Olga Mikhelson

Approaches to the Study of Religion in Modern Evolutionary Psychology

Olga Mikhelson - Associated Professor of the Chair of Philosophy of Religion and Religious Studies at Saint-Petersburg State University. olia_mikhelson@mail.ru

The paper deals with approaches to religion within modern evolutionary psychology. In particular, the paper examines E. Wilson's sociobiology, P. Richardson's and R. Boyd's concept of culture as "co-evolution", and R. Dawkins' theories of memes and of religion as an "evolutionary by-product". Evolutionary psychology suffers from a few considerable and so far unsolved conceptual problems: the discussion of group selection; the issues of inherited and culturally depended components of religiosity; the question of "religious genes"; the theory of religion as "evolutionary by-product" etc. Among the main evident difficulties is the lack of its empirical verification. Nevertheless, evolutionary psychological approaches help to address classical issues of religious studies with new fresh perspectives.

Keywords: evolutionary psychology, religion as "evolutionary by-product", memes, replicators.

In the last quarter of the twentieth century, there were obvious qualitative changes in approaches to the study of religion in the West - we can observe the growing popularity of the synthesis of the humanities and natural sciences. Together with significant discoveries in biology, especially in genetics and cognitive sciences, the natural science approach is increasingly invading areas that were still the prerogative of humanities research. Discussion on the classical religious studies question - the question of the origin of religion, as well as its significance.

page 63
functions and significance for society suddenly got a new breath. In recent decades, religion has been at the center of a new, dynamically developing science - evolutionary psychology, an approach that explains the features of psychology and human behavior by the laws of evolution. By studying the "adaptive meaning of behavior," evolutionary psychology attempts to explain "how certain behaviors evolved over time, ensuring survival and increasing the likelihood of survival of offspring." 1
Meanwhile, the biological approach to the interpretation of religion is not so new, its foundations were laid back in the 20s and 30s of the XX century by early American behaviorists. So, for example, David Trot in his 1931 work " Religious Behavior. Introduction to the psychological study of Religion"2 pointed out the significance of the latter in the process of evolution, however, not only for humans. Troth made the paradoxical assumption that religious behavior is characteristic of almost all living organisms (this idea was generally characteristic of behaviorists, who, in particular, liked to write about "ritual behavior of animals", considering, for example, mating or territorial behavior). According to Trot, since religious behavior gives the ability to act with great enthusiasm, it is an absolute evolutionary advantage.

Modern evolutionary theory states that the distant ancestors of primates and humans evolved over approximately 30 million years, and traces of religious beliefs can be traced back approximately the last 100 thousand years. As Stanley Rayet points out, man is a "religious species," and religiosity is "one of the few human universals."3. As such a universal, religion, according to most evolutionists, should play a certain role in evolution and be an important component of its two main mechanisms-natural and sexual selection.

1. See for more details: Palmer J., Palmer L. Secrets of homo sapiens behavior. Evolyutsionnaya psikhologiya [Evolutionary Psychology], St. Petersburg: Prime-EUROZNAK Publ., 2007, p. 10.

2. Trout, D. (1931) Religious Behavior. An Introduction to the Psychological Study of Religion. New York: MacMillan.

3. Rice, S.A. (2007) Encyclopedia Of Evolution, p. 338. New York: Facts on File.

page 64
The first significant work that opened up a renewed discourse between religious studies and biology (compared to the somewhat naive approach of early behaviorists) is Edward Wilson's Sociobiology. New Synthesis", published in 1975. In this work, Wilson investigated the impact of evolution on social behavior. Although most of the book was devoted to the social behavior of animals, primarily ants, and only the last chapter dealt with humans, Sociobiology was essentially the first serious scientific work in which religion was considered as a product of evolution, giving people an evolutionary advantage, and man, including through religion, as a human being. best adapted to the environment 4.

Three years later, Wilson publishes "On the Nature of man" - a book in which he focused directly on the social behavior of people. Starting the conversation about religion, the author notes: "The predisposition to religious beliefs is the most complex and powerful force in human consciousness and, in all probability, an indestructible part of human nature"5. While noting the multidimensional nature and diversity of religious experiences and religious life of humanity, the author notes that " religious practices are reflected in two aspects: genetic advantage and evolutionary change."6. Having suggested that religion is the "greatest challenge" to human sociobiology, but also the "most amazing opportunity" for theoretical human progress, Wilson, unlike Troth, emphasizes that religious behavior is exclusively human.

According to Wilson, religion primarily allows the individual to subordinate personal interests to the interests of the group: "Believers are expected to make short-term psychological sacrifices in favor of long-term genetic benefits."7. Religion suppresses individual interests of people and subordinates them to the interests of the group, therefore, the genes that contribute to this process have an advantage in inheritance, and their number is increasing-

4. For more information, see Wilson, E. O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press.

5. Wilson, E. O. (2004) On Human Nature, p. 169. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

6. Ibid., p. 172.

7. Ibid., p. 176.

page 65
it gets better over time. An individual who violated the rules of the dorm not only jeopardized the well-being of the entire group, but was also unattractive to procreation, so his genes were eliminated.

In Wilson's view, the structure of religious beliefs can be studied by looking successively at three levels of natural selection. The first level, which lies on the surface, is "church selection", i.e. " selection by religious leaders of rituals and practices, the emotional impact of which is optimal in the current social conditions. Church selection can be either dogmatic and stabilizing, or evangelical and dynamic."8. In any case, its results are transmitted culturally, so the variability of religious practices in different communities is based on learning, not on genes. The second level of selection is "ecological". No matter how well the "church selection" affects the emotions of believers, its results must be tested by the requirements of the environment. In this connection, Wilson observes:

If religions weaken societies in times of war, encourage environmental destruction, shorten life, or interfere with procreation, they will decline, regardless of their short-term emotional benefits.9
Finally, the third level of selection is "genetic" selection. So Wilson's theory implies that some sets of genes can change depending on"church selection." In the process of religious education, numerous religious rules are developed and instilled (taboos, the distinction between the sacred and the profane, the cult of religious leaders, religious hierarchies, rites of passage, in particular, age initiation, etc.) that suppress certain types of behavior. All of these rules apply to restrict a social group and link its members together. The hypothesis put forward by Wilson is that these restrictive religious processes have a physiological basis, which, in turn, has a genetic origin: the sequence and frequency of genes change under the influence of accepted religious restrictions and regulations.-

8. Wilson, E. O. On Human Nature, p. 177.

9. Ibid., p. 178.

page 66
novok. Although it is impossible to trace this process over the course of human life, over long historical periods, genetic selection has a serious impact, and " culture tirelessly tests controlling genes, replacing one with another."

The scientist raises a number of questions: "What are the consequences of each religious practice for the well-being of people and tribes?", " What religious practices arise under different environmental conditions?"10 Genes that promote conformism are favored by genetic selection, and, on the contrary, genes that promote rule breaking are gradually eliminated, since a person who violates the rules of the hostel threatens the well-being of the entire group. Not only does this process occur through learning, but it is also greatly accelerated by sexual selection, since the behavior of a person who is unable to follow the rules is considered deviant and makes them unattractive to the opposite sex. This person may also be ostracized, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed. In the end, carriers of such genes are less likely to leave offspring, and therefore, Wilson wittily summarizes, " genes keep the culture on a leash."

It should be noted that, based on Wilson's theory, humanity would have long been able to develop an exceptionally conformist and obedient type of behavior, but, apparently, a sufficient number of "rebels"are still being born. In this regard, I would like to emphasize two points: first, we sometimes tend to exaggerate our own independence in our assessments and actions, and downplay our tendency to obey. Suffice it in this connection to recall the experiment of Stanley Milgram 11, which revealed to humanity an unsightly picture of our own tendency to obey authorities, even if we are given a criminal command. Second, within the framework of the same evolutionary psychology, the persistence of a certain number of "rebels" is easily explained: in situations where significant changes are necessary for the survival of the group, they are more likely to be able to implement them. Despite some criticism, William Austin holds views close to Wilson's,

10. Ibid., p. 177.

11. См. подробнее: Miller, A. G. (1986) The Obedience Experiments: A Case Study of Controversy in Social Science. New York: Praeger.

page 67
also emphasizing the preference for genes that promote conformity and emphasizing that religious beliefs are a significant factor in survival 12.

Peter Richardson and Robert Boyd, while not rejecting Wilson's theory, enrich his approach by emphasizing that " hereditary cultural variation responds to its own dynamics, which often leads to the evolution of cultural variation that would not be favored by genetic selection." The resulting cultural environment can influence the evolutionary dynamics of alternative genes. Responding to Wilson, scientists joke: "Culture is indeed on a leash, but it is a big, intelligent and independent dog." 13 Thus, the authors assign a large role to culture, suggesting that culture and genes "co-evolve", and an important factor in the development of culture is the imitation of successful models. Culture and genes are closely interlinked and interdependent, like "two species that combine their specific capabilities, which allows them to achieve what they would not have achieved separately" 14.

According to Richardson and Boyd, it is the "co-evolution" of culture and genes that has led to the fact that man is so strikingly different from other living beings. First, cultural adaptation has the potential for cultural evolution and promotes the emergence of symbolic forms, which in turn encourages rapid cultural change and significant cultural diversity. As a result, competing and interacting cultural communities arise, which contributes to their success. Secondly, in an evolving cultural environment, people's psychology is changing to match it. Richardson and Boyd write:

In a world made up of cohesive, culturally distinct, and symbolically expressed groups that demand loyalty from their members, individual selection will favor psychological adaptations that allow people to identify groups that make up their own communities.-

12. Austin, W. H. (1980) "Are Religious Beliefs 'Enabling Mechanisms for Survival'?" Zigon 2 (2): 193 - 201.

13. Richerson, P.J. and Boyd, R. (2005) Not by Genes Alone. How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, p. 194. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

14. Ibid., p. 195.

page 68
social world, and identify with the appropriate ones 15.

Competition between groups promotes species selection and the most adaptive groups survive this competition and win. Interestingly, other groups may perceive the cultural patterns of their more successful competitors. This is how Richardson and Boyd illustrate their concept, in particular, with the rapid spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire in the first centuries AD, arguing that Christianity brought with it "a better quality of life." According to the researchers, in contrast to the Roman pre-Christian order, Christianity promoted caring for the poor, the infirm and orphans, mutual assistance and greater integration of the community, which led, as we would now say, to greater social security. This was a significant cultural and evolutionary advantage of Christianity, which as a result helped it become the state religion of the Roman Empire.16
While many evolutionary psychologists view religion as a phenomenon conducive to the prosperity of mankind, and therefore an important factor in evolution, Richard Dawkins, unlike most evolutionists, is well known to the domestic reader thanks to his popular scientific work "God as an Illusion", has a different opinion. He believes that religion as such is not an evolutionary mechanism, but acts as a "by-product" of evolution (these ideas bring Dawkins closer to cognitive scientists, for example, Pascal Boyer). When asked about the origin of religion, Dawkins agrees with other evolutionists, noting that since it is ubiquitous, it obviously must have some "benefit". While agreeing that "in Darwinism, 'benefit' usually refers to an improvement in an individual's genes ' chance of survival," Dawkins notes that" this definition is not complete; it does not take into account that Darwinian 'benefit' can manifest itself not only in relation to an individual organism, "17 but can also be applied to other organisms. on-

15. Ibid., p. 196.

16. For more information, see: Ibid., p. 210-211.

Dawkins R. 17. God as an Illusion, Moscow: KoLibri Publishing House, 2008, p. 172.

page 69
edited for a group, another organism, possibly a "parasite", in addition, Dawkins notes:

