>I'm , well , annoyed, that sociobiology and ev psych go blithely
along doing anthropology without some of the sociobio and ev psych
fans here saying, "yes , we admit that we are doing anthropology, and
we aren't using the enormous body of scientific work in those
disciplines to address the issues in these threads." The first concept
that sociobiologists should emphasis in analyzing human society is
"culture".
> I would like to get a reply from socibio advocates as to why you don't see sociobio is just particular anthropology project when it is "applied" to humans.
>Otherwise, "sociobiology" is disciplinary "imperialism" [akin to much
of economics, e.g., that of Gary Becker] in its effort to usurp the
subject matter of anthropology , and give it a new name. <
I think this is right on target: SBers are like those who practice anthropology without a union card. (I won't use the appropriate four-letter word here.)
One of the central facts of human evolution is that cultural, institutional, and technical evolution (or revolution) replaced genetic evolution as the main adaptive force a long time ago (in the Pleistocene?) Many, though not all, SBers seem to ignore this. I've read in SB literature about the eternal conflict between the "Pleistocene person" and modern culture. But then these authors didn't talk at all about the internal dynamics of culture and society. Causation seems to run only one way, from biology to society.
That is, one of the key things about Sociobiology (that I've read) is that it's _reductionist_. For example, I gave a (just so?) story of the rise of the double standard to LBO-talk this morning that could be stated in SB terms: it's male upper-body strength that is the reason for the double standard, as men impose their standards on women. The SBer would likely stop here, assuming he or she is willing to accept such a feminist conclusion.
But unlike this one-factor explanation (reductionism), I brought in the fact of the heterogeneity of people, something I've seen ignored in SB works. Some men have less upper body strength than some women. Thus, some sort of _social organization_ is needed if the double standard is to be preserved. This means that we have to talk about the internal dynamics revealed by anthropology and sociology.
there's also a flavor of functionalism in SB. Some seem to believe that just because there's a genetic need for something, social structures will arise to serve that need.
BTW, one thing that distinguishes SB from (most) antropology and sociology is the use of analogies between humans and non-human beasts. "Look, this human institution is just like what that of the three-toed sloth!" Of course, that doesn't say anything, since there are so few similarities between humans and sloths (besides being mammals and some other very general facts) that to draw conclusions from one by analogy to the other would be totally fallacious.
Of course, talking about sociobiology is like boxing with a bunch of butterflies. In defense, someone will say "that's not sociobiology; true sociobiology doesn't ignore the relative autonomy of culture and societal institutions. Rather, sociobiology simply brings in the biological factor so neglected by the cultural determinists (and fundamentalists)." If so, what about Dawkins' defense of reductionism? In any event, if people are going to discuss SB any further, they should clearly define what they mean by it. I define it as a biologically- reductionist branch of anthropology. -- Jim Devine / "The crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career." -- Albert Einstein.
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm