Sociobiology-
A Caricature
Richard
Darwin's
theory
observations
of Species
is devoted
animals
for particular
transferred
world.
selection,
of selective
a concept
selection
nature
The human
from
to human
that occurred
Natural
in a h6stile
agent
and only some
species,
of the many
in
had selected
and Darwin
of domestication
selection
after
because
of the Origin
breeder
willful
occur
by him from
and variation
the domain
to Darwin
would
chapter
breeding
domesticated
breeding
The analogous
on population.
to survive
in particular.
these
was devised
The first
of selective
in reproducing
this notion
to the natural
"natural"
and pigeons
traits
selection
of animals.
to a discussion
Theory
C. Lewontin
by natural
on the domestication
domesticated
essay
of evolution
of Selection
reading
was
Malthus'
organisms
organisms
struggled
born would
live
to reproduce.
Darwin's
general
theory
principles
I)
There
which
to the same species
2)
is a correlation
the principle
3)
resemble
parents
each other
more
on three
and behavior
among
organisms
of variation.
and offspring
than do unrelated
in phenotype
so
individuals
-
leave more
offspring
than others
- the principle
of
selection.
three principles
Provided
between
rests
generality.
physiology
- the principle
then,
of heredity.
Some phenotypes
natural
selection,
in their
in morphology,
belonging
There
by natural
are unchallenged
is variation
that relatives
These
of evolution
there
are sufficient
is variation
in this variation
to guarantee
among objects,
by some mechanism
an evolutionary
that there
of heritabilit_
process.
is some temporal
and that different
stability
sorts of
-141-
objects
leave different
tion•ary change
selection
have
since
they vary
rates
by natural
of erosion
selection
lies
A system
vulgar
of Freudian
explain
episode
of evolution
about
be used
is what
So too,
and herein
be used
it has been
the Darwinian
is the collection
behavior
used
to
theory
explanation
and human
and
to the system
of phenomena.
animal
to
in a crude
happened
that
of explana-
explanation
ethics,
social
sciences
history,
of lower
The New Synthesis"
economics,
has
The latest
of theories
that is called
under
it in the future.
reveals,
that
includes
by
which
E.O.
will
letters,
and
the
"biologize"
human
of the structure
but a system
of human
the arts,
of the humanities
as
the stereo-
gambit.
for understanding
An examination
it is not a science,
not only
human
claims
sociobiology
both
behavior
but all aspects
the normal
explicitly
basis
and human
organisms,
all the studies
a new scientific
and for directing
however,
This
that is within
are to be subsumed
and give
all of anima_
by natural•selection.
activity
"Sociobiology,
music,
to explain
and group behavior
and individual
disciplines
of Darwinian
is an attempt
typed individual
Wilson's
of easy
The system
"Sociobiology".
Sociobiology
the product
This
and the arts.
for the purpose
and observations
its adherents
and will
and
So too automobiles
that can potentially
caricature
by natural
hardness
any situation
was so all encompassing
science
in this caricature
speculations
social
which
all of history,
been vulgarized
to almost
be evolu-
evolve
of equal
containers.
way by ingeniouspeople.
psychology
So, rocks
of survival.
of explanation
invites
there must
off rocks
and t_erefore
it can be applied
any observations
analogical
split
as do soft drink
that
its weakness.
in time,
of the population.
in hardness,
tion is so powerful
explain
of descendants
in the composition
different
evolve
numbers
these
society
of sociobiology
of unscientific
specula-
tion.
The first element
in the sociobiological
argument
is to describe
the set of
i
"4
-142-
phenotypes
under
superficial
wisdom.
indeed
characterizations
Thus
believe
investigation.
in Wilson's
than know"
dominance,
with
a biological
support
nature"
are
Xenophobia,
explanation.
the universality
The facts
of these
reason
do not appear
been
claims
too narrow
are directly
day "primitive"
an invention
ritual
societies
in their
contradicted
hunter
of the modern
combat
in which
In general,
state,
very
the description
but, on the contrary,
behavior
for its lack of rigor and sophistication.
