Applying the Sociobiological Synthesis to Education

DOCUMENT RESUME RD 265 650 EA 018 146 AUTHOR Shaker, Paul TITLE Applying the SociobiologicalSynthesis to Education. PUB DATE 82 NOTE 20p. PUB TYPE Viewpoints (120)

EDRS PRICE 14'01 /PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Behavior Patterns; BiologicalInfluences; Cultural Influences; DevelopmentalPsychology; *Educational Philosophy; Elementary SecondaryEducation; *Ethology; *Evolution; Genetics;Individual Development; Nature NurtureControversy; Social Behavior; Social Theories;*Sociobiology IDENTIFIERS Jung (Carl G); Names ABSTRACT This paper argues thatthe emerging discipline of sociobiology has the potentialof doing what epistemologists, developmental psychologists,psychoanalysts, and ethologistshave been unable to do: to providea theory documenting our inherited dispositions as reflected incultural evolution and personal development. Accordingly, thepaper begins with a summary ofthe basic concepts of sociobiology,and then shows how these compatible with concepts are a number of theories already appliedin education, such as those of Piaget, Kohlberg, Chomsky, and Jung,which describe certain inherited behavioralor psychological patterns. A central concern of sociobiologists isan inquiry into the natural selection processes that govern the evolution ofhuman culture. Elements of culture--"memes" whichcan be communicated but not subdivided--are selected according tosome criterion of value. The majortasks that sociobiologists faceare: (1) describing the nature ofthese "memes" or bits of culture, which then evolve in a competitiveprocess; and (2) identifying the values--based on inheritedpredispositions--that determine the survival ofone set of memes over another. (TE)

*********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by * EDRS are the best thatcan be made * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** I a.

BEST COPYAVAILABLE

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE Of EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MATER L HAS BEEN GRANTED BY CENTER(ERIC) The document has been reproducedas received from the percnn or organization 0 onginatmg It. LI Minor changes have been merle to Improve in reproduction quality %NO Points of view or opinions stated in this docu- TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES ment do not necessarily represent of icasl NIE LIN posibon or policy. INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Applying the Sociobiological Synthesisto Education

Paul Shaker, Ph.D.

Mount Union College

Alliance, Ohio 44601

1982

2 An increasing number of ')iologists andsocial scientists have been applying the methods of evolutionarybiology for a decade or more to the study of human culture. Their intent is to identify a process which would helpinterpret the pro- gression of human history. To date much of thiseffort has served to set the stage f r a new synthesiswhich would bring the social sciences more fully into the realmof science. This work has received extensive coverage inthe popular press and has stirred academic controversy. Critics have charged the sociobiologists with propoundinggenetic determinism and the undermining of free will. Such chargesare not justified by the claims mainstream sociobiologists have madethus far in their studies of the nature ofhuman instinct and their efforts to hypothesize a process of cultural selectionand its relationship to natural selection. If one grants, for argument's sake, the central claims sociobiologistsare making, cile arrives with them ata highly challenging junc- ture. This challenge calls for the identificationof the specific components of culture anda clarification of the criteria for theirselection.

Until row educatorshave not beena part of the sociobiological debate although many of itsimplications speak directly to 1 them. The-twin processes ofteaching and learning are fundamental to culturaltransmission. And, 2

clearly, motivation and ego developmenthave certain genetic characteristics. A number of theoriesalready widely applied in education, like those of Piaget,Kohlberg, and Chomsky, are compatible with the emerging sociobiologicalviewpoint. The conscious, deliberate enculturationof human beingswho will in turncreate a better, more just society iseducation's charge. No professional goalis so complex. In view of this, if evolutionary biologists are speakingto educationalcon- cerns, educators should begin to listen andrespond. What follows is an effortin this direction.

