with a heartfelt call to acknowledge our evolutionary legacy.
The growing mismatch between our human nature and cultural frameworks is leading to significant societal strains… Sustainable solutions can only emerge within the bounds of our inherent behaviors. This set of behaviors, despite its imperfections, represents evolution’s best attempt at constructing human societies and ensuring their endurance. Politics and culture can sometimes refine these behaviors for the better. However, if stretched beyond limits, the natural bonds that uphold society risk unraveling. (213)
If I were to author a book addressing these themes, I would emphasize the notion of “Often, but not always.”
- Often, cultural experiments falter when they contradict evolutionary instincts, but not always (consider how we’ve navigated around nepotism).
- Often, the ways women engage in cooperation and competition diverge from men’s methods, but not always (variations in personality among women and among men can be as significant as, or even greater than, average differences between the sexes).
- Often, evolutionary mismatches are exacerbated by liberal policies, but not always (one could argue that extreme income inequality exemplifies a phenomenon that is an evolutionary mismatch aggravated by conservative policies).
That said, one should not categorically dismiss Wade’s considerations.
