The Cultural Politics of the Sociobiology Debate

The sociobiology debate, in the final quarterof the twentieth century, featured many of thesame issues disputed in the culture war in thehumanities during this same time period. This isevident from a study of the writings of EdwardO. Wilson, the best known of thesociobiologists, and from an examination ofboth the minutes of the meetings of theSociobiology Study Group (SSG) and the writingsof Stephen Jay Gould, the SSG's most prominentmember. Many critics of sociobiology,frequently radical scientists who were attachedto the lineage of the New Left, argued for thesame multicultural values promoted by radicalhumanities professors in this period.Conversely, liberal sociobiologists defendedthe universalist values of the liberals in the humanities.Those scholars whose work was important beforethe cultural revolution in the 1960s wereusually committed to a liberal universalismthat emphasized the similarity between people.Younger scholars, who took faculty positions inthe 1970s and after, were more likely to owe anallegiance to an ethnos-centered social visionthat valued identity politics. The strugglebetween these two agendas, more intellectualthan generational, was at the core of theculture wars both in the humanities and in thesciences. The sociobiology debate should beviewed in this light.     

Beyond the DP/DSS controversy

Paul Turke's “Which humans behave adaptively, and why does it matter?” shows, if he we are to take him as being representative of “Darwinian social science” in general, that his school of thought has moved surprisingly close to that of its “Darwinian psychology” critics in accepting the importance if not the primacy of the psychological level of explanation in applying evolutionary theory to human behavior. Disagreements continue over whether the adaptiveness of current behavior should be viewed as an occasionally interesting question because of the light it can shed on evolved psychological mechanisms, or whether, as Turke maintains, it is the central question for human sociobiology. In any event, the “vertically integrated approach,” utterly ignored by Turke, incorporates Darwinian Psychology and is far more powerful than is Turke's approach in explicating the relationship between genes and culture, thereby rendering the current debate pointless.     

Sociobiology and Creationism: Two Ethnosociologies of American Culture

One of the most important motifs in mythology is the animal-human distinction. The relationship between humans and nonhuman animals is also a major concern of both human sociobiology and "scientific" creationism. In this paper, we suggest that sociobiology and creationism function as ethnosociologies of American society and that neither can be completely understood until they are related to each other and to the key symbols of American culture. We argue that sociobiology and creationism are comments on the secular world view of American culture and exist as transformations of one another.     

Attitudes toward and knowledge of sociobiology among college science professors

Abstract

It appears that there is currently a great deal of renewed interest in the area of sociobiology. It therefore seemed appropriate to assess the attitudes and knowledge of college science professors who are primarily charged with disseminating information in this field. To this end, the present study was undertaken to determine the concepts and opinions held by scientists in various disciplines at the university level. Information was gathered from 79.3% of the 111 sample questionnaires sent out (i.e., 88 questionnaires returned). Respondents were familiar with one or more sociobiologists and felt that sociobiology was indeed a science, although a highly controversial one. A majority expressed the opinion that this science applies to other organisms, but has very limited application to the human species.     

Culture and sociobiology

Sociobiological concepts are easily misapplied to human behavior because the latter is culturally as well as biologically organized. Because biological and cultural evolution are two linked but conceptually distinct processes, sociobiology is more readily applied to the evolution of cultural capacity than to contemporary cultural behavior. The extent to which the latter is consistent with sociobiological expectation must be determined empirically, although there are theoretical grounds for predicting a limited degree of concordance . [sociobiology, culture, evolution, reductionism, biosocial anthropology]     

Sociobiology and philosophical ethics: Narrowing the gap

Though there are good reasons for thinking that sociobiology is capable of contributing to the solution of one of the central problems of philosophical ethics, the problem of other-benefitting behaviour, philosophers have not welcomed the new discipline with open arms. This has been so for three reasons: it is said that sociobiology studies behaviour, and not its proximal causes, that sociobiology tells us about the evolutionary history of behaviour and not about its justification, and that sociobiology prescribes morally unacceptable ways of acting. I argue that the first of the objections is simply mistaken, and that when we realize this, the second loses some of its force. I also argue in favour of atwo-factor model of motivation with reason and the emotions engaged in a dialogue with each other concerning the morally relevant features of a given situation. This two-factor model helps us overcome the third objection above, namely to the morally unacceptable dictates of sociobiology, and also to weaken claims that sociobiology is committed to a lack of freedom of the will in human action. Broadly speaking, my argument suggest that the ethical framework most suited to accommodating sociobiological insights into human motivation is an Aristotelian structure.     

Human Territoriality: An Ecological Reassessment

The question of human territoriality has frequently been debated, but most previous discussions have not sufficiently emphasized ecological variables as major factors determining territoriality. We argue that current theories in sociobiology, especially the model focusing on economic defendability of resources, need to be considered in analyzing human territoriality. According to this model, territoriality is expected to occur when critical resources are sufficiently abundant and predictable in space and time, so that costs of exclusive use and defense of an area are outweighed by the benefits gained from resource control. This model is developed, and then applied to several locally adapted human populations (Northern Ojibwa, Basin-Plateau Indians, and Karimojong). Variations in territorial responses for these groups seem to accord with the predictions of the economic defendability model . [territoriality, resource defense, human ecology, sociobiology, spatial organization]     

GETTING PAST NATURE AS A GUIDE TO THE HUMAN SEX RATIO

Sex selection of children by pre‐conception and post‐conception techniques remains morally controversial and even illegal in some jurisdictions. Among other things, some critics fear that sex selection will distort the sex ratio, making opposite‐sex relationships more difficult to secure, while other critics worry that sex selection will tilt some nations toward military aggression. The human sex ratio varies depending on how one estimates it; there is certainly no one‐to‐one correspondence between males and females either at birth or across the human lifespan. Complications about who qualifies as ‘male’ and ‘female’ complicate judgments about the ratio even further. Even a judiciously estimated sex ratio does not have, however, the kind of normative status that requires society to refrain from antenatal sex selection. Some societies exhibit lopsided sex ratios as a consequence of social policies and practices, and pragmatic estimates of social needs are a better guide to what the sex ratio should be, as against looking to ‘nature’. The natural sex ratio cannot be a sound moral basis for prohibiting parents from selecting the sex of their children, since it ultimately lacks any normative meaning for social choices.     

Biology intersects religion and morality

Michael Ruse's writings explore what sociobiology says about morality. Further, he claims that sociobiology undermines the base for Christian morality. After responding to criticisms of Ruse, especially those of Arthur Peacocke, I lay a base for meeting his challenge.     

Testing the Controversy

Critics of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have advanced an adaptationists-as-right-wing-conspirators (ARC) hypothesis, suggesting that adaptationists use their research to support a right-wing political agenda. We report the first quantitative test of the ARC hypothesis based on an online survey of political and scientific attitudes among 168 US psychology Ph.D. students, 31 of whom self-identified as adaptationists and 137 others who identified with another non-adaptationist meta-theory. Results indicate that adaptationists are much less politically conservative than typical US citizens and no more politically conservative than non-adaptationist graduate students. Also, contrary to the “adaptationists-as-pseudo-scientists” stereotype, adaptationists endorse more rigorous, progressive, quantitative scientific methods in the study of human behavior than non-adaptationists.     

Inclusive Fitness and Human Family Structure

The implications of sociobiology, and especially of "inclusive fitness" or "kin-selection" theory, to human family structures are explored. Kin-selection theory provides a model to formulate testable hypotheses predicting cooperation and conflict for categories of kinsmen; it also suggests an alternative way of looking at incest, endogamy, exogamy, rule of descent, and type of marriage in terms of such biological concepts as mating strategies, inclusive fitness, parental investment, and sexual dimorphism and bimaturism. [sociobiology, kin-selection theory, inclusive fitness, family structure, marriage]     

Microbes are not bound by sociobiology: Response to Kümmerli and Ross‐Gillespie (2013)

In recent years, sociobiology has been extended to microorganisms. Viewed through this lens, the microbial world is replete with cooperative behaviors. However, little attention has been paid to alternate hypotheses, making many studies self‐confirming. Somewhat apart is a recent analysis of pyoverdin production—a paradigmatic public good and social trait—by Pseudomonas, which has revealed discord between predictions arising from sociobiology and the biology of microbes. This led the authors, Zhang and Rainey (Z&R), to question the generality of the conclusion that pyoverdin is a social trait, and to question the fit between the sociobiology framework and microbiology. This has unsettled Kümmerli and Ross‐Gillespie (K&R), who in a recent “Technical Comment” assert that arguments presented by Z&R are flawed, their experiments technically mistaken, and their understanding of social evolution theory naive. We demonstrate these claims to be without substance and show the conclusions of K&R to be based on a lack of understanding of redox chemistry and on misinterpretation of data. We also point to evidence of cherry‐picking and raise the possibility of confirmation bias. Finally, we emphasize that the sociobiology framework applied to microbes is a hypothesis that requires rigorous and careful appraisal.     

Biological explanations and social responsibility

The aim of this paper is to show that critics of biological explanations of human nature may be granting too much to those who oppose such explanations when they argue that the truth of genetic determinism implies an end to critical evaluation and reform of our social institutions. This is the case because when we argue that biological determinism exempts us from social critique we are erroneously presupposing that our social values, practices, and institutions have nothing to do with what makes biological explanations troublesome. My argument is that what constitutes a problem for those who are concerned with social justice is not the fact that particular behaviours may be genetically determined, but the fact that our value system, and social institutions create the conditions that make such behaviours problematic. Thus, I will argue that even if genetic determinism were correct, the requirement of assessing and transforming our social practices and institutions would be far from superfluous. Biology is rarely destiny for human beings and the institutions they create.     

Social Darwinism Lives! (Should it?)

Sociobiology has made a resurgence in recent years, but has become enmeshed in political controversy. Indeed, much of the work in sociobiology has been used to justify repressive or racist measures. It is argued that the unfortunate alliance of some sociobiologists and politicians is a poor basis for discrediting the field itself; that a science of sociobiology is possible and, if we seek to know the nature of our social heritage (if any!), needs be vigorously pursued.     

Does Biology Constrain Culture?

Most social scientists would agree that the capacity for human culture was probably fashioned by natural selection, but they disagree about the implications of this supposition. Some believe that natural selection imposes important constraints on the ways in which culture can vary, while others believe that any such constraints must be negligible. This article employs a "thought experiment" to demonstrate that neither of these positions can be justified by appeal to general properties of culture or of evolution. Natural selection can produce mechanisms of cultural transmission that are neither adaptive nor consistent with the predictions of acultural evolutionary models (those ignoring cultural evolution). On the other hand, natural selection can also produce mechanisms of cultural transmission that are highly consistent with acultural models. Thus, neither side of the sociobiology debate is justified in dismissing the arguments of the other. Natural selection may impose significant constraints on some human behaviors, but negligible constraints on others. Models of simultaneous genetic/cultural evolution will be useful in identifying domains in which acultural evolutionary models are, and are not, likely to be useful.     

There is,indeed, a misunderstanding: A reply to Hekala and Buell

We believe that the misunderstanding is on the part of Hekala and Buell. They criticize us for using data from different historic periods. If sociobiology has value in accounting for human conduct, sociobiological principles should operate in all cultures and in all eras. While our data may be incomplete in the eyes of historians, they are complete enough to inform us of the genetic relatedness of persons in real or potential conflicts and to tell us the outcomes of these conflicts.     

Similarities and Varieties: A Brief Sketch on the Reception of Darwinism and Sociobiology in Japan

This paper discusses the reception of Darwinian evolutionary theory and sociobiology in Japan. Darwinism was introduced into Japan in the late 19th century and Japanese people readily accepted the concept of evolution because, lacking Christianity, there was no religious opposition. However, the theory of evolution was treated as a kind of social scientific tool, i.e., social Spencerism and eugenics. Although evolutionary biology was developed during the late 19th and the early 20th century, orthodox Darwinian theory was neglected for a long time. In the mid 1980s, sociobiology was introduced but it was ignored and criticized by a large part of the ecologist-evolutionist community in Japan. This hostile attitude was due to the absence of Darwinism among these scientists. Compared with the reception of sociobiology in English-speaking countries, there were both similarities and differences in Japan.     

Childhood Association and Sexual Attraction: A Further Test of the Westermarck Hypothesis

A preliminary study of household registration records from Taiwan supports Edward Westermarck's contention that intimate childhood association promotes sexual aversion. Women who are forced to marry a childhood associate bear fewer children than those who marry a stranger. They are also more likely to leave their husband by divorce or avoid him in favor of other men. This evidence suggests that the incest taboo does not prohibit what men's feelings incline them to do, as Westermarck's critics argue, but that it is instead an expression of these feelings, socially unnecessary but psychologically inevitable. [incest taboo, law, China, Taiwan]     

Science as Ideology: The Rejection and Reception of Sociobiology in China

The spread of sociobiology in China is not simply an internal event in the development of science. From the day it was introduced to China, its destiny was closely bound up with the development and change of Chinese society. Although it did not create as great disturbance as in America, it did have a significant impact in academic circles. However, scholars have paid little attention to these historical events. Today, sociobiology seems outdated and Wilson's grand agenda seems to have faded with the passing of time, but the mark that he made on the history of science is still striking. A review of the process of reception of sociobiology in China is helpful for understanding this theory as well as the society of China.     

The Development of Sociobiology in Relation to Animal Behavior Studies, 1946–1975

This paper aims at bridging a gap between the history of American animal behavior studies and the history of sociobiology. In the post-war period, ecology, comparative psychology and ethology were all investigating animal societies, using different approaches ranging from fieldwork to laboratory studies. We argue that this disunity in “practices of place” (Kohler, Robert E. Landscapes & Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002) explains the attempts of dialogue between those three fields and early calls for unity through “sociobiology” by J. Paul Scott. In turn, tensions between the naturalist tradition and the rising reductionist approach in biology provide an original background for a history of Edward Wilson’s own version of sociobiology, much beyond the William Hamilton’s papers (Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–16, 17–52, 1964) usually considered as its key antecedent. Naturalists were in a defensive position in the geography of the fields studying animal behavior, and in reaction were a driving force behind the various projects of synthesis called “sociobiology”.