SOCIOBIOLOGY: A NEW CRITICAL ANALYSIS By CRAIG CONRAN Integrated Studies Project submitted to Dr. Tony Simmons in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts – Integrated Studies Athabasca, Alberta October, 2011 Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………3 Part 1: Introduction…………………………………………..4 Part 2: Early Biological Determinism……………………….6 Part 3: The New Science…………………………………….7 Part 4: The New Biology……………………………….….11 Part 5: Sociobiology………………………………………..14 Part 6: Evolutionary Psychology…………………………...23 Part 7: Middle World / Connected World………………….34 Part 8: Conclusion………………………………………….41 Abstract This research study has been conducted to explore scientific methodology used in Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology. Both disciplines are explored in the context of the evolutionary history of our understanding of human behavior. Due to the extravagant recent claims in finding a direct cause of certain behaviors, I felt that this research was essential. This study contains a history of the nature/nurture debate as well as recent major assumptions and key concepts in the fields of Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology. At the end of each section, several major criticisms are given for each discipline that demonstrates many of the limitations involved in social science research. The final section explores a starting point and possible paradigm shift for exploring social behavior based on the work of Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins. These ideas can be used by researchers across disciplines of sociobiology, biology, and psychology as part of a new generation of study on social behavior. 3 Introduction Are we the product of our genes or of our environment, or both? The “nature / nurture” debate, as it is commonly known, has undergone significant changes throughout over the last few decades and has evolved into a profusion of ideas and misunderstandings. In 1975 a book was published on this subject that made us rethink how we approach the study of social behavior. Sociobiology: A New Synthesis by the American biologist E. O. Wilson created an entire academic sub-discipline dedicated to a new type of thought. Unlike previous biologists, psychologists, or anthropologists, Wilson attempted to scientifically analyze social behavior in terms of evolution and adaptation. He argues that our brains have evolved not only in size and capacity, but also in the development of social behavior. Over time these social behaviors are said to increasingly improve our chance for survival - borrowing from Herbert Spencer and the early work of Lamarck on physical adaptations. These revolutionary ideas sparked an instant academic debate and controversy that has continued to this day. Wilson’s book also created the groundwork for a newer sub-discipline known as evolutionary psychology. Even though this new sub-discipline recognizes the role environment plays in determining social behavior, the main focus still rests on genetics and innate social characteristics. Opponents of these disciplines argue that genes and the evolutionary development of our brain are less powerful than our social environment in determining behavior. So, which side is correct or how do we go about proposing a test to find out? 4 My interest in the subject and the reason for pursuing this research comes from two events. The first event occurred in a second year sociology course when my instructor took a day to teach us about genetics and the work of Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist. After the lecture, my understanding was that sociology and biology are on opposing sides, with the former being the only true explanation of social behavior. These answers did not make sense, how could we ignore biology when analyzing human behavior? The second event occurred in a seminar class discussion. The topic was along the lines of gender construction and sexuality. During my rebuttal to a student’s argument, I used the word “instinct” and suddenly got cut short. I was told by the instructor not go any further. I felt as though I said something inappropriate which resulted in the discussion coming to a halt. I knew I was not going to be able to just ignore or forget that class. I have always sought after the dark corners, the most challenging subjects and controversial topics and I knew that one day I would return to this debate. The following paper is my effort to address the problems and open the topic for further discussion. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer that could end this nature/nurture debate. As we will explore, the environmental and cognitive processes involved in constructing social behavior are too complex to produce a simple answer. Therefore, this project will not attempt to solve the nature / nurture debate, but will instead challenge the current sociobiological paradigm of genetically pre-determined behavior. It is my contention that sociobiological and Evolutionary Psychological claims that propose a direct relationship between genetics and social and cultural behaviors are misguided and unscientific. Instead, we must understand our limitations on social experimentation and our 5 connections to the world around us in order to create a foundation for our study of social behavior. Early Biological Determinism Even though E. O. Wilson is the credited founder of sociobiology, the origin of the nature/nurture debate stretches over 2300 years of recorded history. Plato, the Greek philosopher from 4 th century BCE Athens, believed that our souls consisted of three parts. These parts ultimately determine our social behaviors, how we perceive the world around us and our own existence. Plato describes the first part as “appetitive” or “gain loving.” 1 The social result of this component is “violence of the appetites of hunger, thirst and sex, and all their accompaniments” 2 The second part is “rational” or “wisdom loving.” 3 Plato explains that the rational part is “wise and has to exercise forethought on behalf of the soul.”4 The final component is the “spirited” or “honor loving” part that “aligns itself with the rational” when there is a division of principles. 5Even though “parts of the soul” may appear to be nothing more than an ancient myth, are these ideas all that far-fetched? If we ignore the concept of a soul, Plato is telling us that we are all born with an innate need for pleasure, predisposition for violence, and a sense of morality. These ideas appear throughout history and can be seen throughout the evolution of evolutionary psychology. The beginning of the modern debate began with an introduction of a theory by British Philosopher, John Locke. Through Locke, we moved away from religious dogma and the inclusion of a soul, or guiding supernatural force, in determining our social 1 Plato, Republic . 360 BCE, Reprinted 1997. Wordsworth Edition, p. 371 2 Ibid., p. 305. 3 Ibid., p. 371. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid., pp. 364-371 6 behavior. Instead, he asserted that our minds are like blank slates, “white paper void of all characters, without any ideas” and that they are developed through “experience.” 6The theory was controversial but demonstrated a new direction in the understanding of the human condition. From this philosophy also emerged an egalitarian perspective of society. We are all born with the same opportunities, if exposed to the same environmental conditions. However, just as in the work of Plato, there is once again a separation from mind and body; mind and brain. Two competing theories arose in the 19 th century that would inevitably change this egalitarian view, but would lead to a much better understanding of life in general. The New Science At the turn of the 19 th century biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed a theory based on the works of Buffon and several others, that life on earth was not static. Instead, he suggested that all forms of life were constantly transforming. 7Lamarck proposed the following; “Everything which has been acquired . in the organization of the individuals in the course of their life, is preserved through the reproduction, and is transmitted to the new individuals which spring from those who have undergone these changes.”8 In other words, adaptive characteristics are constantly acquired through innovative use, and are then genetically transmitted to the next generation. A common example would be a giraffe stretching to retrieve leaves atop a tree. Through this stretching, the neck would 6 Ibid. 7 Frans, Stafleu. Lamarck: The Birth of Biology. Taxon. Vol. 20, No. 4 (1971) p. 398. 8 S. Lovtrup. Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth . Croom Helm, London. 1953, p. 53 7 become longer throughout its lifetime and then transmit this new characteristic to its offspring. 9Even though Lamarck’s ideas on transformations were found to be incorrect, his ideas would lead to Darwin’s revolutionary theory of natural selection (through random genetic mutation). After a trip to the Galápagos Islands in 1835, Charles Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection. While observing the finches on the island, he concluded that each adapted to different biological niches. Unlike Lamarck’s early work on transformation, Darwin’s suggestions were not teleological, meaning that the organisms did not adapt to their environment for a particular purpose. Instead, dominant characteristics or traits that were favorable to the organism’s survival were passed on by those who lived to reproduce the next generation. In his groundbreaking work On the Origin of Species, Darwin described natural selection in the