First of all, I do not understand Richard's attempts of associating anti-sociobiology with creationism, anti-evolution or anti-science. It is obvious that no self-conscious Marxist would take a creationist position. Marx's claim that material conditions determine our human relations can *not* be used as an analogy to socio-biologist claim that biology, partly or wholly, determine our social characteristics (gender, race, etc..). this is far down absurd and non-marxist. Marx's' understanding of human nature is a dynamic analysis of the environmental factors that condition our biology . biology is a by product of the evolutionary processes emerging in dynamic interaction with external (social) forces-- adaptation, modification, transformation. biology is an "interactive" phenomenon not a "fixed" human nature. the moment we are born into the world, we are entirely dependent on external factors. the degree of nurturing we get (physical, parental, psychological) the amount of food we eat, the amount of milk we are given and the kind of socialization we receive (family environment) determine our biological characteristics, or at least, the biological direction our body takes. this process starts even when we are a fetus.
without taking into consideration these factors, i am *also* suspicious of the kind of arguments believing in the "empirical observebility" of the biological determinants of human nature. such a determinacy does not exist to begin with. women have vagina, men have penis (or some have both). so what? none of these "observable" sexual differences explain gender differences. ie., the fact that women should be responsible for child- caring (ethics of care, which mistakenly Gilligan attributed to women as a fixed state of women's nature, despite her good will) sometimes, even a simple biological fact is highly questionable from a scientific point of view. we are told that men have stronger muscles than women's, and this is naturally given. a closer look a this simple fact shows that women are raised with domestic values, traditional notions of femininity, fragility, weakness as opposed to men who are indoctrinated with notions of physical strength, masculinity and success. as a result, unequal social treatment creates unequal development in their physical capacities too. Thus, our observations of what biology is or is not are largely driven by ideological categories we attach to people (class, gender, race). They serve to maintain unequal relations in society.
In german ideology, Marx solves this problem of nature-nurture debate when he replies to Feuerbach:
"the essence of the fish is its existence, water-to go no further than this pre-supposition. the essence of the freshwater fish is the water of a river. but the latter ceases to be the essence or the fish and is no longer a suitable medium of existence as soon as the river is made to serve industry, as soon as it is polluted by dyes and other waste products and navigated by steamboats, or as soon as its water is diverted into canals where simple drainage can deprive the fish of its medium of existence"
best,
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222