HOMO DOMESTICUS: Theory

© Oscar Carvajal 2005
All rights reserved

HOMO DOMESTICUS THEORY

INTRODUCTION
Society and ecology seem deeply linked to domestication, which may be the most threatening force acting
on earth today, where the human may be its most immediate victim. This theoretical interdisciplinary
analysis re-imagines domestication as the condition of housing—the built environment, leading to
consider the human species as Homo domesticus.
In terms of domestication, social and natural studies traditionally employ the metaphor of
domestication to understand relationships among human beings and other organisms, things, and ideas.
Baring in mind that this study considers the traditional notion of domestication an understanding of
taming, the following bibliographic survey indicates the comprehensive way in which authors identify the
implications of domestication (taming).
Some authors apply the metaphor of domestication (taming) to animals and plants: Darwin,
to animals and plants;1 Raisor and Fox, to dogs;2 Price and Grandin, to animals;3 Zohary, to plants;4
Simmons, to cattle;5 Schorger, to the turkey;6 Laufer, to the reindeer;7 Roberts, to turtles;8 and
Matthew, to the horse.9 Other authors apply the metaphor of domestication to different social
aspects: Rogers, to women;10 Fadlon, to alternative medicine;11 Gregoriou, to cosmopolitanism;12

1
Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication (London: J. Murray, 1868).
2
Michelle Jeanette Raisor, Determining the Antiquity of Dog Origins: Canine Domestication as a Model
for the Consilience Between Molecular Genetics and Archaeology (Oxford, England: Archaeopress, 2005); Michael
W. Fox, The Dog: Its Domestication & Behavior (New York: Garland STPM, 1978), and Canine behavior; a history
of domestication, behavioral development and adult behavior patterns, neurophysiology, psychobiology, training,
inheritance, early experience and psycho-social relationships, experimental neuroses and spontaneous behavioral
abnormalities, congenital anomalies and differential diagnosis of diseases (Springfield, ILL.: Thomas, 1965).
3
Edward O. Price, Animal Domestication and Behavior (Wallingford, England; New York: CABI Pub.,
2002); Temple Grandin, Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals (San Diego: Academic Press, 1988); and
Peter J. Ucko and G. W. Dimblebay, eds., The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals [Research
Seminar in Archaeology and Related Subjects (1968: London University)] (London: Duckworth, 1969).
4
Daniel Zohary, Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin and Spread of Cultivated Plants in
West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
5
Frederick J. Simmons, A Ceremonial Ox of India: The Mithan in Nature, Culture, and History, with Notes
on the Domestication of Common Cattle (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968); and A. E. Mourant and
F.E. Zeuner, eds., Symposium on Domestication, Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1960,
in Man and Cattle: Proceedings of a Symposium on Domestication at the Royal Anthropological Institute, 24-26
May 1960 (London: Royal anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1963).
6
Arlie William Schorger, The Wild Turkey: Its History and Domestication [1st ed.] (Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press, 1966).
7
Berthold Laufer, The Reindeer and its Domestication (New York: Kraus Reprint, 1964).
8
Mervin F. Roberts, Turtles as Pets (Neptune City, N.J.: TFH [Tropical Fish Hobbyist] Publications,
1960).
9
Matthew William Diller, Evolution of the Horse (New York: American Museum of Natural History
[AMNH], 1927).
10
Barbara Rogers, The Domestication of Women: Discrimination in Developing Societies (London; New
York: Tavistock Publications, 1981).
11
Judith Fadlon, Negotiating the Holistic Turn: The Domestication of Alternative Medicine (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 2005).

1

Schneider, to [North] American Methodism;13 Whitworth, to foreign corporations;14 and Berker, to
media and technology.15
Some authors consider, in a traditional way of the notion, the domestication (taming) of
places and the physical world: Mannion, of carbon;16 Hann, of the Turkish state;17 Hodder, of
Europe;18 Yener, of metals;19 and Rogachev, of outer space.20 Other authors see domestication in
human attributes, values, and interests: Dörfer, to glory;21 Brenner, to desire;22 McCutcheon, to
dissent;23 Cobb, to violence;24 Warner, to blue notes;25 Brock, to the hero-figure;26 Godbout and
Caille, to gift;27 and Regazzola, to movement.28 Finally, authors apply the metaphor of domestication to certain religious
29 30
concepts: Wentz, to the divine; Placher and Young, to transcendence; and Roberts, to anti-
Semitism.31

12
Zelia Gregoriou, ―Resisting the Pedagogical Domestication of Cosmopolitanism: From Nussbaum‘s
Concentric Circles of Humanity to Derrida‘s Aporetic Ethics of Hospitality,‖ Philosophy of Education (2003): 257-
66.
13
A. Gregory Schneider, The Way of the Cross Leads Home: The Domestication of American Methodism
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993).
14
John Ford Whitworth, The creation of corporations for profit in Pennsylvania: under the Corporation
act of April 29, 1874, and its supplements, the merger, consolidation, judicial sale and reorganization of such
corporations, the domestication of foreign corporations, the practice in the office of the secretary of the
commonwealth relating thereto and a collection of forms (Philadelphia T. & J. W. Johnson Company, 1906).
15
Thomas Berker, Domestication of Media and Technology (Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2006).
16
Antoinette M. Mannion, Carbon and its Domestication (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2006).
17
C. M. Hann, Tea and the Domestication of the Turkish State (Huntingdon: Eothen Press, 1990).
18
Ian Hodder, The Domestication of Europe: Structure and Contingency in Neolithic Societies (Oxford,
England; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1990).
19
K. Aslihan Yener, The Domestication of Metals: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia,
Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Vol. 4 (Boston: Brill, 2000); and Jak Yakar, ―The Domestication of
Metals: The Rise of Complex Metal Industries in Anatolia,‖ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
324 (November 2001): 114-17.
20
Vladimir Rogachev, ―Free Discussion Planned at Intl Space Conference,‖ [Information Telegraph
Agency of Russia] ITAR - TASS News Wire, New York, April 2001: 1. The so-called ―outer space‖ exploration
actually hides ―inner space‖ surveillance from outer space.
21
Ingemar Dörfer, System 37 Viggen; Arms, Technology and the Domestication of Glory (Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 1973).
22
Suzanne April Brenner, The Domestication of Desire: Women, Wealth, and Modernity in Java
(Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998); Evelyn Blackwood, ―The Domestication of Desire: Women,
Wealth, and Modernity in Hava,‖ The Journal of Asian Studies (JAS) 60, no. 3 (August 2001): 915-6; and Rene
Devisch and Claude Brodeur, The Law of the Lifegivers: The Domestication of Desire (Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Hardwood Academics; Abingdon: Marston, 1999).
23
Russel T. McCutcheon, Religion and the Domestication of Dissent, or, How to Live in a Less Than
Perfect Nation (London; Oakville, Conn.: Equinox Pub., 2005).
24
Sara Cobb, ―The Domestication of Violence in Mediation,‖ Law & Society Review (LSR) 31, no. 3
(1997): 397-440.
25
Naphtali Wagner, ―‗Domestication‘ of Blue Notes in the Beatles‘ Songs,‖ Music Theory
Spectrum (Spectrum) [official journal of the Society for Music Theory (SMT)] 25, no. 2 (Fall 2003): 353-65.
26
Claire Brock, ―Rousseauvian Remains,‖ History Workshop Journal (HWJ) 55, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 134-
42.
27
Jacques T. Godbout and Alain Caille, ―The World of the Gift,‖ Anthropos 98, no. 1 (2003): 237-8.
28
Tomaso Regazzola, La Domestication du Mouvement: Poussées Mobilisatrices et Surrection de l'État
(Paris: Editions Anthropos, 1981).
29
Richard E. Wentz, ―The Domestication of the Divine,‖ Theology Today 57, no. 1 (April 2000): 24-34.
30
William Carl Placher, The Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking About God Went
Wrong (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996); and Richard A. Young, ―The Domestication of

2

In terms of human domestication, as this next bibliographic survey indicates, various social
and natural science authors speak about the domestication of humans. However, their contributions
remain scattered, referring to domestication of separate dimensions of the human experience,
without providing an integrated theory regarding the domestication of the human species, per se.
While none of these authors employ the term Homo domesticus explicitly or deal with the concept
in a wholistic and rigorous manner, each one of them contributes in part to this study on human
domestication and Homo domesticus.32
Peter J. Wilson speaks of the domestication of the human species, investigating the
ethnographic implications of the formation of small villages and towns, particularly in the
Palaeolithic-Neolithic transition.33 Ruth Tringham refers to sedentism as the domestication of
humans.34 John A. Livingston refers to the role of ideology in the domestication of humans.35 Jack
Goody refers to the implications of the scribal culture in the development of human domestication.36
Claude Lévi-Strauss speaks of the shift from myth to philosophy and to science, and refers to
human domestication from an ethno-cultural dichotomy approach, contrasting the Neolithic humans
as savage and the modern as domesticated.37 Helen M. Leach reconsiders human domestication in
relation to biological variation resulting from sedentism.38 Keiichi Omoto and Peter Sloterdijk refer
to human domestication through bio-physiological modification via genetic engineering.39

