On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Gordon Fitch wrote:
> Suppose we confine ourselves to science, and rigorously
> avoid lit- and cult-crit, while admitting those portions of
> psychology, sociology and anthropology which seem firmly
> grounded in material evidence. What can we prove, scientifically
> speaking, about the degree to which humans are necessarily
> social animals, and the degree to which they are individuals,
> as dictated by their _material_ characteristics? How nonsocial
> can human beings be, and still live (as a species)? Could
> they live like those animals which meet only to breed? What
> happens to humans who don't grow up in world containing
> language? Have any anthro or socio folks gone into this issue?
>
First of all, there's no such thing as "scientific proof". Data consistent with a hypothesis never prove that a hypothesis is correct (fallacy of affirming the consequent); rather, data can accumulate to increase or decrease our confidence in a scientific hypothesis/theory.
That said, I think the balance of the social research supports Aristotle's claim that we are "social animals" in a broad sense. In all known societies, there is some form of the family unit, and social isolation is a common form of punishment or stigma (e.g., solitary confinement in our society, marginalization of nonconformists in many nonindustrial societies).
Moreover, consider the case of isolated/solitary children. They often demonstrate social, cognitive and emotional deficits--it's not just that they don't know how to use a spoon or speak a language! Human development seems to require social interaction.
I don't like evolutionary explanations for a lot of psychological characteristics, but it is plausible here: safety in numbers means that natural selection would tend to favor reproduction of humans who liked to be around others.
Miles