Two Planes of Evolution

The realm of instinct provides the transitionbetween natural and cultural selection. Few would argue against the propositionthat a variety of our physical traitsare genetically dictated. However, the geneticbackground of psychology is hotlydebated. Ethologists haveaccumulated, by observation and experiment,a growing body of innate behaviors manifest in animals. To a lesser; butsignificant, degree similar behaviors are found in humans--thesongs of some birds, for example, and theirnest building styles, and the hand grasping reflex and suckingpatterns in infants, and facial expressions 2 in people of allages. At first glance, such specific behaviors mayseem trivial. But their significance lies inwhether theyserve to establish the claim that behavior, the foundation ofculture, can be genetically programed. The food washing ofraccoons, the

4 3

plucking habitof ocelots, the constructionwork of beavers appear innate. The deepstructure of grammar accordingto Chomsky, thestages and nature of cognitivedevelopment 'according toPiaget, and Jung's archetypesof the collective unconscious,3 all bearstrikingly similar qualities. It is clear thatgreat psychologies from unassuminginstincts grow. Certain inherited behavioral/psychologicalpatterns can hardly be deniedin the context of thesetheories. Continually confusingis the fact that instinctis nearly all form withlittle specific content. Any soundscan be used to form words whichwill be structured intoa familiar grammar. The range of human environmentsprovides the specific phenomenaand objects essential forcognitive develop- ment. Gestaltistsare able to decoy the sensesand evoke patternedresponses to fragmentary, enigmatic stimuli. Every society has itsfolklore, religion and esotericstudies. Theconcrete manifestations inall cases exist in thephysical world and have meaning in thatcontext. This parallelsig- nificance createsdifficulty in any analysis ofthe psycho- logical importanceof these objects and eventsand theneu- rolcgicalstructures which resonate withthem. The evolution- ist suggests that we havea long history of usingsymbols to help us exploitour environment. The self-conscious,system- atic study ofour symbol-making apparatus is,however, a relatively recentundertaking.

While thedisposition toward language, abstractreasoning, transcendental talesand so on does not change, thespecifics 4

of each, inevery society, do change. It would appearimpos- sible to hold in a static state any ofthese manifestations of culture. This dynamism introduces a centralconcern of sociobiologists, that is: What processgoverns the evolution of culture? Seeing natural selection universallyoperative at the level of biological change, they unsurprisinglylook for

a similar process to 4 function withrespect to culture. Ele- ments of culture, "memes" whichcan be communicated butnot subdivided, are selected among accordingto some criterion of value. Culture evolves inthe process. Such a hypothesis provokes at least three major questions: Can memes be defined as specificallyas genes? Is the beneficiary ofsuch selec- tion species, group, individualor the meme, itself? Is the value criterion survival and reproductionor something quali- tatively different?

The idea that culture evolves,or changes in an orderly fashion is attractive, but clearly naturalorder has littleto do with human notions of justiceor morality. Up to the appearance of human beings nature seems to havedeveloped in progressively more complex forms. Even grantingour destruc- tive tendencies, there is a similardynamic to the history of our species in the context ofour accumulated culture. A major worry of sociobiologists is thatwe are not ultimately viable as a species because we may befundamentally and inevitably oriented to groups who will vie(war) with other groups with whatever 5 means available. This perspective exemplifies the "determinist" aspect of the new synthesis.

However, those who seek to analyze cultural evolution may entertain alternate, more hopeful, hypotheses. Basic to these conceptualizations is the idea that cultural selection is a process of higher order than natural selection. This higher process cannot transcend the physical laws of the universe or the limits of flesh and blood, but patterns with less integral entailments can be supplanted.

If we need not be wedded to groups, is it also possible that our consummate value migh",7 not be biological survival and reproduction? Cultural forms which lobby for societies of limited numbers based on a secure standard of living are now with us. For the sake of analysis, let us look a step further. Putting aside the obvious psychological benefits of parenting, if a qualitative element is present in cultural selection, is it possible that the process operates indepen- dently of the demands of biological continuance? It may be that culture, irrespective of its contribution to biological reproduction, is selected in terms of its benefits for the individuals who experience it. With natural selection, the end is always and only the replication of genes. With cultural selection, the governing principle may, indeed, be purely qualitative--a state of affect, for example--with reproduction tagging along for its ancillary benefits.

The memes, or units of cultural selection, present definitional problems. Even genes which do have phenotypic manifestations are elusive and multifaceted. Describing the

7 nature of these "bits of culture" which thenevolve in a competitive process is a major task sociobiologistsface. For example, the idea of 6 God might be sucha datum. Or, perhaps, the idea ofdivinity in oneor many manifestations. Or the true meme might be the concept thatimmaterial phe- nomena exist, consciousness being the foremost. Sociobiology has a dynamic enlisted, but the contents to whichthis dynamic can be applied are problematic. It is of little benefitto assert that cultural selection is occurring.ifwe cannot specify the elements involved in theprocess. For a starting point, we may return to instinct, the crossingpoint between gene and meme, biology andpsychology. If we examine the realm of that which predisposes behavior thereis the pos- sibility that we might come to better identifythe urges culture satisfies.

Motives for CulturalSelection

Memes are a by-product 7 of the activity ofgenes; they only come into being in the context ofconscious organisms, particularly the most complex of these, humanbeings. Among these a distinctive culture has appeared andhas evolved through what we call history due to itssurvival value. Ideation provided a new plane for competitionamong species and within humanity. Its products, memes,initially related to aiding the most fundamental ofprocesses: eating, sheltering, protection,reproduction. Given an environment, which foods are nourishing, which poisonous?Which dwelling 7 BEST COPYAVAILABLE

is most efficient? What clothing, tools,weapons are most beneficial? Culture among humanshas, however,grown beyond simple manifestations by means of deliberateenculturation (education), written language, and theaccumulation of arti- facts. The elements of cultureare commonly selected with such unexamined routines that often we loseany awareness of their original, genetic, instinctiveinception. What is the significance of passive entertainment?Of diamonds as jewelry? Of belief in God? Of the last,we might hypothe- size that it is a residue of the originalinstinctive impulse of curiosity toward the self; The ageless questto "know thyself" has become a succession of ideasabout models out- side the self. The individualsees himself or herselfas a "noble animal" or as kin to an imaginedpantheon, or as the "child" of a single deity. Finally, the meme issecularized and demystified as in contemporary psychologywhere self- knowledge is bred from introspection ratherthan projection onto a hero. Notice how a useful,natural urge like that of self-curiosity on the part of the individualis addressed in a succession of cultural forms ("theologies")which come to obscure their own original purpose. Ironically, individuals begin to see themselves in service to the idearather than vice versa. Memes functioning in thisway may well reach a point where they underminetheir bearer's survivability. For a clearer description of memes, letus return to the quest fc,r self-knowledge at the point where itbecomes the focus of psychology. Keeping mimetic ideas intheir place 9 8

as means rather than ends, those who study theevolution of consciousness organize into a psychologyof self-realization the progression of mythic, religious and esotericsymbols developed by civilizations.8 The birth of theego is the inner progression to which these metaphorsand narratives give substance,, Involved are individualconsciousness of self; its development to independence ofidentity; then an awareness of the context of itsorigins ("the collective unconscious"); and, finally, an acceptance and appreciationof the self, or total psyche, consciousand unconscious. This is the analysisof C. G. Jung and his collaborators,laid out after they had studied past writings andcompared these with reports from contemporary individuals. This is analytical psychology's description of a mimetic evolutionwhich has often been untracked by a confusion ofmeans and ends, bvt which persists as a possible resolutionof the search for self-understanding. In this context,education has the role of discriminating between content andmeaning as wellas introducing the progressionof symbols. Although such a psychology might haveconsummate appeal and potential for reorienting societyas dramatically as the religious awakenings of the past, willits value be determined by how well it contributes to biologicalsurvival andrepro- duction? It can be argued that the value of memesshould not be assigned in thisway. By moving to culturalselection, we have seen a transformation of the evo ltionaryprocess. Cultural types appear that do not provide forfecund biological 10 9 BEST COPYAVAILABLE

reproduction and have disappeared exceptas vestiges. The social worldcontinues to manifest itself inunprecedented forms while pastconventions provide uncertain cluesto the future.

An unlikelyscenario may illustrate the point: Suppose that by technology individual, self-realizedconsciousness could be supportedoutside the body and brain. The costs of such would include a loss of thepleasures, pain, and mortality of thebody; but the benefits wouldinclude a consummately satisfyingstate of psychological experience. In a world wherecommunication was pervasive andliteracy high, might theprac"ice not spread untilour species had, in effect, chosen to"decorporealize" itself? Thus ameme, a cultural datum, might be selectedover others even though biological survivalwas undermined. In such a scenario,the culture would continue to evolvewithout a biological existence, but withthe presence of an individualconscious- ness of sort;.