Enhanced definition of domestication
This study seeks to enhance the notion of domestication to gain an inside into the human and human
relations. The enhanced notion of domestication includes a differentiation between taming and
domestication, considering the influence exercised by the physical built environment.
Domestication implies a direct influence of the built environment on organisms. Taking housing
as epitome of the built environment, domestication relates to housing. Naturalist John A. Livingston
contends that domestication literally means ―to bring it into our house.‖40 Domestication refers to the
conditioning influence the presence of housing, architecture, or the built environment (used here
interchangeably, in the broad sense) imposes on organisms. Whether they are inside or outside the house,

Transcendence: How Modern Thinking About God Went Wrong,‖ Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society (JETS) 42, no. 3 (September 1999): 546-59.
31
Andrew Roberts, ―The Roots of Hitler‘s Murderous Anti-Semitism,‖ The Daily Telegraph, London UK 8
November 2003: 04.
32
Peter Hercules refers to Homo domesticus in his self-published electronic book, but his treatment of it is
limited to an application from a psychological perspective. Peter Hercules, Liberating the Caged Human Animal
(2002 copyright), [homepage of Dr. Peter Hercules] [online], available: http://www.untamedlife.com/index.php
[2006, January 15]. David Valdes uses the term Homo Domesticus to portray a same-sex relationship. David
Valdes Greenwood, Homo Domesticus: Notes from a Same-Sex Marriage (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2007).
33
Peter J. Wilson, The Domestication of the Human Species (New Haven and London: Yale University
Press, 1988).
34
Ruth Tringham, Unit Title: Life in the Neolithic 1 - Living in Houses (N.A.) [online], available:
http://www.mactia.berkeley.edu/aop/modules/Neo1_module_web.htm [2005, December 18].
35
John A. Livingston, Rogue Primate: An Exploration of Human Domestication (Toronto: Key Porter
Books Limited, 1994).
36
Jack Goody, The Domestication of the Savage Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
37
Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (London: Librairie Plon, 1962).
38
Helen M. Leach, et al, ―Human Domestication Reconsidered.‖ Current Anthropology (CA) 44, no. 3
(June 2003): 349-68.
39
Keiichi Omoto, Jinrui no Jiko Kachikuka to Gendai (Human Self-domestication and Modern Society)
(Kyoto: Jinbun Shoin, 2002); and Peter Sloterdijk, Regeln für den Menschenpark (Regulations for the Human Park)
(Suhrkamp Verlag: Frankfurt am Main, 1999).
40
Livingston, Ibid, 15.

3

organisms are conditioned by the built environment through the influence of its very presence. The
architectural presence domesticates living organisms.
Domestication and taming represent different dimensions of a similar conditioning process.
Domestication refers to the conditions imposed on organisms by housing; taming refers to conditioning
techniques other than housing employed on organisms which reflect and reinforce housing. Taming
refers to the utilization of the immediate contexts and sets of ideologies, sciences, techniques, and
technologies to achieve, foster, and perpetuate relations of domination via sociological, psychological,
physiological, and biological conditioning (see Appendix 1: Methods of Taming). While the built
environment influences culture, culture influences ideology (which influences physically and meta-
physically, but originates meta-physically, as an idea) and vice versa. The influence of the built
environment refers to the influence (physical or meta-physical) originated physically (as or in relation to a
tangible thing) by the presence or expectancy of built environments. Conditioning via methodologies
(including ideology, technology, and technique) represents taming and conditioning via the built
environment represents domestication.
Domestication refers to ontological distortion through the built environment. The human built
environment establishes the context for domestication. As humans build an environment it in return
domesticates. The house or domestic realm universally materializes and epitomizes domestication.
Domestication is the built environment conditioning ontology. Humans have also undergone
domestication for generations.

Domestication and the human
The notion of human domestication also becomes a theoretical tool to understand ancient and modern
earthly life. It assists in identifying social and ecological dynamics of domination. Practically, every
reality on earth evolves under the influence and condition of domestication. Humans undergo the
domesticating influence of the built environment.
There have been specific instances throughout history when humans have tamed other humans in
the sense of purposefully breeding and deliberately manipulating genetic and/or behavioural patterns, and
even though authors initially refer to that dynamic as domestication, it refers to processes and methods of
taming humans that mainly rely on the science of human knowledge or ideology.41
One way to conceptualize the condition influenced by domestication on humans is considering
two human aspects: the ontological and the behavioural. Ontologically, domestication refers to the ways
the built environment shapes the genetic makeup or nature of humans. Human ontology (Greek, study of
being) here, in the Platonic sense, refers to the human being as an existent entity, and in the Aristotelian
sense, to the characterization of that human being as existent entity. That domestication influences the
very ontology of humans argues that domestication influences the very being of the modern human as an
existent entity. Domestication has moved from being an external influence to the human to become a
characteristic of the existent entity of the human. That human domestication refers to the very ontological
transformative distortion of the human implies that the modern human can be regarded as an existent
entity characteristically domesticated. Humans can be considered domesticated beings.
Behaviourally, domestication refers to the ways the built environment shapes structurally and
functionally the human within the larger ecological environment. Domestication influences the place of
the human within the entire earthly and universal system, structure, or organism. Domestication further
influences the way the human relates or functions in regards to themselves and other organisms or
subsystems. Domesticated humans shape nature in a domesticated way. Humans could be considered
domesticators, but they act as tamers.
Another way to conceptualize the condition influenced by domestication on humans is
considering four human dimensions, namely, anthropological, cosmological, social, and ecological.
Anthropologically, that humans are domesticated refers to humans as beings that have been conditioned

41
Plato refers to the breeding of Spartan rulers or guardians. The Republic of Plato, Francis McDonald
Cornford, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1941), 160.

4

by the built environment, who reflect and reinforce the characteristics of tamed organisms, and who
display the capacity to tame and domesticate other beings. Humans have become characteristically
domesticated. Modern humans are born, grew up, and die conditioned by the built environment.
Cosmologically, domesticated humans see the world around them with domesticated eyes. Modern
human perception refers to human domesticated perception. Modern human science refers to human
domesticated science. Human imagination refers to human domesticated imagination. Human
domesticated cosmology delineates framed under the influence of the built environment. Domesticated
humans display a characteristic incapacity to appreciate their larger cosmos without a domesticating
perspective.
Socially, human societies reflect and reinforce the tamed and domesticated characteristic of
humans. Society refers to the association of humanity which predominantly characterizes by its tamed
and domesticated, taming and domesticating condition. Modern society actually emerges as a product of
human domestication, fundamentally composed by domesticated humans. Human domesticated society
follows the condition of the built environment. Ecologically, domesticated humans approach and relate to
their larger natural environment from a domesticated point of view. The ecological involvement of
domesticated humans remarkably distinguishes by its domesticating nature. Earthly ecology evolves
under the domesticating penetration and control of the human built environment.
Domestication characterizes relations of domination among humans and the human relation to the
larger environment. For instance, palaces are architectural constructions that establish the existence and
presence of empires, hence of emperors. Facing the presence of a palace, people can establish their social
value in relation to the palace. The palace defines who is inside and who is outside, who rules and who is
ruled. And rule refers to domination; in this case, it clearly refers to human domination. People who live
in palaces are evidently separated by the walls of the palace from their natural environment. This
separation affects human relation with the environment. Humanity has evolved in the context of
domestication, understanding the social and ecological character of domestication enhances the
understanding of both humanity and domination. This study considers the general influence of
domestication on humanity, but focuses on exploring how an understanding of human domestication
informs a critique of domination.

Human domestication and domination
Domination refers to the control against individuals, species, or environments. It has been exercised by
different means, one of them conditioning, which refers to an external influence on organisms. One of
such external influences can be regarded as domestication. There are and have been other forms of
domination besides domestication, especially since sociologists, anthropologists, ethnographers,
palaeontologists, and archaeologists argue that methods of domination existed long before human-made
housing was developed. They speak of band formation, sporadic attacks, tool and fire making, hunting,
and collection among nomad societies.42 Domestication functions, among other forms of domination, as
one way of domination.
It is widely known and accepted that domestication (taming) mediates a domination of animals
and plants that can be denominated ecological domination. The human built environment conditions the
survival of numerous species of animals and plants. And humans also undergo domestication. The built
environment also conditions the survival of modern humans. Hence domestication refers to a dynamic of
survival and domination also at the anthropological, cosmological, sociological, and ecological levels.
Thus domestication underlies ecological and social domination.
Architecture generates and intensifies domestication mediating power accumulation and
ecological and social domination. Marvin Harris has identified similar political-economical systems in

42
Rosen considers that ―the presence of small arrowheads (fragments) and microlithic lunates…suggests a
continued role for hunting in this early [the Camel Site, Negev Early Bronze Age] pastoral society, or perhaps low
level warfare.‖ Steven A. Rosen, ―Early Multi-resource Nomadism: Excavations at the Camel Site in the Central
Negev,‖ Antiquity 77, no. 298 (December 2003): 749.

5

ancient China, India, Mesopotamia, Cuzco, and Egypt.43 These systems were characterized by the
presence of highly centralized bureaucratic classes and hereditary despotic overlords. These elites
claimed divine mandates and mediating powers, even divinity, using architecture.44 Palaces, temples, and
tombs were of particular importance, embodying architecturally dominating social institutions. Such
rulers organized society architecturally and maintained order using plain force to demand submission of
underlings. Mesopotamians and Incas resettled defeated troops as peasant force and indoctrinated enemy
leaders with imperial politics and religion. Domestication builds empire. Great architecture is synonym
of great empire and vice versa.
The process of architecture, indeed of domestication, refers to a process of ecological and social
domination. Humans rely on and favor the development of architecture to maintain and advance the
taming and domestication of animals and plants, indeed of other humans. Through housing, humans
challenge the elements. Shelters alter time cycles (day and night), influence sources of energy (diurnal
food and nocturnal sleep), and disturb life moods (awaken and asleep). By altering life cycles, energy
sources, and organic moods, housing alters the human condition, including its feelings, needs, etc.
Furthermore, elites would strive to control the housing or architectural domain and its industry. Social
elites would reinforce housing as a human need for social domination and the sake of power.45
Human domestication established through architecture has evolved to such a degree that it has
been taken for granted and even desired. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by the
United Nations (UN) in 1948 claims: ―Everyone has the right to a standard of living,‖ including
housing.46 It is estimated housing appeared 40,000 years ago. Within the 2.5 million years of human
history, housing represents a relative recent development, popularized in the last 10,000 years (see
Appendix 2: A History of Pre-Human Life).
Dynamically changing and mutating limited and exclusive social circles of humans, both
concentrated and dispersed throughout the world, here denominated elites, dominate human populations
through the built environment. The United Nations reaffirmed on June 15, 2006, its study released on
March 25, 2004, by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA),
which projected that the fifty percent of the human population would live in urban settings in 2007;47 by
2030 five billion humans would live in cities, two billions of whom would live in slums.48 Shelters
represent a cultural development or created need rather than a natural need. Elites take advantage of
housing for status and control purposes. Powerful multinational corporations in cooperation with state

43
North American anthropologist Marvin Harris (1927-2001).
44
McMillan speaks of progressive politics as the taming of power, and refers to the United States‘ social
structure ―by far the greatest concentration of organized power in the modern world.‖ Joyce McMillan, ―Blair‘s
High-Risk Strategy: The Taming of America,‖ The Scotsman (February 2003): 14.
45
English anthropologist Ruth Tringham designed at the UC-Berkeley Archaeological Research Facility
(ARF) a module for sixth grade students at UC-Berkeley/Roosevelt Middle School Oakland, intended to help them
think ―about humans domesticating plants and animals, as well as how the humans themselves become domesticated
through learning to live with each other in confined spaces (architecture).‖ ―The Neolithic is a time when people
began to settle down and construct and live in dwellings, which would last not only throughout the year but also for
many years, perhaps many generations. This change that archaeologists call ‗sedentism‘ is an important prelude to
some other significant changes. Some of us think this is the most important change since it means the domestication
of humans.‖ Tringham, http://www.mactia.berkeley.edu/aop/modules/Neo1_module_web.htm.
46
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 25 (1), adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly
resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights [UDHR] (2000-2006), United
Nations [online], available: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [2006, March 20].
47
[United Nations] UN Report Says World Urban Population of 3 Billion Today Expected to Reach 5
Billion by 2030 (2004 copyright), United Nations Information Service (UNIS) [online], available:
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2004/pop899.html [2006, July 6].
48
Guardian Unlimited: Urban Population to Overtake Country Dwellers for First Time (2006 copyright),
Guardian Newspapers Limited [online], available:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1798774,00.html [2006, July 6].

6

governments and other political, economic, financial, industrial, and commercial groups seek to control
the construction, and particularly the housing, market.49
An obvious observation from daily life, it is neither a secret nor is it a naïve coincidence that the
socio-geographic landscape of modern, as well as ancient, settlements corresponds to a planned, executed,
and controlled process of architectural imbalance of social stratification. One can tell the difference
between impoverished neighborhoods and privileged zones by noticing their architectural differences.
Present human life seems impossible without housing, provided and regulated by human elites.
Domestication represents a pervasive underlying dynamic of domination. Even more, housing
design and building technology tend to self-replicate. Domestic humans understand and behave
according to a conditioning situation represented by housing and architecture.50 Domesticated humans
replicate social and ecological structures and systems that have been historically developed to frame their
existence. They build their life experience on the principles laid down for them, in many ways
corresponding to architectural design. They replicate their condition in every aspect of their ontological,
cosmological, social, and ecological experience. They carry on their life experience within the constraints
of specific functions designed and imposed on them.
The functionality of domestic humans responds to the structural domesticated condition.
Domesticated humans reflect a conditioned ontology, articulated in disturbed cosmology, and imbued in
their own artificiality, reflected in a deformed social arrangement and dysfunctional ecological presence.
Domesticated humans search for survival under the shadows of their built environment, deceived by
power and domination.
The notion of human domestication represents a valuable theoretical tool to identify dynamics of
domination perpetrated against human individuals, society in general, and the ecological environment at
large. Such dynamics include traditional symbolism, social stratification, confinement, the extremes of
privacy, and ecological devastation, in particular, the domination of plants and animals. These issues will
not be adequately addressed by changes in building, no matter how well intentioned and radical they may
seem. For instance, ecologically friendly buildings, unfortunately, do not carry the capacity to address the
very unfriendliness of the human built environment per se. This is not to oppose such wonderful
initiatives, given the situation, but to alert to the deficiencies of such initiatives when confronted with the
pervasive and devastating context of social and ecological domination shaped by domestication.
To explore the positive contributions of domestication and the built environment may fill up
myriads of theses but goes beyond the purpose of this study concerned with understanding domination.
Certainly, domesticated humans would find infinite features in domestication that they would understand
as enriching earthly life, particularly the modern human mode of life. In fact, human domesticated
science is devoted to this end. In many ways, we domesticated humans do not know and cannot
appreciate other modes of life beside the domesticated one. I do not think we domesticated humans have
the ability, for instance, to chose a nomad life style; if needed, it would remain a choice forced by the
larger ecological environment.
A preliminary word regarding ethics, Peter J. Wilson provides perhaps the key conclusion about
ethics in his comparison between nomad and sedentary societies. For him, the change was from ethics in
the Paleolithic to altruism in the Neolithic. He goes further to argue that Neolithic or domesticated
humans talk about ethics while Paleolithic humans did ethics. The change can be perceived in the
transition from relational ethics to institutional altruism. Among nomads, ethics seems a given, while,
with the preoccupation for domesticated relations or institutionalization under the built environment,
ethics becomes a topic in the age of human domestication.

49
Biles studies the case of Soul City in North Carolina and reveals the intricate alliances between public
and private organizations managing housing. Roger Biles, ―The Rise and Fall of Soul City: Planning, Politics, and
Race in Recent America,‖ Journal Of Planning History (JPH) 4, no. 1 (February 2005): 52-72.
50
Lawson argues that most humans live in social clusters, interpreting life styles that reflect their housing
conditions. Julie Lawson, ―Comparing the Causal Mechanisms Underlying Housing Networks Over Time and
Space,‖ in Journal of Housing and the Built Environment (HBE) 16, no. 1 (March 2001): 29-52.

7

For instance, would domesticated humans consider leaving the sick, the lame, and the old to die
by themselves—practices not uncommon among nomads—ethically sound? Would individual ethics take
precedence over the ethics of the group or vice versa? If yes, for instance, would the freedom of the
individual override the freedom of the group or vice versa? We domesticated humans seek to elucidate
such questions but end up in eternal debates, often resolved via ethical imposition based on the amount of
accumulated domesticated authority or supremacy, usually following institutional procedures that obey
particular traditional and legal measures.
Ethical advances among domesticated beings remain focused on addressing the symptoms of
conditioning dynamics, among them obvious and scandalous inadequacies of domestication, but without
challenging the very legitimacy of those dynamics, particularly of domestication. The said symptoms and
inadequacies are inevitably judged from a domesticated view point by domesticated humans. That
situation occurs mainly because human life has evolved to such a degree under domestication that
eliminating domestication would imply eliminating the human itself.

PROLOGUE
In preparation for the interdisciplinary discussion in this work, this Prologue discusses the broader
scholarly context and reviews the state of current scholarship in social and natural sciences concerning
human domestication via housing, architecture, or the built environment, in the broad sense. It addresses
the use of the metaphor of domestication for understanding domination. It includes a working definition
of domestication and its argument and a statement regarding the relationship between domination and
domestication, particularly of humans.
This study explores a social-anthropological question, the domestication of humans, within a
cosmological and ecological perspective.51 For that purpose, this section introduces the main disciplines
regarding social anthropology in dialogue in this study, particularly Charles Darwin‘s work.52

Currents in social anthropology
Anthropology refers to the study of humans. Historically, anthropologists started by examining
traditional non-Western peoples. Analytically, anthropology may be regarded as a holistic and
comparative branch of sociology. Holistically, anthropologists seek to connect the various parts that
make up a social and cultural whole, rather than specializing on one specific subsystem within the whole.

