Sociobiology is the controversial "science" of explaining human nature and society by reference to evolutionary biology. Since the human body is the product of natural selection, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the human brain (and with it human behaviour) is too. When applied to explain the behaviour of non-human animals, evolutionary biology is relatively uncontroversial, and its status as a science unquestioned. It asserts, basically, that behaviour which maximises the fitness of the members of a population within a particular environment will become prevalent through natural selection, and that members of this population will be genetically different to their ancestors, or members of other populations, who did/do not exhibit this particular behaviour.

However, the attempts of sociobiology to apply the same type of reasoning to human beings have been fraught with controversy. There are two main reasons for this; the first being that sociobiologists are not as careful as they should be in their work and this has resulted in a number of notable mistakes. In their studies of animals, evolutionary biologists are extremely careful and any assertions of fact are made only with caution. But the generalised results of these studies are then, inattentively, extrapolated to apply to humans and are proclaimed loudly and without hesitation to the masses for popular consumption. This is unacceptable for any practice claiming to be science, but especially so for sociobiology, upon whose findings so much is at stake. As notable critic Phillip Kitcher states, "If we are wrong about the bases of human social behaviour, if we abandon the goal of a fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of society because we accept faulty hypotheses about ourselves and our evolutionary history, then the consequences of a scientific mistake may be grave indeed" ⁽¹⁾. This brings us to the second reason for the controversy: sociobiology is politically contentious. Its discoveries can be used to justify any particular human behaviour, or its suppression, by proclaiming that it is in our genes, and thus, that it is "natural".

It is important to realise the difference between sociobiology and the orthodox social sciences. The latter assume a very close link between a person's behaviour and the social environment in which they were raised, while the former asserts that a person's behaviour is mostly determined by their genes. Obviously the two factors are closely intertwined: the social environment is due to its inhabitants' dispositions, which are dependent on their genes, but genes are due to natural selection, which is dependent on social environment. We must, necessarily, take both into account. Genes may determine an organism's tendency to develop a certain way, but given different environments, genetically identical organisms will develop differently. The question we want to ask is exactly how much is dependent on each. It is doubtful that we'll receive a trustworthy answer.

Contrary to popular belief, science is not unbiased. It is a human institution like any other, and, as such, is subject to human whim and political prejudice. This is especially so for sciences such as psychology and sociobiology, whose results can be readily influenced and utilised by those in power. For example, the feminist could argue that any theories of sociobiology which assert that males are genetically predisposed to utilise rational logic more so than women are, are products of the male hierarchy and are used to maintain this hierarchy. And yet, perhaps confusingly, the feminist will champion theories which accord with her own agenda, no matter how scientifically imprecise. But suppose for a moment that sociobiology was an uncontentious science which made trustworthy hypotheses, and suppose, for example, it claimed that men are genetically predisposed to be violent and promiscuous, while women, by contrast, are genetically predisposed to be nurturing and monogamous. Would this justify a society in which men were allowed to take several wives, and beat them? Or would it instead justify a society in which there were more severe deterrents for such behaviour?

Such questions are difficult ones, but they need to be asked. Everyone has their own agenda to push, and they'll select and suppress information accordingly. Be aware of this, as it applies even to "scientific proof".

In the end, it is an obvious fact that women are different to men and that this difference is due both to natural selection as well as social conditioning. Even though we can't know how much is dependent on each, it is clear that both are important; so be wary of any theory which claims that our dispositions are due entirely to one factor or the other. Some feminists, for example, will say that gender differences are due entirely to social conditioning. They say this in order to lure you into thinking we can change every aspect of our nature. On the other hand, there are those who will deny your autonomy by saying that everything is due to biology. They do this in order to lure you into thinking that nothing can be changed.

(1) Phillip Kitcher, Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, 1985

by Karen Julia

June 4, 2007