Politely written--hoping this doesn't start another round on biology

Sorry Richard, but I won't let you slip it past.  The research commonly
referred to as "sociobiological" is in fact GENERALLY nothing more than an
"ideological, knee-jerk" updating of "Original Sin" theology. Yes, I do
agree that we are "biological", that eye color, hair color, and even ways of
digesting sugar (which can impact upon --but not create--- psychological
moods and therefore individual behavior ) are biological.

But the sociobiologists go much, much further than that in their
speculation, essentially (and essentialistically) justifying the status quo
as the reflection of pre-determined human evolution. The way that it (often)
feeds into and supports racism is because there clearly are inequalities of
wealth and power and "people of color" have less of both (to put it mildly).
Any theory that says that the general social/political/economic status quo
are the natural result of human biological make-up is therefore saying, by
implication, that these inequalities are the natural result of human
biological make-up.  And if these inequalities are the natural result of
natural human biology, then there is an easy implication that people of
color have less because they are less -- their condition is a supposedly
"natural" reflection of their biological inferiority.

No, Richard, I don't think you are a racist. I think that you generally post
some of the more incisive things I read on this network.  Which is why I
continue to be surprised at your general defense of sociobiology. Let
biologists give specific, verifiable examples of how biology impacts on
behavior. But when social scientists (OR BIOLOGISTS) speculate by analogy
and metaphor, it opens the door to folklore, posing as science, to become
the wellspring of all kinds of nasty popular political theories and
policies.

Alan Spector

P.S. --Thanks to Jozsef for offering some interesting suggestions for
upcoming discussions

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard N Hutchinson <rhutchin@U.Arizona.EDU>
To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Date: Saturday, May 20, 2000 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Off Topic? (which topic?)
>
>Sorry Andrew, but I won't let you slip it past.  Noone on this list to
>my knowledge has advocated that "we use a racialist-scientistic frame",
>and that is not the same thing as advocating an open-minded, as opposed to
>ideological knee-jerk, appraisal of sociobiological/evolutionary
>psychology research.  (I'm not sure what is meant by "defending the
>conclusions of sociobiologistic research," but it sounds like another
>attempt to impute racism.)
>
>RH
>
>
>
>