Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T09:38:15.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From outrage to orthodoxy? Sociobiology and political science at 35

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Joseph Losco
Joseph Losco*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Ball State University, North Quadrangle Building, Rm. 258, Muncie, IN 47306. [email protected]
Get access

Extract

Few intellectual battles compare in depth of passion or theatrics to the outrage that greeted the publication of Edward O. Wilson's 1975 path-breaking volume, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Within days of publication, opponents organized symposia; wrote critical editorials; picketed in Harvard Square; and, at one meeting, assaulted Wilson with a bucket of cold water before he could deliver his address. Fueling this reaction was Wilson's temerity in asserting that the principles of the new synthetic theory applied no less to humans than to other species—and then to use the penultimate chapter to apply his theory to explaining human mating, aggression, and the development of moral and religious systems. Even some who were sympathetic with sociobiology were taken aback by some of the imperialistic sounding statements made by Wilson and his disciples, like Robert Trivers, who prophesized: “Sooner or later, political science, law, economics, psychology, psychiatry, and anthropology will all be branches of sociobiology.”

Type
Founders' Forum
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , Spring 2011 , pp. 80 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Wilson, Edward O., Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1975).Google Scholar
2. Segerstråle, Ullica, Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond (New York: Oxford Press, 2000).Google Scholar
3. Trivers, Robert L., quoted in Time magazine, August 1977, p. 54.Google Scholar
4. Lewontin, Richard C., “Sociobiology as an adaptationist program,” Behavioral Scientist, 1979, 24: 5–14.Google Scholar
5. Gould, Stephen J., “Sociobiology and the theory of natural selection,” in Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture? Barlow, George and Silverberg, James, eds. (Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1980), pp. 257–269.Google Scholar
6. Losco, Joseph, “Sociobiology and political science: A status report,” Research in Biopolitics, Vol. 4, Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., eds. (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1996), pp. 151–177.Google Scholar
7. Wilson, Edward O., On Human Nature (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), p. 13.Google Scholar
8. Wilson, Edward O., Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
9. Allen Orr, H., “The big picture: Review of E. O. Wilson's Consilience” Boston Review, October/November 1998.Google Scholar
10. Wynne-Edwards, V.C., Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behavior (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962).Google Scholar
11. Trivers, Robert L., “Parent-offspring conflict,” American Zoologist, 1974, 14: 249–264.Google Scholar
12. Trivers, Robert L., “The evolution of reciprocal altruism,” Quarterly Review of Biology, 1971, 46: 35–57.Google Scholar
13. Power, Margaret, The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee. An Anthropological View of Social Organization (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
14. Alcock, John, The Triumph of Sociobiology (New York: Oxford, 2001).Google Scholar
15. Degler, Carl, In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
16. Barkan, Elazar, The Retreat of Scientific Racism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
17. Yudell, Michael and Desalle, Rob, “Sociobiology: Twenty-five years later,” Journal of the History of Biology, 2000, 33(3): 577–584.Google Scholar
18. Jumonville, Neil, “The cultural politics of the sociobiology debate,” Journal of the History of Biology, 2002, 35(3): 569–593.Google Scholar
19. Chagnon, Napolean and Irons, William, Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective (North Scituate, MA: Duxbury, 1979).Google Scholar
20. Durham, William, Co-Evolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991).Google Scholar
21. Betzig, Laura, Human Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
22. Becker, Gary S., “Altruism, egoism, and genetic fitness: Economics and sociobiology,” journal of Economic Literature, 1976, 14(3): 817–826.Google Scholar
23. Hirschleifer, Jack and Rubin, Paul H., eds., Research in Law and Economics, Vol. IV, Evolutionary Models in Economics and Law (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1982).Google Scholar
24. Robson, Arthur J. and Samuelson, Larry, “The evolution of intertemporal preferences,” American Economic Review, 2007, 97(2): 496–500.Google Scholar
25. Cosmides, Leda and Toobey, John, eds., The Adapted Mind (New York: Oxford, 1992).Google Scholar
26. White, Elliott, ed., Sociobiology and Human Politics (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
27. Losco, Joseph and Baird, Donna, “The impact of sociobiology on political science,” American Behavioral Scientist, 1982, 25(3): 335–360.Google Scholar
28. Van der Dennen, J. and Falger, V., eds., Sociobiology and Conflict: Evolutionary Perspectives on Group Behavior (London: Chapman and Hall, 1990).Google Scholar
29. Schubert, James, “Age and active-passive leadership style,” American Political Science Review, 1988, 82(3): 763–772.Google Scholar
30. Schubert, Glendon, Sexual Politics and Political Feminism (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press 1991).Google Scholar
31. Liesen, Laurette, “Women, behavior, and evolution,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 2007, 26(1): 51–70.Google Scholar
32. Axelrod, Robert, “The emergence of cooperation among egoists,” American Political Science Review, 1981, 75(2): 306–316.Google Scholar
33. Somit, Albert and Peterson, Steven A., Darwinism, Dominance, and Democracy: The Biological Basis of Authoritarianism (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997).Google Scholar
34. Masters, Roger D., The Nature of Politics (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
35. Corning, Peter, The Synergism Hypothesis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983).Google Scholar
36. Masters, Roger D., “Is sociobiology reactionary? The political implications of inclusive fitness theory,” Quarterly Review of Biology, 1982, 57: 275–292.Google Scholar
37. Axelrod, Robert, “An evolutionary approach to norms,” American Political Science Review, 1986, 80(4): 1095–1111.Google Scholar
38. Masters, Roger D., “Evolutionary biology and political theory,” American Political Science Review, 1990, 84(1): 195–210.Google Scholar
39. Wilson, James Q., “Presidential address: The moral sense,” American Political Science Review, 1992, 87(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
40. Ostrom, Elinor, “Presidential address: A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action,” American Political Science Review 1998, 92(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
41. Wahlke, John, “Presidential address: Prebehavioralism in political science,” American Political Science Review, 1979, 73(1): 9–31.Google Scholar
42. Orbell, John, Morikawa, Tomonori, Hartwig, Jason, Hanley, James, and Allen, Nicholas, “Machiavellian intelligence as a basis of cooperative dispositions,” American Political Science Review, 2004, 98(1): 1–15.Google Scholar
43. Kanazawa, Satoshi, “The evolutionary psychological foundations of civil wars,” Journal of Politics, 2009, 71(1): 25–34.Google Scholar
44. Alford, John R. and Hibbing, John R., “The origin of politics: An evolutionary theory of political behavior,” Perspectives on Politics, 2004, 2(4): 707–723.Google Scholar
45. Alford, John R., Funk, Carolyn L., and Hibbing, John R., “Are political orientations politically transmitted?” American Political Science Review, 2005, 99(2): 153–167.Google Scholar
46. Charney, Evan, “Genes and ideology,” Perspectives on Politics, 2008, 6(2): 299–319.Google Scholar