Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions) [Paperback]

A fascinating book, but I couldn't give it an overwhelmingly positive review.

The following very valid points can be drawn from this largish survey of animal sexuality:
1. Sex (and sexual activity) feels good. Obviously for animals, as well as humans.
2. Animals can get very horny.
3. The "coy female" may just be a myth.
4. Animal sexual targets do not *necessarily* have to be fertile - or the opposite gender, or adult, or willing, or the same species, or even alive.
5. Sexual behaviour is inextricably, and complexly, linked with aggressive and social behaviour.
6. Many ethologists and biologists can be surprisingly squeamish at what they will acknowlege as being sexual behaviour.

That said, and in an obvious attempt to remedy problem 6., Bagemihl goes rather overboard in the opposite direction. It seems as if every behaviour which involves touching or which echoes courtship behaviour is described on a purely sexual level, regardless of what other functions it may have for aggression or social recognition. Sexual interpretations are also placed on every activity which results in genital arousal, such as hyena greeting ceremonies and fights over status, or bucks stropping antlers against vegetation; the question for any serious work needs to be, are these actually sexual activities, or is arousal just arousal in a far more general sense? Additionally, in the large portion of the book taken up by descriptions of the sexual behaviour observed in various species, B. classifies some _purely_ aggressive behaviours such as inter-gender attacks, infanticide and cannibalism under "alternative heterosexualities" - if there is a rationale for this, I missed seeing it.

An additional problem is that any even casual reader will be struck by just how anthropomorphic the author's language and apparent viewpoint is. Animals touching nozes or muzzles aren't touching muzzles, they are "kissing"; the split of a mated pair isn't simply the split of a mated pair, it is a "divorce." (I thought that was a legal status? When did wild animals start getting married?)

The book encompasses some 300 species - which is a reasonably large number, but is also far less than 1% of the bird and animal species out there. While it is justifiable to expect that surveys of more species would turn up more examples of "alternative" sexualities, it is truly impossible to judge just what the real proportion is of species that might try various behaviours. There is an inevitable sneaking suspicion that the author has included every species which has ever been recorded trying various "abnormal" sexual behaviours, simply leaving out all the species which have not ever been observed to do so. After all, the point that he is legitimately trying to make is that sexual behaviour can be more chaotic than is widely acknowleged.

The first part of the book is a very good critique of some of the prejudices apparent in scientific description of animal behaviours. It reinforces the point that personal and cultural beliefs inevitably colour interpretation of observed events, even for the most "objective" observers. For this perspective alone the book may be worth buying. The problem lies, however, in that he does not appear to apply this lesson to his own interpretations of behaviour. So, I would read this book as a balance and to add perspective to other readings in ethology, but I would not use it as a primary or definitive source.

At least the first part of the book is very well referenced (the species descriptions somewhat less so), so if you are sufficiently motivated and have access to the resources, you can look up the original papers for yourself.

As to what relevance these behaviours might have for observed human behaviour - wisely, the author doesn't belabor the point too much, at least overtly. After all, humans are far more than simple bundles of instinct, and our big brains and the complexity of our interactions means that culture, personality and personal histories influence us at least as much as simple biology. The point is rightly made that not all "unnatural" behaviours are things never seen in nature, without attempting to place a moral interpretation on them or justify them on the grounds of being adaptive. In fact, Bagemihl levels some very relevant criticisms at the tendency to try to classify everything observed as "adaptive" - kudos to him for that, it is an issue not brought up enough in biology. But again, he later muddies the waters by using heavily anthropomorphised descriptions of the animals.

"Exuberant" best describes the writing, as well. The book is a surprisingly fast read.

Bruce Bagemihl's "Biological Exuberance" is something of an underground classic. The book meticulously documents the existence of homosexual behaviour among animals. It turns out to be more common and more normal than many care to admit or want to imagine.

A typical misconception is that homosexual behaviour is limited to mammals held in captivity. Another is that animals simply cannot be homosexual, since the purpose of animal life is to procreate. This misconception exists even if we interpret "purpose" in a purely figurative way. Why would natural selection select for homosexuality?

Those willing to explode their preconceptions will definitely find this book shocking, thrilling and even humorous. Brace yourselves for lesbian ravens, gay magpies, aggressive homosexual couples of black swans which adopt and raise chicks, homosexual trios among gulls and bisexual trios among geese! Mammals aren't much better, it seems. Some deer are transgendered, male bighorn sheep live in what one biologist called "homosexual societies", and then there's the bonobo, our evolutionary cousins which many sociobiologists desperately want to blank out since they have the gall to be peaceful, matriarchal, bisexual vegans - quite unlike the common chimp, which can be counted on to act in true evo-psych fashion. And then, maybe not entirely, since common chimps apparently also "do it". Well, at least they still are aggressive hunters!

In a homophobic society, all this is hard to stomach, and Bagemihl devotes several chapters to a historical overview of how scientists have attempted to explain away homosexual behaviour among animals. Calling it aggression, play or aberration are common strategies. Homosexual couples have been called "pseudocouples". And yes, scientists have wondered which animal "plays the female". None of this is terribly surprising to those of us who browsed through the sociobiological literature with its blatant androcentrism, obviously connected to modern, Western patriarchy. If "Mother Nature is a sexist", then of course homosexual behaviour must be an aberration.

Still, there is also a serious scientific issue involved. If natural selection is the central mechanism of evolution, how can homosexual behaviour be selected for? This is a problem even if we assume that the animals in question are "really" bisexual, since homosexual behaviour is time-consuming, time that could be used for heterosexual pursuits instead (or foraging). The problem is even graver for those who believe that all human behaviour is adaptive, since homosexuality among humans exists in a "pure" form. Some gays, after all, don't breed.

The standard Neo-Darwinist response to animal homosexuality, once it was recognized as a real phenomenon, is to find some useful function for it which enhances *heterosexual* reproductive success. Wilson's infamous but daring proposal that homosexuals may have been "helpers at the nest" is a case in point. Begemihl believes it's heterosexist to ask in what way homosexuality is useful to heterosexuality, but nevertheless argues at length against the common explanations of animal homosexuality. In this context, he also points out that there is a wide variety of non-reproductive and alternative heterosexualities among animals. Many animals don't breed at all, nonbreeding is often non-coerced, and such animals may live longer than breeders. This raises the question in what sense it's adaptive for an individual not to breed? The genes for nonbreeding seem to perpetuate themselves generation after generation, as does homosexuality (among some animals, even pure homosexuality exists).

Unfortunately, at this point Bagemihl essentially gives up any attempt at a scientific explanation, instead devoting an entire chapter to a vaguely spiritual and new agey wordview based on "the wisdom of indigenous peoples". This part of the book sounds more Woodstock than Darwin, and feels completely out of place in an otherwise heavily referenced scientific work. The author's favourite philosopher seems to be George Bataille. The idea of "biological exuberance" seems to be a hippie call to let go of all dogmas and gently flow down the stream of Mysterious Life. Well, at least he's honest.

The rest of us would like a Neo-Darwinist or at least evolutionary explanation to the existence of homosexuality and non-reproductive heterosexuality. Group selection? Bisexual superiority? Is evolution more random than expected? Why should all behaviours be "adaptive", anyway?

Finally, I noticed a few sloppy errors and false starts in this book. Bagemihl uses the naked mole-rat as an example of a species where most individuals don't breed. In this particular case, however, the non-breeding has a logical explanation: mole-rats have the same social structure as social insects, with one "queen" controlling a colony of sterile "workers". At another point, Bagemihl mentions that snow geese and other birds sometimes take care of eggs laid close to their nest by another individual. This admittedly curious behaviour might be an example of brood parasitism, rather than co-operative breeding. (See N.B. Davies' excellent study "Cuckoos, cowbirds and other cheats".) It's also unclear why Bagemihl puts so much emphasis on the competition between males and females within certain species, since this can be explained from a Neo-Darwinist perspective, or even a narrowly sociobiological one.

Despite shortcomings of this kind, "Biological Exuberance" is nevertheless a must read for everyone interested in animals, homosexuality and the uses and misuses of ideology in science.

The author easily demolishes the old orthodoxy that homosexuality occurs only in humans, but goes much further than that. He also demonstrates that sexuality in many species is a rich, varied, many-stranded celebration with no procreative objective at all - animals just do it 'cuz it's fun! It is this post-Darwinian theory of excess energy, the "exuberance" of Nature expressed in the endless variety of animal sexuality which is Bagemihl's real theme. The book is cleverly organised so that the reader can navigate around the text, garnering as much (or as little) scientific detail as he/she wishes to have to buttress the author's theories. (I became particularly intrigued by the prevalence of male giraffe homosexuality - i always knew those long necks and eyelashes were very camp, but ...) The most fascinating and exciting science book this non-scientist has read in years.