Permanent Pair Bonding - Research Paper Example

?Permanent Pair Bonding Pair-bonds make a component of the unique mosaic of humans that includes childhood, brains, private sexual inter concealed ovulation, and symbols embedded in culture. However, not much is known about the way human pairing evolved, the functions it has, and its consequences for the diversity of mankind (Quinlan, 2008, p. 227). Pair-bonds can be defined as long-term affiliation between two individuals that also includes a sexual relationship. This relationship is relatively enduring irrespective of whether it is monogamous or polygamous. Various hypotheses have surfaced regarding the evolution of human pair-bonds, with some considering it a consequence of the competition of male mating while others considering it paternal provisioning’s adaptation. This paper explores the evolution of permanent pair bonding in humans. Pair bonding is one of the most fundamental behaviors in humans like it is in all other primates and mammals. The importance of pair bonding is secondary probably only to such physiological needs as food and air. It is a natural behavior because of which it is commonly exhibited by both humans and non-human living beings, though in humans, a wide range of factors influence humans’ perceptions about and trends in pair bonding. Humans’ pair bonding patterns and behaviors are considerably different from those of other primates, humans being superior to them. Although the bond between a child and a mother in humans is homologous with the bond seen in other primates as well as mammals, yet the pair bond between a man and a woman and the pair bond between a man and a child in humans are not comparable to any terrestrial primate’s or mammals’ bonds (Immerman, 2003, p. 138). Therefore, knowledge of primate behavior in pair boding cannot be used to predict the extended pair bond between members of opposite sex and the pan-human social father. “It is suggested that female choice of mating partner shifted in the direction of a canid analogue in which men’s motivations to share resources with the female and to exhibit paternalistic behaviors were positively selected” (Immerman, 2003, p. 138). This lays the basis of the prediction that the neuro-hormonal bases for the affiliative bond between a mother and a child in humans is similar to other terrestrial primates but the bases of affiliative bond between a man and a woman or between a child and a man is dissimilar between humans and primates. The biological explanation of the evolution of pair-bonding is explained by the research on the monogamous rodents that has led to the emergence of a neurobiological model of formation of pair-bond (Young and Wang, 2004). The neuropeptides oxytocin and vasopressin play an important role in dealing with the social cues that help in individual recognition. Reward learning and reinforcement is caused by mesolimbic dopamine. During the process of mating, dopamine receptors and neuropeptide get activated concurrently in the brain’s reward centers which leads to the conditioned preference for partner in pair-bonding. The differences observed in the tendency to develop pair bonds across different species is explained by the differential regulation of the expression of neuropeptide receptor. A very important perspective of the evolution of human pairing is grounded in religion. This is the perspective believed by a vast majority of people that believe in God and typically those that belong to an Abrahamic religion. It is mentioned in the religious scriptures that God made Adam and Eve as a pair and the entire generations of humans that have born ever since evolved from this first pair. For instance, in Surah Al-Nisa, it is mentioned, “O humans! Be pious (careful of your duty) to your Lord, Who created you from a single self (soul), and from it He created its mate, and from them He has spread a multitude of men and women” (Al-Nisa 4:1 cited in El-Najjar, 2007). This verse reveals about the commencement of life with one soul from which, its mate was made. Over the passage of time, biological science has reached the conclusion that single cell organisms in water represented the earliest form of life. These cells multiplied through the process of splitting. The evolution of reproduction as a phenomenon happened over the course of time through the mating of pairs rather than through the archaic forms of cell-division or splitting. The fundamental concept of heterosexual marriages being the right and normal human behavior also originates in the same belief in God and the religious scriptures. According to one school of thought, the evolution of a committed partnership between a man and a woman originates in the offsprings’ well-being. As the evolutionary anthropologist from the University of New Mexico, Jane Lancaster said, “The human species has evolved to make commitments between males and females in regards to raising their offspring, so this is a bond…However that bond can fit into all kinds of marriage patterns – polygyny, single parenthood, monogamy” (Lancaster cited in Bryner, 2008). According to the evolutionary psychologists, men have a greater tendency to engage in extramarital affairs in general and sex in particular. This can partly be attributed to the urge in males to broadcast the sperm and spread the genes. One factor that plays a decisive role in the tendency of humans to pair up and especially in the destination of this pairing up being the contract of marriage is the cost and benefits. When men get involved in the extramarital affairs, they have lesser to lose as compared to the women, which is what makes it easier for them to develop extramarital affairs. Women, on the other