In the central theorem, instead of the concept of "genes", we can substitute the more general concept of"replicators". The fact that religion is ubiquitous may mean that it does benefit, but not necessarily us or our genes. Religion may only benefit the religious ideas themselves, which in this case behave like replicators that are somewhat similar to genes.18
Here it is worth referring to Dawkins ' 1976 work "The Selfish Gene", which brought him worldwide fame. In it, Dawkins draws analogies between cultural and genetic evolution and for the first time suggests the concept of "memes". If his predecessors generally pointed out the importance of religion in group selection (as discussed above), Dawkins is not convinced by these theories, since, on the one hand, most of the history of mankind has been lived in very small groups, where species and generic altruism and selection are more likely to operate, so Dawkins finds the theory of group selection to be quite different. unsatisfactory. On the other hand, these theories "fall short of such a grandiose task as explaining the origin of culture, cultural evolution and the huge differences in human culture in different parts of the globe,"19 the scientist notes. The main feature of genes is that they are replicators, Dawkins emphasizes, but then he makes a non-trivial move, noticing:

It so happened that the replicating unit that prevails on our planet turned out to be a gene - a DNA molecule. Other such units may also exist. If they exist, then under certain other conditions they inevitably form the basis of some evolutionary process.20
Dawkins suggests that a new type of replicator, the meme, has emerged in the " broth of human culture." "Memes" are a kind of cultural units that spread "from one moh to another".-

Dawkins R. 18. God as an illusion, pp. 172-173.

Dawkins 19. R. Egoistic gene. p. 201. 20. Ibid. p. 204.

page 70
ga to another" and are also replicators, albeit not as accurate as genes, and more often subject to mutations.

Dawkins ' work generated a wave of publications on similar topics and a new, rather controversial field in science - memetics (similar to genetics), and Daniel Dennett, in his 1970 paper "Explained Consciousness", integrated the concept of meme into cognitive theories21. Naturally, Dawkins ' concept has attracted considerable criticism, including pointing out the variability of memes, which casts doubt on their function as replicators. Defending Dawkins ' theory, Dan Sperber in his 1996 paper Explaining Culture. The naturalist approach "puts forward two main theses: first," the replicator as a whole does not repeat, but transforms", and second, that "this transformation occurs as a result of constructive cognitive processes", and Dawkins himself pointed out that replicator copies do not necessarily have to be exact 22.

What does the concept of memes give Dawkins and other "memetics" to research religion? It is obvious that in addition to the rather traditional interpretations of favoring religion for human social life, group selection in a competitive environment, and ultimately psychological comfort (which Dawkins considers not fully reasoned), 23 the application of the theory of memes, that is, cultural replicators, allows us to consider the emergence and spread of religious ideas as a kind of "intellectual viruses". It is not clear that they are beneficial to humanity, according to Dawkins, but rather the opposite, and the meaning of their functioning lies primarily in the benefits for themselves.

It is worth noting that for all its entertainment and actually new opportunities for interpreting cultural symbolism, the concept of memes looks somewhat fantastic. Despite the fact that Dawkins is a biologist and professor at Oxford, the verification of his theory is akin to the verification of Carl Gustav Jung's theory of archetypes-infinitely far from the natural science approach, but at the same time having

21. For more information, see Dennett, D.C. (1991) Consciousness Explained. Boston, New York, London: Little Brown and Company.

22. Sperber, D. (1996) Explaining Culture: a Naturalistic Approach, p. 101. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

23. See for more details: Dawkins R. God as an illusion, pp. 188-189.

page 71
there are a number of interesting parallels with memes. In addition to the obvious difficulties with the provability of memetics, there are a number of inconsistencies that are striking in evolutionary psychology itself. University of Massachusetts professors Scott Atran and Douglas Medin, looking at the spread of ideas, note that human culture promotes the rapid selection and stable dissemination of those ideas that, first, help solve current environmental problems; secondly, are easily remembered and processed by the brain; and finally, they help to retain and understand more variable or complex ones. ideas. The latter include religion, as well as Dawkins considering it a "by-product" 24. However, it seems that many religious concepts meet the criteria of" propagated ideas " proposed by Atran and Medin.

A critical approach to both Wilson's theory of sociobiology and a number of Dawkins ' ideas is presented in the works of Stephen Jay Gould. American biologist and paleontologist believes that the importance of natural selection in the process of evolution is somewhat exaggerated, while the role of other mechanisms of evolution is given little attention. On the whole, Gould does not support the idea that biologists have begun to actively interfere in religious issues, warning natural scientists against speculating in the field of the humanities.25
The controversial nature of the evolutionary theories of religion proposed by biologists to the humanities is indeed obvious. The problem, it seems, is partly the complexity of the concepts of "religion", "religious ideas", etc. Religious phenomena are complex symbolic systems that are closely related to other aspects of culture. In addition, they are deeply rooted in both social models and individual human psychology and religious experience. The many-sided nature of religious phenomena does not seem to allow us to offer satisfactory interpretations of their adaptive functions, and this is partly why evolutionary psychology has not yet developed a consensus on religion. The theory of the origin of religion from tak

24. См. подробнее: Atran, S. and Medin, D. (2008) The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction of Nature, p. 117. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

25. См. подробнее: Gould, S.J. (2011) The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox. Mending the Gap between Science and the Humanities. Cambridge, Massachusetts - London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

page 72
the so-called "psychological byproducts", namely the assumption that people tend to have religious beliefs because they are soothing, relieving the fear of death and offering comfort in grief (what is commonly called the compensatory function of religion in religious studies), is also not clearly shared in evolutionary psychology, although most authors pay attention to it. The main problem with these explanations, according to evolutionists, is that it is not clear why "the mind seeks solace in beliefs that can be called false." 26
That is why the view of religion as a "by-product" is so widespread in evolutionary psychology, which is actively perceived by cognitive theories of religion that are close to it in a number of positions. In particular, Pascal Boyer and Braen Bergstrom, noting that "evolutionary models of culture are closely dependent on cross-cultural comparisons", propose the following methodology for evolutionary studies of culture:

1) identification of specific adaptive challenges that humanity faces in the inherited conditions of evolutionary adaptation; 2) identification of information processing mechanisms that can cope with these challenges and gain advantages based on relevant data independently obtained in experimental psychology, neurology, etc.; 3) development of new experimental protocols in order to confirm or eliminate the need for the development of new methods of information processing. refute the existence of these information processing mechanisms; 4) indicate concepts and norms that would be widely distributed among people if these mechanisms work according to what is theoretically assumed; 5)verify these concepts and norms with data from ethnographic records and scientific publications. 27
Summarizing the discussion about approaches to the study of religion in evolutionary psychology, I would like to note that, being a relatively young field, evolutionary psychology is not free from a number of significant and not yet resolved conceptual problems.

26. Pinker, S. (2005) "Evolutionary Psychology" in D. M. Buss (ed.) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, pp. xi-xvi, xv. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

27. Boyer, P. and Bergstrom, B. (2008) "Evolutionary Perspectives on Religion", Annual Review of Anthropology 37: 111 - 130, 114.

page 73
problems. In particular, the issues of group selection that contradict Darwin's classical individual selection are discussed; the problems of hereditary and culturally determined components of religiosity; the presence of certain "religious genes" (the assumption that the ubiquity of religion among mankind and the discovery of its traces in the deep archaic period indicates the presence of a genetic predisposition of mankind to religion 28); the theory of religion as a" by-product " of evolution, etc. D. On the other hand, among the obvious difficulties, one can point out the lack of verification of the concepts of evolutionary psychology, including empirical data. The use of the tools of cognitive religious studies also does not allow us to speak about the unambiguous evidence of evolutionary theories. Thus, the current research on brain functioning does not provide sufficient grounds to suggest the need for the idea of supernatural entities as one of the possible conditions for cognitive activity (the theory of "God as a brain mechanism"). Being aware of the weak points of the interpretation of religion in evolutionary psychology, for example, the extreme reductionism of this approach, which undoubtedly significantly primitives religion, reducing it to a number of adaptive mechanisms or their byproducts, one cannot but note its productivity. It allows the synthesis of these natural and humanitarian disciplines, enriching religious studies with a fundamentally new discourse. Thanks to evolutionary psychology, researchers of religion can look at classical questions about the origin of religion, the reasons for its prevalence, the diversity of its forms, the commonality of many key points, the function of religiosity, etc.from a fundamentally different angle and introduce a natural science methodology to religious studies. It seems that we are still waiting for a lot of discoveries made in the framework of evolutionary psychology.

Bibliography

Dawkins R. God as an Illusion, Moscow: KoLibri Publishing House, 2008. Dawkins R. Egoistic gene. Moscow: AST, Corpus, 2013.

28. For more information, see Hamer, D. (2004) The God Gene. How Faith Is Hardwired into our Genes. New York: Random House.

page 74
Palmer J., Palmer L. Secrets of homo sapiens behavior. Evolyutsionnaya psikhologiya [Evolutionary Psychology], St. Petersburg: Prime-EUROZNAK Publ., 2007.

Atran, S. and Medin, D. (2008) The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction of Nature. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Austin, W. H. (1980) "Are Religious Beliefs 'Enabling Mechanisms for Survival'?" Zigon 2 (2): 193 - 201.

Boyer, P. and Bergstrom, B. (2008) "Evolutionary Perspectives on Religion", Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 37. 111 - 130.

Dennett, D. C. (1991) Consciousness Explained. Boston, New York, London: Little Brown and Company.

Gould, S.J. (2011) The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox. Mending the Gap between Science and the Humanities. Cambridge, Massachusetts - London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hamer, D. (2004) The God Gene. How Faith Is Hardwired into our Genes. New York: Random House.

Miller, A. G. (1986) The Obedience Experiments: A Case Study of Controversy in Social Science. New York: Praeger.

Pinker, S. (2005) "Evolutionary Psychology", in D. M. Buss (ed.) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Rice, S.A. (2007) Encyclopedia Of Evolution. New York: Facts on File.

Richerson, P.J. and Boyd, R. (2005) Not by Genes Alone. How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Sperber, D. (1996) Explaining Culture: a Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Trout, D. (1931) Religious Behavior. An Introduction to the Psychological Study of Religion. New York: MacMillan.

Willson, E. O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E. O. (2004) On Human Nature. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

References

Atran, S. and Medin, D. (2008) The Native Mind and the Cultural Construction of Nature. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Austin, W. H. (1980) "Are Religious Beliefs 'Enabling Mechanisms for Survival'?" Zigon 2 (2): 193 - 201.

Boyer, P. and Bergstrom, B. (2008) "Evolutionary Perspectives on Religion", Annual Review of Anthropology. Vol. 37. 111 - 130.

Dawkins, R. (2008) Bog kak illyuziya [The God Delusion, translated from English]. M.: Izdatel'stvo KoLibri.

Dawkins, R. (2013) Egoistichnyy gen [The Selfish Gene, translated from English]. M.: AST, Corpus, 2013.

Dennett, D. C. (1991) Consciousness Explained. Boston, New York, London: Little Brown and Company.

page 75
Gould, S. J. (2011) The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox. Mending the Gap between Science and the Humanities. Cambridge, Massachusetts - London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hamer, D. (2004) The God Gene. How Faith Is Hardwired into our Genes. New York: Random House.

Miller, A. G. (1986) The Obedience Experiments: A Case Study of Controversy in Social Science. New York: Praeger.

Palmer, J. and Palmer, L. (2007) Sekrety povedeniya cheloveka razumnogo. Evolyutsionnaya psikhologiya [The Ultimate Origins of Human Behavior. Evolutionary Psychology, translated from English]. SPb.: Praym-YEVROZNAK.

Pinker, S. (2005) "Evolutionary Psychology", in D. M. Buss (ed.) The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Rice, S.A. (2007) Encyclopedia Of Evolution. New York: Facts on File.

Richerson, P.J. and Boyd, R. (2005) Not by Genes Alone. How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Sperber, D. (1996) Explaining Culture: a Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Trout, D. (1931) Religious Behavior. An Introduction to the Psychological Study of Religion. New York, MacMillan.

Willson, E.O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E.O. (2004) On Human Nature. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

page 76

Permanent link to this publication: