sign in sign up
<<
Home , Biological determinism, Science for the People, Sociobiology Study Group

Dialogue. The Critique: : Another Biological Author(s): of for the People Source: BioScience, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Mar., 1976), pp. 182+184-186 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1297246 . Accessed: 07/08/2014 05:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Oxford University Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 7 Aug 2014 05:58:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Dialogue

Sociobiology Another

Sociobiology Study Group of

Biological determinism represents the territory, individualism, and the appear- examples are Herbert Spencer's argu- claim that the present states of human ance of a status and wealth hierarchy. ment in Social Statics (1851) that pov- societies are the specific result of bio- The earlier forms of determinism in erty and starvation were natural agents logical forces and the biological the current wave have now been pretty cleansing society of the unfit, and "nature" of the human species. Deter- well discredited. The claims that there is Konrad Lorenz's call in 1940 in minist theories all describe a particular a high of IQ, which implies Germany for "the extermination of model of society which corresponds to both the unchangeability of IQ and a elements of the population loaded with the socioeconomic prejudices of the genetic difference between races or dregs," based upon his ethological writer. It is then asserted that this between social classes, have now been theories. pattern has arisen out of human thoroughly debunked. In order to make their case, deter- and that present human social arrange- The simplistic forms of the human minists construct a selective picture of ments are either unchangeable or if nature argument given by Lorenz, human history, ethnography, and social altered will demand continued con- Ardrey, Tiger and Fox, and others have relations. They misuse the basic con- scious social control because these no scientific credit and have been cepts and facts of and evolu- changed conditions will be "unnatural." scorned as works of "advocacy" by E. tionary theory, asserting things to be Moreover, such determinism provides a O. Wilson, whose own book, Socio- true that are totally unknown, ignoring direct justification for the status quo as biology: The New Synthesis, is the whole aspects of the evolutionary pro- "natural," although some determinists manifesto of a new, more complex, cess, asserting that conclusions follow dissociate themselves from some of the version of biological determinism, no from premises when they do not. consequences of their arguments. The less a work of "advocacy" than its Finally, they invent ad hoc hypotheses issue, however, is not the motivation of rejected predecessors. This book, whose to take care of the contradictions and individual creators of determinist theo- first chapter is on "The Morality of the carry on a form of "scientific rea- ries, but the way these theories operate ," is intended to establish sociol- soning" that is untestable and leads to as powerful forms of legitimation of ogy as a branch of evolutionary biology, unfalsifiable hypotheses. What follows is past and present social institutions such encompassing all human societies, past a general examination of these ele- as aggression, competition, domination and present. Wilson believes that "soci- ments in sociobiological theory, espe- of women by men, defense of national ology and the other social sciences, as cially as elaborated in E. O. Wilson's well as the humanities, are the last Sociobiology. branches of biology waiting to be At the time of composition of this articlethe Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the included in the Modern Synthesis" (p. 4). A VERSIONOF HUMANNATURE People consisted of L. Allen, B. Beckwith, J. This is no mere academic exercise. Beckwith, S. Chorover,D. Culver,N. Daniels, For the sociobiologist the first task is M. E. R. For more than a century the idea that E. Dorfman, Duncan, Engelman, a model of human nature Fitten, K. Fuda, S. Gould, C. Gross, R. human social behavior is determined by to delineate Hubbard,J. Hunt, H. Inouye, M. Kotelchuck, evolutionary imperatives operating on that is to be explained. Among Wilson's B. A. R. Levins,R. Lange, Leeds, Lewontin, inherited dispositions has been seized universal aspects of human nature are: E. Loechler, B. Ludwig, C. Madansky, L. * Miller, R. Morales,S. Motheral,K. Muzal,N. upon and widely entertained not so territoriality and tribalism (pp. Ostrom, R. Pyeritz, A. Reingold, M. Rosen- much for its alleged correspondence 564-565); thal, M. Mersky, M. Wilson,and H. Schreier. with as for its more obvious Inquiries should be addressed to SftP, 16 reality Union Square,Somerville, MA 02143. political value. Among the better known Continued on p. 184

