Abstract
This year marks the 60th year anniversary of the publication of Niko Tinbergen’s “On aims and methods of ethology” which remains influential among today’s biologists and social scientists for its introduction of four questions for a complete explanation for animal behaviors. In this paper we argue that a large part of the lasting appeal to Tinbergen’s four questions was (and still is) the methodological commitment to treating organisms as objects as opposed to purposive agents. Tinbergen’s approach reinvigorated the discipline of ethology, allowing it to shed its teleological and anthropomorphic associations and to better cohere with a philosophy of science that favors inductive procedures, causal and mechanistic analytic techniques, and an emphasis on Darwinian explanations. While Tinbergen’s approach is still prized among today’s biological social scientists, it ignores an important feature of many social organisms, that they are not merely objects, they are also purposive agents. We explore the implications that a shift from treating organisms as objects to treating them as agents has on both how we should interpret and answer Tinbergen’s four questions. Updating Tinbergen’s four questions with agency in mind not only makes them more applicable to the biological investigation of animal behavior, but also strengthens the value and applicability of biology-oriented research programs in the social sciences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Okasha (2018) describes agents as having the following features: (i) organisms are the locus of goal-directed activities, (ii) organisms exhibit “behavioral flexibility”, (iii) organisms possess adaptations that “appear designed for a purpose”.
- 2.
For an excellent discussion on the problem of agency and the problem of subjectivity in the social sciences, see Blute, 2010.
References
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press.
Bateson, P., & Laland, K. N. (2013). Tinbergen’s four questions: An appreciation and an update. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(12), 712–718.
Blute, M. (2010). Darwinian sociocultural evolution: Solutions to dilemmas in cultural and social theory. Cambridge University Press.
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1991). Human behavioural ecology. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (pp. 69–98). Blackwell.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press.
Buss, D. M. (2014). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Psychology Press.
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton University Press.
Cronk, L. (1991). Human behavioral ecology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20, 25–53.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1937). Witchcraft, oracles and magic among the Azande (Vol. 12). Oxford.
Gaulin, S.J.C. and D.H. McBurney. Evolutionary psychology. Pearson, 2003.
Gilbert, S. F., & Epel, D. (2015). Ecological developmental biology: The environmental regulation of development, health, and evolution (2nd ed.). Sunderland.
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the royal society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598.
Grafen, A. (1984). Natural selection, kin selection and group selection. In J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach (2nd edition) (pp. 62–84). Sinauer Associates.
Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2014). Evolution in four dimensions, revised edition: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. MIT Press.
Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. The Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), 127–136.
Kapheim, K. M. (2019). Synthesis of Tinbergen’s four questions and the future of sociogenomics. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 73(1), 1–15.
Laland, K. N., et al. (2015). The extended evolutionary synthesis: Its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1813), 20151019.
Legare, C. H., & Nielsen, M. (2020). Ritual explained: Interdisciplinary answers to Tinbergen’s four questions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1805), 20190419.
Lewontin, R. C. (1985). The organism as subject and object of evolution. In R. Levins & R. Lewontin (Eds.), The dialectical biologist (pp. 85–106). Harvard University Press.
Lewontin, R. C. (2001). The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Harvard University Press.
Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational approach. Freeman & Co.
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat. Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, 1, 159–168.
Nesse, R. M. (2013). Tinbergen’s four questions, organized: A response to Bateson and Laland. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(12), 681–682.
Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution. Princeton University Press.
Okasha, S. (2018). Agents and goals in evolution. Oxford University Press.
Oyama, S., Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (Eds.). (2001). Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. MIT Press.
Peterson, E. L. (2017). The life organic: The theoretical biology club and the roots of epigenetics. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Pigliucci, M., & Muller, B. (Eds.). (2010). Evolution, the extended synthesis. MIT Press.
Pinker, S. (2003). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. Penguin Books.
Smith, E. A. (2000). Three styles in the evolutionary analysis of human behavior. Adaptation and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective, 27–46.
Smith, E. A., & Winterhalder, B. (Eds.). (1992). Evolutionary ecology and human behavior. Routledge.
Sosis, R., & Bressler, E. R. (2003). Cooperation and commune longevity: A test of the costly signaling theory of religion. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(2), 211–239.
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410–433.
Waddington, C. H. (1953). Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. Evolution, 7, 118–126.
Walsh, D. M. (2007). Development: Three grades of ontogenetic involvement. In M. Matthen & C. Stephens (Eds.), Handbook of the philosophy of science. Philosophy of biology. Elsevier B.V.
Walsh, D. M. (2015). Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge University Press.
Walsh, D. M. (2018). Objectcy and agency: Toward a methodological vitalism. In D. Nicholson & J. Dupré (Eds.), Everything flows: Towards a process biology. Oxford University Press
West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ariew, A., Panchanathan, K. (2023). Adding Agency to Tinbergen’s Four Questions. In: du Crest, A., Valković, M., Ariew, A., Desmond, H., Huneman, P., Reydon, T.A.C. (eds) Evolutionary Thinking Across Disciplines. Synthese Library, vol 478. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33358-3_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33358-3_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-33357-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-33358-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)