The first is the error
behavior
is broken
be related
action
of selection.
system
corresponds
For example,
specific
phenotypic
entities
rather
poorly
memories
are stored
in the cerebrum.
in genocidal
are three
the topology
present
warfare,
is remarkable
confusions
that are
The totality
of the central
rather
of human
that may or may not
to gene action
of central
Even for ordinary
their
in a kind of semi-
by sociobiologists
diffusely
the
or wounded.
of description
to the topology
or that
For example,
engage
corresponding
that
the exceptions
In some cases
agglomeration.
into units
It is now known
specific
points
of arbitrary
up arbitrarily
to actual
There
ignored
is that "zoologists
record.
are killed
completely
aberrations"
do not engage
do not
in the ethnographic
of territoriality".
of human
and then provided
it is stated
to be territorial
few combatants
common.
is almost
"temporary
societies
territoriality,
and of ethnography
by the ethnographic
and gatherer
behavior
For example,
are only
definition
of human
generalizations
for by redefinition.
rather
easy to indoctrinate,
but history
to these
warfare
have
and very
conventional
entrepreneurship,
of history
traits,
to the "rule '' of genocidal
all human
by universalizing
extraordinarily
domination,
and exceptions
are accounted
very general
"Sociobiology' I, we are told that "men would
are all said to be universals
by sociobiologists
record
is done by making
of "human
and the people
they seek it".
male
This
nervous
nervous
function.
than being
morphology
and the
located
at
we are not certain
-143-
what
the units
or is a single
difficulty
in evolution
finger,
For example,
or a joint
of dividing
far greater
are.
up
in that
finger?
the description
than for morphology.
Yet
is the hand
a unit
How are we
of behavior
sociobiology
in evolution,
to decide?
into appropriate
has never
The
units
discussed
is
this pro-
blem.
A second
for real
error
objects.
that evolve
is that
in time and have
human
particular
form of society
such arbitrary
social
constructs
in evolution,
the alveolar
and dentary
there
are confused
interaction
that occurs
aggression
that most
because
as the cause
people
Having
been
established
on the characters
concepts
as for example,
of conflation
it is here
between
Again,
the chin,
entities
of
and the
in morphology,
which
appears
the relative
in which
indiscriminately
individuals
insult
when
or competition,
As a result,
there
of war.
everyone
Yet
conscripted
by
a description
not to
positions
of
genetics.
another
and to the political
assignment
behavioral
basis
evidence
sociobiologists
to the
as
the
struggle
others,
but
of a political
phenotype,
or show
sociobiological
is
in a war knows
toward
in the interest
a genetic
example
of individual
who has ever fought
some experimental
Here
striking
phenomena
by sociobiologists
one assaults
of the human
that
different
The most
is a facile
the state
It is here
that we demand
quite
they feel aggressive
is to ascribe
described.
of quantitative
ways
by history
live?
the same name.
is applied
task of the sociobiologist
because
sociobiologists
are there not because
they have
real
or are they arbitrary
but only a way of describing
individual
states.
are mistaken
or "altruism"
that are conditioned
they are given
a term which
nation
constructs
jaw fields.
aggression,
between
exist,
mental
or "dominance"
influences
in which
is the error
because
of some
genetic
interactions
be an organ
Third,
in which
Are "entrepreneurship"
describing
result
of reification,
a genetic
theory
goal.
the next
influence
is weakest
and some rigorous
try to have
it both
ways.
-144-
For
some
traits
so providing
over
it is claimed
a basis
the entire
that "moderate
for selection.
human
species,
fixed in the genes
no observation
would
the understanding
particularly
behavioral
low.
traits
the claim
of the basic
on the observations
Yet no separation
that
cannot
other
be resolved
of human
groups
mental
social
similarity.
"heritabilities"
party!
organization
of relatives
on observed
trait because
components
speak vaguely
of i0 per cent of human
human
would
behavioral
Often
bizarre
of correlation
know how to interpret
traits
have
sociobiologists
action
"conformer
make
parent-offspring
are for religious
in order
genes",
the theory
genes
fly.
in human
behavior
simply
to account
postulate
for complex
sociobiology
in these
correlation
The central
around
families
result
in environ-
and
the highest
affiliation
and political
estimate
populations.
for any
the genetic
and
Sociobiologists
governed
by genes,
yet no
it mean
that all
Does
(broad or narrow?)?
or assume
human
traits,
correlations,
such a statement.
for homosexuality,
Clearly,
also
to be
has been
component.
in separating
a i0 per cent heritability
will
and offspring
phenotypic
behavior.
of human
personality
heritability
being
seems
correlations
and an environmental
that
of human
for a variety
is a total
relationships
then
genetics
dominance,
no one has succeeded
environmental
geneticist
determination
of parent
The fact is that we do not have a decent
is a proof
It appears
is that it is organized
in U. S. populations
human behavioral
to be constant
of parent-offspring
so that genetic
Based
skills,
correlation
into a genetic
are said
of quantitative
of the environments
so that the parent-offspring
documented",
variance
selection.
heritability"
motor
have been
however,
of genetic
concepts
of "moderate
made
feature
by previous
such as creativity,
and so on, is based
traits.
contradict
The claim
traits,
so that the lack of genetic
that they were
But
Other
heritabilities
genes
with
behaviors.
genes
for altruism,
rests
on a very
Thus,
special
there are
all invented
shaky
and
to
and uncertain
-145-
genetic
base.