51
This section adapts materials from: American Sociological Association (2006, January 19) [online],
available: http://www.asanet.org/index.ww [2006, January 19]; Anovasofie [Analyzing and Overcoming the
Sociological Fragmentation in Europe]: European Virtual Library of Sociology (2004-2006) [online], available:
http://www.anovasofie.net/ or http://www.anovasofie.net/vl/ [2006, January 19]; Antrobase.com: Searchable
Database of Anthropological Texts (N.A.) [online], available: http://www.anthrobase.com/ [2006, January 19]; and
American Anthropological Association (AAA) (1996-2004 copyright) [online], available: http://www.aaanet.org/
[2006, January 19].
52
Marvin Harris‘s description of competing anthropological approaches seems instructive: Sociobiology
and Biological Reductionism, a research strategy that seeks to explain human social life by means of the theoretical
principles of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology; Dialectical Materialism, often known as Marxists,
focus on the importance of infrastructure with a dialectical view of history developed by philosopher Georg
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, which plays a central role in Marxist theories; Structuralism, in spite of the proponents of
structuralism declarations of the primacy of the infrastructure, structuralism places more importance on words and
ideas, and resists scientific method; Structural Marxism, combining aspects of structuralism with aspects of
dialectical and historical materialism, heaps scorn on cultural materialists as ―mechanical,‖ ―vulgar,‖ and ―so-called
Marxists;‖ Psychological and Cognitive Idealism, that the mental, emic (insider view), and personality aspects of
socio-cultural systems determine the etic (outsider view) and behavior aspects; Eclecticism, ―By picking and
choosing epistemological and theoretical principles to suit the convenience of each puzzle, eclecticism guarantees
that its solutions will remain unrelated to each other by any coherent set of principles;‖ and Obscurantism, ―a
research strategy whose aim is to subvert the possibility of achieving a science of human social life.‖ Marvin Harris
(2005 copyright), The Realm of MacGoddess [homepage of Nancy G. McClernan] [online], available:
http://www.voicenet.com/~nancymc/marvinharris.html [2006, January 15].

8

Comparatively, anthropology describes the diverse cultures, subcultures, groups and institutions, building
up a rich databank of human cultural and social forms to compare, contrast, and to bring out specificities
and social idiosyncrasies. Methodologically, anthropology advocates for a qualitative approach to
uncover through fieldwork what things, relationships, persons, and activities mean to people, rather than
what these phenomena are in themselves.
The notion of human domestication emerges in the context of social anthropology, which
developed in different ways. Social Anthropology (SA) developed as a scholarly discipline in the 1900s
in Great Britain, influenced by French sociological ethnologie theory. The movement was led by Émile
Durkheim, father of modern sociology.53 He focused on forms of social integration (solidarity), collective
representations, and ritual. It was also led by Marcel-Israël Mauss, father of modern French
anthropology.54 Of particular importance is Mauss‘ Essay Sur le Don (1923-24), translated into English
as The Gift: Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies (1954), a comparative essay on gift-
giving and exchange in primitive societies.
Social anthropology was inspired by the methodological ideals of fieldwork pioneered by
Bronislaw Malinowski, spreading from Britain to such countries as Norway, Sweden, and Holland.55
Social anthropology is often contrasted to the North American cultural anthropology developed by Franz
Boas.56 Cultural Anthropology (CA) is considered less sociologically inclined and more influenced by
linguistics and history.57

Domestication and natural selection
This study on domination and particularly on human domestication emerges chiefly in the context of and
as a critique to the natural selection theory (see Appendix 5: Modern Synthesis and Domestication).
Since Charles Darwin‘s On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) deeply informs current scientific discussions on
evolutionary history (see Appendix 6: Human Evolution), including human emergence and development,
this study includes an interpretation of Darwin‘s ideas.58 Darwin put forward a notion of domination

53
French-Jewish sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917).
54
French-Jewish anthropologist and sociologist Marcel-Israël Mauss (1872-1950) founded the Institute
d’etnologie at the University of Paris.
55
Polish-Austrian anthropologist Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski (1884-1942).
56
German-Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas (1858-1942).
57
Traditionally, while the anthropological school in the U.S. refers to cultural studies, the anthropological
school in the United Kingdom (UK) refers to social studies. The UK school is now known as socio-cultural
anthropology. Social scientists frequently refer to Applied Anthropology (practical research), Academic
Anthropology (theoretical research), Cultural Relativism (suspended field work judgment), Cybernetics (information
flow in complex systems), Evolutionism (gradual organization complexity), Neo-evolutionism (multilinear
evolution), Scientific Dialectical Materialism (organic society and power accumulation), Neo-Marxism (production
beyond economy), Functionalism (integrated social whole), Structuralism (complexity of structural meaning),
Structural Functionalism (social function and social system), and Postmodernism (deconstruction of knowledge);
Peter Metcalf, Anthropology: The Basics (London; New York: Routledge, 2005); Barbara D. Miller, Penny Van
Esterik, and John Van Esterik, Cultural Anthropology. 3er Canadian ed. (Toronto: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, 2007);
and Louis Dumont, [Introduction à Deux Théories D'anthropologie Sociale. English] An Introduction to Two
Theories of Social Anthropology: Descent Groups and Marriage Alliance, Robert Parkin, trans. and ed. (New York:
Berghahn Books, 2006).
58
English naturalist Charles Robert Darwin‘s (1809-1882) On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) established evolution by common
descent as the dominant scientific theory of diversification in nature. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, ed. J. W. Burrow
(London: Penguin, 1985); On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured
Races in the Struggle for Life (2005, May 23), Literature.org: The Online Literature Library [online], available:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/preface.html [2005, December 18]; The
Origin of Species (2004 copyright), The Free Library by Farlex [online], available:

9

based on domestication (taming) but camouflaged with naturism. Darwin‘s methodology is deeply
influenced by experimentation on taming. His method superposes sociological projections onto ecology.
This general introduction refers to some aspects of Darwin‘s theory on natural selection, common
descent, and some general laws, ―taken in the largest sense,‖ acting around us.59 As Darwin summarizes,

Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability
from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a
Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural
Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms… On
these principles, I believe, the nature of the affinities of all organic beings may be explained.60

Searching to explain those principles of organic affinity, Darwin traveled extensively to explore
nature in exotic regions, including his famous expedition to the Galapagos Islands. However, his method
of experimentation was greatly influenced by his understanding of and familiarity with taming, which
Darwin denominates domestication, following the traditional custom to refer to taming. He observed
―variation under domestication‖ and extended it to illustrate natural selection, to explain coadaptation,
―the case of the coadaptations of organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life,‖ and
to make his fundamental critique of Christianity: that the belief ―that each species has been independently
created—is erroneous.‖61 He concluded that the best suited or adapted—i.e., the fittest62—dominates and
survives.63

http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species [2005, December 18]; and Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
(2004 copyright), The Free Library by Farlex [online], available: http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-
Species/domestication [2005, December 18].
59
George John Romanes, Darwin and After Darwin: An Exposition of the Darwinian Theory and a
Discussion of Post-Darwinian Questions (London: Longmans Green & Co., 1893); Thomas Henry Huxley,
―Obituary of Charles Darwin,‖ Proceedings of the Royal Society (RS) 44 (1888); Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin’s
Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meaning of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); Dennis F. Bratchell, The
Impact of Darwinism: Texts and Commentary Illustrating Nineteenth Century Religious, Scientific and Literary
Attitudes (London: Avebury Publishing, 1981); and A.J. Cain, ―The True Meaning of Darwinian Evolution,‖ in
Evolution and Its Influence, Alan Grafen, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).
60
The Origin of Species: Chapter IV.-Natural Selection, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-
Species/4-1-2.
61
However, he closes his introduction with both a strong claim and a humble acknowlegement. ―I am
convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.‖ ―Introduction,‖ The
Origin of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/0-1.
62
Although Darwin used it, the phrase ―survival of the fittest‖ was originally applied to economics and
coined by English philosopher and liberal political and sociological theorist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) in his
Principles of Biology of 1864. Spencer led classical Social Darwinism. However, some think Spencer applied more
principles of ―use and disuse‖ (Lamarkism) than of ―natural selection‖ (Darwinism). Herbert Spencer, The
Principles of Biology (London: Williams and Norgate, 1864-1867).
63
A similar approach has been promoted in recent decades in North America. As a critique of that theory,
Jared Diamond would argue that, for instance, the dominance of the peoples from the Fertile Crescent in ancient
times and from the United States in modern times do not occur due to their ―biological superiority,‖ but rather to ―an
accident of biogeography.‖ Jared Diamond, ―The Erosion of Civilization; The Fertil‘s Crescent Fall Holds a
Message for Today‘s Troubled Spots,‖ Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, 15 June 2003: M 1. Proquest Information
and Learning Company (2006 copyright) [online], available:
http://proquest.umi.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/pqdlink?index=209&did=347367111&SrchMode=1&sid=1&
Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1111674494&clientId=12520 [2006,
January 20].

10

We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and
widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail
and procreate new and dominant species.64

Some studies before Darwin‘s argued that species suit their context over generations.65 But
Darwin saw it with particular intensity through the lenses of domination. His notions of strength,
superiority, and fittest-ness refer to projections upon nature elaborated by human subjectivities seeking to
standardize the appreciation of natural processes from a privileged position. John A. Livingston refers to
Darwin as an artifact of the ideology of his time.66 Darwin imposed his thought on his view of nature,
thought that was shaped by the culture of his time, in general, and by his experimentation on taming, in
particular. Nature clearly transcends the laboratory, which represents a main context for taming, which
consequently refers to Darwin‘s starting point.
Darwin assumed the natural context as a battlefield; ―the struggle for existence‖ was a ―war.‖
―Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of
conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.‖67 One difficulty with
Darwin‘s notion is the blurredness between his notion of fittest and a notion of ―fiercest.‖ While many
argue for a very pessimistic diagnostic of war, Darwin envisioned how nature‘s war improves ecological
reality. ―Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length.
And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental
endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.‖68 In his own words, ―This principle of
preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.‖69 It reveals a principle based on
fiery domination rather than fitness.
Darwin valued adaptability, fitted-ness, and ultimately survival, all of which relate to
reproduction. He would value a defective survivor to an ideal extinct. However, he fails to identify an
implicit anthropomorphic determinism and favoritism in his approach. He deals poorly with the
pervasive and predatory human power and its epicenter among elites. His portrayal of natural adaptation
reveals a sort of ―anthropo-elite-centric‖ selection appeal. He clearly struggled with dominant Victorian
descriptions of nature.70 Darwin challenges common Christian theories of divine design, focusing on
origin or genesis, replacing the agent (nature for the divine) and its method (selection for design).71
Darwin crafted the notion of ―natural selection‖ and characterized it to an extreme where the
species are disavowed of their agency. Seeking to rescue Darwin from this pitfall, Richard Richards
64
The Origin of Species: Chapter IV.-Natural Selection, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-
Species/4-1-3.
65
Darwin‘s theories follow a long standing trend of research. James Hutton (1726-1797), known as the
father of modern geology, spoke of gradual development over aeons of time (uniformitarian theory); Etienne
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1772-1844) established the principle of ―unity of composition‖ arguing that species are
various degenerations of the same type; Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), grandfather of Charles Darwin, referred to
organisms passing changes to offspring (common descent theory); Dr. W. C. Wells‘s (1813) ―An Account of a
White female, part of whose skin resembled that of a Negro;‖ Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), first to use the
term biology, thought of acquiring and passing on needed traits (Lamarckism); Robert Edmund Grant (1793-1874)
developed others theories of transmutation; and that The Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) showed that
human populations increase to exceed resources (Whig Poor Law). ―Chapter XIV.-Recapitulation and Conclusion,‖
The Origin of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/14-1-2.
66
Livingston, Ibid, 76.
67
―Chapter XIV.-Recapitulation and Conclusion,‖ The Origin of Species,
http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/14-1-2.
68
Ibid, 14-1-2.
69
―Chapter VI.-Natural Selection,‖ The Origin of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-
Species/4-1-3.
70
William Irvine, Apes, Angels and Victorians: The Story of Darwin, Huxley and Evolution (Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1955).
71
M. Midgley, Evolution as a Religion (London: Methuen, 1985).

11

disassociates causality and immutability: ―the causal efficacy‖ Darwin attributed to natural selection does
not suggest ―the immutability of species.‖72 Richards aims precisely at correcting Darwin‘s strong
impression in this regard. Instead, Alanna Mitchell prefers to see this agency as transformational; a
―Darwinian endeavor of metamorphosis.‖73
In the struggle for survival and reproduction (transcendence), species seem to adapt, vary, and
survive. Seen from a non-Darwinian angle, species collectively present life conditions. Species incarnate
the conditions of life. Species mutually condition one another. The dichotomy Darwin enforces between
nature and life conditions seems a fallacy. Darwin pictures a nature selecting the fittest species which
exist and live within life conditions. Darwin redesigns nature. ―Selection‖ and ―the fittest‖ correlate. On
the contrary, argues this study, while species naturally struggle for survival, the fittest neither necessarily
nor naturally survive. Sometimes the fiercest, the luckiest, and the weakest survive. But when the
survivor is not the fittest, which happens often, selection does not correlate. Selection does not explain all
natural survival.
The fittest survivor notion seems contextual and subjective. Species represent natural agents.
Rather than selection in the abstract, survival seems the species‘ concrete natural agency. As Jeffrey
Ross-Ibarra, Gabriel Marais, and Brian Charlesworth insist, species adapt; they recombine in order to
survive.74 Species survive. But some species, notably the human, do not simply survive; they destroy
and, worse, enjoy doing it. They seem capable of dominating for domination‘s sake. In this context, the
notion of natural selection disguises and perpetuates domination.
Darwin projected his social theories onto his observations of nature, which noticeably reflect his
experimentation on taming. Selection, as a working metaphor, could make sense from a taming
viewpoint or selection by human agency and under human standards. But such selection misrepresents
nature and rather reflects human artificiality. While humans may value selection (e.g., taming), survival
does not necessarily happen directly proportional to adaptability and variation. The notion of selection
emerges by human conception and imposition primarily through taming. Darwin failed to recognize that
he observed nature with a domesticated and domesticating eye. Selection not necessarily reflects nature
at large but the development of human behavior in particular.
Overemphasizing selection forces Darwinian theories to become selective, oversimplifying the
role of random probabilities and of context in natural processes. Darwin eventually foresaw a cease to the
struggle for adaptation.

That the struggle between natural selection on the one hand, and the tendency to reversion and
variability on the other hand, will in the course of time cease; and that the most abnormally
developed organs may be made constant, I can see no reason to doubt.75

Whether Darwin foresaw a total domination of the fittest or not, nevertheless, adaptation,
variation, and survival represent perhaps Darwin‘s most influential and best documented ideas of his
common descent theory. They have revolutionized the sciences, as Darwin fervently prophesized.

72
Richard A. Richards, ―Darwin and the Inefficacy of Artificial Selection,‖ Studies in History and
Philosophy of Science (SHPS) 28, no. 1 (March 1997): 75-97.
73
Alanna Mitchell, Dancing at the Dead Sea: Tracking the World’s Environmental Hotspots (Toronto: Key
Porter Books, 2004), 18.
74
Ross-Ibarra uses plant cytogenetical literature to explore the implications of the theories of
recombination and preadaptation. Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra, ―The Evolution of Recombination Under Domestication: A
Test of Two Hypotheses,‖ The American Naturalist (AN) 163, no. 1 (January 2004): 105-15. Marais and
Charlesworth, at the Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, research on the
impact of recombination on the evolution of genome. Gabriel Marais and Brian Charlesworth, ―Genome Evolution:
Recombination Speeds Up Adaptive Evolution,‖ in Current Biology (CB) 13, no. 2 (January 2003): R68-R70.
75
―Chapter V.-Laws of Variation,‖ The Origin of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-
Species/5-1-2.

12

In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based
on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by
gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man [humans] and his [their] history.76

Darwin‘s influential formulation in natural and social science, particularly regarding the origin of
humans, indicates that species reproduce (simple and hybridized or mongrelized) and reach reproductive
rates that prompt life struggle (facing conditions of their environments). Life struggle occurs under a
generational cumulative dynamic (i.e., natural selection), favoring a clustered variability (i.e., character
divergence), transmitting traits with growth correlation (change correspondence between embryo or larva
and mature animal)77 to offspring (descendants) via inheritance (non-mutated)78 and methodic
(domestication) or unconscious (use and disuse) modification (mutated). Thereby species adapt (higher
state, winning novel characters), become more fit and perfect; or they regress (lesser state, losing
ancestral characters), become less fit and subsequently extinguish.

The final result is thus rendered infinitely complex…79 The several subordinate groups in any
class cannot be ranked in a single file, but seem rather to be clustered round points, and these
round other points, and so on in almost endless cycles.80

Although Darwin recognized the complexity of survival and referred to two selections—namely,
natural and human (taming)—he shows more interest in arguing for selection as natural, neglecting to
explicate their relationship. Darwin failed to identify the primary role of the built environment in the
process of domestication. Darwin did not explain nature; at best, he addressed natural survival through
explaining non-human variation under taming and domestication.

There is no obvious reason why the principles which have acted so efficiently under
domestication should not have acted under nature. In the preservation of favored individuals and
races, during the constantly-recurrent Struggle for Existence, we see the most powerful and ever-
acting means of selection.81

Darwin starts with taming to explain natural selection. Nevertheless, he finds adaptation,
variation, and survival among the major guidelines species follow in their pilgrimage on earth. But
Darwin focused so acutely on non-human organisms that he failed to identify selection against humans

76
One would hardly find references to women in relation to doing science, and particularly physics,
including the summary offered by Darwin in his Preface to his On The Origins of Species, however, Margaret C.
Jacob and Dorothee Sturkenboon would present another picture when they refer to the Dutch Women‘s Society for
Natural Knowledge who met from 1785 to 1887. They refer to an early ―domestication‖ of science, meaning
science at home, however the domestication might actually refer to the dominance of science by men. Margaret C.
Jacob and Dorothee Sturkenboon, ―A Women‘s Scientific Society in the West: The Late Eighteenth-Century
Assimilation of Science,‖ Isis 94, no. 2 (June 2003): 217-52.
77
―Chapter I.-Variation Under Domestication,‖ The Origins of Species,
78
Darwin clarifies, inheritance ―when beneficial to the individual.‖ ―Chapter V.-Laws of Variation,‖ The
Origin of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/5-1-2. Darwin admits that modifications
may lead both to upgrade or downgrade.
79
―Chapter I.-Variation Under Domestication,‖ The Origins of Species,
80
―Chapter IV.-Natural Selection,‖ The Origins of Species, http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-
Species/4-1-3.
81
―Chapter 14: Recapitulation and Conclusion,‖ The Origins of Species (2005, May 23), Literature.org:
The Online Literature Library [online], available: http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-
species/chapter-14.html [2005, December 18].

13

under domestication and even taming. In any event, with or without selection, natural or human,
domestication continues to be a major evolutionary force, implicating the evolutionary impact of human
beings via the built environment.
Unlike the notion of natural selection, the notion of domestication has the potential to better
explain one of the major forces that has been shaping society and ecology since the emergence of ancient
human civilizations. To what extend domestication emerges in natural discontinuity, setting in motion
disruptive dynamics regarding the adaptation, variation, and survival of species, particularly as it refers to
the domination of humans by humans, greatly occupies the following section.

HUMAN DOMESTICATION
This study employs the metaphor of domestication to understand humans. It discusses traditional
understandings of taming and domestication in the context of evolution. It explores the relation among
food supply, the process of storing information, and taming and domestication. It submits a revision of
the notion of domestication based on the influence the built environment imposes on organisms. It
integrates contributions from different disciplines to extend a notion of domestication from naturalist and
ecological scholarship to understand the human condition. It explores the influence of domestication on
human beings or human domestication and calls the human species Homo domesticus. It presents a
discussion of human domestication from diverse angles to differentiate between taming through ideology,
technology, or technique, and domestication through the built environment. It then presents an historical
context to appreciate the emergence and development of human domestication. It discusses the notion of
human domestication adopting an ethnographic comparison between sedentary and nomadic societies.
And finally, it presents a formal argument for the notion of human domestication, including the
discussion of some of its dominant elements and some of its cosmological, anthropological, sociological,
and ecological implications. It argues that the human race is better understood as Homo domesticus.
While transiting through this study, we need to bear in mind that in the literature domestication is
considered a direct human action over plants and animals. My contention is that domestication is the
direct influence of the built environment and that the traditional definition of domestication refers to
taming. This revision of the notion of domestication would appear confusing in this study since in order
to continue engaging the available works it will be necessary to use their language but mindful that here
their notion of domestication is reconsidered as a notion of taming, which will be explained and indicated
while trying to avoid a cumbersome corrective rehearsal.

2.1. AN INTRODUTION TO TAMING AND DOMESTICATION
Diverse scholars traditionally consider historical coincidences in the rise of taming and
domestication and of civilization.82 Researchers believe humans were originally unstable scattered
nomads. As farming sprang up, civilization emerged, and cities and cultures developed.83 Farming and
herding represent perhaps the most significant developments during the late part of the Paleolithic-
Holocene and throughout the Neolithic periods. Taming and domestication developed into relational
practices by humans for improved lifestyles at the expense of diverse organisms and things. Humans
continue to use tamed and domesticated animals and plants as food stock, work force, field research,
social symbols, technological devices, entertainment, companions, decoration, and pets.84 According to

82
Frey presents this kind of approach to domestication and civilization by analyzing the work of the
English poet Blake. Northrop Frye, Fearful Symmetry: A Study of William Blake (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1947).
83
Harvey Weiss, ed., The Origins of Cities in Dry-farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium
B.C. (Guilford, Conn.: Four Quarters Pub. Co., 1986); and Leonard Weisgard, The Beginnings of Cities: Re-creation
in Pictures and Text of Mesopotamian Life from Farming to Early City Building (New York: Coward-McCann,
[1968]).
84
Pam J. Crabtree, and Kathleen Ryan, eds., Animal Use and Culture Change (Philadelphia: MASCA, The
University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, 1991).

14

scientific accounts, taming and domestication refer to the process of collective alteration that different
organisms, species or families of organisms, or biological populations endure when controlled by multiple
generations of humans.85

The essential criterion for domestication is the maintenance by humans of a self-perpetuating
breeding population of animals isolated genetically from their wild relatives, with resulting
behavioural, and usually also phenotypic, changes in the domestic stock.86

The above definition places most of the emphasis on the human agency exercised to dominate
other species including plants, but particularly animals.

2.2. A REVISED DEFINITION OF DOMESTICATION
Traditionally, taming and domestication has been differentiated in terms of their reach: taming
referring to conditioning on individuals or groups and domestication on species. The main reason for this
criterion was the presumption that taming and domestication were actions of humans over plants and
animals; humans were considered domesticators and not domesticated. It was understood that when there
are no remaining wild individuals of a determined species, when they all were tamed, the species becomes
domesticated and its generations are born and grew up domesticated. It was thought that a species
reaches that taming point in the context of domestication. In that traditional theoretical context, taming
shows on a small scale what domestication establishes at large scale, where taming could be referred to as
micro while domestication as macro.
Scientific communities traditionally define domestication as the process of collective alteration
that species or families of organisms or biological populations endure under the control of multiple
generations of humans.

85
Unless otherwise referenced, the general introductory survey this section presents adopts materials
published in: WWW Virtual Library (2005 copyright; 2005, October 21) [online], available: http://vlib.org/ [2006,
January 21]; Ashbya Genome Database (2006, January 23), Biozentrum: University of Basel, Switzerland [online],
available: http://agd.unibas.ch/ [2006, January 23]; International Commission on Stratigraphy (2005, December)
[online], available: http://www.stratigraphy.org/ [2005, December 19]; International Union of Pre- and
Protohistoric Sciences (2002, January 23) [online], available: http://www.ulg.ac.be/prehist/uispp/uispp-home.html
[2005, December 20]; The Online Literature Library (2005, May 23), Literature.org [online], available:
http://www.literature.org/ [2005, December 20]; Helicon (2006 copyright), Research Machines plc [online],
available: http://www.helicon.co.uk/ [2006, January 18]; International Council for Archaeozoology (2005,
November 15), National Museum of Natural History: Archaeobiology Program [online], available:
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/icaz/ [2005, December 17]; Zooarchaeology (2004, December 06), WWW
Zooarchaeology.com: The World Wide Web’s Virtual Library for the Archaeology of Animals [online], available:
http://www.zooarchaeology.com/ [2005, December 21]; Houghton Mifflin Company (2006 copyright) [online],
available: http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/epub/ [2006, January 23]; Dictionary of the History of Ideas
(2003 copyright), The Gale Group [The University of Virginia Library: The Electronic Text Center] [online],
available: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/DicHist/dict.html [2005, December 19]; Free Online Dictionary by Farlex
(2005 copyright), Farlex Inc. [online], available: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ [2005, December 17];
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (2006 copyright), Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. [online], available from
http://www.britannica.com/ [2006, January 22]; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2006 copyright), The
Stanford University: The Metaphysics Research Lab [online], available: http://plato.stanford.edu/ [2006, January
19]; Genetic Engineering (2002-2006 copyright), Bookstrike.com [G. Ganesh, Dennis, Nathaniel, Cai Peng]
[online], available: http://www.bootstrike.com/Genetics/Home/index.html [2006, January 20]; Cambridge Center
for Behavioral Studies (1997-2006 copyright) [online], available: http://www.behavior.org/ [2006, January 22]; and
International Union of Geological Sciences (2005, March 2) [online], available: http://www.iugs.org/ [2006, January
22].
86
Roy Ellen and Katsuyoshi Fukui, eds., Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture and Domestication (Oxford:
Berg, 1996), 454.

15

The essential criterion for domestication is the maintenance by humans of a self-perpetuating
breeding population of animals isolated genetically from their wild relatives, with resulting
behavioural, and usually also phenotypic, changes in the domestic stock.87

When researchers from the natural sciences refer to domestication as the process of genetic and
behavioural alteration that a species endures when manipulated by humans in order to produce a breeding
population separate from their wild relatives to meet human needs, they place the agency of domestication
on humans. This helpful remains a vague definition of domestication that leans toward defining taming.
As complete the above definition may seem it misses perhaps the most foundational etymological feature
of domestication, namely, the influence of housing on organisms. When researchers from the social
sciences speak of domestication as the influence housing in small-towns exercises on organisms,
including humans, they place the agency of domestication on housing and small towns. John A.
Livingston directly associates domestication and housing. ―To domesticate some non-human being,
literally, is to bring it into our house.‖88
My contention is that the agency of domestication locates in the human built environment. Once
the built environment comes into being, whether actually or potentially, it influences organisms on its
own about and beyond the initial intention of the human who built or projected the building enterprise in
the first place.
Although the above traditional definitions have been helpful in the process of articulating the
awareness of the said conditionings, they can be enhanced to gain an inside regarding the human and its
relation to the larger ecological environment. The traditional notion of domestication elaborated by
researchers from the natural sciences enhances when incorporating the insight regarding the influence of
housing in small towns in order to differentiate between taming and domestication. Taming and
domestication reflect and reinforce each other. Both taming and domestication refer to conditioning:
taming via scientific, technological, and technical methods of knowledge; where domestication via the
built environment.
The notion of domestication elaborated by researchers from the social sciences also enhances
when acknowledging that the influence of domestication goes beyond housing and small-towns.
Domestication moves beyond the relation between life and house, whether inside or outside it.
Domestication refers to the condition exercised by the human built environment in the broad sense on
organisms. The built environment seen in the broad sense, includes monuments, bridges, roads, dams,
satellites, space stations, etc., where housing functions as epitome of the built environment and
architecture lies at the heart of the building enterprise. Architecture or housing here refers to the time-
spatial physical presence or expectancy of the built environment and the modification of space-time by
humans. Houses, for instance, shape earthly space and time. Houses demark geography and epoch.
My preference is to use the term ―housing‖ as a concrete way in the broad sense to refer to
shelters or the built environment in general. Architecture perhaps adequately captures this broad sense of
housing to refer to the key tenets the constructions humans build to protect themselves from the elements.
However, since architecture has evolved in many ways far from just housing, often it seems difficult to
establish connections between architecture and housing or sheltering. My frequent use of the term
―housing‖ seeks to maintain in perspective the ancient origin of architecture, which is closely related to
the building of shelters or houses.

87
Ellen and Fukui, Ibid, 454.
88
Livingston, Ibid, 15. Livingston, however, moves too quickly to a ―symbolic‖ approach from regarding
domestication in relation to the house in a ―literal‖ sense and treats domestication in terms of ideology and
dependence. He states: ―I believe that in spite of our cultural conditioning and domesticated ideological
dependence, as living beings we still have simultaneous access, if we will it, to all four states of self-consciousness:
individual, group, community, planetary. In theory at least, we all retain the capacity for wildness.‖ Ibid, 118.

16

Domestication was formally established and reflected via sedentary living conditions, patterns,
and habits. Ruth Tringham89 speaks about humans domesticating plants and animals, ―as well as how the
humans themselves become domesticated through learning to live with each other in confined spaces
(architecture).‖

The most important changes in daily life in the Neolithic don‘t really have anything to do with
‗stone‘. The Neolithic is a time when people began to settle down and construct and live in
dwellings, which would last not only throughout the year but also for many years, perhaps many
generations. This change that archaeologists call ‗sedentism‘ is an important prelude to some
other significant changes. Some of us think this is the most important change since it means the
domestication of humans.90

Tringham‘s helpful approach, however, deserves qualification. ―Sedentism‖ does not correspond to
domestication, but to settling. More distinctively, architecture denotes built or framed rather than
―confined‖ space. Resembling traditional accounts, Tringham‘s view implies two conditions for human
domestication, namely, human agency by ―learning to live with each other‖ and ―in confined spaces
(architecture).‖ But previous to the emergence of built shelters, humans settled and learned to inhabit,
with each other, confined spaces—caves—and that did not make them domesticated.
Nomadic tribes became domesticated as built shelters emerged, first temporarily (while
continuing nomadic lifestyles), then permanently (becoming sedentary). The first human centers of
population were unsettled or transitory nomadic conglomerates in the Palaeolithic. They evolved into
long-lasting settlements in the Neolithic. More distinctively than transiting from unsettled to settled
societies, in terms of domestication, humans were retrieving from natural environments to inhabit built
environments.
While domestication emerged among nomads, the condition of buildings was established firmly
among settled peoples. Nevertheless, judging by the degree of today‘s built environment, domestication
now conditions sedentary and nomadic peoples alike. The built environment stapled its indelible mark on
earth. Domestication is very recent but powerfully threatening. Greatly contributing to mass extinction
and unprecedented suffering via weaponry, pollution and global warming, the city embodies the leading
domestic intervention on society and ecology.
Human life within caves represents a pre-domesticating phase. Dwelling in caves represents the
transiting from inhabiting natural spaces into inhabiting human built and artificial constructions. Initially,
humans accommodated themselves to natural habitats, later to caves, which still significantly represent
natural habitats. But the built environment shifted human accommodation into ecological transformation.
This shift and dynamic transformational discontinuity typically characterizes and differentiates between
natural and artificial living environments. Artificial environments refer to ―modified‖ natural or wild
environments. Buildings—the architectural modification of wild environments—marks domestication.
The influence of the built environment emerged among nomads but developed and became established
among settled peoples.
The debate regarding the difference between natural or artificial splits between fixists (settled
order of things) and fuxists (do not settled order of things). Ernest Adams considers that ―all
classifications are to a degree natural and to a degree artificial.‖91 Natural or artificial depends not in the
things in themselves but in the way of conceptualizing about them. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and

89
English anthropologist Ruth Tringham (born 1940).
90
Ruth Tringham, Unit Title: Life in the Neolithic 1 - Living in Houses (N.A.) [online], available:
http://www.mactia.berkeley.edu/aop/modules/Neo1_module_web.htm [2005, December 18].
91
Ernest W. Adams, Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact
Classification and Sorting (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 279.

17

William R. Newman contend that ―the notions of nature and art are mutually constructed.‖92 They
resolve the debate as a matter of degree and argue for the inseparability of natural and artificial.

Art and nature are two inseparable partners whose movements continuously shape and reshape
the map of those cultures that have inherited the ancient yet modern distinction between techne¯
and physis.93

However partners they may be considered, and acknowledging the dynamic or fuxist
characteristic of earthly systems, which implicitly avoids a fixist posture, my contention is that natural
and artificial greatly differ on their social and ecological impact. While natural dynamics tend to address
matters of survival, artificial dynamics tend to go beyond survival and introduce and nurture
discontinuities incarnating matters of domination and predation. For instance, artificial dynamics have
degenerated into the pleasure of infringing suffering. Precisely, to accept such domination dynamics as
natural reflects an extreme predatory artificiality.
Beyond the physical dimension of the human built environment, domestication also refers to the
metaphysical influence and conditioning on organisms via the very notion and conception of the existence
and potential presence of the human built environment, e.g., destroyed architecture, projected
construction.
Hence, since humans have endured domestication and since domestication has reached humanity
as a ―whole,‖ the human species can be referred to as Homo domesticus.
When adopting the notion that domestication refers to the influence of the built environment on
organisms, the theoretical context changes. While domestication and taming differ in their means (taming
via technique, domestication via the built environment), they represent dimensions of a similar
conditioning enterprise. Taming and domestication replicate and reinforce each other. While some
techniques influence only individuals, others condition entire species. In the case of humans, the taming
conditioning effect of ideology influences individuals, groups, and the entire human species, while the
domesticating conditioning influence of the built environment has reached, directly or indirectly, the
entire human species. The theoretical context where we can arrive after the above considerations is that
modern earthly life has for some time and currently continues to evolve under the influence of
domestication.

2.3. INTRODUCTION TO HUMAN DOMESTICATION
Human domestication refers to the influence of the built environment on the human species.
Even though Livingston contends that domestication literally means ―to bring it into our house,‖94 he
refers to human domestication through ideology: the ―domesticated prosthetic devise‖.95 Wilson argues
that humans are domesticated in small towns and villages. Whether in or out of the house, in the presence
of abandoned ancient ruins, rural routes, small towns, or mega-cities, my contention is that domestication
refers to the influence the presence or expectancy of the built environment exercises on organisms, hence
we can speak of human domestication.
Domestication establishes no dualism to classify humanity. Jack Goody criticizes Claude Lévi-
Strauss96 dichotomy of savage and domesticated.97 He prefers to understand historical changes—e.g.,
92
Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and William R. Newman, eds., The Artificial and the Natural: An Evolving
Polaritys (The Massachusetts Institute Technology Press, 2007), 18.
93
Ibid, 18.
94
Livingston, Ibid, 15. Livingston, however, moves too quickly to a ―symbolic‖ approach from regarding
domestication in relation to the house in a ―literal‖ sense and treats domestication in terms of ideology and
dependence. He states: ―I believe that in spite of our cultural conditioning and domesticated ideological
dependence, as living beings we still have simultaneous access, if we will it, to all four states of self-consciousness:
individual, group, community, planetary. In theory at least, we all retain the capacity for wildness.‖ Ibid, 118.
95
Ibid, 11, 56, 57, and 58.
96
French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (born 1908).

18

from gesture to oral, from oral to writing—as critical and complex conditions rather than dichotomies.
Goody acknowledges human domestication. ―If we wish to speak of the ‗savage mind,‘ these were some
of the instruments of its domestication…‖98 Since the relation between humans and other organisms is a
vast and complex enterprise, this study refers to domestication as a metaphor, using it as a linguistic and
philosophical mechanism to theorize about humans. Humans have lived for generations under conditions
of domestication.
Norbert Sachser anticipates that mammals will grow up as individuals relating primarily to
conspecifics or individuals of the same species.99 Studying domestic and wild guinea pigs from
physiological, domestication, and social evolution perspectives led him to conclude that the study of
ontogeny and behaviour among mammals goes back beyond environment and social experiences through
birth, and to prenatal, and ancestral conditions. Sachser‘s rules for domesticated group-living mammals,
including the human race are: they succeed in reproduction; their perceived degree of welfare and stress
represent consequences of social interactions marked by natural selection through social evolutionary
processes of their wild ancestors; and their behavioural and physiological patterns were brought about
during the process of domestication.100

2.4. A HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR HUMAN DOMESTICATION
Homo is the genus that includes modern humans and their close relatives. 101 Lucy102 (the most
ancient Homo remains, found in 1974 in Tanzania) dates to about 3 megaannums (Ma) Before Present

97
English social anthropologist Sir John (Jack) Goody (born 1919) disagrees with the binarist or dualist
approach. He aptly speaks of a generalized victim condition under the inaccuracy of ―the ethnocentric binarism
enshrined in our own categories, of the crude division of world societies into primitive and advanced, European and
non-European, simple and complex. As general signposts these terms may be permissible. But to build on so
slender a base the distinct approaches to the physical universe seems scarcely justified.‖ Jack Goody, The
Domestication of the Savage Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 8.
98
Ibid, 162.
99
Norbert Sachser, ―Of Domestic and Wild Guinea Pigs: Studies in Sociophysiology, Domestication and
Social Evolution,‖ Naturwissenschaften 85, no. 7 (27 July 1998): 307-17.
100
Ibid, 307-17.
101
Unless otherwise referenced, the general introductory survey this section presents adapts materials
published in: National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI): National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2005
September), Genome.gov [online], available: http://www.genome.gov/ [2005, December 18]; Ashbya Genome
Database (AGD) (2006, January 23), Biozentrum: University of Basel, Switzerland [online], available:
http://agd.unibas.ch/ [2006, January 23]; International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) (December 2005)
[online], available: http://www.stratigraphy.org/ [2005, December 19]; International Union of Pre- and
Protohistoric Sciences (Congrès international des Sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques - CISPP) (2002,
janvier 23) [online], available: http://www.ulg.ac.be/prehist/uispp/uispp-home.html [2005, December 20]; The
Online Literature Library (2005, May 23), Literature.org [online], available: http://www.literature.org/ [2005,
December 20]; Helicon (2006 copyright), Research Machines plc [online], available: http://www.helicon.co.uk/
[2006, January 18]; International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ) (2005, November 15), National Museum of
Natural History (NMNH): Archaeobiology Program [online], available: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/icaz/
[2005, December 17]; Zooarchaeology (2004, December 06), WWW Zooarchaeology.com: The World Wide Web’s
Virtual Library for the Archaeology of Animals [online], available: http://www.zooarchaeology.com/ [2005,
December 21]; Houghton Mifflin Company (HMCo) (2006 copyright) [online], available:
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/epub/ [2006, January 23]; Dictionary of the History of Ideas (DHI) (2003
copyright), The Gale Group [The University of Virginia Library: The Electronic Text Center] [online], Available:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/DicHist/dict.html [2005, December 19]; Free Online Dictionary by Farlex (2005
copyright), Farlex Inc. [online], available: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ [2005, December 17]; Encyclopaedia
Britannica Online (2006 copyright), Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. [online], available from
http://www.britannica.com/ [2006, January 22]; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) (2006 copyright),
The Stanford University: The Metaphysics Research Lab [online], available: http://plato.stanford.edu/ [2006,
January 19]; Genetic Engineering (2002-2006 copyright), Bookstrike.com [G. Ganesh, Dennis, Nathaniel, Cai Peng]
[online], available: http://www.bootstrike.com/Genetics/Home/index.html [2006, January 20]; Cambridge Center

19

(BP).103 Evidence shows Homo habilis or ―handy man‖ (handy human) existing 2 Ma BP, using primitive
stone tools (choppers) in Tanzania.104 By 1.6 Ma BP Homo erectus appeared in Africa and migrated to
other continents, primarily to south Asia, and between 0.50 and 0.25 Ma BP Homo erectus evolved into
Homo sapiens. By 150,000 in Africa and Asia and 28,000 years ago in Europe appeared the single
surviving hominid species, the modern human.105 Humans define themselves in many ways, including
biologically, socially, and spiritually. Nonetheless humans are still biologically classified as a bipedal
primate of the superfamily of Hominoidea, including the apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas,
orangutans, and gibbons). Modern humans belong to the species Homo sapiens, which from the Latin
refers to ―wise or clever human.‖106
Archaeologists and anthropologists developed the ―Three Age System‖ to classify human
prehistory (before writing history, dated for Egypt to 3500 BCE) into periods named according to the
respective tool-making technologies.107 It divides human prehistory into Stone, Bronze, and Iron ages.108
The term Stone Age designates the vast pre-metallurgic period whose stone tools survived far more
widely than tools made from other (softer) materials. The period encompasses the first widespread use of
technology and technique in human evolution and the spread of humanity from the savannas of East
Africa to the rest of the world. It ends with the development of agriculture, the domestication of certain
animals and the smelting of copper ore to produce metal. The Stone Age was subsequently subdivided
into three periods: Palaeolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic, when human domestic settlements appeared.

2.5. CONTRASTING ETHNOGRAPHIES: SEDENTARY VIS-A-VIS NOMADIC
A comparison between sedentary and nomad societies enlightens the awareness of human
domestication. Peter J. Wilson explores domesticated sedentary ethnography in contrast to that of nomad
societies to argue for small town life as domesticated human life. For him, human domestication refers to

for Behavioral Studies (CCBS) (1997-2006 copyright) [online], available: http://www.behavior.org/ [2006, January
22]; World Archaeological Congress (WAC) (2003-4 copyright), Flinders University [online], available:
http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/wac/ [2006, July 4]; International Union of Pre- and Protohistoric Sciences [Congrès
international des Sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques (CISPP)] (2002, janvier 23), l'Université de Liègeand
[online], available: http://www.ulg.ac.be/prehist/; and International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) (2005,
March 2) [online], available: http://www.iugs.org/ [2006, January 22].
102
Cremo argues that Lucy was formed from two skeletal remains. He comments that archaeologists and
anthropologists in general know about it, and that it shows an example of how many conflictive findings have been
systematically veiled from public domain. Michael Cremo and Forbidden Archaeology Etc.,
http://www.mcremo.com/.
103
In professional literature, Ma is used to mean megaannum or million years. The abbreviation mya is
used in popular science writing and stands for ―million years ago.‖ Also, metrologists use the expression Before
Present (BP) to actually mean before 1950.
104
Homo habilis probably lived with Paranthropis robustus. While the homos are meat-eating, the
Paranthropus eats plants and termites.
105
All Homo species except Homo sapiens are extinct. The last surviving relative, Homo neanderthalensis,
died out 30,000 years ago, although recent evidence suggests that Homo floresiensis, ―Man of Flores (Flowers),‖
remarkable for its small body, small brain, and survival until relatively recent times, lived as recently as 12,000
years ago.
106
Peter Gärdenfors, How Homo Became Sapiens: On the Evolution of Thinking (Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2003).
107
John Lubbock, Pre-historic Times: As Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the Manners and Customs of
Modern Savages (London; Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1865).
108
Because of its helpful simplicity, this study uses the Three-Age System (developed by the Danish
curator of the National Museum of Denmark C.J. Thomsen, at the instigation of his predecessor Rasmus Nyerup,
and to resolve display issues), although acknowledging that archaeological discoveries suggest a more complex
prehistory. This general referential system seems increasingly inapplicable. Also, it initially applies to the ―older
world‖ (Euro-Asian-African). Other systems have been designed for the ―newer world‖ (America). Elaine Dewar,
Bones, Discovering the First Americans (Carroll & Graf Publishers, New York, 2002).

20

the influence the small town exercises on humans. To minimize the temptation of pejorative or romantic
descriptions, he interprets nomads from inside, aware of his own positioning in a tribal ethnographic
perspective.

2.5.1. Domestication as a cultural development
From a natural selection view and since society means the interplay and influence among
humans, humans are domesticated in society. Domestication is not intrinsic to humans, says Wilson, but
a major cultural innovation—i.e., an evolutionary event adopted by humans. Domestication, apparently,
did not follow agriculture; rather, ―Archeological evidence clearly indicates that agriculture was not a
prerequisite for sedentism and that human domestication occurred independently of plant and animal
domestication.‖109 Human domestication may have inspired animal and plant domestication.
Anthropologists and archaeologists show that hominids gradually shifted their living practices
from arboreal environments to permanent houses and settlements on the plains. In principle, for Wilson,
―domesticated society relies to a great extent on the house as both a dominant cultural symbol and a
central relaying point and context for social organization and activity.‖110 Technically, Wilson refers to
domesticated peoples neither as hunter/gatherers nor as modern urban dwellers, but as villagers, people
living in hamlets and small towns. Wilson argues:

All [civilizations] featured architecture at their centre…. In turn, architecture itself is founded on
the discipline and imperatives of geometry…. We are the direct heirs of Neolithic geometry and
the arts and sciences that derive from it: tonal music, perspective painting, architecture,
mechanics, ballistics, formal gardens, town planning, and theatre, to mention but a few.111

Adopting Wilson‘s analysis, since modern society is rooted in the past, including Wilson‘s
domesticated societies or present human conglomerates living in small towns, modern society relates to
domesticated society.

2.5.2. Domestication and human perception
According to Wilson, domestication alters humans‘ ability to pay attention. While appreciating
the role of instincts in human evolution and conduct, he sees human senses as foundational for emotions
and instincts. The study of proto-human primates indicates that their societies were oriented toward
dominance (the subject of competition) and subordination (the subject of hierarchy). In primates, hence
in humans, intrinsically uncertain (error-prone) visual perception (equivalent of believing and knowing to
English speakers) and attention were dominant for adaptation, survival, and well being.112
Social life is grounded in vision. Domestication influences vision, particularly human vision.
Chimpanzees master pretence, use revelation and deception, and cultivate appearance. Survival learning
and feeding-touching interactions among mammals also represent crucial mother-infant relationships
relying on constant visual attention and perception. Vision, however, presents for human society inherent
difficulties and complexity, more as a matter of interpretation (structuring, destructuring, restructuring,
inference, induction, and hypothesis) than of direct access. Vision seems highly subjected to uncertainty.
Thus, uncertain vision dominates human perception. Domestication further distorts already uncertain
human perception.

109
Wilson, The Domestication of the Human Species, Ibid, 59.
110
Ibid, 4.
111
Ibid, 152.
112
Chance refers to four kinds of attention relations: Hedonic, relying on rewards and approval in return for
display; Agnostic, binding with threats; Centric, surrounding by others and being the focus of their attention;
Acentric, dividing attention between the self and the objects of the environment. Michael R. A. Chance and Ray R.
Larsen, eds., The Social Structure of Attention (London; New York: Wiley, 1976).

21

HOMO DOMESTICUS: Theory

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to HOMO DOMESTICUS: Theory

Similar to HOMO DOMESTICUS: Theory (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

HOMO DOMESTICUS: Theory