Richard,
I am forced to reiterate my points at this moment. Criticizing
sociobiology does not entail an anti-scientific attitude or rejection of
science. On the contrary, it entails a systematic and scientific critique
of what is going on in the socio-biology discipline as a whole, including
its assumptions, projects and interests. Mind you that leftist critics
of socio-biology are all scientists, biologists, sociologists and
anthropologists if you don't know. Once again, we are forced to declare
our own scientific status by those who claim to be scientific. You seem
to be to be saying that there is no more problem with Human Genome
project. On the contrary, it is an innocent and humanitarian scientific
enterprise. You imply that there are problems with the ways in which it is conducted. Have you ever looked at this project seriously Richard?
Socio-biologists are those who argue that whatever differences that exist among people are genetically transmitted. Genes set the limits to people's social characteristics. They derive cultural differences from genetic differences. The idea that people differ because they differ genetically or biologically is implicitly racist. Malcom asked why I am formulating racism like this. Is there another way of explaining socio-biological racism? This is exactly what they are saying. There are also culturally racist arguments that are as dangerous as biologically racist arguments. For example, Huntington, a famous political scientist and an advisor to US foreign policy department argues that eastern societies are politically dangerous because they have a tendency to develop authoritarian cultures. This is a culturalized version of the biological arguments that preach white men's superiority. When a difference in biology and culture is stated as a causal explanation of other differences, let's say authoritarianism, inequality, democracy, etc, I always look at those arguments with suspect. For example, the argument that Europe was able to develop an enlightened culture whereas other cultures were politically backward and underdeveloped is also implicitly racist. I sometimes meet this sort of argument among the so called progressive scholars here who press that the notions like democracy, equal rights, political freedoms, feminism, are intrinsically European. i was many times encountered by white women here doubting even the existence of middle eastern feminism as if we are a bunch of traditional women staying at home and unaware of our rights.. how eurocentric and racist they are...
Returning to our topic on biological determinism, Richard, have you ever considered what sort of socio-biologists promote Human Genome project? or what sort of assumptions does this project rest upon? A scientist, Val Dusek, writes the following about the nature of the Human Genome project:Moreover, there are no static sexual differences between men and women. There(http://www.ferris.edu/isar/archives/dusek.htm).
THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT
"The Human Genome Project and the biotechnology industry splattered
the press with announcements of amazing scientific discoveries, both real
and imagined. Weekly there were headlines of the discovery of a "gene for"
this and that trait. Often these genes for behavioral traits of general
interest are biochemical pathways that produced the trait. Absence of the
gene led to absence of the trait, but the gene alone was not sufficient
for the trait, with numerous other genes and environmental factors were
involved. A number of "breakthroughs" in the discovery of genes for
psychological maladies such as manic depression, schizophrenia, and
alcoholism turned out to false alarms, but the public was often
unaware of the quiet back page retractions of claims that had earlier been
trumpeted on the front pages. Nevertheless the weekly assault of newspaper
articles claiming the discover of genes for almost everything (including
television watching) made the public believe that numerous genes
for behaviors and mental conditions had been discovered. Daniel
Kosman, editor of Science magazine, could claim authoritatively that the
nature-nurture controversy was over and that nature won (Kosman, 1984)".Furthermore, take the example of Marx. His critique of capitalism was
both a normative and scientific critique. He never said that capitalism
was inherently okey and there were problems with distribution. He questioned
the underlying assumptions of capitalism since he believed capitalism
rested upon an unjust foundation. Evidently, there are evolutionary,
Marxist, biologists around who criticize socio-biologists in a scientific
way. Lewontin, in Dialectics of Biology, revisiting Darwin, argues for a
more contingent, less deterministic evolutionary theory, encountering the
arguments that say that we are as we are as we are biologically destined
to be. Through evolution, our biological construction is always open to
contingency, interference and other other environmental factors. People
develop different traits under different circumstances. Evolution
is not predetermined.For example, as Marg. Mead found out in her anthropological study of three
primitive societies, the idea that men dominate and women submit is not
naturally given. This is a western construction of what the role of men
and women in society should be. Men's control over women is justified as a
natural right. Mead investigated the culturally determined roots of sex
temperaments and gender roles. Biology only sets the limits to the scope
of cultural norms; it does NOT determine the personality traits of
individuals. Mead's implication, in other words, was that the biological
attributes of sex differences are irrelevant to the social nature of men
and women, and that gender roles are artificial constructs. She found
many attitudes traditionally assigned to women in the western culture such
as "passivity, responsiveness and the willingness to cherish children"
ascribed to both men and women in one of the native cultures she studied;
in the other community, she found that the "maternal" nurturing "aspects
of personality" were the least respected among both males and females.
Masculine and feminine characteristics were not necessarily set up in
terms of "contrast between the prescribed personalities of the two sexes,
nor in terms of dominance and submission".In fact, from a biological point of view, as i said before, biology is
innocent. it does not determine inequality. Even in hunting gathering
societies (which socio-biologists like to derive human nature in
a very static and ahistorical way), I should say, gender
division of labor was primitively sexual, such as women taking care of
children and men hunting, because of the small size of hunting gathering
bands and the fact that women had to be pregnant for the group to maintain
itself in the initial stages of history. Real inequalities began with
the development of agricultural societies when people settled on the
the land and claimed right to it. This was the origins of private
property as well. At this point, men overstated their differences from
women, and used their physical strength as an excuse to overrule women.
Since all these developments took place in the realm of men, this was
the first historical moment that natural differences were translated
into political, social and gender inequalities. Sexual division of labor
(gender inequality) has developed as social throughout history and it is
not built into human nature. Now, time has also changed. We can not
argue that by looking at hunting gathering societies women should be
mothers only and men should not bear or nurse children because of the
their procreational differences. Compared to previous times, women do not
spend most of their time child rearing due to their jobs. There is no reason to assume there is a biological basis for women to mother or women must perform parenting children need. Biology, of course, needs parenting but it should be both
mothering and fathering. which has nothing to do with biological sex
differences. These are necessary social roles. I was not raised by my
biological mother. I was raised by my grandparents and I am perfectly a
normal and healthy person.>I find it rather amazing (although not surprising, given the power of
ideology) that there are those of the right and the left who still refuse
>to accept that modern biology/genetics is here to stay.Bingo!! Peterson is a socio-biologist, fascist and a member of the
Northern League. He was an adviser to Reagen administration. He is the
editor of _Mankind Quarterly. This journal is the most "prestigious",
"scientific" and "objective" scholarly piece of body in the discipline of
sociobiology. The man is an authoritative figure in the discipline, and
also is in the editorialship of several other scientific magazines, and dominates
center for economic and political studies. The journal is is full of
libertarian RIGHT wing garbage submitting articles by
washington policy analysts.>(Feminists who ignore the major logical consequences of the sex difference
>or the origins of sex stratification are a case in point. Sex and race
>are not equivalent categories, as opposed to much current politically
>correct thinking -- sex is a very real biological distinction, whereas
race does not exist as a biological category.)Where does this argument go? SExual difference is a just difference. IT IS NOT A STRATIFICATION that entails other differences. There is no biological stratificaiton betwen men and women. Stratification is the product of a gender system that assigns men and women to unequal roles such as mothering. Men extert power over women to keep them in their place and rationalize women's poerlessnesss as a natural given. You should see above for this.
Moreover, the spent of sex variation varies among societies. For example, people of both sexes in one culture may be taller on average, or have more body hair or stronger muscles than people of both sexes in other cultures. Despite our biological characteristics as men and women (menstruation, pregnancy), biological bases of sex differences in behavior is very hard to formulate or substantiate. And I have zero confidence in arguments that say otherwise for the reasons stated above.
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222