Re: "sociobiology" citation

See below for citations--

On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, colin s. cavell wrote:

> 
> Richard,
> 
> Would be interested in examining some of the work you refer to.  Thus,
> I would appreciate if you would list some of the "serious" scholars,
> you allude to below, who are utilizing the "theoretical perspective" of
> sociobiology and "not the fascist plot of dogmatic imagination" to "do
> serious research".
> 
> thanks,
> 
> colin

Colin-

Thanks for asking.

I make no claim to expertise in the area, but one of the most cited
works in the field of evolutionary psychology is:

Barkow, Jerome H., Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, eds.  1992.
The Adapted Mind:  Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture.
NY: Oxford U. Press.

I'm sure you could follow a trail of key citations starting from there.

A recent lead article in the American Journal of Sociology found support
for evolutionary parental investment theory as the best explanation of the
effects of different family structures on the educational and occupational
outcomes of children:

Biblarz, Timothy J. and Adrian E. Raftery.  1999.  "Family Structure,
        Educational Attainment, and Socioeconomic Success:  Rethinking the
        `Pathology of Matriarchy'."  AJS 105/2 (September): 321-365.

I'll add one more thing, and that's a quote from that popular Demon, E.O.
Wilson, who I might add was raised a fundamentalist protestant, and is now
a staunch atheist and a proponent of evolution versus the creationists.

This is from Chapter 7 of "Consilience," called From Genes to Culture (p.
137):

"How can anyone presume to speak of a gene that prescribes culture?  The
answer is that no serious scientist ever has.  The web of causal events
comprising gene-culture coevolution is more complicated -- and immensely
more interesting.  Thousands of genes prescribe the brain, the sensory
system, and all the other physiological processes that interact with the
physical and social environment to produce the holistic properties of mind
and culture.  Through natural selection, the environment ultimately
selects which genes will do the prescribing.  For its implications
throughout biology and the social sciences, no subject is intellectually
more important.  All biologists speak of the interaction between heredity
and environment.  They do not, except in laboratory shorthand, speak of a
gene `causing' a particular behavior, and they never mean it literally.
That would make no more sense than its converse, the idea of behavior
arising from culture without the intervention of brain activity.  The
accepted explanation of causation from genes to culture, as from genes to
any other product of life, is not heredity alone.  It is not environment
alone.  It is the interaction between the two."

RH