This fantasyhighlights the idea that culturalselection could theoreticallyproceed on a divergent coursefrom natural selection. This is important, not because it islikely to occur in such anextreme, but because it is fundamentalto our understandingof the process to know how valueis assigned to memes. If quality of experience, orsome other qualitative value is preeminent, the selected bitsof culture willbe significantly differentfrom those dictated by survival. In a quality-of-experience context, thesememes would be judged 10

and selected notby a fitness for survival criterionbut by their impacton the subjective experience ofindividuals. From what instinct would thisvalue-oriented criterion have germinated? This same curiosity to know the self,per- haps, which whenpursued reveals to the seeker theunpre- cedented phenomenon of a manifestation of.naturewhich is thoroughly andunremittingly aware of its being, itscharacter and surroundings. For the first timeself-consciousness appears in the world and,unsurprisingly, itsets about remaking the world according toa plan different fromwhat chance had previouslydetermined.

The Contents ofCultural Selection Several of the theories most frequentlydiscussed by educators aze complemented by thework of sociobiologists. The research of Piaget, Chomskyand Kohlberg pointsto inherited humanfactors influencing human developmentwithout narrowly determining it. The prevailingemphasis in educa- tion has beenon the contents of these theories. Piaget, for example, gives us detailed, discriminatingexperiments through whichwe can ascertain an individual's level of cognition. The predictability and consistency ofthe stages suggest that the course of development isgenetically influenced although environmental factorsare necessary for innate potentialto be realized. Likewise, Kohlberg'sstudy of diverse cultures for theirconcurrence with hisseven stages of moral development has supporteda similar thesis,

12 11

i.e., moral reasoning, like cognition,when fosteredproceeds through a definable, logical series oflevels eac% representing a qualitatively improved understanding of theworld's phenomena. In general, theemphasis in such theories has beenon, the substance of the progression and whetherit is cross-cultural. Sociobiology gives precedence to whysuch a process isto any degree innate andhow it has come to have its specificform. Cognition, therefore, in the Piagetiansense would be argued as having first of all survivalvalue, as would moral development. Humans have prosperedthrough a mix of guile and concessions to group interest. In moral development, however, the sociobiologicalprocess cf culturalselection can lend insight into thememes, cultural dispositions, necessary for an improved condition of the species. Kohl- berg hypothesizes a stage of commitmentto universal moral principles while cultural selection providesa rationale for testing what those principles might be. Cultural selection is a vitalcomplement to such theorizing becauseit intro- duces a method for extrapolating thedevelopment process beyond contemporary conventional forms. Why do we reach in art and the humanities to create obscuresymbolic forms? Why in ethics do we revere persons whosepractices our laws hardly tolerate? Why do we temperour justice withmercy which is often perceived onlyas weakness? These are a few of the relevant questions this theoreticalperspective suggests.

13 12

As we already have alludedto, there remainsome

unanswered questions aboutcultural selection. This slows

our application of it asa principle. In behalf of what unit does it function: individual, kin,group, nation,

species? Is it ultimately boundto biological reproduction and survival and wedded inevitably to primitiveand violent drives?

Let us make some tentative assumptions to furtherour analysis: We are fundamentally Individuals and makeour

choices accordingly. Human intelligence isa phenomenon identified with its individual carriers and isexercised in behalf of securing the physical necessities oflife and, perhaps, some intrinsically rewarding affectiveexperiences. This latter criterion is important becauseit raises the possibility of a motive for selection which isdistinct from the demands of survival and reproduction--aneffective dimen- sion for the evolution of consciousness andculture. The vanguard of our cognitive and ethical developmentmay be propagated because ofan aesthetic which has supplantedthe old rule of fitnessand survival. If such a viewpoint spreads widely and rapidly enough, its bearersmay avoid being vic- timized by less genteelcultures because they,too, see the attraction of heightenedconsciousness.

There is the chance forsynergy between the evolutionary dynamic of sociobiology andthe rigorous, descriptive accounts of social scientistsand epistemologists. These alternate brands of inquiryprofit from an associationyet to 14 be fully explored. Sociobiologistsare discovering, that personally replicating the body of socialscience research so that their thesisof selection can be tested ismore than a formidable task. Similarly, traditionaltheorizing in human development has been lackinga connection to natural science and thedynamic of organic life. In effect,synergy would -erve bothfields of inquiry. C. G. Jung's concept of self-realizationand its psycho- dynamic progressionin the psychology of individualsprovides a clear opportunity for illustratingthe continuum from biology and organiclife through conscious toself-conscious life. Jung, and, particularly, Erich Neumanntheorized that an evolution of consciousness had accompaniedthe course of human history and that the outlineof itsprogress was genetically influenced 9 by a sequence ofarchetypes. These archetypes are the "instincts ofego development" and,as revealed in the mythologies andesoteric teachingsof diverse cultures throughout history and aroundthe globe, sketchout a universal human process of the birth,maturation, and eventual transcendence of ego-consciousness. The archetypes comprise thecontents of the collective unconscious,that part of our genetic heritage whichpredisposes our behavior and the accumulationof culture.10 Jung's analytical psychology isa sound complement to sociobiology since, on a general level,evolutionary thought is in both instances applied to humanbehavior and culture. Additionally, the survival value ofthe ego isseen by 14

BEST COPY AVAILABLE analytical psychologists as well as its transformationinto a vehicle permitting experience for its affectivecontent. Both theories rely on a significant geneticcontribution to the development-of human psychology. Jung's structure and dynamics of the psyche and his theory ofarchetypes has, for decades, been dismissedby those ofa more restricted scientific persuasion 11 as being "mystical." Ironically, the sociobiological impetus out of natural science islikely to find s gnificant commonality with this co-founderof psychoanalysis.

Evolution and Education

This discussion suggests ways in which certaintheories

of development, well-knownto educators,are compatible with

sociobiology. Further it posits theidea that these separate modes of inquiry may contribute to one another'sprogress.

Sociobiologists incorporatethe powerful dynamicof evolu- tionary thought in their work, extending it beyondthe organic to the cultural. Psychology and relateddisciplines have a wealth of carefully gathered dataon the specifics of human culture. As educators acquainted withsociobiology, we can raise cogent, new questions about humandevelopment. Key among these may be to query why ethical forms developbeyond the give and take of traditional open competition. We may also examine anew whyour curiosity about our psychological make-up is persistent andint,atiable.

The assertions ofsociobiology clearly havemeaning for educators both in theday-to-day realm of curriculumand 16 15

instruction and in the theoretical underpinningsof educa- tional foundations. A review of the literature, however,shows educators tend not be involved in examiningE. O. Wilson's "new synthesis."12 Contrary to the assertionsof socio- biology's vociferous critics, applyingevolutionary thought to a field like education is notlikely to bindthe theorist to a reductionist-determinist 13 worldview. The vital transi- tion between natural and social scienceis moving haltingly for sociobiologistsfor the very reason that convertingthe data of humanculture into memes, competing discreteelements, is a task for which-they have notbeen trained. Educators may borrow and apply a process, culturalselection, but they need hardly fear a subversion of the valuesand principles of their field. It is this coevolutionary perspective that frees sociobiology from the weaknessesof genetic determinism. 14 Some sociobiological interpretationsmay mislead by giving cultural selection too little emphasisbut such interpreta- tions do not characterize thefield. Of primary interest to educators is theconcept that as individuals, societies, and as a species,humans are caught up in an evolutionary process. Our civilizationshave, to a great extent, interrupted the course of naturalselection. We are not, however, free of a paralleldynamic operating with respectto human culture. Evidence of our ignoranceis the only recent postulation of conceptslike the "unconscious" and the "collective unconscious" and thecontinuing inability 16 BEST COPYAVAILABLE

of society at.large tograsp the significance of these ideas. Likewise, theimportance of human instincthas been little integrated withsocial science and education,though the work of our dominant developmental theorists repeatedlypoints to structuralelements in our psychologicalprocess of matura- tion. Cultural selection is a dynamicin which These inherited formsrespond to ideas, behavior, artifacts,and iicline the individual toadopt some and decline others. To a noticeable degreeindividuals are not aware ofthe funda- mentalsources of this choicemaking. They becomeaware as they bring toconsciousness their species- specificgenetic predispositions toward culturalcontent. The paramounttask of educators is to promoteself- understanding bymaking the structure of thepsyche a subject of study andby analyzing the componentsof cultureas elements evaluatedby individuals for theirrelative merit in satisfyingthe needs of self-realization. Srf-realization in thiscontext is the analyticalpsychologists'term for the dynamicof cultural selection as itis manifestin the stages ofego development.

Nothing couldbe more basic to education inthe 1980's than grantingstudents an awareness of the innatedeep structures, instinctsand archetypes, which predisposemuch of theirchoice-making. Concurrently, thereis the needto explain the"marketplace" of culture wherememes are in competition andare selected in light of theircontribution

18 17

to the progress of individual development. There is in the literature of education and related disciplinesa wealth of relevant data now commonly employedonly in a piecemealway in the planningof curricula. Little movement towardunifying this body of theory has occurred,however, with the result tnat the power of these insights hasnot been brought to bear on reforming society. We remain as naiveparticipants in a process which we have not identified andwe assign value to the objects of our projection whileremaining ignorant of the factors whichmotivate us.

Sociobiology is ofparticular promisebecause it may serve to do what epistemologists, developmental psychologists, psychoanalysts, and ethologists have beenunable to do, that is: to provide a theory documenting our inheritedpredis- positions which can, in turn, be disseminatedtaking general self-awareness to a hitherto unrealizedplane of understanding. As the most traditionally "scientific"attempt so far to lay out the instincts of mankind which affectculture, sociobiology offers a new critical approach which iscompatible with basic research in social science and thehumanities. Unable to conceptualize the evolutionaryprocess of which our culture is a manifestation, we tend to be victims ofits cycles. A recognition of our nature, our predispositions;will not reduce our freedom; ironically, it is theonly way ultimately to increase it.

19 18

BEST COPYAVAILABLE Footnotes

1. Note the absence of educationin a collection Wiegele, ed., like T. C. Biology and theSocial Sciences Colo.: Nestview Press, T9. (Boulder, 2. I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Ethology: the Biology of (New York: Holt, Rinehart Behavior and Winston, 1970,Ch. 18. 3. The ethologist's point of viewon this is well in K. Lorenz,Behind the Mirror: recorded History of Human A Search fora Natural KnowledgeTROYork: Jovanovich, 1977). Harcourt Brace

4. Memes are introducedin R. Dawkins, (New York: The Selfish Gene Oxford UniversityPress, 176). 5. Lorenz, 1977, takesup this theme, president of the as has D. A, Hamburg, Carnegie Corporation,in a lecture the AmericanMuseum of Natural at History reportedin B. Nelson, "PerilNow Seen in Old Traits," The NewYork Times (January20, 1983)p. 11. 6. Dawkins, 1976, employs thisparticular example. 7. J. T. Bonner, TheEvolution of Culture ton, N.J.: in Animals (Prince- PrIFEeton UniversityPress,-T980),p. 21. 8. E. Neumann, The Origins and Historyof Consciousness (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University this as itsthesis. Press, 1970) has

9. See Neumann, 1970,and C. G. Jung, C. G. Jung: The CollectedWorks of The Archetypesof the Collective Tiondon: Routledge & Kegan Unc3TIT&Ious Paul, 1959) Vol.IX, 1. 10. In D. Barash, The WhisperingsWithin (New York: & Row, 1979)p. 207, the author, Harper the sociobiological a psychologist employing point of viewwrites: "To my knowledge, no one has attemptedto analyze Jungian eye specifically toward archetypes withan almost certainly evolutionary biology,but it would be an interestingproject." 11. C. G. Jung,Analytical Psychology: (New York: Its Theory and Practice Vintage Books,1970), 12. E. O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis Mass.: (Cambridge, Harvard UniversityPress, 1975). 13. FDr such a critiquesee A. Montagu, ed., Examined (New York: Sociobiology Oxford UniversityPress, 1980). 14. W. H. Durham,"Toward a Coevolutionary Theoryof Human Biology and Culture,"in Biology and pp. 77-94. the Social Sciences, 20