Chapter 1: The Misunderstanding of Primate Social Structures

Almost a century ago, the arrival of ninety-seven hamadryas baboons at the London Zoo was intended to create a vibrant new exhibit known as Monkey Hill. The shipment was meant to consist entirely of males, as it was believed they would be more engaging for visitors than their smaller, less colorful female counterparts. However, due to an oversight, six females were included in the mix. The outcome was catastrophic. The males immediately began to battle for dominance over the females, and even after the females perished, the fighting continued over their remains. The violence escalated to such an extent that zookeepers often had to wait days before retrieving the bodies. Within two years, nearly half of the baboons had died.

You may not be aware of the Monkey Hill incident, which unfortunately worsened over time as more baboons were introduced to the enclosure. However, you might be familiar with the misleading conclusions drawn from this event. Solly Zuckerman, a scientist employed by the London Zoo to study the baboons, later argued that this experiment demonstrated the universality of male dominance among primates. This perspective, along with similar views from 19th and early 20th-century scientists, reinforced the notion that patriarchy—the system of male supremacy—was embedded in our genetic makeup. If male primates exhibit dominance over females, it stands to reason that humans follow suit, right? And if this behavior is biological, can we ever change it?

It wasn't until several decades ago, when more women entered the fields of primatology and anthropology, that this long-held belief was questioned. Researchers began to investigate previously overlooked co-dominant or female-led primate societies.

A recent study indicates that primate communities are not inherently male-dominated; in fact, many exhibit power-sharing dynamics or are led by females more often than previously recognized.

It seems obvious today that placing a large number of baboons in an environment that doesn’t reflect their natural habitat would yield unusual and potentially violent behavior. Drawing conclusions about 'natural' behavior from such an artificial setting is as flawed as using reality shows like Big Brother to analyze human nature. While shows like this feature an equal mix of men and women, isolating a large number of men with just a few women—and vice versa—might lead to scenarios similar to Monkey Hill, albeit hopefully less lethal. Humans may consider themselves 'superior' to animals, but we, too, belong to the primate family.

Just as egalitarian or female-led societies can be found in human history—a topic that has gained attention in recent studies—they are also present among primates.

A well-known example, credited to primatologist Alison Jolly, is that of lemurs. In lemur societies, it is the females who take charge, selecting their mates and influencing the mating choices of others through behaviors like tail pulling or nipping.

While lemurs have traditionally been viewed as a rare 'female-dominated' case among primates, a recent study published in the journal Animals by a team from the University of Texas at Austin suggests that many other 'outliers' exist. After analyzing dominance patterns across 79 living primate species, researchers found that in 42% of these groups, females either held dominant positions or shared power with males. This included every major group of primates, from lesser apes like gibbons to great apes such as bonobos.

Moreover, the research revealed that dominance does not correlate with the evolutionary or geographical proximity of species; rather, it aligns with other characteristics. For instance, species where females and males are similar in body and canine size tend to see females either dominate or share power equally with males, with each sex leading in different social contexts. Female bonobos, while smaller than males, are closer in size compared to female gorillas and often form strong bonds with other females, resulting in female-led societies.

Other factors influencing power dynamics include the female-to-male ratio. In groups with a higher number of females, males often dominate due to their access to more mating options. Conversely, in species with a limited breeding window or where females do not cycle simultaneously, power may be more concentrated among females.

The research team also examined fossils of eight different extinct primate species—ancestors of modern primates—and found evidence of various intersexual power dynamics.

The idea of primate patriarchy may have been logical a century ago when scientists applied a male-centric lens to their studies, but it is certainly not a universal truth.

Yet, the belief that only males wield power in the primate world, along with numerous other myths, continues to be perpetuated and even extended to human societies.

If you've kept up with social media in recent years, you've likely encountered the term 'alpha male.' This concept gained traction through Frans de Waal's 1982 book Chimpanzee Politics, which has been misinterpreted by many, including politicians and business figures. Consequently, the 'alpha male' has been reduced to a brutish, aggressive figure who resorts to violence to maintain control.

However, this portrayal is a distortion. De Waal described alpha males in chimpanzee societies as empathetic and community-focused individuals who foster peace, mediate conflicts, support the vulnerable, and are valued by their groups—rather than feared. Importantly, alpha females exist across the primate spectrum as well, even in species typically viewed as male-dominated, such as chimpanzees. Like their male counterparts, alpha females work to resolve disputes and strengthen social bonds.

De Waal's extensive research on primate behavior and social intelligence suggests that the notion of universally male-led societies, with a single male at the top, is overly simplistic and largely incorrect. In a recent discussion on The Bioneers: Revolution from the Heart of Nature, he emphasized that 'female hierarchies are prevalent everywhere,' and women are 'just as attuned to status differences as men.' He also noted that while humans are genetically closest to male-dominated chimpanzees and female-dominated bonobos, anatomically, 'we resemble bonobos more closely, or vice versa.'

De Waal further argues that variability in sexuality, gender expression, and roles among primates is much broader than previously recognized, and this diversity is largely accepted within primate communities. He suggests that once researchers begin to look for these variations, they will uncover significant evidence of them.

For instance, while it is commonly believed that only females care for young offspring, his research shows that male caregiving is prevalent among primates. In fact, it is often males—rather than females—who tend to orphaned infants, regardless of biological relation.

The misuse of Western science for ideological purposes has long reinforced male dominance and distorted the potential for gender equality. This has perpetuated the belief that men and women are fundamentally different, that one sex's brain size is superior, and that male dominance is a norm in the animal kingdom as well.

In reality, humans display relatively low levels of sexual dimorphism compared to other species, and this trait is the least pronounced among primates. Moreover, it varies across different cultures and historical contexts. For example, evidence from one of the oldest known human settlements, Çatalhöyük in southern Anatolia, Turkey, suggests that men and women lived as equals, with only a slight height difference.

Does this imply that social conditions can influence biological sex differences? Quite possibly.

A wealth of archaeological, anthropological, and ethnographic evidence indicates that humans predominantly lived in egalitarian societies until relatively recently—about 6,000 to 12,000 years ago, depending on the region—and some still exist today. At least 160 matrilineal societies remain active.

Just as there is remarkable diversity among our primate relatives, there is also substantial diversity in human societies, demonstrating our capacity to create various social structures.

Despite historical and biological evidence showing that patriarchy is not an absolute, the belief that it is an inevitable aspect of life—along with myths of 'alpha males'—remains deeply entrenched in our culture. Today, a thriving industry even caters to men seeking to attain 'alpha' status, promoting courses and workshops that cost exorbitant amounts.

This reluctance to acknowledge our similarities rather than our differences has a significant cost, and we all continue to pay the price.

Humans are often so eager to categorize ourselves into distinct groups in order to uphold the current social order that we fail to question whether these divisions are beneficial, necessary, or genuinely 'natural.'

We should, however, challenge these assumptions.

The myth of universal male superiority, whether among primates or within our own lives—filled with anxieties, mortgages, and credit scores—is merely that: a myth. And it becomes increasingly dismantled as we deepen our understanding of both nature and ourselves.

The first video, "Primatologist Explains the 1% Difference Between Humans & Apes | Richard Wrangham | EP 249," explores the subtle yet significant biological distinctions that separate humans from our primate relatives, shedding light on the complexities of primate behavior and social structures.

The second video, "Chimpanzees and Dominance Hierarchies | Jordan B Peterson," delves into the intricate social hierarchies of chimpanzees, providing insights into the dynamics of power and cooperation among primate groups.

If you appreciate my work and wish to support it, consider buying me a cup of coffee! For additional content, subscribe to my Substack or follow me on my social media platforms.