M. L. Butovskaya and A. G. Kozintsev

Sociobiology has made considerable progress in explaining basic principles of
animal social organization and social behavior. Whether it can also promote the
understanding of social relationships in humans is a matter of debate ( Rose,
1980; Washburn, 1980). While social anthropologists tend to underestimate the
role of biological factors (such as natural selection, inclusive fitness, or cost/
benefit ratio) in human societies, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting
that some cultural practices and norms have derived from adaptive strategies
that increased the probability of survival in specific environments ( Irons, 1980;
Reynolds, 1984). Darwin ( 1859) was among the first to observe that sexual
dimorphism decreased in the course of human evolution, an idea that was later
upheld by paleoanthropological data ( Wolpoff, 1976, Trinkaus, 1980). In the
present chapter we discuss certain parallels between the reduction of sexual
dimorphism and the evolution of human social behavior (division of labor, dom-
inance versus subordination relationships between the sexes, gender differences
in mental qualities, partner choice, parental investment, and the like).

First, we should not forget that humans are primates. We are still biological
beings, regardless of our unique cultural environment. From the standpoint of
inclusive fitness, men and women radically differ in their reproductive potential,
life strategies, and orientations ( Wilson, 1975; Dawkins, 1976). Thanks to the
works of Williams ( 1966), Trivers ( 1972), and Symons ( 1979), the fact that the
parental investment of females is much larger than that of males has become
not just common knowledge, but part of the scientific paradigm.

This, indeed, is where the interests of both sexes frequently come into conflict.
Because the two sexes differ in their reproductive potential, females in most

-261-