hand, lose the resources of their children’s fathers. Promiscuity does not improve the well-being of children for the women. The evolutionary psychologists suggest that both men and women tend to improve their evolutionary progress by finding high-quality mates, though the two differ in their ways. A unique aspect of human species that differentiates it from other mammals is the concern of the fathers for their children. “We do know that in humans we do have this pretty strong pair bond, and there's more paternal investment than in most other primates…We're special in this regard, but at the same time like most mammals, we are a polygynous species” (Kruger cited in China Daily, 2008). Humans are mildly polygamous which refers to the tendency of a man to pair up with more than one woman. An important reason for people to pair up is their attempt to complete their self. As human beings, people have their own strengths and weaknesses. They tend to find someone who they can pair up with in order to increase their strengths and cover up their weaknesses. This is typically true in the case of couples in which one partner is emotionally giving while the other is emotionally reserved (Bernstein, 2012). The emotionally giving people tend to be very overt in their expression of love. They show different kinds of gestures of love including hugs, flowers, kisses, and skywriting. For them, there is no limit on the expression of love. Emotionally giving as they are, they also want their partners to display love. On the other hand, the emotionally reserved people may love their partners deeply, but they are too reserved by nature to show it to their partners. They want their partner to initiate the expression of love. Since they are at opposite poles of ways in which they display love and express their emotions, the emotionally giving and emotionally reserved people are attracted to each other. The emotionally giving people like to pair up with the emotionally reserved people because the former find the latter intriguing; the emotionally giving people want to elicit affection from people that do not express their emotions easily. The emotionally reserved people also want to be drawn out of their cocoons deep inside. Similarly, people with different kinds of weaknesses tend to pair up with their polar opposites with respect to that personality trait in order to balance out their weaknesses as a couple while amplifying their strengths. Homosexuality is the individual selection’s emergent quality for the affiliation between people of same sex. Homosexuality has been practiced by humans and many other species since its inception. Homosexuality provides the evolutionists that aim to study the human behavior’s adaptedness with a paradox. It is intriguing for these evolutionists to study the pattern of evolution of homosexual behavior when adaptedness is traditionally gauged in terms of reproductive success. The evolution of homosexuality in humans is linked with the benefits of this kind of affiliation. Same-sex affection is favored by natural selection. Both sexes fundamentally want to develop bonds with the partners belonging to both sexes. The affection between two men does not necessarily have to be sexually significant, but all men do want to form affectionate bongs with people from their sex, though different men vary in their degrees. Likewise, women have friends who are also women and they like spending time with them exchanging views, gossiping, and doing other things. Attraction of an individual to another individual from the same sex and such an attraction’s expression does not come as an alternative for the attraction of the individual toward people from the opposite sex. People have the tendency to form the affectionate bonds with people from same sex and the opposite sex at the same time. There are three fundamental hypotheses related to the evolution of homosexual behavior in humans (Kirkpatrick, 2000, p. 385). The first hypothesis suggests that homosexual behavior evolved from kin selection. However, the support for this hypothesis is scanty because of lack of sufficient evidence to suggest that lineages acquire the reproductive benefits through the care provided to the offsprings by homosexual people. The second hypothesis suggests that homosexual behavior evolved through parental manipulation. The support for this hypothesis is more because parents often control the reproductive decisions of their children and in few cases, even encourage their children to develop homosexual behavior. This is particularly true in the case of children raised by homosexual couples. However, the strongest support is for the third hypothesis that homosexual behavior evolved as a result of the individual selection for the reciprocal altruism. This is because of the fact that same-sex pairing provides the couple with reproductive advantages because of which, these alliances are maintained by sexual behavior. Homosexual emotion is partly an emergent quality of the propensity of humans to develop affiliation with people from the same sex. Since one of the main functions of the pair bonding is sustenance of family line and reproduction, these functions are often considered to be the sole reasons for which pair bonding in the humans evolved. However, pair bonding did not evolve with the sole purpose of reproduction. This has been true throughout the history and even more so, in the present age in which the integrity of every decision is gauged in terms of the socioeconomic benefits it has to offer. “What evolutionists think is the closest we usually get to the notion of nature these days. But it is not close enough. For evolution sees everything as organized for survival and cannot recognize our better, higher nature. Thus it sees no difference in rank between the male desire for an active sex life and the male interest in being married, or between the promptings of desire and the instruction of reason” (Mansfield cited in Ruse, 2009, p. 361). There are many other reasons for pairing up among humans including the fulfillment of their physiological and social needs. Pair bonding in humans is frequently attributed to male provisioning’s significance. Foods acquired by men in the tropical hunter-gatherers are less contributive to their diet as compared to the foods acquired by women. Men are less regular in acquiring their food and have a tendency to share it with others outside their household (Marlowe, 2003). This makes the benefits gained by the forager women from marriage a matter of interest. Marlowe (2003) found that the Hadza women get advantage from the provisioning of the husbands while having young nurslings. The foraging returns and return rates of the women are lower during this critical period whereas those of their husbands are higher which can be attributed to less widely shared foods rather than more meat. Even with the subsidization of the husbands, the provisioning they provide their wives with in the period of lactation provides a reason enough to go for pair bonding. Pair bonding in humans is fundamentally influenced by culture and society. Parents play an important role in inculcating thoughts about what behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not acceptable in the minds of their children. In many parts of the world, typically in the more conservative societies, pair-bonding with opposite is a norm and expectation rather than a choice. Children are raised with this perception that they have to get married when they grow up to members of the opposite sex. Same sex pairing for sexual relationships is not only condemned but is also considered as a taboo to the extent that laws prohibit same sex sexual bonding and the violators of the law have to face legal implications. All social systems including insurance, education, and healthcare are designed keeping the opposite-sex pairing into consideration, so the violators feel outcast even if they do not declare their sexual orientation openly. Sexual attraction and selective attachments with other people are some of the strongest forces that drive human behavior and influence a vast majority of areas including music, literature, politics, and art. Nearly all societies exhibit the existence of powerful enduring relationships between pairs in general. This is especially observed in the societies where social organization has monogamy as a predominant feature. Pair bonding patterns and behaviors in humans are significantly different from those in all other primates. Whether or not humans’ pair bonding patterns have a biological propensity is debatable, though the role of biological architecture in people’s tendency to form intense social attachments in general and pair bonds in particular is undeniable. Beyond biological reasons, there is a wide range of external factors that influence the pair bonding in humans and have played a decisive role in its evolution, the strongest of them being religion. In fact, the evolution of opposite sex pairing is explained in the greatest detail by religion. The belief that Adam and Eve made the first couple on the face of the Earth and were also the first of all humans to be made by God asserts the need to consider heterosexual marriages right and condemn the homosexual pairing at the same time. Humans pair for a variety of reasons including the completion of their selves, fulfillment of their physiological and social needs, and conformance to the standards established by the society. The need to reproduce and extend the family line is just one of the motivations behind pairing up in humans. The factors that inculcate attraction for or interest in homosexual pairing may diff from one individual to another. Some of the factors that induce attraction for homosexual pairing include kin selection, parental manipulation, and reciprocal altruism, out of which, reciprocal altruism has the strongest support in literature. References: Bernstein, E. (2012, Feb. 21). Show Me the Love... Or Not. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203358704577235271160881402.html. Bryner, J. (2008). Are Humans Meant To Be Monogamous? World & Wildlife Studies. Retrieved from http://www.wolfandwildlifestudies.com/news_article.php?id=1777. China Daily. (2008). Are humans meant to be monogamous? Retrieved from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-03/20/content_6552096.htm. El-Najjar, H. A. (2007). Creation and Evolution in the Holy Quran. AlJazeerah. Retrieved from http://www.aljazeerah.info/Islamic%20Editorials/2007/October/Creation%20and%20Evolution%20in%20the%20Holy%20Qur'an%20By%20Hassan%20El-Najjar.htm. Immerman, R. S. (2003). Perspectives on human attachment (pair bonding): Eve’s unique legacy of a canine analogue. Evolutionary Psychology. 1, 138-154. Kirkpatrick, R. C. (2000). The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior. Current Anthropology. 41(3), 385-413. Marlowe, F. W. (2003). A critical period for provisioning by Hadza men: Implications for pair bonding. Evolution and Human Behavior. 24(3), 217-229. Quinlan, R. J. (2008). Human Pair-Bonds: Evolutionary Functions, Ecological Variation, and Adaptive Development. Evolutionary Anthropology. 17, 227-238. Ruse, M. (2009). Philosophy After Darwin: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Princeton University Press. Young, L. J., and Wang, Z. (2004). The neurobiology of pair bonding. Nature Neuroscience. 7, 1048-1054. Read More