182 BioScienceVol. 26 No. 3

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 7 Aug 2014 05:58:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Critique Realizing that history and ethno- other animals. Obviously sociobiologists graphy do not support the universality would prefer to claim Continued from p. 182 evolutionary of their description of human nature, homology, rather than simple analogy, claim that * indoctrinability-"Human beings are sociobiologists the exceptions as the basis for the similarity in behavior are aberrations" or absurdly easy to indoctrinate-they seek "temporary devia- between humans and other animals; tions. it" (p. 562); Thus, although genocidal warfare then they would have a prima facie case is "it is to * spite and family chauvinism-"True (assertedly) universal, be for genetic determination. In some sec- that some isolated spite is commonplace in human soci- expected cultures tions of Sociobiology, Wilson attempts will the for eties, undoubtedly because human escape process generations to do this by listing "universal" features at a in effect beings are keenly aware of their own time, reverting temporarily of behavior in higher primates including to what as blood lines and have the intelligence to ethnographers classify a humans. But claimed external similarity pacific state" plot intrigue" (p. 119); (p. 574). between humans and our closest rela- Another related is the claim * reciprocal (as opposed to ploy tives (which are by no means very close that and historians true unselfishness)- "Human behavior ethnographers have to us) does not imply genetic con- been too narrow in their definitions and abounds with ," as tinuity. A behavior that may be have not realized that con- for example, "aggressively moralistic apparently genetically coded in a higher primate tradictory evidence is really confirma- behavior", "self-righteousness, gratitude may be purely learned and widely tory. and sympathy" (p. 120); spread among human cultures as a con- * blind faith-"Men would rather sequence of the enormous flexibility of "Anthropologists often discount believe than know" 561 our brain. (p. ); territorialbehavior as a generalhuman * More often Wilson argues from evolu- warfare (p. 572) and genocide (p. attribute. This happens when the nar- tionary 573)-"the most distinctive human rowest concept of the phenomenonis analogy. Such arguments oper- qualities" emerged during the "auto- borrowed from zoology...it is neces- ate on shaky grounds. They can never catalytic phase of social evolution" sary to define territory more broadly be used to assert genetic similarity, but which occurred through intertribal .... animalsrespond to their neighbors they can serve as a plausibility argument warfare, "genocide" and "genosorp- in a highly variable manner.... the for natural selection of human behavior tion." scale may run from open hostility...to by assuming that natural selection has forms of advertisement The list is not exhaustive and is oblique or no operated on different in the two territorial behavior at all" meant to show how the outlines of (our species but has produced convergent only emphasis). human nature are viewed myopically, responses as independent adaptations to "If these are through the lens of modern Euro-Ameri- qualifications accepted similar environments. The argument is it is reasonable to conclude that can culture. ter- not even worth considering unless the ritoriality is a general trait of hunter- To construct such a view of human similarity is so precise that identical gatherersocieties." (pp. 564-565) nature, Wilson must abstract himself function cannot be reasonably denied, totally from any historical or ethno- as in the classic case of evolutionary graphic perspective. His discussion of Wilson's view of aggression and war- convergence-the eyes of vertebrates the economy of scarcity is an excellent fare are subject to this ploy of all-em- and octopuses. Here Wilson fails badly, example. An economy of relative bracing definition on the one hand and for his favorite analogies arise by a scarcity and unequal distribution of erroneous historical-ethnographic data twisted process of imposing human rewards is stated to be an aspect of on the other. "Primitive" warfare is institutions on animals by metaphor, human nature: rarely lethal to more than one or at and then rederiving the human institu- most a few individuals in an episode of tions as special cases of the more general "The members of human society warfare, virtually without significance phenomenon "discovered" in nature. In sometimes cooperate in insec- closely genetically or demographically this way human institutions suddenly tan fashion but more (Living- [our emphasis], stone 1968). Genocide was become "natural" and can be viewed as frequently they for the lim- virtually compete unknown until a product of evolution. ited resources allocated to their role state-organized societies in far as can A classic example, long antedating sector. The best and the most entrepre- appeared history (as be made Sociobiology, is in neurialof the role-actorsusually gain a out from the archeological and "" ants. disproportionateshare of the rewards." documentary records). "Slavemaking" species capture the (p. 554) We have given only examples of the immature stages of "slave" species and general advocacy method employed by bring them back to their own nests. There is a great deal of ethnographic sociobiologists in a procedure involving When the captured workers hatch, they and historical description con- entirely definitions which exclude nothing and perform housekeeping tasks with no tradicting this of social conception the laying of Western conceptual cate- compulsion as if they were members of It organization. ignores, for example, gories onto "primitive" societies. the captor species. Why is this "slave- the present and historical existence of making" instead of "domestication"? societies not differentiated in any sig- HUMANS AS ANIMALS-THE Human slavery involves members of nificant way by "role sectors"; with- MEANING OF SIMILARITY one's own species under continued com- out scarcities differentially induced by pulsion. It is an economic institution in social institutions for different subpopu- To support a biologistic explanation societies producing an economic sur- lations of the society; not differentiated of human institutions it is useful to plus, with both slave and product as by lower and higher ranks and strata claim an evolutionary relationship commodities in exchange. It has nothing (Birket-Smith 1959; Fried 1967; Harris between the nature of human social to do with ants except by weak and 1968; Krader 1968). institutions and "social" behavior in meaningless analogy. Wilson expands