Having
described
genes wherever
how natural
human behavior
they are needed,
selection
for the action
of.natural
human
This
demand
some ingenuity.
modern
Just
attempt
selection
speculations
on its carriers.
by expanding
vidual
possessing
food,
if food were
Thus,
genes for aggression
Other
traits
sexuality,
the trait.
not necessarily
for those
the second
an individual's
genes
in favor of relatives
to raise his or her
theory.
for example,
But what
of selection
are spread
share
invoked
one can sacrifice
in their
better
are
fitness
construction
selection.
advantage
person
and leave
increase
evidence)
would
more
get more
offsprinl
in frequency.
homosexuals,
Because
by sociobiologists.
genes.
Homo-
HOW is it that the genes
its own direct
his own fitness
but
for
In kin selection,
fitness
by helping
according
for eight
have
of kin
reproductive
The homosexual,
his or her genes
an
to the indi-
that homosexuals
not disappeared?
of
First,
and his or her offspring.
have
may spread
we are entirely
it may occasionally
aggressive
behavior).
the same
to show
is offered
greater
true for complete
by sacrificing
sibs children
and come
about
mode
conferred
selective
(without
with no evidence)
because
of natural
would
postulated
now proceeds
no evidence
although
and so survive
mixed
and having
that can be offered
aided
a more
(obviously
showing
who may
In particular,
been
to the individual
than heterosexuals
selection,
is easy
and entrepreneurship
fewer offspring
have
by direct
It is asserted
(invented
might
have
For example,
in short supply,
for example.
All
the concept
a character
seem maladaptive
homosexuality
history.
how a trait
Sociobiologists
to explain
Again,
nor can any be offered
evolutionary
about
way,
theorist
the trait.
kind of speculation
So Stories
is made
the sociobiological
has established
in the realm of past
imaginative
in a conventional
to this
first-cousins,
out even.
human behavior
that is directed
toward
increasing
the fitnessl
-146-
of non-related
as a result
her life
persons,
pure
of selection
behavior
conceivable
selection,
person,
thus propagating
will
increase,
behavior
Historical
societies
of major
in remarkably
the Muslim
Empire
time periods,
in a few centuries.
of the fact that only
century,
be hard
to account
cally.
The sociobiologists
a wholly
new p_inciple,
small genetic
typic
change
effect.
course
genetic
changes.
There
the multiplier
in a species
phenotypic
change
is made
is no doubt
that human
behavior
But the human
species
environment
that dominates
other
coping
other
than an outside
in some passive
way.
so that environment
the environment.
dramatic
totally
species.
force
For
The organism
animals,
generations
historical
states
the effect
changes
pass
changes
per
geneti-
by inventing
that an arbitrarily
to an arbitrarily
multiplier
large
effect,
can be explained
phenoof
by small
test-proof.
sense,
all living
the product
on the organism,
the organism
of
of organism
organisms,
and the environment
in making
armor
the relationship
that impinges
of human
gene frequency
in their
is, in some
has reversed
has a role
For lower
which
in the species
the theory
is more
four human
but unspecified
Thus
quantitatively.
the rise and fall of
how raPid
may be multiplied
an arbitrary
evolution.
ment
effect,
to direct
in the organization
take care of this chink
By allowing
any observed
for these
is no
is complete.
theory
as for example
account
There
either
The system
But we know
in
for such reciprocal
by recourse
occurred
his or
and reciprocate
genes
sociobiological
have
risks
in this exchange.
altruism.
can be and taking
it would
remember
Then
not be explained
magnitude
short
will
for cheating
of testing
by the sociobiologists
If an individual
of both.
or reciprocal
is one possibility
changes
that person
genes
that could
is explained
altruism.
the genes
as will
kin selection
There
This
for reciprocal
for an unrelated
the future,
altruism?
the environ-
the organism
interpenetrate
and the organism
of the organism
and
each
alters
on the environment
-147-
is relatively
small,
but
the human
the environment
and therefore
the environment
and not
tion and a proper
and superficial
domain
of study
population
proper
must
the reverse.
analogy
is the exact
genetics
understanding
be understood
to expose
is characterized
of its own evolution.
understanding
facile
species
Therefore
of human
social
with natural
science
the proper
complex
in its uniquely
human
aspects.
come
It is up tO those
attempts
Above
selection
evolufrom
the human
a
of us whose
and
to short_circuit
all,
of
dominates
of human
cannot
and artificial
species.
a molder
species
study
organization
the pseudoscientific
of our very
The human
history.
