I received a lot of responses and trackbacks from this post on Sociology & Genetics. Here is another good one:
Hi Ken,
My wife caught your recent blog entry about Sociology struggling with genetics. I'm a sociologist...
...And you're absolutely right! I wish it weren't so, but it is. However, as your post suggests, there are some in the discipline who do use genetic explanations and there are some, like me, who openly admit that some behaviors absolutely must have biological elements (aggression, mate selection, sexual behavior, etc.). It probably helps that my wife is a genetic counselor and I'm huge fan of Richard Dawkins and science in general. So, please be kind. :) We aren't all naive anti-geneticists!
I'm certainly not going to defend Troy Duster's comments, but I think a little context may help. Have you read The Mismeasure of Man? That is a great example of social science refuting biological arguments. The basic argument is that biologists claimed blacks were an inferior species. Obviously blacks are not inferior. They were considered "less intelligent", but only because we defined "intelligence" in ways that made blacks test lower given their limited access to education. Thus, the reason why blacks score lower on standardized tests today and have less money isn't biological; it's sociological. Ergo, sociology repudiated biology on this count. Current theories on spousal abuse in the social sciences are increasingly dominated by evolutionary theories, with good reason. It may be the case that biology will repudiate sociology on that front, and many others. In short, we need both.
Best,
Ryan T. Cragun
Assistant Professor of Sociology
University of Tampa
[email protected]
Thanks much for the post, Ryan. I find little to disagree with, but a few comments are in order. I be very surprised if every single person trained in sociology were hostile to biology. The article in the Chronicle of Higher Education to which I responded is proof that more than a few Sociologists are beginning to take genetics seriously. But I am guessing that sociology is right now where anthropology was when it began to divide into physical (or biological) and cultural anthropology. I gather a lot of these departments had to move into separate buildings to avoid fist fights. If so, your discipline is in for a wild ride.
I remember when I began to teach a course in biopolitics (or sociobiology), I looked at a number of sociology texts to see what they said about the topic. Some ignored the field, some compared it to the discredited social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer, and some gave it lip service at the beginning and then resolutely ignored it in the body of the text. No engagement at all. That would have been about ten years ago. At about that time I mentioned the theory to a sociologist I know. Her head spun 360 degrees twice, and she spit out green soup.
On your second point, I am also in agreement. I am familiar with Stephen Jay Gould's book. To be sure, biological explanations were once hijacked to justify the most vicious prejudices. But in correcting that error, the social sciences largely went to the opposite extreme. Consider this passage from the Shea article:
Just two years ago, in his presidential address to the American Sociological Association, Troy Duster, an eminent sociologist at New York University, went so far as to suggest that any sociologist who embraced genetic approaches was a traitor to the discipline. Two of the biggest problems facing sociology, he argued, were the "increasing authority of reductionist science" and "the attendant expansion of databases on markers and processes 'inside the body.'" If anything defined sociology, Duster said, it was its role as "century-long counterpoint" to such efforts to connect the roots of social problems to biology.
Duster recalled sitting on various governmental review boards and watching as what he considered an inordinate amount of money flowed toward geneticists and other scientists who studied maladies like alcoholism. Why spend millions searching for a predisposition to alcoholism among Native Americans, he asked, when their mistreatment and oppression offered explanation enough?
I do not believe for a moment that differences in economic and academic achievements between Africans and Europeans are due to genetics. For one thing, as many sociobiologists point out, genetic differences between Africans in different parts of that continent are greater than those between Africans in general and Europeans. I agree with you that sociology, with its greater stress on culture, can offer a needed counterweight to biological explanations.
But it can do that only if it is honest. Opposing studies of a genetic predisposition to alcoholism among Native Americans because such studies might undermine the narrative of oppression, that is simple corruption of science by political bias. Refusing to consider any causal factors that are "inside the body," that is more like the pious fear of the Creationists.
Again, I am not arguing with you here, for I think we are largely on the same page, if perhaps in different paragraphs. No reasonable person will argue that culture is not a powerful influence over human behavior. People don't grow up speaking French by nature. But Tory Duster clearly would like to ignore biology altogether. That is the point of friction.
Thanks very much for the comment. If I ever get down to your neck of the woods, the first round is on me.
Recent Comments