184 BioScienceVol. 26 No. 3

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 7 Aug 2014 05:58:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions the realm of these weak analogies least the behavioral qualities that There is no hint in Sociobiology that (chapter 27) to find barter, division of underly the variations between cul- at this very moment the scientific com- labor, role playing, culture, ritual, tures." It is stated as fact that genetical munity of evolutionary is religion, magic, esthetics, and tribalism differences underly variations between deeply split on the question of how among nonhumans. But if we insist cultures, when no evidence at all exists important adaptive as opposed to upon seeing animals in the mirror of our for this assertion and there is some random processes are in manifest evolu- own social arrangements, we cannot fail considerable evidence against it. tion. More important, there is a strain in to find any human institutions we want Since sociobiologists can adduce no modern evolutionary thought, going among them. facts to support the genetic basis for back to , that avoids much human social behavior, they try two of the tortured logic required by GENETICBASES OF BEHAVIOR tacks. First, the suggestion of evolu- extreme selectionism, by emphasizing tionary homology between behavior in E:lometry. Organs, not themselves under We can dispense with the direct the human species and other animals, if direct natural selection, may change evidence for a genetic basis of various correct, would imply a genetic basis in because of their developmental links to human social forms in a single word, us. But the evidence for homology as other features that are under selection. "None." The genetics of normal human opposed to analogy is very weak. Many aspects of human social organiza- in behavior is a rudimentary state Second, they postulate genes right and tion, if not all, may be simply the because of the impossibility of repro- left and then go on to argue as if the consequence of increased plasticity of human over ducing particular genotypes genes were demonstrated facts. There neurological response and cognitive and or of over, experimentally manipu- are hypothetical altruist genes, con- capacity. the environments of individuals or lating former genes, spite genes, learning The major assertion of sociobiolo- There is no evidence that meets groups. genes, homosexuality genes, and so on. gists that human social structures exist the of elementary requirements experi- An instance of the technique is on pages because of their superior adaptive value mental that such traits as xeno- design, 554-555 of Wilson's book: "Dahlberg is only an assumption for which no tests social domi- phobia, religion, ethics, showed that if a single gene appears that have even been proposed. The entire nan slave- ce, hierarchy formation, is responsible for success and upward theory is so constructed that no tests are in making, etc., any way coded shift in status. . ." and "Furthermore, are possible. The mode of explanation specifically in the genes of human there are many Dahlberg genes.. ." (our involves three postulated levels of the beings. emphases throughout). Or on page 562: operation of natural selection: (1) clas- And indeed, Wilson offers no such "If we assume for argument that indoc- sical individual selection to account for evidence. Instead, he makes confused trinability evolves.. ." and "Societies obviously self-serving behaviors; (2) kin and contradictory statements about containing higher frequencies of con- selection to account for altruistic what is an essential element in the former genes replace those that dis- behaviors or submissive acts toward argument. If there are no genes for appear. . ." (our emphasis). Or consult relatives; (3) reciprocal altruism to parent-offspring conflict, then there is nearly any page of Trivers (1971) for account for altruistic behaviors toward no sense in talking about natural selec- many more examples. unrelated persons. All that remains is to tion for this phenomenon. Thus, he Geneticists long ago abandoned the make up a "just-so" story of adaptation speaks of "genetically programmed naive notion that there are genes for with the appropriate form of selection sexual and parent-offspring conflict" (p. toes, genes for ankles, genes for the acting. For some traits it is easy to 563), yet there is the "considerable lower leg, genes for the kneecap, or the invent a story. The "genes" for social technical problem of distinguishing like. Yet sociobiologists break the dominance, aggression, entrepreneur- behavioral elements and combinations totality of human social phenomena ship, successful deception, and so on that emerge. . .independently of into arbitrary units, which they reify as will "obviously" be advantageous at the learning and those that are shaped at "organs of behavior," postulating par- individual level. For example, evidence least to some extent by learning" (p. ticular genes for each. is presented (p. 288) that dominant 159). In fact, it cannot be done. males impregnate a disproportionate the to learn is Elsewhere, capacity EVERYTHINGIS ADAPTIVE share of females in mice, baboons, and stated to be genetic in the species, so Yanamamo Indians. In fact, in the that "it does not matter whether aggres- The next step in the sociobiological ethnographic literature there are numer- sion is wholly innate or acquired partly argument is to try to show that the ous examples of groups whose political or wholly by learning" (p. 255). But it hypothetical, genetically programmed "leaders" do not have greater access to does matter. If all that is genetically behavior organs have evolved by natural mates. In general it is hard to demon- programmed into people is that "genes selection. The assertion that all human strate a correlation of any of the socio- promoting flexibility in social behavior behavior is or has been adaptive is an biologists' "adaptive" social behaviors are strongly selected" (p. 549) and if outdated expression of Darwinian evolu- with actual differential reproduction. "genes have given away most of their tionary theory, characteristic of Other traits require more ingenuity. sovereignty" (p. 550), then biology and Darwin's 19th century defenders who Homosexuality would seem to be at a evolution give no insight into the human felt it necessary to prove everything reproductive disadvantage since "of condition except the most trivial one, adaptive. It is a deeply conservative course, homosexual men marry much that the possibility of social behavior is politics, not an understanding of less frequently and have far fewer part of human biology. However, in the modern evolutionary theory, that leads children" (Dr. Kinsey disagreed, and next phrase Wilson reasserts the sover- one to see the wonderful operation of what about homosexual women?). But a eignty of the genes because they "main- adaptation in every feature of human little ingenuity solves the problem: tain a certain amount of influence in at social organization. "The homosexual members of primitive

March1976 185

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 7 Aug 2014 05:58:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions societies may have functioned as contemporary groups, since we know conditions in which these activities helpers. . . [operated] with special from the study of enzyme-specifying occur. Unique historical events, actions efficiency in assisting close relatives" (p. genes that there is very little genetic of some individuals, and the altering of 555). saves the day when differentiation between nations and consciousness of masses of people inter- one's imagination for individual selec- races. act with social and economic forces to tion fails. Wilson acknowledges and deals with influence the timing, form, and even the Only one more imaginative mecha- both of these dilemmas by a bold possibility of particular changes; indi- nism is needed to rationalize such phe- stroke: He invents a new phenomenon. viduals are not totally autonomous units nomena as friendship, morality, patrio- It is the "multiplier effect" (pp. 11-13, whose individual qualities determine the tism, and submissiveness, even when the 569-572), which postulates that very direction of social evolution. Feudal bonds do not involve relatives. The small differences in the frequency of society did not pass away because some theory of reciprocal altruism (Trivers hypothetical genes for altruism, confor- autonomous force increased the fre- 1971) proposes that selection has oper- mity, indoctrinability, etc., could move quency of entrepreneurs. On the con- ated such that risk taking and acts of a whole society from one cultural tary, the economic activity of Western kindness can be recognized and recipro- pattern to another. The only evidence feudal society itself resulted in a change cated so that the net fitness of both offered for this "multiplier effect" is a in economic relations which made serfs participants is increased. description of differences in behavior into peasants and then into landless The trouble with the whole system is between closely related species of industrial workers with all the immense that nothing is explained because every- insects and of baboons. There is, how- changes in social institutions that were thing is explained. If individuals are ever, no evidence about the amount of the result. selfish, that is explained by simple genetic difference between these closely Finally, determinists assert that the individual selection. If, on the contrary, related species nor how many tens or possibility of change in social institu- they are altruistic, it is kin selection or hundreds of thousands of generations tions is limited by the biological con- reciprocal altruism. If sexual identities separate the members of these species straints on individuals. But we know of are unambiguously heterosexual, indi- pairs since their divergence. The multi- no relevant constraints placed on social vidual fertility is increased. If, however, plier effect, by which any arbitrary but processes by human biology. There is no homosexuality is common, it is a result unknown genetic difference can be con- evidence from ethnography, archeology, of kin selection. Sociobiologists give us verted to any cultural difference you or history that would enable us to no example that might conceivably con- please, is a pure invention of con- circumscribe the limits of possible tradict their scheme of perfect venience without any evidence to human social organization. What history adaptation. support it. It has been created out of and ethnography do provide us with are whole cloth to seal off the last aperture the materials for building a theory that VARIATIONSOF CULTURES through which the theory might have will itself be an instrument of social IN TIMEAND SPACE been tested against the real world. change. of REFERENCESCITED There does exist one possibility AN ALTERNATIVEVIEW tests of sociobiological hypotheses when Birket-Smith,K. 1959. The Eskimos, 2nd ed. they make specific quantitative predic- It is often stated by biological Methuen,London. tions about rates of change of characters determinists that those who oppose Fried, M. 1967. The Evolution of Political in time and about the of differ- them are "environmental degree determinists," Society. RandomHouse, New York. entiation between of a who believe that the behavior of indi- populations Harris,M. 1968. Law and order in egalitarian species. Population genetics makes viduals is precisely determined by some societies. Pages 369-391 in Culture,Man specific predictions about rates of sequence of environmental events in and Nature.Crowell, New York. change, and there are hard data on the childhood. Such an assertion reveals the Krader, L. 1968. Government without the degree of gene tic differentiation essential narrowness of viewpoint in state. Pages 29-42 in Formation of the between human populations for bio- determinist ideologies. First, they see State. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, chemical traits. Both the theoretical the individual as the basic elements of N.J. K. 1940. DurchDomestikation verur- rates of genetic change in time and the determination and behavior, whereas Lorenz, sachte StSrungen arteigenen Verhaltens. observed genetic differentiation society is simply the sum of all the Zeitschrift fiir angewandte between are too small to individuals in it. But the truth is that Psychologic populations und Characterkunde 59: 56-75. (As agree with the very rapid changes that the individual's social activity is to be quoted in Cloud, W., 1973, Winnersand have occurred in human cultures his- understood only by first understanding Sinners.The Sciences 13: 16-21). torically and the very large cultural social institutions. We cannot under- Livingstone,F. 1968. The effects of warfare differences observed among contempor- stand what it is to be a slave or a slave on the biology of the humanspecies. Pages aneous populations. So, for example, owner without first understanding the 3-15 in M. Fried, M. Harris, and R. the rise of Islam after the 7th century to institution of slavery, which defines and Murphy, eds. War:The Anthropology of Armed and Natural supreme cultural and political power in creates both slave and owner. Conflict Aggression. HistoryPress, Garden City. the West, to its subsequent rapid decline Second, determinists assert that the Spencer, H. 1851. Social Statics. Chapman, after the 13th century (a cycle evolution of societies is the result of London. occupying fewer than 30 generations) changes in the frequencies of different Trivers, R. 197,1. The evolution of reciprocal was too rapid by orders of magnitude sorts of individuals within them. But altruism.Q. Rev. Biol. 46: 35-57. for any large change by natural selec- this confuses cause and effect. Societies Wilson, E. 0. 1975. Sociobiology: The New tion. The same problem arises for the evolve because social and economic Synthesis. HarvardUniversity Press, Cam- immense cultural differences between activity alter the physical and social bridge,Mass.

186 BioScienceVol. 26 No. 3

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Thu, 7 Aug 2014 05:58:11 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions