Dialogue.

The Critique: Sociobiology: Another Biological Determinism

Author(s): Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People
Source: BioScience, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Mar., 1976), pp. 182+184-186
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1297246 .
Accessed: 17/06/2014 14:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Oxford University Press and American Institute of Biological Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to BioScience.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:34:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Dialogue

Sociobiology
Another Biological Determinism

Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People

Biological determinism represents the territory, individualism, and the appear- examples are Herbert Spencer's argu-
claim that the present states of human ance of a status and wealth hierarchy. ment in Social Statics (1851) that pov-
societies are the specific result of bio- The earlier forms of determinism in erty and starvation were natural agents
logical forces and the biological the current wave have now been pretty cleansing society of the unfit, and
"nature" of the human species. Deter- well discredited. The claims that there is Konrad Lorenz's call in 1940 in
minist theories all describe a particular a high heritability of IQ, which implies Germany for "the extermination of
model of society which corresponds to both the unchangeability of IQ and a elements of the population loaded with
the socioeconomic prejudices of the genetic difference between races or dregs," based upon his ethological
writer. It is then asserted that this between social classes, have now been theories.
pattern has arisen out of human biology thoroughly debunked. In order to make their case, deter-
and that present human social arrange- The simplistic forms of the human minists construct a selective picture of
ments are either unchangeable or if nature argument given by Lorenz, human history, ethnography, and social
altered will demand continued con- Ardrey, Tiger and Fox, and others have relations. They misuse the basic con-
scious social control because these no scientific credit and have been cepts and facts of genetics and evolu-
changed conditions will be "unnatural." scorned as works of "advocacy" by E. tionary theory, asserting things to be
Moreover, such determinism provides a O. Wilson, whose own book, Socio- true that are totally unknown, ignoring
direct justification for the status quo as biology: The New Synthesis, is the whole aspects of the evolutionary pro-
"natural," although some determinists manifesto of a new, more complex, cess, asserting that conclusions follow
dissociate themselves from some of the version of biological determinism, no from premises when they do not.
consequences of their arguments. The less a work of "advocacy" than its Finally, they invent ad hoc hypotheses
issue, however, is not the motivation of rejected predecessors. This book, whose to take care of the contradictions and
individual creators of determinist theo- first chapter is on "The Morality of the carry on a form of "scientific rea-
ries, but the way these theories operate Gene," is intended to establish sociol- soning" that is untestable and leads to
as powerful forms of legitimation of ogy as a branch of evolutionary biology, unfalsifiable hypotheses. What follows is
past and present social institutions such encompassing all human societies, past a general examination of these ele-
as aggression, competition, domination and present. Wilson believes that "soci- ments in sociobiological theory, espe-
of women by men, defense of national ology and the other social sciences, as cially as elaborated in E. O. Wilson's
well as the humanities, are the last Sociobiology.
branches of biology waiting to be
At the time of compositionof this articlethe
Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the included in the Modern Synthesis" (p. 4). A VERSIONOF HUMANNATURE
People consisted of L. Allen, B. Beckwith,J. This is no mere academic exercise.
Beckwith,S. Chorover,D. Culver,N. Daniels, For more than a century the idea that For the sociobiologist the first task is
E. Dorfman, M. Duncan, E. Engelman, R.
Fitten, K. Fuda, S. Gould, C. Gross, R. human social behavior is determined by to delineate a model of human nature
Hubbard,J. Hunt, H. Inouye, M. Kotelchuck, evolutionary imperatives operating on that is to be explained. Among Wilson's
B. Lange, A. Leeds, R. Levins,R. Lewontin, inherited dispositions has been seized universal aspects of human nature are:
E. Loechler, B. Ludwig, C. Madansky, L. * territoriality
Miller,R. Morales,S. Motheral,K. Muzal,N. upon and widely entertained not so and tribalism (pp.
Ostrom, R. Pyeritz, A. Reingold, M. Rosen- much for its alleged correspondence 564-565);
thal, M. Mersky,M. Wilson,and H. Schreier. with reality as for its more obvious
Inquiries should be addressed to SftP, 16
Union Square,Somerville,MA 02143. political value. Among the better known Continued on p. 184

182 BioScienceVol. 26 No. 3

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:34:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Critique Realizing that history and ethno- other animals. Obviously sociobiologists
graphy do not support the universality would prefer to claim evolutionary
Continued from p. 182
of their description of human nature, homology, rather than simple analogy,
* indoctrinability-"Human beings are sociobiologists claim that the exceptions as the basis for the similarity in behavior
are "temporary aberrations" or devia- between humans and other animals;
absurdly easy to indoctrinate-they seek
it" (p. 562); tions. Thus, although genocidal warfare then they would have a prima facie case
* spite and family chauvinism-"True is (assertedly) universal, "it is to be for genetic determination. In some sec-
spite is commonplace in human soci- expected that some isolated cultures tions of Sociobiology, Wilson attempts
will escape the process for generations to do this by listing "universal" features
eties, undoubtedly because human
at a time, in effect reverting temporarily of behavior in higher primates including
beings are keenly aware of their own
blood lines and have the intelligence to to what ethnographers classify as a humans. But claimed external similarity
plot intrigue" (p. 119); pacific state" (p. 574). between humans and our closest rela-
* reciprocal altruism (as opposed to Another related ploy is the claim tives (which are by no means very close
true unselfishness)- "Human behavior that ethnographers and historians have to us) does not imply genetic con-
abounds with reciprocal altruism," as been too narrow in their definitions and tinuity. A behavior that may be
for example, "aggressively moralistic have not realized that apparently con- genetically coded in a higher primate
tradictory evidence is really confirma- may be purely learned and widely
behavior", "self-righteousness, gratitude
and sympathy" (p. 120); tory. spread among human cultures as a con-
* blind faith-"Men would rather sequence of the enormous flexibility of
"Anthropologists often discount our brain.
believe than know" (p. 561 );
territorialbehavioras a generalhuman
* warfare (p. 572) and genocide (p. More often Wilson argues from evolu-
attribute. This happens when the nar-
573)-"the most distinctive human rowest concept of the phenomenonis tionary analogy. Such arguments oper-
qualities" emerged during the "auto- borrowed from zoology...it is neces- ate on shaky grounds. They can never
catalytic phase of social evolution" sary to define territory more broadly be used to assert genetic similarity, but
which occurred through intertribal .... animalsrespondto theirneighbors they can serve as a plausibility argument
warfare, "genocide" and "genosorp- in a highly variable manner.... the for natural selection of human behavior
tion." scale may run from open hostility...to by assuming that natural selection has
The list is not exhaustive and is oblique forms of advertisementor no operated on different genes in the two
territorial behavior at all" (our species but has produced convergent
meant only to show how the outlines of
emphasis). responses as independent adaptations to
human nature are viewed myopically,
"If these qualificationsareaccepted similar environments. The argument is
through the lens of modern Euro-Ameri-
it is reasonableto conclude that ter- not even worth considering unless the
can culture.
ritorialityis a generaltrait of hunter- similarity is so precise that identical
To construct such a view of human
gatherersocieties."(pp. 564-565) function cannot be reasonably denied,
nature, Wilson must abstract himself
totally from any historical or ethno- as in the classic case of evolutionary
graphic perspective. His discussion of Wilson's view of aggression and war- convergence-the eyes of vertebrates
the economy of scarcity is an excellent fare are subject to this ploy of all-em- and octopuses. Here Wilson fails badly,
example. An economy of relative bracing definition on the one hand and for his favorite analogies arise by a
scarcity and unequal distribution of erroneous historical-ethnographic data twisted process of imposing human
rewards is stated to be an aspect of on the other. "Primitive" warfare is institutions on animals by metaphor,
human nature: rarely lethal to more than one or at and then rederiving the human institu-
most a few individuals in an episode of tions as special cases of the more general
"The members of human society warfare, virtually without significance phenomenon "discovered" in nature. In
sometimes cooperate closely in insec- this way human institutions suddenly
genetically or demographically (Living-
tan fashion [our emphasis], but more become "natural" and can be viewed as
stone 1968). Genocide was virtually
frequently they compete for the lim- unknown until state-organized societies
ited resources allocated to their role a product of evolution.
sector. The best and the most entrepre- appeared in history (as far as can be A classic example, long antedating
neurialof the role-actorsusuallygain a made out from the archeological and Sociobiology, is "slavery" in ants.
disproportionateshareof the rewards." documentary records). "Slavemaking" species capture the
(p. 554) We have given only examples of the immature stages of "slave" species and
general advocacy method employed by bring them back to their own nests.
There is a great deal of ethnographic When the captured workers hatch, they
sociobiologists in a procedure involving
and historical description entirely con- definitions which exclude nothing and perform housekeeping tasks with no
tradicting this conception of social the laying of Western conceptual cate- compulsion as if they were members of
organization. It ignores, for example, gories onto "primitive" societies. the captor species. Why is this "slave-
the present and historical existence of making" instead of "domestication"?
societies not differentiated in any sig- Human slavery involves members of
nificant way by "role sectors"; with- HUMANS AS ANIMALS-THE
MEANING OF SIMILARITY one's own species under continued com-
out scarcities differentially induced by pulsion. It is an economic institution in
social institutions for different subpopu- To support a biologistic explanation societies producing an economic sur-
lations of the society; not differentiated of human institutions it is useful to plus, with both slave and product as
by lower and higher ranks and strata claim an evolutionary relationship commodities in exchange. It has nothing
(Birket-Smith 1959; Fried 1967; Harris between the nature of human social to do with ants except by weak and
1968; Krader 1968). institutions and "social" behavior in meaningless analogy. Wilson expands

184 BioScienceVol. 26 No. 3

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:34:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the realm of these weak analogies least the behavioral qualities that There is no hint in Sociobiology that
(chapter 27) to find barter, division of underly the variations between cul- at this very moment the scientific com-
labor, role playing, culture, ritual, tures." It is stated as fact that genetical munity of evolutionary geneticists is
religion, magic, esthetics, and tribalism differences underly variations between deeply split on the question of how
among nonhumans. But if we insist cultures, when no evidence at all exists important adaptive as opposed to
upon seeing animals in the mirror of our for this assertion and there is some random processes are in manifest evolu-
own social arrangements, we cannot fail considerable evidence against it. tion. More important, there is a strain in
to find any human institutions we want Since sociobiologists can adduce no modern evolutionary thought, going
among them. facts to support the genetic basis for back to Julian Huxley, that avoids much
human social behavior, they try two of the tortured logic required by
GENETICBASESOF BEHAVIOR tacks. First, the suggestion of evolu- extreme selectionism, by emphasizing
tionary homology between behavior in E:lometry. Organs, not themselves under
We can dispense with the direct the human species and other animals, if direct natural selection, may change
evidence for a genetic basis of various correct, would imply a genetic basis in because of their developmental links to
human social forms in a single word, us. But the evidence for homology as other features that are under selection.
"None." The genetics of normal human opposed to analogy is very weak. Many aspects of human social organiza-
behavior is in a rudimentary state Second, they postulate genes right and tion, if not all, may be simply the
because of the impossibility of repro- left and then go on to argue as if the consequence of increased plasticity of
ducing particular human genotypes over genes were demonstrated facts. There neurological response and cognitive
and over, or of experimentally manipu- are hypothetical altruist genes, con- capacity.
lating the environments of individuals or former genes, spite genes, learning The major assertion of sociobiolo-
groups. There is no evidence that meets genes, homosexuality genes, and so on. gists that human social structures exist
the elementary requirements of experi- An instance of the technique is on pages because of their superior adaptive value
mental design, that such traits as xeno- 554-555 of Wilson's book: "Dahlberg is only an assumption for which no tests
phobia, religion, ethics, social domi- showed that if a single gene appears that have even been proposed. The entire
nan ce, hierarchy formation, slave- is responsible for success and upward theory is so constructed that no tests
making, etc., are in any way coded shift in status. . ." and "Furthermore, are possible. The mode of explanation
specifically in the genes of human there are many Dahlberg genes.. ." (our involves three postulated levels of the
beings. emphases throughout). Or on page 562: operation of natural selection: (1) clas-
And indeed, Wilson offers no such "If we assume for argument that indoc- sical individual selection to account for
evidence. Instead, he makes confused trinability evolves.. ." and "Societies obviously self-serving behaviors; (2) kin
and contradictory statements about containing higher frequencies of con- selection to account for altruistic
what is an essential element in the former genes replace those that dis- behaviors or submissive acts toward
argument. If there are no genes for appear. . ." (our emphasis). Or consult relatives; (3) reciprocal altruism to
parent-offspring conflict, then there is nearly any page of Trivers (1971) for account for altruistic behaviors toward
no sense in talking about natural selec- many more examples. unrelated persons. All that remains is to
tion for this phenomenon. Thus, he Geneticists long ago abandoned the make up a "just-so" story of adaptation
speaks of "genetically programmed naive notion that there are genes for with the appropriate form of selection
sexual and parent-offspring conflict" (p. toes, genes for ankles, genes for the acting. For some traits it is easy to
563), yet there is the "considerable lower leg, genes for the kneecap, or the invent a story. The "genes" for social
technical problem of distinguishing like. Yet sociobiologists break the dominance, aggression, entrepreneur-
behavioral elements and combinations totality of human social phenomena ship, successful deception, and so on
that emerge. . .independently of into arbitrary units, which they reify as will "obviously" be advantageous at the
learning and those that are shaped at "organs of behavior," postulating par- individual level. For example, evidence
least to some extent by learning" (p. ticular genes for each. is presented (p. 288) that dominant
159). In fact, it cannot be done. males impregnate a disproportionate
Elsewhere, the capacity to learn is EVERYTHINGIS ADAPTIVE
share of females in mice, baboons, and
stated to be genetic in the species, so Yanamamo Indians. In fact, in the
that "it does not matter whether aggres- The next step in the sociobiological ethnographic literature there are numer-
sion is wholly innate or acquired partly argument is to try to show that the ous examples of groups whose political
or wholly by learning" (p. 255). But it hypothetical, genetically programmed "leaders" do not have greater access to
does matter. If all that is genetically behavior organs have evolved by natural mates. In general it is hard to demon-
programmed into people is that "genes selection. The assertion that all human strate a correlation of any of the socio-
promoting flexibility in social behavior behavior is or has been adaptive is an biologists' "adaptive" social behaviors
are strongly selected" (p. 549) and if outdated expression of Darwinian evolu- with actual differential reproduction.
"genes have given away most of their tionary theory, characteristic of Other traits require more ingenuity.
sovereignty" (p. 550), then biology and Darwin's 19th century defenders who Homosexuality would seem to be at a
evolution give no insight into the human felt it necessary to prove everything reproductive disadvantage since "of
condition except the most trivial one, adaptive. It is a deeply conservative course, homosexual men marry much
that the possibility of social behavior is politics, not an understanding of less frequently and have far fewer
part of human biology. However, in the modern evolutionary theory, that leads children" (Dr. Kinsey disagreed, and
next phrase Wilson reasserts the sover- one to see the wonderful operation of what about homosexual women?). But a
eignty of the genes because they "main- adaptation in every feature of human little ingenuity solves the problem:
tain a certain amount of influence in at social organization. "The homosexual members of primitive

March1976 185

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:34:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
societies may have functioned as contemporary groups, since we know conditions in which these activities
helpers. . . [operated] with special from the study of enzyme-specifying occur. Unique historical events, actions
efficiency in assisting close relatives" (p. genes that there is very little genetic of some individuals, and the altering of
555). Kin selection saves the day when differentiation between nations and consciousness of masses of people inter-
one's imagination for individual selec- races. act with social and economic forces to
tion fails. Wilson acknowledges and deals with influence the timing, form, and even the
Only one more imaginative mecha- both of these dilemmas by a bold possibility of particular changes; indi-
nism is needed to rationalize such phe- stroke: He invents a new phenomenon. viduals are not totally autonomous units
nomena as friendship, morality, patrio- It is the "multiplier effect" (pp. 11-13, whose individual qualities determine the
tism, and submissiveness, even when the 569-572), which postulates that very direction of social evolution. Feudal
bonds do not involve relatives. The small differences in the frequency of society did not pass away because some
theory of reciprocal altruism (Trivers hypothetical genes for altruism, confor- autonomous force increased the fre-
1971) proposes that selection has oper- mity, indoctrinability, etc., could move quency of entrepreneurs. On the con-
ated such that risk taking and acts of a whole society from one cultural tary, the economic activity of Western
kindness can be recognized and recipro- pattern to another. The only evidence feudal society itself resulted in a change
cated so that the net fitness of both offered for this "multiplier effect" is a in economic relations which made serfs
participants is increased. description of differences in behavior into peasants and then into landless
The trouble with the whole system is between closely related species of industrial workers with all the immense
that nothing is explained because every- insects and of baboons. There is, how- changes in social institutions that were
thing is explained. If individuals are ever, no evidence about the amount of the result.
selfish, that is explained by simple genetic difference between these closely Finally, determinists assert that the
individual selection. If, on the contrary, related species nor how many tens or possibility of change in social institu-
they are altruistic, it is kin selection or hundreds of thousands of generations tions is limited by the biological con-
reciprocal altruism. If sexual identities separate the members of these species straints on individuals. But we know of
are unambiguously heterosexual, indi- pairs since their divergence. The multi- no relevant constraints placed on social
vidual fertility is increased. If, however, plier effect, by which any arbitrary but processes by human biology. There is no
homosexuality is common, it is a result unknown genetic difference can be con- evidence from ethnography, archeology,
of kin selection. Sociobiologists give us verted to any cultural difference you or history that would enable us to
no example that might conceivably con- please, is a pure invention of con- circumscribe the limits of possible
tradict their scheme of perfect venience without any evidence to human social organization. What history
adaptation. support it. It has been created out of and ethnography do provide us with are
whole cloth to seal off the last aperture the materials for building a theory that
VARIATIONSOF CULTURES through which the theory might have will itself be an instrument of social
IN TIMEAND SPACE been tested against the real world. change.

There does exist one possibility of REFERENCESCITED

AN ALTERNATIVEVIEW
tests of sociobiological hypotheses when
Birket-Smith,K. 1959. The Eskimos, 2nd ed.
they make specific quantitative predic- It is often stated by biological
Methuen,London.
tions about rates of change of characters determinists that those who oppose
Fried, M. 1967. The Evolution of Political
in time and about the degree of differ- them are "environmental determinists,"
Society. RandomHouse,New York.
entiation between populations of a who believe that the behavior of indi- Harris,M. 1968. Law and order in egalitarian
species. Population genetics makes viduals is precisely determined by some societies. Pages 369-391 in Culture,Man
specific predictions about rates of sequence of environmental events in and Nature.Crowell,New York.
change, and there are hard data on the childhood. Such an assertion reveals the Krader, L. 1968. Government without the
degree of gene tic differentiation essential narrowness of viewpoint in state. Pages 29-42 in Formation of the
between human populations for bio- determinist ideologies. First, they see State. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
chemical traits. Both the theoretical the individual as the basic elements of N.J.
rates of genetic change in time and the determination and behavior, whereas Lorenz,K. 1940. DurchDomestikationverur-
differentiation sachte StSrungen arteigenen Verhaltens.
observed genetic society is simply the sum of all the Zeitschrift fiir angewandte Psychologic
between populations are too small to individuals in it. But the truth is that und Characterkunde 59: 56-75. (As
agree with the very rapid changes that the individual's social activity is to be quoted in Cloud, W., 1973, Winnersand
have occurred in human cultures his- understood only by first understanding Sinners.TheSciences 13: 16-21).
torically and the very large cultural social institutions. We cannot under- Livingstone,F. 1968. The effects of warfare
differences observed among contempor- stand what it is to be a slave or a slave on the biology of the humanspecies.Pages
aneous populations. So, for example, owner without first understanding the 3-15 in M. Fried, M. Harris, and R.
the rise of Islam after the 7th century to institution of slavery, which defines and Murphy, eds. War:The Anthropologyof
creates both slave and owner. Armed Conflict and Aggression. Natural
supreme cultural and political power in
the West, to its subsequent rapid decline HistoryPress,GardenCity.
Second, determinists assert that the
evolution of societies is the result of Spencer, H. 1851. Social Statics. Chapman,
after the 13th century (a cycle London.
occupying fewer than 30 generations) changes in the frequencies of different Trivers,R. 197,1. The evolution of reciprocal
was too rapid by orders of magnitude sorts of individuals within them. But altruism.Q. Rev. Biol. 46: 35-57.
for any large change by natural selec- this confuses cause and effect. Societies Wilson, E. 0. 1975. Sociobiology: The New
tion. The same problem arises for the evolve because social and economic Synthesis. HarvardUniversityPress,Cam-
immense cultural differences between activity alter the physical and social bridge,Mass.

186 BioScienceVol. 26 No. 3

This content downloaded from 62.122.78.43 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 14:34:51 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions