My biggest problem with 'Sociobiology Sanitised' is that it violates
For some reason, this only seems to get violated in relation to studies of human behaviour and/or evolution. For instance, I don't recall ever hearing that announcements of the discovery of the Ebola virus were immediately met by protests that Western-trained virologists were trying to maliciously portray Sudanese and Congolese people as filthy and disease-ridden. If a scientist predicts that Vesuvius could erupt soon, people don't write long essays about how this is the same as saying volcanic eruptions are 'natural', which is the same thing as saying that anyone living on the slopes of Vesuvius now should just stay where they are, suck it up and quit whining about the risk of possible incineration. Why, then, do people so often confuse the two when it comes to human genetics?
Admittedly it's unfair to lay all the blame on Dusek in this case- I'm guessing that all or most of the people he cites on both sides have committed the same fallacy at least once (even Pinker seems to be guilty of it- for example, at one point in The Blank Slate he seems to be saying that anyone who stresses the importance of culture is basically a pessimist who thinks we're all automatons. I'll try to find the page reference, but it kind of jumps out because throughout most of that book Pinker gives the impression of being someone who's got a pretty good grasp of the role culture plays in the human species). I also realise that Dusek is probably aware that he's mixing science and politics in this discussion, and doesn't consider this to be a weakness so much as a sign of integrity. I'm not sure that I can currently articulate why I think this is a bad idea, so I think the plan is to critique his essay point-by-point and then see if I can come up with anything more convincing than "I think he's wrong".
I should also state that I'm going to be skimming over a couple of bits of Dusek's essay, on the grounds that I know approximately nothing about neuroscience or the Minnesota twin studies. Feel free to assume that this fatally undermines my position if this will make you feel happier about the whole thing.
Dusek begins by informing us that he was present at the famous incident in which protestors hurled water at sociobiologist E.O. Wilson while he was attempting to give a speech at a convention, apparently because they believed that sociobiology is inherently racist. The Blank Slate gives a description of this, along with several other incidents where people have done their best to prevent various biologists speaking in public (on the grounds that they might say something evil). Personally, I found this rather worrying (from a censorship perspective, if nothing else).
Dusek argues that the people repeating accounts of this incident neglect to report that Wilson "responded by saying to the audience that he felt like he had been speared by an aborigine". I've certainly never heard that detail before, and when I've finished bitching on the internet I should probably go and see if I can find anywhere else that mentions it. Having said that, I don't think this really excuses the fact that they threw water on him in the first place. Unless it was magic water which makes people reveal their secret racist thoughts when you throw it on them. That would be so cool. If I had magic racism-revealing water then you can bet that I'd be throwing it on people, like, ALL THE TIME. I'd be breaking into conferences on topics I knew nothing about, just so I could throw it at the keynote speaker and see if they responded with an unpleasant slur about my genetic ancestry. I'd be a vigilante, just like Batman, except I wouldn't live in a cave or own cars or harpoon guns. It would still be pretty sweet, though.
Where was I? Oh. Yes. Racism is wrong, kids. Don't let the misguided ramblings of a postgrad with a questionable sense of humour persuade you otherwise.
Dusek goes on to address the question of whether there's any difference between 'sociobiology' and 'evolutionary psychology' except that the latter term is currently more fashionable. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any major differences, but then I'm not an evolutionary psychologist and God knows that academics will fight to the bitter end to defend their right to self-define disciplinary boundaries that are frequently invisible to people outside the discipline in question, so I can't really offer an opinion on this one. However, I thought this statement of Dusek's was somewhat odd:
"I believe part of the difference [between sociobiology and EP] is a tactical retreat from some of the more belligerently ideological and sexist pronouncements of the past which attracted criticism and condemnation."Call me a cynic, but I can't help but feel like this is one of those irregular verbs. You know- "I respond well to peer input; you pay attention to constructive criticism, he just enacts a tactical retreat from the belligerent sexism of the past." Where I come from, if a group of scientists start backing down from a position on the grounds that it's chauvinist, feminists usually see that as a reason to celebrate. It seems a bit weird to watch people abandoning an argument which you find offensive, and then use that as an argument that this proves nothing except that they're evil hypocrites.
"Wilson has more recently allied himself with the fellow Harvard professor Thernstrom in forming an organization to dismiss and denigrate (without any actual investigation) the academic quality of Womens Studies and Ethnic Studies programs. Dawkins, on the other hand, does not make explicit social policy pronouncements."Sorry- I just want to pause a moment to contemplate the idea of a world where Richard Dawkins steers well clear of debates on social policy. The essay was written back in 1998, when atheists were quiet and respectful folk, beer was a shilling a bottle, and we all let children play in the street without worrying that they would be
"Dawkins' work is ideology in an even stronger sense that E. O. Wilson's precisely because none of it is explicit. Dawkins can present himself as the pure scientist in contrast to Gould and Lewontin precisely by feigning political unconsciousness and indifference."
This comment is an example of a sentiment which seems to come up quite often in a certain kind of humanities and social science theorising. I think the reason why you see this in those fields is because they're disciplines which spend a lot of time focusing on the fact that words have power. This seems to lead some people to the conclusion that attempts to communicate effectively are inherently oppressive, since they basically involve tricking or seducing your listeners into doing what you want. Some people who hold this opinion seem to make their peace with it (I get the impression that Foucault was one of them, although I haven't read enough of his original material to be sure). Others just seem to reach the conclusion that the only way to fight oppression is to find someone who looks like they endorse an influential point of view, and then spend your time incessantly telling them to shut up and go away. It's not enough just to critique the speaker every time they say something you disagree with; for all we know, even their apparently innocuous comments could actually be subliminal rhetoric designed to spread the tyranny; therefore "shut up and go away" is the only safe counterargument.
I say these people 'seem to' believe this, because I can only assume that this isn't the way it looks from an emic-insider perspective to this academic subculture. Unfortunately my empathy detector is failing to come up with alternative interpretation of how people like Dusek perceive the issue; if anyone could explain it more convincingly, I'd much appreciate it.
Since this post has gone on for more than long enough already, I think I'll just cut it off there. Tune in for more diatribe tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment