What do you think?
Rate this book
Robert Ardrey's Nature of Man #3
Social Contract
“Violation of biological command has been the failure of social man. Vertebrates though we may be, we have ignored the law of equal opportunity since civilization’s earliest hours. Sexually reproducing beings though we are, we pretend today that the law of inequality does not exist. And enlightened though we may be, while we pursue the unattainable we make impossible the realizable.”In his two previous books, Robert Ardrey exploded a series of philosophical landmines. African Genesis (1961) fundamentally altered the understanding of man's relationship to his evolutionary forebears. The Territorial Imperative (1966) so saturated the cultural imagination that its title is in everyday use. The third in this series, The Social Contract denies that men are created equal, but insists they deserve absolute equality of opportunity.Since the publication of Rousseau’s Social Contract two centuries ago, men have wasted social resources, converted education into brain-washing, and ignored the primacy of natural law in pursuit of a goal of equality that is neither desirable nor possible. Discarding the myth, Ardrey combined his wealth of knowledge of animal ways with cutting edge biology to probe the perplexing problems of his the revolt of the young, the status struggle and the role of leadership, population control, urban overcrowding, violence in civilized life.
Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
23 people are currently reading
554 people want to read
About the author
Robert Ardrey
76 books40 followersRobert Ardrey was born in the South Side of Chicago in 1908. He attended the University of Chicago to study biology, but became the writing protegé of Thornton Wilder. He graduated in the midst of the Great Depression and supported himself with odd jobs while he wrote under Wilder's watchful eye. His first play, Star Spangled, opened on Broadway in 1935.
He continued to have plays produced on Broadway. His most famous, Thunder Rock, became a sensation in wartime London, and is now regarded as an international classic. Ardrey's plays caught the attention of MGM executive Samuel Goldwyn; in 1938 Ardrey moved to Hollywood, where he would become MGM's highest paid writer. He is credited with over a dozen films, including The Three Musketeers (1948, with Gene Kelly), The Wonderful Country (1959, with Robert Mitchum), and Khartoum (1966, directed by Basil Dearden, starring Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier) for which he was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Screenplay.
In the 1950s, increasingly disenchanted with Hollywood, Ardrey travelled to Africa to write a series of articles. This trip renewed his interest in human origins, and he returned to his academic training in the sciences. In 1956 he moved with his wife and two sons to Geneva, and spent the next five years travelling and researching in Eastern and Southern Africa, conducting research for what would become his first scientific work, African Genesis (1961).
African Genesis and Ardrey's subsequent books were massively popular and deeply controversial. They overturned core assumptions of the social sciences and led to a revolution in thinking about human nature. Fundamentally Ardrey argued that human behavior was not entirely socially determined, rather evolutionarily inherited instincts help determine behavior and format large-scale social phenomena. Subsequent science has largely vindicated his hypotheses.
Robert Ardrey is the winner of a Guggenheim Fellowship and the inaugural Sidney Howard Memorial Award, is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, and received an Academy Award Nomination for best screenplay for his film Khartoum. Time magazine named African Genesis the most notable book of the 1960s.
For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_...
He continued to have plays produced on Broadway. His most famous, Thunder Rock, became a sensation in wartime London, and is now regarded as an international classic. Ardrey's plays caught the attention of MGM executive Samuel Goldwyn; in 1938 Ardrey moved to Hollywood, where he would become MGM's highest paid writer. He is credited with over a dozen films, including The Three Musketeers (1948, with Gene Kelly), The Wonderful Country (1959, with Robert Mitchum), and Khartoum (1966, directed by Basil Dearden, starring Charlton Heston and Laurence Olivier) for which he was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Screenplay.
In the 1950s, increasingly disenchanted with Hollywood, Ardrey travelled to Africa to write a series of articles. This trip renewed his interest in human origins, and he returned to his academic training in the sciences. In 1956 he moved with his wife and two sons to Geneva, and spent the next five years travelling and researching in Eastern and Southern Africa, conducting research for what would become his first scientific work, African Genesis (1961).
African Genesis and Ardrey's subsequent books were massively popular and deeply controversial. They overturned core assumptions of the social sciences and led to a revolution in thinking about human nature. Fundamentally Ardrey argued that human behavior was not entirely socially determined, rather evolutionarily inherited instincts help determine behavior and format large-scale social phenomena. Subsequent science has largely vindicated his hypotheses.
Robert Ardrey is the winner of a Guggenheim Fellowship and the inaugural Sidney Howard Memorial Award, is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, and received an Academy Award Nomination for best screenplay for his film Khartoum. Time magazine named African Genesis the most notable book of the 1960s.
