__

EEvvoolluuttiioonn,, BBiioollooggyy

&& SSoocciieettyy Spring 2009 Newsletter of the ASA Section on , Biology & Volume 6, No. 1

Chair In this issue: 2008-2009 Evolution of Evolutionary Thought by Rosemary L. Hopcroft, UNC-Charlotte Richard Hutchinson Book Reviews: Turner and Maryanski’s Past Chair On the Origins of by Natural 2004-2008 Selection and Marc Schneider’s The Alexandra Maryanski, UC-Riverside. Theory Primer Section News: New program at UC- Chair-Elect Riverside; Conference at Penn State 2009-2010 2009 ASA Schedule Stephen Sanderson, UC-Riverside

Secretary-Treasurer You are cordially invited to the 2004-2009 Michael Hammond, University of Toronto Evolution, Biology and Society

Council Members Reception James F. Hollander, Texas Instruments Inc. Dallas, Tx (2004-2009) at the Christine Horne, Washington State 2009 Annual Meeting of the University (2008-2011) Richard Hutchinson, LA Tech University American Sociological Association (2004-2009) Alexander Lascaux, University of Co-sponsored with the Hertfordshire, UK Section on Mathematical & the J. Scott Lewis, Penn State—Harrisburg Rationality & Society Section Patrick Nolan, University of South Carolina (2008-2011) Monday night, August 10

Newsletter editor and Webperson 6:30 pm to 8:10 pm Rosemary L. Hopcroft, UNC-Charlotte Hilton San Francisco www2.asanet.org/sectionevol/ Room TBA

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 2 –

Greetings from the Chair support the section, and help the section to Genetics and Evolution- support biosocial research of all kinds. I have heard people say on several occasions that Heralding the New Biosocial there is no bias against this kind of work. It is Sociology not so, at least with evolutionary work. I have had editors of both sociology and women’s Rosemary L. Hopcroft studies journals refuse to send my papers out University of North Carolina at Charlotte for review. I was denied promotion to Full Professor because of my research in the Dear all, evolutionary area. We have two sessions at the ASA This is my last letter as Chair of the section, representing the evolutionists and the and I want to make the most of it! It has been geneticists. They will be great sessions, I am five years since the section began, and we are sure. The reception is a joint one – with going strong! There have been special issues Mathematical Sociology and Rationality and of both the American Journal of Sociology and Society. It is scheduled for Monday evening. I Social Forces on biology and sociology. Much understand that given that our Section Day is of the work published in these special issues is Saturday, August 8th, this timing may pose on the relationship between genes, problems for some of you. Nevertheless, if your neurotransmitters, hormones etc. and social schedule permits, I hope to see you there. behavior. Not only did the Ad Health study If you can’t make the Reception, I do hope collect genetic data, but as I understand it now you can attend the Business Meeting: Sat, Aug the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study will begin 8 - 5:30pm - 6:10pm, Hilton San Francisco. As collecting this data. I know that most of the you are probably aware, ASA uses business researchers analyzing such data understand section attendance as a gauge of interest in a they are looking at biochemicals, and they also section. We need to demonstrate to them that understand that “nothing in biology makes we are what we are - a viable and thriving sense except in the light of evolution.” section! The rise of this work in sociology I applaud. Now I would like to say what I don’t want to -Rosemary Hopcroft happen. I don’t want this work on genes and hormones, work that emphasizes individual differences, to swamp work that emphasizes what all humans have in common – the vast majority of our DNA. This, I think, is where the evolutionists come in, because evolutionary research in economics, sociology and psychology continues to emphasize our common genetic heritage. Another thing I don’t want to see happen is the evolutionists and the geneticists to part ways. Yes, you can look at the social effects of biology without thinking of evolution, and yes, you can test evolutionary ideas without actually measuring any biological markers. But they are better off together, they complement each other and are both necessary for a truly biosocial sociology. I have endeavored to build this section to the best of my ability. I have a hunch that it will be the catalyst for a new sociology, the kind the founders envisaged. I urge you all to

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 3 –

leading transmutationists was Lamarck. Like The Evolution of Evolutionary others of the period, influenced by the ancient Greeks, Lamarck believed that simple new Thought forms of life arose spontaneously, and then changed over time, an alternative to both Richard Hutchinson, religious creationism and the evolution through Louisiana Tech University common descent of all living things that is the prevailing view among biologists since Darwin. Darwin Day, February 15, 2009 th Lamarck proposed two forces of transmutation, On the occasion of Darwin’s 200 birthday, the complexifying force and the adaptive force I hope to offer some perspective on what (Larson 2004). Lamarck’s powerful and Darwin’s contribution really was and what it coherent vision of evolution had at its core the was not, on what came before Darwin and idea of progress, a ladder of perfection from what came after. To the public, the name lower to higher forms of life (Mayr 1976a). Darwin is inextricably associated with “the Darwin’s great contribution was his theory theory of evolution.” In science, and of . At a single stroke this particularly in biology, Darwin is recognized for mechanism made unnecessary any sort of his theory of natural selection, a central vitalism, any internal forces within organisms mechanism of evolution. On the one hand other than survival and reproduction. Darwin, Darwin was far from the first to propose the like his grandfather , also a biologist, idea of evolution, the idea that organisms proposed that all living things are related, change over time. Given a broad enough descended from a common ancestor. This definition of evolution, versions of the idea position eliminated the need for spontaneous have been traced back as far as Empedocles generation of new life, something which was no over 2400 years ago (Osborn 1929), and “[t]he more observed by Lamarck or his idea of evolution had been widespread for contemporaries than a one-time creation of the more than 100 years before 1859" (Mayr th th universe. According to Richard Lewontin, even 1976b: 278). Referring only to 18 and 19 natural selection was not Darwin’s most century writers, Darwin acknowledged that important contribution, for “...it is, in the end, “...the view that species were subject to only a completion of the unfinished Cartesian change had, before him, been held by ... revolution that demanded a mechanical model Marchant, Montesquieu, Buffon, Maupertuis, for all living processes” (Lewontin 1983). In Diderot, Darwin’s own grandfather Erasmus, Lewontin’s view, it is Darwin’s emphasis on Geoffroy St. Hilaire, Goethe, Lamarck and variation, the variation among organisms in Moritzi” (de Beer 1958: 1). On the other hand populations, that makes him an epistemological it is certainly true that Darwin’s The Origin of revolutionary. Prior to Darwin, and still Species had a huge impact both in the persistent today, is the Platonic, essentialist scientific community and in society generally, in view that emphasizes a typical organism, or an Britain and beyond. It popularized the idea of average, or an essence, rather than taking the evolution and convinced most scientists of the variation as the important source of change. fact of evolution, the fact that biological What is selected in evolution via natural organisms change over time, if not the selection? Individual organisms live or die, particulars of how it happens. The general what Spencer (in)famously called “survival of trend in evolutionary thought has been away the fittest,” but the result is not just inviduals, from metaphysics and toward empirically but rather populations with shifting sets of grounded theory, and Darwin’s theory marked traits. a huge advance in that direction. Darwin actually proposed a second mechanism of evolution that has been Evolution in Biology supported in subsequent research, and that is The idea of what we now call evolution was th sexual selection. Like the peacock’s tail, the on the rise in the 19 century, but in that period standard example, some traits are not adaptive it was known as transmutationism. One of the in any sense other than in attracting a mate.

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 4 –

What is not well understood by the public, The core of the synthesis was the though, is that there are several important mathematical work of Fischer, Haldane and mechanisms of evolution beyond natural Wright in population genetics. Fischer showed selection and sexual selection that Darwin did that the probability of a genetic mutation being not discover. So to call evolutionary theory diffused through a population is inversely “Darwinian theory” is not just a simplification, it proportional to the effect of the mutation, thus is simply not accurate. demonstrating that genetics and selection were One of the most crucial pieces missing from perfectly compatible at the population level. Darwin’s understanding was the inheritance of Haldane applied the same statistical traits. He proposed something called procedures to the famous field studies of pangenesis, a purely speculative idea that peppered moths with shifting frequencies of proved totally wrong. It was a contemporary of melanin in response to industrial soot. Wright Darwin in Austria, Gregor Mendel, who developed the concept of an adaptive discovered the laws of inheritance through landscape and added the crucial mechanism of experiments on pea plants. Though his genetic drift to the new evolutionary synthesis, research was published in 1866, Mendel’s with isolated populations developing divergent basic framework of genetics only became frequencies of traits. Drift is now generally widely known after the turn of the century, and believed to be more powerful than selection in it wasn’t until the decade from 1936 to 1947 shaping the gene frequencies of populations that Darwin’s theory of natural selection and (DeSalle & Tattersall 2008: 83). Mendelian genetics were combined in what This new understanding was fleshed out came to be called the Modern Synthesis. and elaborated by Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, So between Darwin’s 1859 publication of George Gaylord Simpson and G. Ledyard The Origin of Species and the evolution of Stebbins (Grene & Depew 2004; Dobzhansky mature evolutionary theory in biology was an et al 1977). Therefore natural selection, approximately 80-year period of mutual genetics and genetic drift are all central to incomprehension and fierce competition among evolution, and in place of the name Darwinism rival schools of biologists. According to Ernst for evolutionary theory, it would be more Mayr, “[t]he number of competing theories of accurate to speak of Darwin-Mendel- evolution in vogue before the synthesis is quite Wrightism! The Modern Synthesis was firmly bewildering” (Mayr 1980: 4). He presents a in place by the 100th anniversary of Origin in simplified typology of five rival schools: 1959. It is beyond the scope of this talk to Geoffroyism (inheritance of acquired address more recent developments in biology. characters), orthogenesis (a built-in drive Evolution in Sociology and Anthropology toward progress), saltationism or Darwin was not the only scholar whose macrogenesis (sudden large mutations), the name was synonymous with evolution in the original Darwinism (which did not decisively Victorian Age. Herbert Spencer was widely rule out soft inheritance), and neo-Darwinism read and highly acclaimed in his time, but had (which did). The least metaphysical groups gone into eclipse by the time he died in 1903. were the Mendelian experimentalists and the Self-taught and intellectually overambitious, Darwinian naturalists. The naturalists still Spencer sought to explain everything from didn’t have a mechanism for inheritance, while physics through biology to psychology and the geneticists mistakenly believed that sociology using the principle of evolution. mutations had to be large and discontinuous, Nowadays generally reviled for a caricature of leading to new species, and therefore did not his libertarian political ideology, his theory of think gradual evolution by selection was has been largely possible. These groups finally came together forgotten, leading later scholars to periodically in what Julian Huxley first called the Modern reinvent it (Turner 1985). Synthesis (1942), pioneered by R.A. Fischer, Spencer’s theory of the evolution of the J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, and Wright’s super-organic realm of society involved a student Theodosius Dobzhansky (Eldredge systematic analysis of the social structure, 2000; Grene & Depew 2004). including environmental factors, population

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 5 – size, division of labor, and increasing size of Two hundred years after Darwin’s birth, and government. His functionalist theory focused 150 years after the publication of The Origin of on regulatory, sustaining and distributive Species, evolutionary thought continues to structures. Spencer was a general systems evolve into the 21st century! theorist before his time. He proposed that evolution involved a movement toward References differentiation, toward greater complexity of structure, but he included dissolution as the de Beer, Sir Gavin. 1958. “Forward” to counter-tendency. In other words, in his Evolution By Natural Selection by scientific social theory he did not assume and Alfred Russell upward progress (teleology), as his optimistic Wallace. Cambridge: Cambridge political views might indicate. University Press. Sociocultural evolution is not central to either sociology or anthropology as evolution is DeSalle, Rob and Ian Tattersall. 2008. Human central to biology, and evolutionary theorizing Origins: What Bones and Genomes Tell in both fields has gone through various cycles Us About Ourselves. College Station, of acceptance and rejection, chronicled by TX: Texas A&M University Press. Stephen Sanderson (Sanderson 2007). Jonathan Turner’s recent theory of institutional Dobzhansky, Theodosius, et al. 1977. selectionism updates Spencer with two Evolution. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & mechanisms of : Durkheimian Co. selection, in which competition for resources creates new niches and thus social Grene, Marjorie and David Depew. 2004. The differentiation, and Spencerian selection, in Philosophy of Biology: An Episodic which population growth creates increased History. Cambridge: Cambridge logistical loads which leads to institutional University Press. innovation, leading so social differentiation (Turner 2003). In anthropology, Marvin Hammerstein, Peter, ed. 2003. Genetic and Harris’s cultural materialist theory proposes a of Cooperation. an intensification-depletion-renewed Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. intensification model to explain the broad pattern of sociocultural evolution, including Huxley, Julian. 1942. Evolution: The Modern such relatively archaeologically well- Synthesis. London: George Allen & Unwin. documented events as the origin of agriculture and the state (Sanderson 2007). Larson, Edward J. 2004. Evolution: The Another area of research on sociocultural Remarkable History of a Scientific evolution looks not at macro-level social Theory. NY: Modern Library. structure but at individual-level interaction. Robert Boyd and Peter J. Richerson have used Lewontin, Richard. 1983. “Darwin’s game theory to model the transmission of Revolution.” Review of culture (Richerson & Boyd 2005). Their project Books, Volume 30, Number 10: June is an attempt to develop a general-purpose 16. agent-based theory of sociocultural evolution parallel to biology’s theory of biological Mayr, Ernst. 1976a. “Lamarck Revisited.” Ch. evolution. One of the central topics of this 17 in Evolution and the Diversity of Life research is the origin and evolution of social by Ernst Mayr. Cambridge, MA: cooperation (Hammerstein 2003). Rooted in Harvard University Press. cultural anthropology, Boyd and his collaborators draw more on psychology and ______. 1976b. “The Nature of the economics than sociology, and their work Darwinian Revolution.” Ch. 22 in points in a direction that seems quite fruitful for Evolution and the Diversity of Life by future interdisciplinary work in social science.

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 6 –

Ernst Mayr. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Book Review: University Press. On the Origins of Societies by ______. 1980. “Some Thoughts on the Natural Selection History of the Evolutionary Synthesis.” Prologue to The Evolutionary Synthesis: Mel Barber Perspectives on the Unification of Flagler College Biology, edited by Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine. Cambridge, MA: On the Origins of Societies by Natural Harvard University Press. Selection, by Jonathan Turner and Alexandra Maryanski is an important and propitious book. Osborn, Henry Fairfield. [1894] 1929. From The title of the book alone announces it as an the Greeks to Darwin: The Development ambitious treatment of evolution in the of the Evolution Idea Through Twenty- Darwinian tradition; its substance will provoke Four Centuries, Second Edition. NY: scientific debate and research for years to Charles Scribner’s Sons. come. Turner and Maryanski attempt to explain the origins and evolution of human Richerson, Peter J. and Robert Boyd. 2005. societies. In reality the book is a composite of Not By Genes Alone: How Culture two streams of research that attempt to explain Transformed . the origins of society; it is, then, two books in Chicago: University of Chicago Press. one. The first part of the book attempts to account for the development of human Sanderson, Stephen K. 2007. Evolutionism societies by tracing the development of social and Its Critics. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. relationships from primates to modern humans. The second part of the book attempts to Turner, Jonathan H. 1985. Herbert Spencer: develop an account of the evolution of society A Renewed Appreciation. Beverly Hills, by natural selection from the first horde CA: Sage. societies through industrial societies. Let us ______. 2003. Human Institutions: A examine the first part of the book. Theory of Societal Evolution. Lanham, The authors begin their work by making MD: Rowman & Littlefield. a provocative statement, “human society evolved from earlier forms of social structure that became unique to apes.” The authors argue that the social structure of human society differs from the social structure of apes; it is a much more compact social structure that is adapted to an environment in which there are large predators and open terrain. Ape social structure evolved in a three dimensional environment that was relatively safe from predators; there is a basic transformations of emotions, the adaption of the primate brain, and the basic mammalian physiology to an arboreal environment, which reshaped vision, hearing, touch, and smell to an environment in which vision and prehensile appendages. Apes have a relatively loose social structure with weak social ties and more fluid social relationships. In turn, the ape social structure is different from that of monkeys. Turner and Maryanski observe a distinct evolutionary

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 7 – development of social structure from monkeys greater rate than the initial population. Over to humans. Humans develop a more compact time the organisms with the new traits are able social structure with stronger social ties to to displace the organisms with the old traits. I adapt to a more open environment with an see no such mechanism with Turner and abundance of large predators. The more Maryanski’s selection process. The societies compact social structure and the stronger are static entities, which reproduce and change social ties are seen to provide a selective with no real connection with the environment in advantage to hominids and they are able to which they exist. Population growth is seen to expand their populations. be the causal agent that leads to the The second part of the book treats the developments in society, but no direct development of societies from the horde, the mechanism is presented that accounts for the simplest human society, to the most complex changes in traits. Hunters and gatherers are industrial societies; it is a theory of societal transformed into horticulturalists as if by magic. evolution. They describe the hunting and Population growth and permanence of gathering society as the primordial society; settlement are seen by Turner and Maryanski from it all other forms of societies develop. to have an impact on the shift to the cultivation Natural selection is seen as a universal of plants. However, they do not explain how mechanism for this theory, a mechanism that population and permanence of settlement lead can be used to analyze all the phenomena they to the cultivation of plants. observe. Still, they cannot tell us precisely how A basic problem for the Turner-Maryanski society moves from one type to another, but system is determining why such things as they assume that there is an evolution.Turner polity, surplus, economy, property, etc. and Maryanski believe they have “explained have developed. Just indicating that they why and how institutions formed” as well as developed because conditions were right how and why they differentiated. In addition, does not explain why or how the they examine the selection pressures phenomena occurred. Developing a responsible for the evolution of society through narrative of the development definitely does the four stages of evolution (hunting and not explain the phenomena. gathering, horticultural, agrarian, and In evolution, the causal sequence is industrial/post-industrial societies. Their extremely important. Overall, Gerhard argument revolves around the assertion that Lenski (2005) contributes a causal social evolution occurs in society through the sequence of types of societies, but by no development and differentiation of social means has he been able to demonstrate institutions. how one type of society leads to another Turner and Maryanski do identify a possible other than in some sort of chronological mechanism, but they fail to use it in a way in sequence. Lenski cannot demonstrate how which can account for the phenomena they society moves from a simple society to a observe. For example, they do not more complex one. This, of course, demonstrate how the principle of natural involves a fundamental principle in science: selection actually selects societies and the the nature of things does not change, so it institutions within them. They do not tell us is most important to identify natural things, why societies seem to operate by a different describe their nature and demonstrate how principle than organisms do in biological those natural things are responsible for the evolution. phenomena we observe. Turner and Natural selection in biology operates on the Maryanski follow Lenski’s sequence without basis that organisms reproduce at a prolific modification but they cannot tell how the rate and the majority of the organisms will evolution from one to the other occurs. reproduce and preserve the traits they have. They do, however, overlook a significant However, at random points in the process, type of society that may be important in the there are changes in the traits of some explanation of the evolution of societal organisms and because of the advantages of complexity: pastoral societies. It is not the new traits the organisms reproduce at a wholly Turner and Maryanski’s fault that

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 8 –

they fail to document the sequence of If we define power as the capacity to dictate societal evolution, but that is a fundamental the actions of others, Turner and Maryanski problem that needs to be solved if a observe four bases of power: This really is a satisfactory theory is to be developed. typology of power. Likewise, if the institutional framework is to • Coercive Power – the ability to be explained, the sequence and timing are use physical force to make others crucial. It is far more important for the obey the power holder. theorist to isolate and to setup problems for • Symbolic Power – the capacity the fundamental mechanism to solve than to use appeals to values and to solve all the problems related to the ideologies to control the behavior theory. A simple explanatory model will of others. provide theoretical models for a lot of • Material Incentives – the use of phenomena. It is much more important to incentives or disincentives (I demonstrate that a specific problem needs suppose rewards and to be solved in order for the science to punishment) to secure obedience proceed. The chief problem is the to the power holder. transformation of an egalitarian type of • Administrative Power – the use social organization to a social organization of organizational systems to in which power is present. How this monitor and control actions of happens is the key issue. Turner and others. Maryanski tell us that there is a There are two important dimensions of power: transformation, but they use a Spencerian • Consolidation of Power – refers type of “explanation” to understand the to which bases of power and to process; how the process actually happens what degree those bases of is never explained. power are utilized as a means of A more fundamental problem with the regulating and controlling the book is that it fails to provide explanations actions of others. of phenomena using natural selection as a • Centralization of Decision- theory. Instead they use natural selection Making and Leadership – as an interpretive device in a narrative denotes the degree of description of the changes in society. An concentration of decision-making important example of this problem is in their prerogatives among actors. examination of the rise of what Turner and What is the advantage of viewing power in this Maryanski term power. Power is used by way rather than as observed them as a device to explain the key power? Why not classify power as non- developments in social structure in legitimate power (coercive power) and horticultural societies. Their discussion of legitimate power? Why not then treat power provides another illustration of the legitimate power as Weber did when he lack of analogy with biology; they perceive defined them charismatic (symbolic power), the development of power as somehow traditional (no cognate type in Turner and connected with the effects of population Maryanski’s classification), and rational-legal growth on hunting and gathering societies. power (Turner and Maryanski’s administrative They find that population growth in hunting power)? Why aren’t coercive power and and gathering societies leads to a degree of material power combined into a single type of consolidation of power. How is that so? power, coercive power or non-legitimate Population growth in hunting and gathering power? What is gained by referring to a societies actually leads to the segmentation legitimate type of coercive power? If we or fissioning of the societies; thus the control a corporation do we not have both population of each new society remains coercive power and material power? How can roughly the same and there is very little we be certain that coercive power is different basis for (selective?) pressure, let alone from material power? It is important that a increased consolidation of power.

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 9 – theoretical term has a singular meaning. What a concept developed for the observation of is the intent in conceptualizing power relations? social action, as such it is a heuristic concept For Weber, it was to provide a vantage point and is useful in observing relationships, but it is from which to observe the action and meaning not useful in the explanation of those same of the actors in a situation, which is primarily a relationships. Concepts of a different type are descriptive purpose. Turner and Maryanski required to explain the phenomena. A key appear to have an explanatory purpose, but question here then is how is consolidation of they fail to observe that the concepts they use power distinct from the centralization of power? are not explanatory, but rather they are still Turner and Maryanski’s analyses turn out to be only descriptive. Their concepts are designed a matter of distinguishing various phenomena for the same thing Weber’s concepts are rather than demonstrating how the workings of designed for, to observe social action. After phenomena are described by the operation of observation, the concept has done its work. It a mechanism. is then necessary to develop new concepts to There is an important piece of observe newly revealed situations. evolutionary theory missing in Turner and Traditionally we have given the name Maryanski’s account of the origins and ideographic to refer to such concepts. They evolution of human society by natural lead in the opposite direction from nomothetic selection. They depend on a conventional explanatory theories and concepts. Why aren’t understanding of biological theory to provide a coercive power and administrative power shadow explanation of the appearance of combined into a single type of power, coercive society and its development into new forms. power? Isn’t administrative power coercive? In evolutionary theory there is an abundance of What Turner and Maryanski illustrate here is forms and the forms compete for the resources that their concept is designed for the in an environment. There is also a variety of observation of something that may be referred forms, in varying degrees of fitness to the to as a power relationship; the concept is environment, competing for the resources designed to observe and describe social action available. The machinery of selection is driven and not to explain it. by reproduction replicating the various forms. It is most interesting that Turner and Those forms that are most suited to the Maryanski argue that the consolidation of environment are selected by the natural power inevitably leads to a centralization of characteristics of the environment to remain to power (2008:189). However, they argue that reproduce. In fact, a truly successful species is consolidation of coercive and administrative able to expand its population. Those who are power leads to power that is more centralized not fit will reproduce until they cannot. They than power that is consolidated on material and will be replaced by the successfully symbolic bases; therefore, a polity which reproductive forms. monopolizes coercive and administrative power What is the future of human societies if its has a distinct selective advantage over religion forms and nature are determined by natural which will always lead to an expansion of selection as described by Turner and polity. Are Turner and Maryanski referring to Maryanski? Shall we see the continuous some kind of chemistry of power? And will reproduction of industrial societies? Or will we symbolic power like that of the Ayatollah see society change in predictable ways Khomeini or Adolf Hitler be less centralized because of natural selection? It seems that than the administrative power of George Bush Turner and Maryanski are describing what they or Jimmy Carter as presidents? are observing, but how they are extending the There is a fundamental problem with the scope of evolutionary theory is an open Turner-Maryanski conception of power. Part of question. the problem is the attempt to use concepts, which have been designed for the observation References of phenomena as concepts for the explanation of phenomena. Generalization of observation Jonathan H. Turner and Alexandra Maryanski concepts will not provide explanation. Power is (2008), On the Origins of Societies by

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 10 –

Natural Selection, Boulder: Paradigm analysis (the process of determining the Publishers. constituents of things and breaking things down into their essential components) and Lenski, Gerhard (2005), Ecological- explication (the process of determining the true Evolutionary Theory. Boulder: Paradigm meaning of things) are part of the theorizing Publishers. process, but Schneider argues that true theorizing is found in causal modeling (the process of uncovering the causal mechanisms ******* for all processes within the theoretical field being explored). Schneider then develops the criteria for creating and evaluating theories (Chapter 1). Book Review: Schneider sees theorizing as a three phase Scientific Theory in Sociology: process: defining a problem, creating a theory, Some Thoughts on Schneider’s and evaluating the theory. Each of the phases in the theorizing process are further broken The Theory Primer: A down into steps. To describe the entire Sociological Guide process, Schneider utilizes a typification of the research process and tacitly emphasizes the importance of the experimental method in Mel Barber scientific theorizing. In the problem phase, he Flagler College identifies the importance of curiosity and

wonder. He uses the concrete example of the Schneider’s book, The Theory Primer, is a rare culture of honor theory of violence in the South book in theory. It attempts to engage the as developed by Nisbet and Cohen. reader in the adventure of theory construction and evaluation. It also attempts to teach the Paradigms and Theories reader the skill of theorizing. Schneider is well Schneider makes a distinction between prepared to discuss theory. He has masterfully what he calls paradigms and theories and discussed the works of the classical theorists, argues that paradigms are too general. This is Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Mead. He has how he refers to conflict theory, functionalism also masterfully linked those theories with (consensus theory), and symbolic contemporary theories. He takes interactionism. What he fails to see is that with contemporary theorists to task for failing to the exception of symbolic interaction the take up the task of theorizing in the classical “paradigms” are theories of society, the mode. fundamental theories of the science of This is an excellent treatment of theory. sociology. Through these theories sociologists Schneider explains how theories work and how formulate models explaining phenomena. the scientific theories are different from Such models; they are applications of the empirical generalizations. However, Schneider fundamental theories. So fundamental fails to make use of the theories by theories are much more than orienting demonstrating how strong theories can be strategies; they constitute the very heart of our linked (or subsumed) to develop cumulative science. knowledge. He develops a good analysis of Schneider’s discussion of theory formation the difference between analytic and truly gives the reader the erroneous impression that scientific theories, but he fails to use that theories are formulated ad hoc without any knowledge to build stronger theories. other aid than the powers of reason. This may Nevertheless, Schneider has a good grasp of be the practice of theory formation in sociology, what is necessary to evaluate theories. First of but in science it is much more organized, and all, he distinguishes three types of explanation: theories often suggest empirical research. analysis, explication, and causal accounting or When an experiment is done, it is performed to causal modeling. He demonstrates how demonstrate the capabilities of a primary

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 11 – mechanism; it is also performed in the context 4. The author attempts to build skill in of exploring the limits of a theory. When theorizing and engage the reader in developing wonder occurs, it is explored in the context of a skill in analyzing and constructing theories. well developed fundamental theory and in 5. The discussions of the individual theories terms of well understood mechanisms. What is are strong and robust. Each theory is attempted is the application of what is known to evaluated with thoroughness because of the what is not known. And when the scientists uniform criteria for evaluation which he are confronted with implacable anomalies, they develops early in the book. have clues to follow which might improve their 6. Schneider clearly demonstrates the role of fundamental picture of the universe and its empirical research in the testing, evaluation, mechanisms. and development of scientific theory. His use When Kuhn developed his conception of of generalizations demonstrates that while paradigm, he used a single science as his generalizations do not constitute theory, in a model, physics. In that science he observed strict sense, they can be used to enhance competing theories jockeying for dominance in theory development. the field of physical theory. He also observed There are several weaknesses in the book: that often a candidate for a new paradigmatic 1. A major weakness in the book is a failure to dominance was selected even when it did not utilize the evolutionary theory of Spencer to actually explain more than the other theories. enhance our knowledge of social phenomena. What this illustrates is that a science can have However, in so many areas Schneider only a single paradigm and that the paradigm demonstrates how classical theories give drives research and theory development. The sociologists fundamental insights. whole process is seen as social and Nevertheless, because these fundamental evolutionary. insights are not mined from some important The interesting thing is that sociologists did confluents of social theory (like Spencer’s not view the process of paradigm shaping as a evolutionary theory) his utilization of theories is social process, but rather as a world where incomplete. This may be a reflection of the paradigms developed and persistently or failure of the author to focus on a primary perpetually remained separate from and mechanism of the science to unify all theories isolated from one another. The sociologist utilizing that mechanism to explain does not see a social and evolutionary phenomena. Schneider fails to use perfectly process, but rather a static situation where good theories such as Spencer’s theory of the theories remain pure and never develop into struggle for existence and the survival of the dominant paradigms for the science. So for fittest (natural selection). He ignores the many theory expositions, sociology is divided importance of evolutionary thinking in into at least three paradigms: conflict, sociology. functionalism, and symbolic interaction. In this 2. Lack of Emphasis on Cumulative way, we see three different ways of observing Knowledge, instead there is a quest for the one the world around us. good theory; I guess you throw out all the “bad” There are several strengths in the book: theories to get to the good one. Schneider 1. The author links classical theoretical work asserts that he is providing the students with a with contemporary theories. He fails to way of evaluating and building theories, but his demonstrate how contemporary theories differ approach to theories is pretty much the same from classical theory, but he does show how as the traditional texts in that he lacks a contemporary theories utilize the insights of concern for cumulative knowledge. classical theory. 3. The bridging concepts between theories 2. The author provides a clear demonstration and empirical research are theoretical models of how theories differ from generalizations and and experiments. The adequacy of theories is how theories must build on theories, demonstrated via these two activities. 3. The focus of the book is on theories and not Schneider fails to use either of these concepts the social and historical context of the lives and in discussing theories. works of the theorists (biography).

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 12 –

4. By focusing on variables, Schneider fails to used to explain the unfolding development and observe that Marx is not doing political progress of society from its early stage with the economy or economics, but rather he is development of hordes to its later stage with developing a scientific theory of society. the development of industrial society. In Schneider also misses the fact that Marx’s Spencer’s view, society once formed has a theory of class struggle utilizes insights that competitive advantage over the unorganized could have come from Spencer’s evolutionary masses of humanity and societies that are able theory. Marx describes a primary mechanism to develop a division of labor have a of the science of society by describing competitive advantage over those that do not; exploitation. Exploitation requires control over the consequence is the extinction of the the resources of society (private property in the simpler societies they encounter. At each form of the means of production). The stage in the progress of society, society description of the expansion of control over the becomes larger and more complex. At the means of production requires an evolutionary industrial stage, the stage comparable to theory which is only sketched by Marx. Marx’s capitalist society, Spencer sees the However, Marx clearly illustrates that development of a society based on contractual expansion of control over the means of relationships. These contractual relationships production leads to the development of use the struggle among enterprises to develop different forms of social organization. the best and most progressive products for Let us examine Marx’s theory in relation to exchange among enterprises. Spencer sees Spencer’s theory to observe how the theories these competitive but cooperative relations actually complement and strengthen one among enterprises occurring without coercion another. It is evident that Marx’s theory or force, but rather as a result of conscious incorporates many of the strengths of voluntarism to organize relations in society to Spencer’s theory as well as expanding the maintain the natural mechanism of society, the scope of the theory. However, for many types struggle for existence. of problems, such as the growth of societies or Marx uses the mechanism of class struggle competition among laborers or capitalists, to explain the same thing. For Marx, societies Spencer’s theory is simpler and still very develop through the establishment of useful. For more complex problems like the productive relationships; he shows how origin of the division of labor, private property, societies have progressed through the etc., Marx’s theory is necessary. exploitation of labor and at critical points in the The primary mechanism of Marx’s theory of development of societies, revolutions in the society is the exploitation of labor. The relations of production become necessary. capitalist class carries out the exploitation of Both Marx and Spencer use competition labor in capitalism, the nobility (lords of (natural selection) to explain changes in estates) in feudalism, the masters and owners society. However, it must be made clear that of slaves in barbarism, etc. In short, Marx’s Marx sees the struggle for existence and the theory of class struggle accounts for the survival of the fittest among laborers and relations of production in each stage of the among capitalists taking place within their development of society. In capitalism, for respective domains (within the capitalist class example, the bourgeoisie exploits labor to and within the laboring class) as well as extract surplus value, the basis of profit for the between the laboring class and capitalist class. bourgeoisie. The same mechanism is used in Spencer sees the struggle for existence earlier social formations such as feudalism and (competition) among all workers as though barbarism. In feudalism the lords of estates there is a level playing field and everyone exploit the labor of serfs to produce surplus- competes with everyone else. The end result value. Exploitation of labor is especially clear seems fair in Spencer’s view because in capitalist societies, because the bourgeoisie everyone puts in his best effort and the “The make it clear how it uses labor to make a profit. Best One,” the superior competitor wins: the Spencer’s theory of the struggle for existence Survival of the Fittest. However, Marx sees the among organisms in society and societies is competition rigged so that the competition

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 13 – takes place at the class level: among the Kuhn’s sense, and a normal scientist. As such Bourgeoisie and among the Proletariat. The Marx’s general theory has been demonstrated competition between the two classes is rigged as being useful as an explanation of general so the Bourgeoisie will always win. social phenomena. Many phenomena in The two theories are comparable in terms capitalist societies are understandable because of the criteria of simplicity. Both Marx and of his theoretical work and empirical proof. Spencer observe a simple mechanism, There are several other shortcomings in competition, establishing social order and Schneider’s treatment of Marx and Spencer. social change. The theories of society of both He emphasizes problem-solving, but fails to Marx and Spencer have wide scope; they can present the fundamental problems to be solved both be used to explain a wide variety of by the science of sociology. He fails to focus phenomena. Both the theories of Marx and on a fundamental problem that is solved by Spencer have spawned lots of research and social theory—the nature of society. He have been theoretically fertile. In Spencer and identifies mechanisms as an important part of Marx the causal mechanisms are clearly theory-building, but fails to see the importance identified. In Spencer it is the struggle for of a primary mechanism for the science of existence with the survival of the fittest (natural sociology. selection in Darwinian terms). Those societies 5. By failing to utilize a conception of theory that are most fit for their environments are able which sees theory deriving from a fundamental to replace those societies that are least fit. For conception of the primary mechanism of the example, in times of war, militant societies are science, Schneider cannot adequately most fit and in times of peace, industrial distinguish applications of the theory from the societies are most fit. The same mechanism is theory itself. This leads him to observing at work internally in society to advance or vague “challenges to the theory” when the extinguish individuals as well. Spencer uses a challenge is often only to the theoretical model simple mechanism that has wide applicability of the fundamental theory (i.e., theoretical and has had a tremendous effect in stimulating models are application of the fundamental research and theory. theory). An example of this problem is the Marx’s theory of class exploitation is equally treatment of suicide which Schneider argues is simple and is useful in explaining the based on Durkheim’s theoretical intuition. developments of societies through their various However, Durkheim clearly has a theory of stages of development. Marx’s theory has had society which he has previously developed and enormous applicability in research and theory which he uses to construct a theoretical model as well as in the practical arena of organizing of suicide. It must be emphasized here that whole societies. It is clearly a theory that the theory of suicide is not a new theory, but applies to societies of all types. The causal rather an application of an old theory of society relationship between the mechanism and all that Durkheim has used successfully in the other developments in society is clearer and past (and many sociologists still use his theory more developed in Marx’s theory. What we successfully in contemporary sociology). In see here is that each development in the science, the fundamental theory of society fundamental theory actually complements and dictates what phenomena should be examined. explains the same phenomena more Clearly, in the case of suicide, individual accurately. The theoretical models and motives could be examined if they could be experiments focus the development of theory demonstrated to be based on the way society on fundamental problems of the science. It is is organized, but the most direct link is to show this kind of development Schneider fails to that behaviors (the acts of suicide) are directly demonstrate. based on the fundamental forces operative in Marx’s main theoretical effort is paradigm societies. shaping. However, he also devoted a great What Schneider fails to observe in deal of his theoretical efforts in modeling a Durkheim is a fatal flaw in his theory. variety of phenomena in capitalist societies. Durkheim still sees society as being developed Marx was both a revolutionary theorist, in from the actions of human beings. He does

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 14 – not appreciate the full weight of his theory. the social universe. A challenge Society is not tied together by anything. discovered in experiments and Instead it is together because of inertia. observational research does not make Spencer observed this long ago. He saw that the theory wrong; rather it demonstrates whatever brought human beings together is not where the theory might be improved. All what is important, but rather it is the fact of the principles of the basic theory may be being together that is important. It is being correct, but a more basic principle, together that brings about cooperation and not unobserved prior to that point, may cooperation that brings about togetherness. It underlie the basic picture of the universe is being together that brings about what the theory is attempting to describe. Durkheim identifies as solidarity and not Science must always attempt to solidarity that brings about togetherness. This discover that more basic principle and fact of being together is what is important, and make the basic theory of the science a not collective conscience, not culture, not universal theory that can be applied to anything but that brutal fact of togetherness. all phenomena. Schneider’s approach This togetherness is completely at the mercy of is not bold enough. evolutionary forces. 6. In science, all theories of phenomena Concluding Remarks are applications of a more basic, fundamental theory. Schneider This is an excellent book in theory and I assumed that challenges to the theory would recommend its use as a theory text in (anomalies) somehow disprove theory, theory classes, however, I recommend that it demonstrating that underlying be supplemented with a good text in Schneider’s approach there is an evolutionary sociology. Schneider’s approach empiricist view of theory. This forces to the analysis of theory and theory building Schneider to misplace his critical engage the reader in active theorizing. evaluation of the theoretical Nevertheless, his conception of scientific contributions of the founders of the method fails to facilitate the development of the science of sociology. The criterion of science of sociology, but rather severely robustness which he applies to models restricts the scope of the science and of phenomena does not permit an condemns sociology to a fate akin to that of evaluation of the basic theory. To Sisyphus of ancient Greek mythology; evaluate the effectiveness of a sociology is perpetually engaged in wondering theoretical model it is necessary to about things but never quite able to fully uncover and reveal a more basic theory explain them. Sociology is condemned to this that is used by the theorist in the fate by the choices sociologists make and not development of the theoretical model. by the nature of things. This is clearly the case Durkheim’s theory of suicide, for when Schneider fails to include discussion of example, demonstrates the need to evolutionary theory and research that has been modify the more fundamental theory of important in the science since its inception with society he used to develop to develop the work of Herbert Spencer. The research his theoretical model of suicide. He method Schneider ascribes to science does required a more comprehensive vision not capture the spirit of science, but rather of the social world than he had. This is forces sociology to ceaselessly labor to also a result that his theory and develop new theories rather than expand the investigation of the division of labor scope of the theories we have already revealed. What we see is not that his developed. In this way, the insights already theory of suicide or his theory of the developed by our scientists in the past are division of labor is wrong, but rather that unconnected to the theoretical developments his basic more fundamental theory, of other scientists (past, present, or future). while fruitful, lacks scope; it should This is short-sighted. Science is moved enable explanation of all phenomena in forward by building on the theories and insights

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 15 – of preceding generations of scientists. Science 7th Annual Symposium on Family and its most basic theories are built on the shoulders of giants and in sociology our giants Issues are Spencer, Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. October 8-9, 2009 The Pennsylvania State ********** University

Section News: Biosocial Research Contributions to Understanding Family Processes and New Program at UC-Riverside Problems New Program on Evolutionary Sociology at U. C. Riverside Conceptual shifts and technological breakthroughs have placed new emphasis on the importance of combining nature and The faculty of the department of sociology at nurture to understand family processes and U.C. Riverside recently voted to add a new problems. The link between biology and specialization to its graduate program: behavior is no longer regarded as a simple, Evolutionary Sociology. This specialization unidirectional, cause and effect process. views evolution in its broadest sense, including: Today’s researchers emphasize bi-directional (1) the long-term evolution of societies and relations between physiological processes and inter-societal systems, (2) human ecology, (3) behavior, processes that operate in the context the biological basis of human behavior, of previous experience and the demands of a interaction, and organization; and (3) the multi-layered ecology. Biological factors comparative analysis of human and non- mediate and moderate behavioral adaptation to human primates. Students who enter the a range of environmental challenges. At the graduate program will be able to specialize in same time, environmental challenges and these three areas, but all must initially acquire behavioral responses affect biological knowledge of the full range of evolutionary processes. Family relationships are at the dynamics affecting human behavior, intersection of many biological and interaction, and social organization. Core environmental influences. scholars at UCR participating in the new specialization are Christopher Chase-Dunn, The goal of this symposium is to stimulate Steven K. Sanderson, Alexandra Maryanski, conversation among scholars who construct and Jonathan Turner. and use biosocial models, as well as among those who want to know more about biosocial 1 processes. Researchers interested in both biological and social/environmental influences on behavior, health, and development will be represented, including researchers whose work emphasizes behavioral endocrinology, behavior genetics, neuroscience, , sociology, demography, anthropology, economics, and psychology. At this symposium, presenters will consider physiological and environmental influences, starting within the context of the family, on parenting and early childhood development, followed by adolescent adjustment, and then mate selection, family formation, and fertility in young adulthood. Finally, factors that influence

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 16 – how families adapt to social inequalities will be greater gender differentiation. Genetic factors, examined. physiological processes, and shifts in social environmental influences are integral to understanding adolescent development. Thursday, October 8, 2009 Lead speaker: Jenae Neiderhiser, Penn 9:00 am – 12:00 pm State How do physiological and social environmental factors within the family Discussants: S. Alexandra Burt, Michigan State influence parenting and early childhood University behavior and development? Sheri Berenbaum, Penn State Although all phases of development are Sally Powers, University of important, physiologically-linked parenting Massachusetts at Amherst behavior and the family context after birth have immense immediate and long-term consequences for child development. Eye Friday, October 9, 2009 contact, touching, holding, feeding, talking, heightened arousal, and declines in risk 8:30 – 11:30 am behavior are linked to endocrine, genetic, and How do physiological and social other physiological processes that interact with environment factors in the developed world the contextual influences. These biosocial influence mate selection, family formation, processes have evolutionary roots and are and fertility? important for fathers as well as for mothers. In turn, the context of parenting, defined both by In traditional foraging societies, onset of support and adversity, affects offspring self- fecundability, initiation of sexual activity, and regulation and ability to cope with stress and reproduction tended to co-occur within a few establish secure relationships. years. The total fertility rate of women was often substantial. These patterns stand in Lead speaker: Alison Fleming, University of sharp contrast to those in contemporary Toronto at Mississauga developed countries, where physiological maturation occurs even earlier than in the past, Discussants: Anne Story, Memorial University but entry into stable unions and parenthood at Newfoundland occur much later. This trend is dramatic in Susan Calkins, University of North some developed countries, where delayed Carolina, Greensboro reproduction is coupled with below- Jay Belsky, Birkbeck University of replacement fertility. Women’s opportunities in London the work force, delayed marriage, effective birth control methods, and shifts in cultural values account for much of the recent fertility 1:30 – 4:30 pm decline and delay. Women have many more How do physiological and social reproductive options, leading some scholars to environmental factors within the family suggest that genetic influences on fertility– influence development and adjustment in especially its timing–are likely to be greater. adolescence? What are the implications for mate selection Adolescence is a period of dramatic and family formation in the developed world? transformation including biological, social, and What are the implications for fertility and for the cognitive changes. It is a period when youth processes underlying reproduction? gain autonomy and cultivate peer relationships. Many youth develop romantic relationships, Lead Speaker: Steven Gangestad, University and some become involved in risky and of New Mexico delinquent behavior. It is also a period of

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 17 –

Discussants: Brian D’Onofrio, Indiana Section Sessions University David Schmitt, Bradley University 2009 ASA S. Philip Morgan, Duke University Title: Genetically-Informed Sociology: 1:00 – 4:00 pm Promises, Pitfalls, and Current Realities How do physiological and social factors Organizer and Presider: Michael J. Shanahan, influence family adaptations to resource University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disparities? [email protected] influences parenting practices, Time: Sat, Aug 8 - 2:30pm - 4:10pm the quality of family relationships, and the Place: Hilton San Francisco behavior, health and development of family members. Resource disparities also increase Temporal Evidence for Increasing Heritability of the chances of conflict and instability at the Autism, Ka-yuet Liu, Columbia University, community level, which in turn elevate stress [email protected]; and further erode family well-being. Inequality Noam Zerubavel, Columbia University, exerts its effects, in part, through its impacts on [email protected]; physiological processes: Harsh environments Marissa D. King, Columbia University, lead to physiological and behavioral [email protected]; adaptations to stress that increase the chances Peter S. Bearman, Columbia University, of survival. For example, activation of the HPA [email protected]; axis provides for adaptive reactions to proximal stressors, though long term activation comes at Genetic proximity and body mass a cost of poor health. In addition, early child Jason D. Boardman, University of Colorado, rearing practices may be harsher among [email protected]; disadvantaged mothers, thereby disposing Casey Blalock, University of Colorado at children to surviving in a challenging Boulder, [email protected]; environment, but these harsh strategies may Samuel Field, University of North Carolina at come at a cost. Parents also may adapt to Chapel Hill, [email protected]; challenging circumstances by channeling scarce resources to offspring with the best The genetic basis of social context: a potential for success, but their differential molecular, life course study investments may undermine the well-being of Shawn Bauldry, University of North Carolina at other offspring. Chapel Hill, [email protected]; Jason Freeman, University of North Carolina at Lead Speaker: Guang Guo, University of North Chapel Hill, [email protected]; Carolina, Chapel Hill Environments Affecting Genes: Discussants: , University of Missouri Neighborhoods, Neurons, and Beyond Gary Evans, Kristin Jacobson, University of Chicago, Dalton Conley, New York University [email protected];

Discussant: Jeremy Freese, Northwestern ******* University,[email protected];

Title: Evaluating and Testing Evolutionary Arguments Organizer and Presider: Patrick Nolan, University of South Carolina Time: Sat, Aug 8 - 4:30pm - 5:30pm Place: Hilton San Francisco

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 18 –

Marion Blute, University of Toronto- Applications from Neuroscience” in: Mississauga, “Issues in Testing Theories of Norman K. Denzin, James Salvo and Selection: Nomothetic or Idiographic? History Myra Washington (eds.) Studies in and Necessity?” Symbolic Interaction Vol. 31 UK: Emerald Group publishing Limited. Rosemary Hopcroft, University of North 61-80. Carolina-Charlotte “Issues and Challenges of Testing Evolutionary Hypotheses Using Kardulias, P. Nick and Thomas D. Hall. 2008. Existing Survey Data.” “Archaeology and World-Systems Analysis.” World Archaeology: Debates Alexandra Maryanski, University of California- in World Archaeology 40:4:572-583. Riverside, “Confronting the Limitations of Evolutionary Biology for Explaining Socio- Sanderson, Stephen K. 2009. "The evolution Cultural Evolution.” of religion in its socioecological contexts." Pp. 3-17 in Jay Feierman, Mark Simes, Institute for the Advancement of ed., The Biology of Religion, Praeger. Social Science, “Evaluating and Testing Evolutionary Theories in Social Neuroscience.” Sanderson, Stephen K. 2008. "Prolgomenon to a theoretical unification of the social and Stephen Sanderson, Institute for Research on natural sciences." Sociologica, Issue World-Systems, University of California- 3/2008 (online). Riverside, Discussant.

Evolution, Biology and Society Section Sanderson, Stephen K and Wesley W. Business Meeting Roberts, "The evolutionary forms of the : religious life: A cross-cultural, Time: Sat, Aug 8 - 5:30pm - 6:10pm quantitative study." American Place: Hilton San Francisco Anthropologist 110:454-466, 2008.

Sanderson, Stephen K. 2008. "The impact of Darwinism on sociology: An historical ****** and critical overview." Pp. 9-25 in H.-J. Niedenzu, T. Meleghy, and P. Meyer, eds., The New Evolutionary Social Science, Paradigm, 2008. New Publications of Section Members

Bell, Edward, Julie Aitken Schermer and Philip A. Vernon. “The Origins of Political Attitudes and Behaviours: An Analysis Using Twins.” Forthcoming in the Canadian Journal of Political Science.

Diderach, Monique, Ph.D. Sibling Relationships in Step-families: A Sociological Study. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Press

Franks, David D. 2008. “The Controversy of Mind over Matter: Mead's Solution and

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 19 –

Presentations and Other

Franks, David D. Virginia Commonwealth University, "The Political Manipulation of the Unconscious and Symbolic Interaction"

presented at the SSSI meetings; Session on Testing the Edges. Presider: Kieran Bonner The New Evolutionary Social St. Jeromes University in the University of Science: Human Nature, Social Waterloo, Canada. Sunday, August 3, 2008 Behavior, and Social Change (17 pages.)

Franks, David D. and Jeff Davis. 2009. Heinz-Jurgen Niedenzu Tamás Meleghy Proposal for Didactic seminar, ASA meetings Peter Meyer (Editors) 2010.

Hage, Jerry. 2009. “The Evolution of For a long period of time, social scientists Knowledge: A new socio-economic paradigm declared their autonomy from the life of social change”. Paper presented at the sciences, thereby neglecting important University of California—Riverside April 2, biological constraints . 2009 Many sociological theories suggest a nearly complete malleability of patterns of social Hiroko Inoue, Jake Apkarian, Jesse Fletcher, life. Recently, however, Stephen K. Robert A. Hanneman, Kirk Lawrence and Sanderson’s “Darwinian conflict theory” set Christopher Chase-Dunn. "The Human out to synthesize sociological theories with Demographic Regulator" University of key findings from biology into an overarching California-Riverside. presented at the annual scientific paradigm. meeting of the International Studies Configuring and expanding this Association, New York, February 16, 2009.This groundbreaking theory, the contributors to is IROWS Working Paper #41 available at this volume are well-known European and http://irows.ucr.edu/papers/irows41/irows41.ht American experts in evolutionary science. m They develop in this book new bases for understanding social change and the world’s future through a better integration of the life sciences and social sciences

978-1-59451-396-1 (Hardcover) $81.00 $68.85 June 2008 224 pp. http://www.paradigmpublishers.com/Books/ BookDetail.aspx?productID=151521

Heinz-Jürgen Niedenzu is Associate Find the Complete Works of Charles Darwin Professor of Sociology at the University of on-line at Innsbruck, Austria. http://darwin-online.org.uk/ Tamas Meleghy is Professor of Sociology at the University of Innsbruck, Austria. Peter Meyer is Professor of Sociology at the University of Augsburg, Germany.

Evolution, Biology and Society Vol. 6, No. 1 Spring 2009 - 20 –

Free exam copies available for professors

New 11th Edition Human Societies An Introduction to Macrosociology

Patrick Nolan and Gerhard Lenski

This classic text has been fully revised, updated with new data, and refreshed in design for student-friendly reading.

On the Origins of Gender Inequality

Joan Huber

Joan Huber challenges feminists toward a richer understanding of biological origins of inequality—knowledge that can help women achieve greater equality today.

Visit our Website and click on “Order an Exam Copy” www.paradigmpublishers.com