|
Richard Hutchinson wrote the following:
Not everyone on this list follows lockstep an
anti-sociobiological
orthodoxy. That human behavior is caused partly by biological factors and partly by sociological factors is the sensible starting point. It leaves open all the particulars for empirical research to determine. To reject biological causation in toto is to remain willfully ignorant ------------------------------------------------------
As someone who has a deep respect and interest in biology (and someone who
has seen Richard Hutchinson as one of the contributors who has added important
information and insights), I have to remark that the above quote reflects a very
serious misunderstanding of the relationship of biology to environment, and in
effect, lends too much support to biological determinism.
It is the phrase "partly caused by" that is the source of confusion.
Obviously, someone with a genetic tendency towards blindness will, if they
become blind, behave differently from someone who has good eyesight. But so much
of what is called "biological" only has meaning in the context of certain
environments. A person who is lactose intolerant could be called "biologically
inferior in intelligence" if they experience severe cramps during a test. I knew
of a child with a genetic tendency towards ear infections, based on shape of the
ear. For the first two years, the child was ill so often that it obviously
impeded her ability to "absorb" information, and she tested at being 20%
developmentally "backward." But when her health stabilized, she "made up for
lost time" and there were no lasting ill effects. If the first person had
never taken cow's milk and if the girl were never exposed to the bacteria, they
never would have had their "information absorption" impeded, and in any case,
there was no lasting effect. Bad eyesight can make someone "less
intelligent", but eyeglasses can remedy that 100%. Hell, a tendency
towards yeast infections could make someone more susceptible to having problems
processing information under some circumstances! Genes will not
necessarily have ANY effect at all, out of the context of particular
environments. Even the term "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean "the
strongest." Look at the word: "Fittest". IT COMES FROM THE WORD
"FIT!" "How well does this biological being function (& especially
reproduce), in a particular environment?" is the question, as opposed to: Which
biological characteristics are "the best?"
The problem with the "partly" argument is that it still sees some kind of
significant, immutable biological structure that some people have and some
don't, opening up the door to interpretations of significant innate
superiorities or inferiorities. Even assigning percentages allows for the
so-called "biology" part of the equation to be somehow
immutable.
Those who stress biological basis for differences in behavior don't like
examples like lactose intolerance, or hypoglycemia, or macular degeneration or
other forms of bad eyesight.
This is especially true for those who want to discuss it in terms of such
vague unscientific concepts as "intelligence" or "violence prone" etc. They want
to locate the "problem" in biology, but they don't want to locate it in such
mundane things as lactose intolerance or sugar absorption, because those are
easily remedied and because rich people may suffer from those things too. So
they want to locate somewhere in a "gene" or in some unspecificed part of the
"brain" that can't easily be actually identified or remedied. Their studies are
based on correlations that are fraught with the kind of spuriousness that we
learn to avoid in our first undergraduate methods courses. But locating it in a
mysterious part of the biology -- an unspecified "gene" or part of the brain
satisfies the ideological need to say that some people are more worthy than
others. Some are "gifted" (or "graced?") while some are inferior ("original
sin?"). It becomes a kind of theology that is unprovable with just enough
scientific rhetoric to allow it to bask in the company of serious science that
HAS made spectacular advances in genetics and molecular biology in the past few
decades. But just because you're from Chicago doesn't mean you can play ball
like Michael Jordan, and just because you use biological rhetoric doesn't
entitle you to exploit the deserved reputation of serious biological science.
Sociobiology and all forms of biological determinism rise during times of
social-economic crisis. It is those ideologies which are "politically correct"
in times of developing crisis, class stratification, and fascism.
I'm sure there are others that can make the above points more elegantly
than I just did, but I did want to address the basic flaw in the whole
conceptualization of the partitioning out of "nature" versus "nurture."
Alan Spector
|