Re: "sociobiology" (whatever that is)

Richard Hutchinson seems to have an unusual definition of sociobiology. As
I understand the term, sociobiology refers to theories that posit
biological features of Homo sapiens to be the fundamental cause of social
behavior or that claim that social behavior is the result of natural
selection.

If I understand what he is arguing, Hutchinson considers studies that show
the physically deleterious effects of material inequality to be
sociobiological studies.

I got one better than this: sickle cell is an biological adaptation humans
in regions of Africa made in response to the widespread development of
intensive horticulture.

But, I always thought these were what some call "biosociological"
findings, i.e., the way social organization impacts the physical organism.
These are not, if definitions mean anything, sociobiological findings,
i.e., the way the genetic constitution of the animal determines a social
organization.

Now if Hutchinson supposes that material inequality among humans was the
consequence of the naturally selected constitution of the species Homo
sapiens, then he would be making a sociobiological argument. I assume, or
at least hope, he would reject such a claim as ludicrous (he is, after
all, not an enemy of the people).

Hutchinson wants to think clearly (as opposed to ideologically, I
suppose), but I am not sure where the evolutionary psychological viewpoint
(which he correctly locates in the general sociobiological field) fits
with the bio-social impact of material inequality (which appears to be his
pet example of bio-social linkages).

As for this notion that a "progressive sociobiologist" advancing a theory
about the evolutionary origins for altruistic behavior is supposed to
impress those of us opposed to biological deterministic arguments, I can
only say that it would be the height of ideological practice to accept as
biologically determined only those social phenomena we laud (putting aside
the question of whether altruism is always a positive event or
orientation--suffice it to say that I don't think it is).

For the record, I flatly reject the notion that human beings are either
altruistic or selfish at birth. They learn to be either or more
realistically a mix of the two. Relatively altruistic societies produce
relatively altruistic members, not the other way around--for it were the
other way around, given the genetic similitude of members of the species
globally, one should expect very little social and cultural variation.

Picking up on this last point, this is the coffin nail for the
sociobiological standpoint. Given the narrow range of genetic variation,
one cannot explain the great social and cultural and historical variation
we have documented. 

One might wish to come back on this and say that sociobiology desires to
show how these differences are superficial and that they all reduce to
basic principle shared by all people through time. To say this they must
create abstractions completely devoid of empirical content (this is the
same procedure structural-functionalist use). Only in the realm of
empirically vacuous categories can their claims be sustained. It then
becomes a purely logical exercise. 

And, in any case, these abstractions are never shown to be genetically
determined (how could they be?), but are functionally demonstrated. In
other words, they are tautological and illegitimately teleological
exercises.

Sociobiologists might more reasonably argue that cultural, social, and
historical variation are the result of different human beings. While there
is no evidence for this either, at least it is a falsifiable claim (one
that has been falsified, ironically enough, by the research of the HGP).
Of course, facts notwithstanding, the problem one runs into with this
claim is that it is an inherently racist argument. I do not say Hutchinson
makes this argument.

Another problem for Hutchinson's argument is his insistence that we equate
the dismissal of sociobiology with a refusal to recognize that modern
biology and genetics are here to stay. I accept biology and genetics as
legitimate and very important sciences. I am, in fact, a Darwinian. Let me
reiterate my position that humans are physical beings. I am absolutely for
sure that I am a biological organism, as are my spouse and my offspring.  
However, my status as a living organism, and the fact that I have DNA,
does not mean that I must accept sociobiology any more than my capacity to
love means that I must believe in the theological construct of the soul.

Hutchinson makes a basic error when he compares race and sex and concludes
that they are not equivalent because sex is a biological reality whereas
race is not. Yes, sex is a biological reality. But gender isn't--and it is
race and gender that are appropriate analogs, not race and sex. 

Moreover, sex a contested biological construct. There are many people born
with a "mismatch" between genotype and phenotype. What is their biological
reality? This is a lot more common that you might think, so much so that
there is a major effort to stop genetics testing in the Olympics because
of the high number of women being traumatized because a doctor tells them
they are "freaks" (they are usually passed on a physical examination
anyway). Social constructions are flying like crazy all over the place
here.

The challenge Richard issues to anti-sociobiologists concerning genetic
engineering is--well, I don't know exactly what it has to do with our
anti-sociobiological position. If the question is trying to get at what we
worry about if we do not believe social organization has a genetic basis,
then I can only say that my terror does not depend on sociobiology
(without denying that sociobiology terrifies me). 

The fact that a great number of people will probably, if permitted, and if
feasible, alter the genes of their children to give them white skin and
blue eyes and thus the promise of a better standard of living (after all,
you want the best for your children) is enough to frighten me.

Finally, I want to remind Richard of what started this latest round of
sociobiological discussion: I did not raise the sociobiological theory of
rape. I did feel the need to defend its critics against those who believe
we ought to seriously entertain such a notion as the evolutionary
imperative of rape.

I guess I feel compelled to jump into these discussions because I find it
incredible that sociobiology is seen by some as something other than a
flat-earth theory or the geocentric theory of the "solar" system. The idea
that features of human social organization--war, racism, rape--may be
explained by genes or hormones seems such a scientistically archaic
notion. The only support ever advanced for these relationships is
convoluted logic that rationalizes things in terms of their "benefit" or
"function" (or I should say: only rationalizes those things they seek to
legitimate).

I have yet to see the demonstration of the genetic basis of any behavior
other than organically idiosyncratic behavior (for example,
schizophrenia)--the diametric opposite of *social* behavior.

Sociobiology is the classical example of prescientific typological
thinking, wholly inconsistent with modern evolutionary and genetic
science. It is, therefore, an ideology. I repeat: as social scientists,
we are under no obligation to entertain the ideological. Our only
obligation is to expose ideology that masquerades as science for what it
is. I believe they call this debunking.

Andrew