For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
September 2, 2015
Marvellous, extraordinary. A defining work.The three books should be read in sequence, African Genesis: A Personal Investigation into the Animal Origins and Nature of Man, The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry Into the Animals Origins of Property and Nations, and this, The Social Contract. I read African Genesis years ago so it's not as fresh in my mind as The Territorial Imperative which I read recently. The Social Contract continues on from The Territorial Imperative. These three books should never be out of print. Government administrations should read them, especially The Territorial Imperative and The Social Contract.
Every chapter is amazing.
1. Tuskless in Paradise
2. The Accident of the Night
3. Order and Disorder
4. The Alpha Fish
5. Time and the Young Baboon
6. Death by Stress
7. Space and the Citizen
8. The Violent Way
9. The Lions of Gorongosa
10. The Risen Ape
Reading this book in 2015 it is SO relevant to today, it gives the structural explanations that makes sense of the reason for the never ending conflict and trouble in the world. The three stand-out chapters are 4. The Alpha Fish, 8. The Violent Way, and 10. The Risen Ape. The Violent Way explains the difference between 'violence' and 'aggression'.
The Risen Ape is a blow-out. "Homo sapiens still remains the halfway house between the ape and the human being." Here's another beauty, "What we lack is an evolutionary philosophy . . . . . And if we are a people lacking a philosophy, this must be the reason why. As our knowledge grows, so does our understanding diminish. We may have those among us who have mastered knowledge of the double helix. We have among us few who have arrived at an evolutionary understanding of man's dual nature."
And another, "As peace catches up with war, so affluence catches up with want. And we find hatreds multiplied, inequalities laid more bare. We are a species lacking a religion. We are members of societies lacking common bodies of assumption."
Near the end of the book the author states "With every generation born, we must begin anew." This rings true with what I came to realise when reading The Territorial Imperative and The Social Contract, of why mankind keeps repeating a history of violent conflict. The twenty first century is shaping up to be a replay of the conflict and war of the twentieth century. History is not a lived experience, it is theoretical. Life is a new experience for each new individual.
Every chapter is amazing.
1. Tuskless in Paradise
2. The Accident of the Night
3. Order and Disorder
4. The Alpha Fish
5. Time and the Young Baboon
6. Death by Stress
7. Space and the Citizen
8. The Violent Way
9. The Lions of Gorongosa
10. The Risen Ape
Reading this book in 2015 it is SO relevant to today, it gives the structural explanations that makes sense of the reason for the never ending conflict and trouble in the world. The three stand-out chapters are 4. The Alpha Fish, 8. The Violent Way, and 10. The Risen Ape. The Violent Way explains the difference between 'violence' and 'aggression'.
The Risen Ape is a blow-out. "Homo sapiens still remains the halfway house between the ape and the human being." Here's another beauty, "What we lack is an evolutionary philosophy . . . . . And if we are a people lacking a philosophy, this must be the reason why. As our knowledge grows, so does our understanding diminish. We may have those among us who have mastered knowledge of the double helix. We have among us few who have arrived at an evolutionary understanding of man's dual nature."
And another, "As peace catches up with war, so affluence catches up with want. And we find hatreds multiplied, inequalities laid more bare. We are a species lacking a religion. We are members of societies lacking common bodies of assumption."
Near the end of the book the author states "With every generation born, we must begin anew." This rings true with what I came to realise when reading The Territorial Imperative and The Social Contract, of why mankind keeps repeating a history of violent conflict. The twenty first century is shaping up to be a replay of the conflict and war of the twentieth century. History is not a lived experience, it is theoretical. Life is a new experience for each new individual.
April 12, 2016
Absolutely brilliant. It took me a long time to read because of the unrelenting flow of concepts, building on his previous books in the genre, and ending with a climax all of its own. Once again, I had to pause to appreciate the joy of Ardrey's prose. He is a master of the English language, and gifted with a depth of understanding of the fundamental human condition that leaves one quite breathless. Anyone who chooses to ignore this magnificent work will be immeasurably poorer for it.
October 30, 2009
The 3rd in Ardrey's series, The Social Contract extrapolates on the points of the previous two books - that of humanity and of our territorial imperative - in order to derive a social order more in line with our true nature, with a sly wink at Rousseau's more pollyannish work of the same title.
January 17, 2015
Wonderfully engrossing and instructive, and how relevant today, je suis Charlie. African Genesis has it all, really, but this is another read that I wish featured somewhere in our school curricula; whether under science, philosophy, history or literature; who cares, and who cares if all the science is bang up to date or if one disagrees with any of it; it should be there.
November 15, 2011
I really liked all of Ardrey's books. How great they were as science is(and was) debatable but they were certainly entertaining and stimulating. Date read is approximate.
April 21, 2018
The Social Contract has been sitting on our shelf for years; when Josh's grandfather died, we inherited it. Neither of us has read it before.
This is not my area (biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, ethnology); I had one anthro and one socio class each as an undergrad, and I last studied biology in the 11th grade which was, uh, a very long time ago. LOL I'm just not well-versed enough in the subject matter to make real judgments about this book. I did look up Ardrey on Wikipedia, and apparently many of his theories are now accepted; this book, however, is his most controversial as one of its theses is that man is not created equal.
On the surface, I completely agree with Ardrey. I've been teaching college for twenty years now. Seeing that this person is brilliant while this one is dim isn't difficult. Beauty, intelligence, charisma, athletic ability, etc.--all these qualities vary from individual to individual.
But he seems to be arguing for a different kind of inequality that falls uncomfortably down racial and sexual lines. I have to admit that I did not read this book with the sort of attention I might if I thought I'd have to write an essay exam on it although I took perhaps a ridiculous number of notes even so. I freely admit that I don't know enough to figure out where Ardrey is making sound points and where he's jumping the rails. Some parts of it are egregious enough for me to notice; other parts seem perfectly sensible.
Ardrey argues that people are just animals and as such are subject to the same biological imperatives we see play out in the natural world; he thinks that natural, immutable laws which govern our behavior exist. He asserts that humans have no trait unique to us that makes us special in the animal world. One example (among numerous) he uses is elephant recognition of and mourning of death.
In the beginning of the book, he writes that we cannot master nature and that space exploration is just another example of hubris. He sounds very Victorian in a way--modern life is meaningless and anxiety-laden, and science has taken the place of God in our social structure. In fact, he's deeply skeptical about science while also fervently believing in it; basically, he and a handful of people are Doing Science Right, but most psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists are Doing Science Wrong by buying into the idea that all men are created equal. Ardrey says that these disciplines deny the importance of evolutionary biology; fields like evolutionary psychology are new at the time he's writing, but Ardrey seems pretty well on board, and I wouldn't be surprised if this text is now considered to be foundational.
Ardrey argues that poverty, crime and other social ills are the result of us being bored; I find the main thrust of this argument fairly convincing although it's not nuanced enough and doesn't take into account issues like discrimination, the legacy of slavery, the impact of poverty itself on these other activities. He argues that our primary motivation, our primal human drive, is to move to a superior social position if we can. He argues, again convincingly, that the limits of space control an animal species population (and animals control population through suicide, infanticide, contraceptive measures, violence, etc) which means that for Ardrey, those limits also control human populations. He thinks that contraception, abortion, and strict regulations on procreation are measures that humans are going to have to adopt at some point.
One area where Ardrey and I are in complete agreement is when he makes fun of the inaccessibility of academic writing. Why should a scientist write in such a way that her findings are completely inaccessible to the layperson? I will say this for Ardrey: his writing is clear and easy to understand and when I fail to adequately evaluate the merits of his argument, it's because I lack sufficient context and not because I don't get what he's saying. He also writes with a fair amount of humor (even if I don't always find the joke amusing).
His discussion of race disturbs me. He talks about races as if they are different subspecies of human. He argues (using studies that had recently been conducted at the time that show African Americans performing worse than white Americans on standardized tests in public schools) that African Americans are less intelligent than whites because they've been transplanted from their native environment to which they had adapted to excel. Even though he uses the language of animals to describe all humans in this book, considering the history of dehumanizing black people by describing them in animal terms, when Ardrey uses animal terms to talk about African Americans, it's really jarring to me.
His discussion of gender is also disturbing to me. He attributes the lack of women with political power during his time to some sort of biological imperative that makes men leaders (alpha male) and women followers. He's constantly making little digs at women that I don't think he even realizes are digs ("to be so privileged as to point to a man [an alpha male] with pride and say 'That is my husband'").
This was published in the 70s, and Ardrey is clearly very anxious about racial unrest, war, the environmental degradation of the planet, and expanding gender roles. He ends the book on a very gloomy note which predicts that nature will course correct us, not with extinction, but with us dramatically reducing our numbers through violence or spontaneous death from anxiety (which apparently occurs rather a lot in the natural world).
This is not my area (biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, ethnology); I had one anthro and one socio class each as an undergrad, and I last studied biology in the 11th grade which was, uh, a very long time ago. LOL I'm just not well-versed enough in the subject matter to make real judgments about this book. I did look up Ardrey on Wikipedia, and apparently many of his theories are now accepted; this book, however, is his most controversial as one of its theses is that man is not created equal.
On the surface, I completely agree with Ardrey. I've been teaching college for twenty years now. Seeing that this person is brilliant while this one is dim isn't difficult. Beauty, intelligence, charisma, athletic ability, etc.--all these qualities vary from individual to individual.
But he seems to be arguing for a different kind of inequality that falls uncomfortably down racial and sexual lines. I have to admit that I did not read this book with the sort of attention I might if I thought I'd have to write an essay exam on it although I took perhaps a ridiculous number of notes even so. I freely admit that I don't know enough to figure out where Ardrey is making sound points and where he's jumping the rails. Some parts of it are egregious enough for me to notice; other parts seem perfectly sensible.
Ardrey argues that people are just animals and as such are subject to the same biological imperatives we see play out in the natural world; he thinks that natural, immutable laws which govern our behavior exist. He asserts that humans have no trait unique to us that makes us special in the animal world. One example (among numerous) he uses is elephant recognition of and mourning of death.
In the beginning of the book, he writes that we cannot master nature and that space exploration is just another example of hubris. He sounds very Victorian in a way--modern life is meaningless and anxiety-laden, and science has taken the place of God in our social structure. In fact, he's deeply skeptical about science while also fervently believing in it; basically, he and a handful of people are Doing Science Right, but most psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists are Doing Science Wrong by buying into the idea that all men are created equal. Ardrey says that these disciplines deny the importance of evolutionary biology; fields like evolutionary psychology are new at the time he's writing, but Ardrey seems pretty well on board, and I wouldn't be surprised if this text is now considered to be foundational.
Ardrey argues that poverty, crime and other social ills are the result of us being bored; I find the main thrust of this argument fairly convincing although it's not nuanced enough and doesn't take into account issues like discrimination, the legacy of slavery, the impact of poverty itself on these other activities. He argues that our primary motivation, our primal human drive, is to move to a superior social position if we can. He argues, again convincingly, that the limits of space control an animal species population (and animals control population through suicide, infanticide, contraceptive measures, violence, etc) which means that for Ardrey, those limits also control human populations. He thinks that contraception, abortion, and strict regulations on procreation are measures that humans are going to have to adopt at some point.
One area where Ardrey and I are in complete agreement is when he makes fun of the inaccessibility of academic writing. Why should a scientist write in such a way that her findings are completely inaccessible to the layperson? I will say this for Ardrey: his writing is clear and easy to understand and when I fail to adequately evaluate the merits of his argument, it's because I lack sufficient context and not because I don't get what he's saying. He also writes with a fair amount of humor (even if I don't always find the joke amusing).
His discussion of race disturbs me. He talks about races as if they are different subspecies of human. He argues (using studies that had recently been conducted at the time that show African Americans performing worse than white Americans on standardized tests in public schools) that African Americans are less intelligent than whites because they've been transplanted from their native environment to which they had adapted to excel. Even though he uses the language of animals to describe all humans in this book, considering the history of dehumanizing black people by describing them in animal terms, when Ardrey uses animal terms to talk about African Americans, it's really jarring to me.
His discussion of gender is also disturbing to me. He attributes the lack of women with political power during his time to some sort of biological imperative that makes men leaders (alpha male) and women followers. He's constantly making little digs at women that I don't think he even realizes are digs ("to be so privileged as to point to a man [an alpha male] with pride and say 'That is my husband'").
This was published in the 70s, and Ardrey is clearly very anxious about racial unrest, war, the environmental degradation of the planet, and expanding gender roles. He ends the book on a very gloomy note which predicts that nature will course correct us, not with extinction, but with us dramatically reducing our numbers through violence or spontaneous death from anxiety (which apparently occurs rather a lot in the natural world).
March 28, 2020
"A society is a group of unequal beings organized to meet common needs. In any sexually reproducing species, equality of individuals is a natural impossibility. Inequality must therefore be regarded as the first law of social materials, whether in human or other societies. Equality of opportunity must be regarded among vertebrate species as the second law. Insect societies may include genetically determined castes, but among backboned creatures this cannot be. Every vertebrae born, excepting only in a few rare species, is granted equal opportunity to display his genius or to make a fool out of himself."
This is how the book opens. Ardrey has an articulate style of writing (you don't need to know sciences), and he takes the reader to a journey in the exciting world of animals, biology, evolution, anthropology, and philosophy. Sarcastically he named his book exactly as Rousseau's seminal work, precisely because he has an issue with how Rousseau's idea of equality took a root in the modern world, despite the 200 years of findings in sciences (though this is not the whole focus of the book). He dives into a range of topics, from how alphas and omegas exist in all societies (and that Adler was right power plays a major role, while Freud wasn't with his sexual focus on life) to the innate needs of humans (identity, stimulation and security, from high to low).
Though I haven't read the first two books of his trilogy, I found this book not only independently readable but also full of interesting ideas and perspectives. Written in 1970s, many of the unsettled scientific facts of the time are cleared in the last 50 years (and many in the direction of what Ardley suggested/hypothesized, though of course not all, but overall premise remains.) Also with his time of blunt writing style (and as the opening paragraph above clearly indicates), the book wouldn't fit the politically correct minded folks of our time.
I'd give it at least 4.5 stars, very enjoyable and fulfilling read.
This is how the book opens. Ardrey has an articulate style of writing (you don't need to know sciences), and he takes the reader to a journey in the exciting world of animals, biology, evolution, anthropology, and philosophy. Sarcastically he named his book exactly as Rousseau's seminal work, precisely because he has an issue with how Rousseau's idea of equality took a root in the modern world, despite the 200 years of findings in sciences (though this is not the whole focus of the book). He dives into a range of topics, from how alphas and omegas exist in all societies (and that Adler was right power plays a major role, while Freud wasn't with his sexual focus on life) to the innate needs of humans (identity, stimulation and security, from high to low).
Though I haven't read the first two books of his trilogy, I found this book not only independently readable but also full of interesting ideas and perspectives. Written in 1970s, many of the unsettled scientific facts of the time are cleared in the last 50 years (and many in the direction of what Ardley suggested/hypothesized, though of course not all, but overall premise remains.) Also with his time of blunt writing style (and as the opening paragraph above clearly indicates), the book wouldn't fit the politically correct minded folks of our time.
I'd give it at least 4.5 stars, very enjoyable and fulfilling read.
January 27, 2011
Ballin'
September 1, 2021
One of the best books I've ever read. Mindblowing.
July 25, 2025
A guy at work gave me this because I was reading The Social Contract by Rousseau.
Rob is an incredible writer & I’d agree with the main idea of the book, that humans are inherently unequal in any given environment and so any society should ensure equality of opportunity. HOWEVER rob often misses the mark as to why humans are unequal and what it means for society. Rob seems to think we are wholly subservient to our “human nature”. He downplays the undeniably MASSIVE role society, culture, class, gender roles (basically everything save for genetics) plays in a humans development & outcomes.
This was an interesting read that was ahead of its time in some aspects. Despite being written in the 70s the arguments made regarding competition in populations, carrying capacity, & more are taught in introductory evolutionary biology classes today! However it’s clearly dated now. If you’re interested in the field check out the “Human Behavioral Biology” lectures on the Stanford YouTube page. You’ll get a far more informative lecturer without unfounded claims about race, “revolt of the youth”, the necessity of mandatory birth control, etc.
Rob is an incredible writer & I’d agree with the main idea of the book, that humans are inherently unequal in any given environment and so any society should ensure equality of opportunity. HOWEVER rob often misses the mark as to why humans are unequal and what it means for society. Rob seems to think we are wholly subservient to our “human nature”. He downplays the undeniably MASSIVE role society, culture, class, gender roles (basically everything save for genetics) plays in a humans development & outcomes.
This was an interesting read that was ahead of its time in some aspects. Despite being written in the 70s the arguments made regarding competition in populations, carrying capacity, & more are taught in introductory evolutionary biology classes today! However it’s clearly dated now. If you’re interested in the field check out the “Human Behavioral Biology” lectures on the Stanford YouTube page. You’ll get a far more informative lecturer without unfounded claims about race, “revolt of the youth”, the necessity of mandatory birth control, etc.
March 26, 2023
Great book, I found exactly what I was looking for in this book
April 21, 2010
Outdated and unpopular ideas on the biological and cultural evolution of man written by the man who originated the "Killer Ape" theory. Interesting, but it becomes quickly apparent as to why the theory never caught on. The guys a hack. Don't waste your time with this one.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews