The question as to how far biological factors, or more specifically genes, influence our human behaviour and consequently social phenomena, for example the foundation of a family, is fascinating for science and public; especially since the discovery of the human genes. Nevertheless, there are still great controversies between social scientists and adherents of sociobiology concerning the central question; if it is culture and self-consciousness respectively, or genes that dominate human social behaviour.
Even though Max Weber already recognized that our biological heredity may have an impact on social phenomena, he did not regard biology as sufficiently developed enough to be really helpful for sociology. (Kaye, 1986) It was in 1975 when Edward O. Wilson’s book “Sociobiology: The New Synthesis” became the trigger for new public discussions about how far, if at all, concepts of biological evolution could be relevant for explaining social behaviour in human societies. The term “sociobiology” constitutes a concept which can be described as a synthesis of neo-Darwinism (“survival of the fittest” combined with Mendel’s laws of heredity) and ethology (the study of behaviour). (Gregory, 1979) The problem with Wilson’s work was that, although he focused mainly on animal societies, he claimed that his findings were valid for human beings as well. (Wilson, 1979 in Gregory et al.; Wallace and Wolf, 2006) The reactions of social scientists and the scientific media reached from “deep scepticism” (Goldsmith, 1991: Preface) and “stiff resistance”.
In this essay I will first have a look at the general assumptions and arguments of sociobiologists and how they want to intertwine biological and sociological explanations of human behaviour and social structures. After that I will discuss the manifold criticisms which were made by opponents of the sociobiological approach and compare some of them directly with responses of sociobiologists. To get a general idea of the possible contributions sociobiology can make to social science in explaining human beings’ social behaviour biologically, I will describe some research areas of the perspective. I am also going to show that altruism is phenomenon which causes explanatory difficulties. In the conclusion at the end of the essay the possible contributions of sociobiology to social science and the explanation of human behaviour should be considered.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Sociobiologists’ assumptions and arguments
Criticisms of the sociobiological approach
Exemplary research areas of sociobiology
Conclusion or “Contributions of sociobiology to the explanation of social phenomena”
Objectives and Topics
This essay explores the intersection of biological and sociological explanations for human behavior, specifically investigating the controversial framework of sociobiology. It aims to determine whether human social conduct is primarily a product of cultural evolution or if it is grounded in genetic predispositions established through natural selection.
- The theoretical assumptions and arguments central to sociobiology.
- Major criticisms regarding biological determinism and reductionism.
- Methodological challenges in applying animal-based theories to human societies.
- Research areas such as kin selection, altruism, and the concept of biophilia.
- The potential for interdisciplinary integration between biology and social sciences.
Excerpt from the Book
Criticisms of the sociobiological approach
Criticisms of sociobiology are manifold. While some of them are more unspecific and reflect a general fear or unease of the possible findings of sociobiologists and their effects on our understanding of society, others are more specifically criticising the assumptions and methods of sociobiology. I would like to begin with the general problems opponents of sociobiology have with this approach.
Control is a main issue in this context. The reason why many sociologists reject the assumptions of sociobiology and its discoveries is quite obvious. If the behaviour of the individual is at least partly determined by genes, than behaviour cannot be completely controlled and changed by societal rules and norms, thus socialization. Although most sociobiologists would not agree with it, opponents perceive the sociobiological explanations of deviant human behaviour, like violence or adultery, as a statement about its (natural) legitimacy. (Wallace and Wolf, 2006) Some critics, especially from the political left, therefore regard an evolutionary perspective on human behaviour as dangerous because there is the probability that “natural” can be understood as what is “right” for society.
It is interesting that Kaye of all people, actually a critic himself, argues that sociobiology is completely misunderstood by its critics in this point. (Kaye, 1986) He says that their condemnation of this approach as “social Darwinism, crypto-Nazism, and a defence of the capitalist status quo” (Kaye, 1986: 157) is wrong and even odd because the political position of almost all human sociobiologists is a liberal one, open for social changes. This can be underpinned by statements of van den Berghe who definitely is an adherent of sociobiology. Not only does he speak of “unsavory (sic) associations” (van den Berghe, 1978: 34) in the mentioned context, he also argues that in industrialised societies bureaucratic organizations display the image of collective norms and values but rather reflect the interests of the few people in control.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: Outlines the historical context of sociobiology since Edward O. Wilson’s 1975 publication and highlights the ongoing tension between biological determinism and sociological theories.
Sociobiologists’ assumptions and arguments: Examines the core tenets of sociobiology, specifically the role of genes, natural selection, and the concept of "behavioral scaling" in shaping human patterns.
Criticisms of the sociobiological approach: Discusses the primary challenges raised by social scientists, including accusations of reductionism, genetic determinism, and methodological flaws.
Exemplary research areas of sociobiology: Analyzes specific applications of the theory, such as kin selection, altruistic behavior, and the controversial biophilia hypothesis.
Conclusion or “Contributions of sociobiology to the explanation of social phenomena”: Reflects on how sociobiology might complement social sciences by integrating biological insights without ignoring the complexities of human culture and consciousness.
Keywords
Sociobiology, Genetic Determinism, Natural Selection, Human Behavior, Social Sciences, Kin Selection, Altruism, Biophilia, Cultural Evolution, Neo-Darwinism, Social Structure, Ethology, Evolutionary Psychology.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The essay investigates the theoretical legitimacy and potential contributions of sociobiology in explaining human behavior, while addressing the deep-seated controversies between biologists and sociologists.
What are the central thematic areas discussed?
The main themes include the genetic vs. cultural drivers of behavior, the methodology of sociobiology, the critique of reductionism, and the examination of social patterns like nepotism and altruism.
What is the core research question of the essay?
The work seeks to answer whether human social behavior is fundamentally a product of biological inheritance or if cultural and social forces are the primary determinants.
Which scientific methodology is primarily addressed?
The essay evaluates the sociobiological method, which uses neo-Darwinian concepts—specifically natural selection and the survival of the fittest—to analyze human societal structures.
What topics are covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body discusses the assumptions made by sociobiologists, the various critiques from the political and scientific community, and specific case studies like kin selection and the biophilia concept.
Which keywords best characterize the study?
Key terms include sociobiology, genetic determinism, natural selection, human behavior, and the interdisciplinary tension between nature and nurture.
How does the author address the criticism of biological determinism?
The author distinguishes between "genetically determined" and "genetically influenced" behavior, citing proponents who argue that genes merely set a flexible framework for potential actions.
What does the author conclude about the value of sociobiology?
The conclusion suggests that while sociobiology fails to explain the entirety of "essential humanness," it can provide valuable biological insights that, when combined with social science, enhance our understanding of human behavior.
- Quote paper
- Inga Rupprecht (Author), 2006, Sociobiology: A Controversial Approach, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/64211
