Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Anthropology Faculty Publications Anthropology, Department of August 1987 Precis of Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature Philip Kitcher University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California Patrick Bateson (Comment by) University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England Jon Beckwith (Comment by) Department of Microbiolgoy and Molecular Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Irwin S. Bernstein (Comment by) Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA Patricia Smith Churchland (Comment by) Philosophy Department and Cognitive Science Program, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, FCaliforniaollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthropologyfacpub See P nextart of page the forAnthr additionalopology authorsCommons Kitcher, Philip; Bateson, Patrick (Comment by); Beckwith, Jon (Comment by); Bernstein, Irwin S. (Comment by); Smith Churchland, Patricia (Comment by); Draper, Patricia (Comment by); Dupre, John (Comment by); Futterman, Andrew (Comment by); Ghiselin, Michael T. (Comment by); Harpending, Henry (Comment by); Johnston, Timothy D. (Comment by); Allen, Garland E. (Comment by); Lamb, Michael E. (Comment by); McGrew, W. C. (Comment by); Plotkin, H. C. (Comment by); Rosenberg, Alexander (Comment by); Saunders, Peter T. (Comment by); Ho, Mae-Wan (Comment by); Singer, Peter (Comment by); Smith, Eric Aiden (Comment by); Smith, Peter K. (Comment by); Sober, Elliot (Comment by); Stenseth, Nils C. (Comment by); and Symons, Donald (Comment by), "Precis of Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature" (1987). Anthropology Faculty Publications. 16. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthropologyfacpub/16 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Philip Kitcher, Patrick Bateson (Comment by), Jon Beckwith (Comment by), Irwin S. Bernstein (Comment by), Patricia Smith Churchland (Comment by), Patricia Draper (Comment by), John Dupre (Comment by), Andrew Futterman (Comment by), Michael T. Ghiselin (Comment by), Henry Harpending (Comment by), Timothy D. Johnston (Comment by), Garland E. Allen (Comment by), Michael E. Lamb (Comment by), W. C. McGrew (Comment by), H. C. Plotkin (Comment by), Alexander Rosenberg (Comment by), Peter T. Saunders (Comment by), Mae-Wan Ho (Comment by), Peter Singer (Comment by), Eric Aiden Smith (Comment by), Peter K. Smith (Comment by), Elliot Sober (Comment by), Nils C. Stenseth (Comment by), and Donald Symons (Comment by) This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ anthropologyfacpub/16 Precis of Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature Philip Kitcher Department of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif. 92093 Abstract: The debate about the credentials of sociobiology has persisted because scholars have failed to distinguish the varieties of sociobiology and because too little attention has been paid to the details ofthe arguments that are supposed to support the provocative claims about human soeial behavior. I seek to remedy both dcfieieneies. After analysis of the relationships among different kinds of sociobiology and contemporary evolutionary theory, I attempt to show how some ofthe studies ofthe behavior ofnonhuman animals meet the methodological standards appropriate to evolutionary research. I contend that the efforts of E. O. Wilson, Richard Alexander, Charles Lumsden, and others to generate conclusions about human nature are flawed, both because they apply evolutionary ideas in an unrigorous fashion and because they use dubious assumptions to connect their evolutionary analyses with their conclusions. This contention rests on analyses of many of the major sociobiological proposals about human social behavior, including: differences in sex roles, racial hostility, homosexuality, conflict between parents and adolescent offspring, incest avoidance, the avunculate, alliances in combat, female infanticide, and gene-culture coevolution. Vaulting Ambition thus seeks to identify what is good in sociobiology, to expose the errors ofpremature speculations about human nature, and to prepare the way for serious study of the evolution of human social behavior. Keywords: behavior; culture; environment; evolution; genes; genetics; heredity; human nature; sociobiology The sociobiology debate cial distinctions and because they have not scrutinized the arguments that are supposed to support the provoca The chiefaim ofVaulting Ambition (henceforth Ambition) tive theses. Ambition uses C the philosopher's favorite is to end a debate that has occupied biologists, social tactics. I draw distinctions and I analyze arguments. scientists, and humanists for the last decade. I claim that the credentials of sociobiology cannot be properly as sessed until we make some important distinctions. First, Varieties of sociobiology there are some exciting developments in recent evolu tionary thcory that have been used to illuminate some There is a very broad discipline that is "the systematic aspects of the behavior of nonhuman animals. Second, study ofthe biological basis ofall social behavior" (Wilson there is a potential science that studies the evolution of 1975, p. 2) and that addresses questions about the mecha human social behavior. Third, there are some particular nisms, development, function, and evolution of social provocative theses about human nature and the inev behavior. In effect, this discipline, broad sociobiology, is itability ofhuman social institutions. I hope to explain the approximately the field defined by Tinbergen in his success of the first kind of sociobiology, to expose the account of the four "whys" of behavioral biology (Tin pretensions of the last, and to prepare the way for the bergen 1968, p. 79). Most of the discussion about so serious pursuit of the second. ciobiology focuses on a narrower domain. Narrow so Human sociobiology has been portrayed by its critics as ciobiology tackles questions of evolution and of function a doctrine that perpetuates inequities on the basis ofsex, (the two are linked because, in the pertinent sense, the class, and race. Although the political import of the attribution offunction consists in the identification of the conclusions advanced by some sociobiologists has to be selection pressure that maintains the behavior). acknowledged, the debate is not ultimately a political So far, I have characterized sociobiology as a field (or one. We need to know whether the provocative conclu fields) ofstudy. But we can also consider sociobiology as a sions are well supported by the available evidence. Pol theory that supplies answers to the questions that con itics intrudes on the scene onlv because the costs oferror stitute the field. I argue that, insofar as there is a theory may be grave, so that we a;e ill-advised to lower our within narrow sociobiology, it is general evolutionary epistemological standards. theory (Ambition, Chapter 4). Theoretical sociobiology is I believe that the sociobiology debate has generated so thus irresistible - at least for anyone who accepts contem much heat because the participants have neglected cru- porary evolutionary theory. © 1987 Cambndge University Press 0140-525x/87 $5.00+ .00 61 Kitcher: Problems of human sOciobiology To appreciate the significance of this point we need a inquire about the actual forces that have been at work. clear view of the character ofevolutionary theory. Chap Since we may have a good answer to the question about ter 2 ofAmbition attempts to provide this. I suggest that possibility without having strong evidence in favor ofany evolutionary theory, in all its versions from Darwin to the actual scenario, we should make distinctions among so present, is best thought of as having three parts. Any ciobiological proposals that tackle these different kinds of version of the theory focuses on a set of questions (the problems. questions it takes to fall within its domain), offers a set of Moreover, sociobiological research will also vary ac strategies or schemata for answering these questions, and cording to the traits whose presence it seeks to account for sets forth some general claims about the evolutionary and the sizes of the groups within which those traits are process. Evolutionary questions are answered by devel manifested. The latter type of variation is particularly oping structured narratives that exemplify the schemata important. Many narrow sociobiologists focus on a partic furnished by the theory. Thus, to take one simple exam ular species (speckled wood butterflies, olive 'baboons); pIe, Darwin's original version ofthe theory proposes that others try to account for behavior across a very broad questions of biogeographical distribution are to be an group (all birds, all vertebrates with internal fertiliza swered by relating histories ofdescent with modification, tion). Obviously, it is harder to defend broad generaliza so that we would explain the current distribution of the tions than to support local conclusions about a single marsupials, for instance, by tracing the history of their species. Furthermore, when the generalization covers radiation