Politics must contend with human nature, not fight it
A veteran science writer argues evolution shapes political institutions and policy outcomes, with implications for Western culture wars
A new book by veteran science writer Nicholas Wade argues that political success hinges on working with the grain of human nature rather than fighting it. The Origin of Politics: How Evolution and Ideology Shape the Fate of Nations contends that societies thrive when policy design aligns with enduring human instincts rather than trying to overturn them.
Wade identifies that human beings share universal emotions and patterns across cultures, from basic feelings to social rituals and religious beliefs. He says evolution has embedded four features of social life in the human genome: the family, the sexual division of labor, a tendency to build social institutions, and tribalism. He cites evidence that facial expressions of happiness, sadness, fear, surprise, disgust and contempt are widely similar, even among recently contacted foragers. He also notes that genetics accounts for much variation in personality, with identical twins raised apart often more alike than unrelated siblings raised in the same home. In short, human nature is both universal and individual, shaping politics as much as the institutions that govern it.
He discusses the kibbutzim in postwar Israel as a test case of working against human nature. The experiments tried to separate family life from work and to share resources evenly, but they faltered until such policies were abandoned. The story is used to illustrate a larger point: successful social arrangements require recognizing and adapting to long-standing human motivations. The discussion includes a cultural reference to a well-known line from a film about rising above nature, used to symbolize the tension between ideals and biology.
On gender and policy, Wade argues that men are often more willing to devote themselves to demanding careers, form powerful coalitions and take risks, yet those same tendencies can enable oppression if unchecked. He contrasts Western patterns with studies from some Muslim-majority countries where women make up a sizable share of STEM degrees, while in many Western nations a smaller portion of STEM degrees goes to women. He notes that in several countries, cultural expectations govern choices more than biological capacity. He observes that powerful men have historically pursued multiple sexual partnerships, while societies have increasingly sought to curb such behavior through legal and cultural institutions.
Wade analyzes tribalism as a persistent force that both sustains and destabilizes societies. He argues that much of history has involved taming or redirecting tribal loyalties to support trade, governance and the rule of law. He points to the historical role of the family and kinship in state formation, noting that stamping out cousin marriage was a strategy used by religious and political leaders to forge larger political units. Wade describes the nation-state as a modern invention—built on natural instincts but sustained by cultural institutions and administrative systems that draw on older forms of sociality.
Another central claim concerns inequality through the lens of genetic variation. In a merit-based system that expands opportunity, the differences in outcomes can become more pronounced because success tracks with heritable traits. He cautions that meritocracy can unintentionally magnify the effects of the genetic lottery, a consideration with implications for policy debates in the United States and other democracies.
The book also engages with the work of science popularizers such as Matt Ridley, whose writing emphasizes how evolutionary perspectives intersect with economics, culture and public policy. Wade thus places a broader argument about biology and ideology at the center of discussions about how to design institutions that promote prosperity while acknowledging basic human tendencies. The discussion is timely for US politics, where debates over family policy, gender, immigration and social welfare frequently hinge on assumptions about human nature and its malleability.
In sum, Wade argues that the strength of a political order rests on how well its institutions fit human nature. The nation-state is a modern construct that blends ancient social instincts with contemporary governance, and policies that ignore those instincts risk undercutting the social order they seek to improve. For contemporary US politics, that means recognizing how enduring human patterns—family, labor division, tribal loyalty and desire for status—shape policy outcomes from family leave to immigration, tax policy and social welfare. The takeaway, Wade suggests, is not to deny biology but to channel it toward shared goals that uplift society.
The author’s argument is that the path to durable governance in the United States—and in other democracies—will depend less on erasing human nature and more on designing institutions that acknowledge persistent, cross-cultural features of human behavior while pursuing equality and opportunity. The analysis invites policymakers to consider how lasting instincts interact with modern policy tools, reducing the risk that abstract ideals dissolve into social discord. In an era of polarized rhetoric, Wade’s perspective offers a framework for crafting laws and institutions that function not in spite of human nature, but with it.