Biological determinism

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (External links)
(Seeding these two quotes in the article is prettier, I think)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{cquote|Attempts to import biological theories into sociology, from social Darwinism of the 19th century to the race theories of the 20th, have a justifiably bad reputation.|||John Maynard Smith<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=wHphHUhDk7wC&pg=PA496&lpg=PA496&dq=survival+through+suicide+maynard+smith&source=bl&ots=XmJG249IPR&sig=mBCGotJjJOvuyadm7BOVKPZq6Vs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H_5OT6vlIYre0QGYn8DcDQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=survival%20through%20suicide%20maynard%20smith&f=false Smith's review of E.O. Wilson's ''Sociobiology'' in ''New Scientist'', Aug. 28, 1975]</ref>}}
 
{{Pseudosciencenav}}
 
{{Pseudosciencenav}}
 
'''Biological determinism''' is a common fallacy that implies that biology does and should completely dictate human behavior or the behavior of a certain subset of humans, such as black people or [[male]]s.  A frequent formulation is along the lines of, "Humans [[evolution|evolved]] to do this; it's [[naturalistic fallacy|natural]]." It is considered to be a form of [[pseudoscience]] or [[folk science]]. Its opposite may be considered cultural or environmental determinism.
 
'''Biological determinism''' is a common fallacy that implies that biology does and should completely dictate human behavior or the behavior of a certain subset of humans, such as black people or [[male]]s.  A frequent formulation is along the lines of, "Humans [[evolution|evolved]] to do this; it's [[naturalistic fallacy|natural]]." It is considered to be a form of [[pseudoscience]] or [[folk science]]. Its opposite may be considered cultural or environmental determinism.
Line 16: Line 17:
 
The beginnings of modern biological determinism grew out of European [[imperialism]] and the slave trade. Early biological taxonomies, such as that of Carl Linnaeus, imported the [[theology|theological]] notion of a [[Great Chain of Being]] in which people could be ranked hierarchically in a biological sense. This also often invoked [[polygenesis|polygenic]] theories positing different "[[race]]s" of humans, which were believed to be separate [[species]] or subspecies.
 
The beginnings of modern biological determinism grew out of European [[imperialism]] and the slave trade. Early biological taxonomies, such as that of Carl Linnaeus, imported the [[theology|theological]] notion of a [[Great Chain of Being]] in which people could be ranked hierarchically in a biological sense. This also often invoked [[polygenesis|polygenic]] theories positing different "[[race]]s" of humans, which were believed to be separate [[species]] or subspecies.
 
===The 19th century and the birth of social Darwinism and eugenics===
 
===The 19th century and the birth of social Darwinism and eugenics===
 +
{{cquote|Anatomy is destiny.|||[[Sigmund Freud]]<ref>[http://german.about.com/library/blfreud.htm Sigmund Freud], about.com</ref>}}
 
In the early 19th century, theories of racial supremacy were increasingly [[rationalization|rationalized]] through "science." [[Phrenology]], especially the branch known as "craniology," i.e. the measurement of skull sizes, began to be used in what came to be called "[[scientific racism]]." Craniology was also used to rationalize [[sexist]] notions about the intellectual inferiority of women. Toward the mid-19th century, popular pseudoscientific works espousing unified theories of [[bigotry]] and [[social Darwinism]] became common. Social Darwinism, something of a misnomer, became popular before [[Charles Darwin]] even published ''[[On the Origin of Species]]''. [[Herbert Spencer]], for example, who was one of the best known alleged social Darwinists, borrowed pseudo-evolutionary [[Lamarck]]ian ideas. Racist, sexist, and classist pseudoscience, however, reached its pinnacle with [[Francis Galton]]'s formulation of [[eugenics]]. Galton advanced the position known as "hereditarianism," in which capacities such as intelligence were alleged to be entirely inherited, innate, and immutable.
 