Of natural
by being
a
species
-148-
DR.
RICHARD
C.
LEWONTIN
-
"SOCIOBIOLOGY
- A CARICATURE
OF
SELECTION
T HEORY"
ANDREW
The
rate
of _0
0
n parameters
LEE:
or
Is
X
0
is
not
not
part
of the
defined.
problem
There
purely
are
mathematical
very
wide
in nature
variety
of models
?
•with
to fit n points.
RICHARD
C.
LEWONTIN:
Yes,
that puts it in a nutshell.
If there is said
to be no phenotypic
variance (the denominator)
and no genotyplc variance
(the numerator),
then the problem of heritability becomes
indeterminate.
Moreover,
the structure of
sociobiological
theory is such that it provides a few undetermined
parameters
which allow
the fitting of any arbitrary data.
The old saying is: "Give me three parameters
and I
can
draw
an elephant,
FRED
give me
SCHULTZ
:
or indirectly influenced
four and I'll make
him walk."
Are the TV networks' mouthpieces
by them
(or are publishing
concerns
for the Sociobiologlst
mentioned
by you)?
Not asked directly at this time - are there any signs of
the development
of a "New Social Biology" based on genetic theory?
(this question
perhaps related to Gordon
Dickerson's
question).
RICHARD
and
popular
Wilson's
C.
LEWONTIN:
magazines
book,
advertisements
have
The
given
"Sociobiology,
in the New
The
media,
a major
New
York Times
including
television,
play to sociobiology,
Synthesis",
(unheard
radio,
newspapers
especially
appeared.
There
of for a supposedly
is
just after
were
full page
scientific work),
major reviews and articles in many daily newspapers,
an interview in People magazine,
claims in Newsweek,
Tim_____e,
etc ....
This makes
part of a wave of "New Social
Biology" or Social Darwinism
which includes the theory that criminality is in the
chromosomes,
system,
etc....
as a new
that social
that success
The
upheaval
in society
economist
Social Darwinism
is the result of defective
is the result of genetically
Paul Samuelson
labelled this, and
in his article in Newsweek
wiring
many economists
have shown
him to be correct in his assessment
to explain the American
economy
as being based in the genes.
has
and how
much
damage
My serious
it is going
it does not have much chance
but it may be more dangerous
have
But it has taken
in particular,
ago and
in the interval
by trying seriously
you are arguing
against
question is: How strong a stronghold sociobiology
to make in Genetics
and Biology?
In my opinion,
among
people who
in other areas.
RICHARD
Co LEWONTIN:
much of a future in biology
intelligence,
sociobiology
three years
JAN S, GAVORA:
Your talk makes
us wonder
whether
Sociobiology
because
you really "underneath"
believe in it?
in the central nervous
determined
breed
chickens
or work
experimentally,
I agree that sociobiologydoes
not, ultimately,
because
it is not really a fruitful scientific theory.
hold in the social sciences
and among
those
biologists
who
work
in the
"fuzzy" areas of evolutionary theory and animal behavior.
That is why it is all the
more important for people like us, breeders,
population geneticists and statisticians,
insist on a rigorous level of scientific work consistent with the soundest
principles, and above all, publicly to correct errors where we see them.
methodological
to
-149-
GORDON DICKERSON:
You object
to prostitution
of legitimate
genetics
and evolutionary
science
in the pseudo
science
of sociobiology.
This a defensive
or
negative
approach
to protect
our science.
However,
defensive
measures
usually
are less
effective
than offensive
or positive
ones.
Do you have suggestions
concerning
positive
approaches
to "understanding
realities
of human nature,
and incorporating
such understanding
the planning
of more generally
satisfactory
social
organization?
RICHARD C. LEWONTIN:
I freely admit that the struggle against sociobiology is largely a defensive one.
That is inevitable for us as practitioners of an
exact science.
There will continue to be attempts to use our science superficially tO
support prejudices and to try to erect all-encompassing theories about the world.
That
is a position we necessarily find ourselves in exactly because we work in a rigorous
experimental and theoretical discipline.
The only positive contribution we can make to building a more satisfactory
social organization is to insist on telling the truth about biology and especially about
the real nature of interactions between genotype and environment inproducing phenotype. My own guess is that there is not much in human biology that will constrain
future human societies, but that is only my prejudice.