In the early 19th century, theories of racial supremacy were increasingly [[rationalization|rationalized]] through "science." [[Phrenology]], especially the branch known as "craniology," i.e. the measurement of skull sizes, began to be used in what came to be called "[[scientific racism]]." Craniology was also used to rationalize [[sexist]] notions about the intellectual inferiority of women. Toward the mid-19th century, popular pseudoscientific works espousing unified theories of [[bigotry]] and [[social Darwinism]] became common. Social Darwinism, something of a misnomer, became popular before [[Charles Darwin]] even published ''[[On the Origin of Species]]''. [[Herbert Spencer]], for example, who was one of the best known alleged social Darwinists, borrowed pseudo-evolutionary [[Lamarck]]ian ideas. Racist, sexist, and classist pseudoscience, however, reached its pinnacle with [[Francis Galton]]'s formulation of [[eugenics]]. Galton advanced the position known as "hereditarianism," in which capacities such as intelligence were alleged to be entirely inherited, innate, and immutable.
 
===Inter-war and post-war period===
 
===Inter-war and post-war period===
Line 22: Line 24:
 
The 1970s and 1980s saw a revival of a more watered-down biological determinism. Two main factors in this resurgence were the discovery of [[DNA]] by Watson and Crick in the 1950s and the application of ethological research to humans in the form of sociobiology (especially with the 1975 publication of E.O. Wilson's ''Sociobiology: The New Synthesis''). Newer forms of biological determinism repackaged older eugenic and hereditarian ideas in newer, fancier jargon. Public debate over biological determinism erupted once again in the early 1990s with the publication of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's neo-eugenicist tract ''[[The Bell Curve]]''. Many theories coming out of the field of behavioral genetics, neuroscience, and [[evolutionary psychology]] have been accused of biological determinism. However, with the completion of the Human Genome Project in the 2000s, much speculation in this arena has been written off as "genome hype."
 
The 1970s and 1980s saw a revival of a more watered-down biological determinism. Two main factors in this resurgence were the discovery of [[DNA]] by Watson and Crick in the 1950s and the application of ethological research to humans in the form of sociobiology (especially with the 1975 publication of E.O. Wilson's ''Sociobiology: The New Synthesis''). Newer forms of biological determinism repackaged older eugenic and hereditarian ideas in newer, fancier jargon. Public debate over biological determinism erupted once again in the early 1990s with the publication of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's neo-eugenicist tract ''[[The Bell Curve]]''. Many theories coming out of the field of behavioral genetics, neuroscience, and [[evolutionary psychology]] have been accused of biological determinism. However, with the completion of the Human Genome Project in the 2000s, much speculation in this arena has been written off as "genome hype."
  
==Quotes==
 
{{cquote|Anatomy is destiny.|||[[Sigmund Freud]]<ref>[http://german.about.com/library/blfreud.htm Sigmund Freud], about.com</ref>}}
 
{{cquote|Attempts to import biological theories into sociology, from social Darwinism of the 19th century to the race theories of the 20th, have a justifiably bad reputation.|||John Maynard Smith<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=wHphHUhDk7wC&pg=PA496&lpg=PA496&dq=survival+through+suicide+maynard+smith&source=bl&ots=XmJG249IPR&sig=mBCGotJjJOvuyadm7BOVKPZq6Vs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=H_5OT6vlIYre0QGYn8DcDQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=survival%20through%20suicide%20maynard%20smith&f=false Smith's review of E.O. Wilson's ''Sociobiology'' in ''New Scientist'', Aug. 28, 1975]</ref>}}
 
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==

Revision as of 01:15, 7 March 2012

Attempts to import biological theories into sociology, from social Darwinism of the 19th century to the race theories of the 20th, have a justifiably bad reputation.
—John Maynard Smith[1]
Style over substance

Pseudoscience

Icon pseudoscience.svg
Popular pseudosciences
Random examples

Biological determinism is a common fallacy that implies that biology does and should completely dictate human behavior or the behavior of a certain subset of humans, such as black people or males. A frequent formulation is along the lines of, "Humans evolved to do this; it's natural." It is considered to be a form of pseudoscience or folk science. Its opposite may be considered cultural or environmental determinism.

Contents

Philosophical and scientific fallacies

On the moral level, this is a classic case of the naturalistic fallacy, or the violation of Hume's law, or that an "ought" cannot be derived from an "is." On the scientific level, it often comes packaged with numerous fallacies common to the fields of biology, statistics, and psychology. Biological determinism usually involves the fallacy of division, i.e. the application of a statistical trend to pre-judge an individual case. The fact that Chinese people tend to be short,[1] however, does not mean that basketball superstar Yao Ming should hang up his shorts and go home. Other common fallacies generally revolve around misinterpretations of the biological science of the day.

Examples

  • "Women should remain in the home and raise children, not go out and work. That's why they are the ones that can get pregnant and bear the children. It's the way it's supposed to be. Now get back in the kitchen and make me a goddamn sandwich."
  • "Monogamy is silly - just look at the male penis! It's far bigger, proportionally, than the penis of any other primate, and the flared head is designed to scoop out the semen of competitors.[2] We're not designed to have just one partner."
  • "We can abuse animals any way we please - we're the ones who evolved the most, after all, because Nature wanted us in charge."

Historical context

Pre-scientific

Before biology came into being as a natural science proper, forms of biological determinism existed but not in the same sense that the term is used today. In societies with hereditary social status or caste, blood was a common biological metaphor for social status, e.g., "royal blood."

European imperialism

The beginnings of modern biological determinism grew out of European imperialism and the slave trade. Early biological taxonomies, such as that of Carl Linnaeus, imported the theological notion of a Great Chain of Being in which people could be ranked hierarchically in a biological sense. This also often invoked polygenic theories positing different "races" of humans, which were believed to be separate species or subspecies.

The 19th century and the birth of social Darwinism and eugenics

Anatomy is destiny.
Sigmund Freud[3]

In the early 19th century, theories of racial supremacy were increasingly rationalized through "science." Phrenology, especially the branch known as "craniology," i.e. the measurement of skull sizes, began to be used in what came to be called "scientific racism." Craniology was also used to rationalize sexist notions about the intellectual inferiority of women. Toward the mid-19th century, popular pseudoscientific works espousing unified theories of bigotry and social Darwinism became common. Social Darwinism, something of a misnomer, became popular before Charles Darwin even published On the Origin of Species. Herbert Spencer, for example, who was one of the best known alleged social Darwinists, borrowed pseudo-evolutionary Lamarckian ideas. Racist, sexist, and classist pseudoscience, however, reached its pinnacle with Francis Galton's formulation of eugenics. Galton advanced the position known as "hereditarianism," in which capacities such as intelligence were alleged to be entirely inherited, innate, and immutable.

Inter-war and post-war period

Much of the Western world remained in the grip of eugenic ideas up until World War II, though eugenics programs began to lose traction just prior to the war as they increasingly came to be viewed as pseudoscientific. Anthropologists such as Franz Boas also challenged biological determinism. In addition, the Soviet Union and other communist countries suppressed or banned Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics in favor of the Lamarckian-derived Lysenkoism. The former ideas were denounced as "bourgeois pseudosciences." During the post-war period, eugenics and biological determinism in general fell out of favor due to their association with Nazi Germany. This also coincided with the rise of the New Left and general counterculture of the 1960s, which led to a further backlash against biological explanations of human behavior.

Resurgence of biological theories

The 1970s and 1980s saw a revival of a more watered-down biological determinism. Two main factors in this resurgence were the discovery of DNA by Watson and Crick in the 1950s and the application of ethological research to humans in the form of sociobiology (especially with the 1975 publication of E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis). Newer forms of biological determinism repackaged older eugenic and hereditarian ideas in newer, fancier jargon. Public debate over biological determinism erupted once again in the early 1990s with the publication of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's neo-eugenicist tract The Bell Curve. Many theories coming out of the field of behavioral genetics, neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology have been accused of biological determinism. However, with the completion of the Human Genome Project in the 2000s, much speculation in this arena has been written off as "genome hype."


See also

External links

References

Footnotes

  1. "Average Height by Country (Males <20 Years)", Interbasket.net
  2. "Secrets of the Phallus", Scientific American. See also Jerry Coyne's Evolutionary Psychology for the Masses for a debunking.
  3. Sigmund Freud, about.com
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support