Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:34:49.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the Roots of Sociobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

John R. Durant
John R. Durant
Affiliation:
University College of Swansea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Essay Reviews
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 1980 , pp. 55 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1980

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

NOTES

1 Wilson, E. O., Sociobiology: the new synthesis, Cambridge, Mass. & London, 1975.Google Scholar

2 ‘MuUiple review of Wilson's Sociobiology’, Animal behaviour, 1976, 24, 698–718.Google Scholar

3 See for example Allen, E. et al. , letter to the editor, New York review of books, 1975, 22, 43–4Google Scholar; Allen, E. et al. , ‘Sociobiology: another biological determinism’, BioScience, 1976, 26, 182–6Google Scholar; Wilson, E. O., letter to the editor, New York review of books, 1975, 22, 60–1Google Scholar; and Wilson, E. O., ‘Academic vigilantism and the political significance of Sociobiology’, BioScience, 1976, 26, 183, 187–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed The two exchanges of letters are reprinted in Caplan, , pp. 259–68, 280–303.Google Scholar

4 Reported in New scientist, 23 02 1978, 77, 486.Google Scholar

5 See for example Barash, D. P., Sociobiology and behaviour, New York, Oxford, & Amsterdam, 1977Google Scholar; and Clutton-Brock, T. H. and Harvey, P. H. (eds.), Readings in Sociobiology, Reading & San Francisco, 1978.Google Scholar

6 See for example Sahlins, M., The use and abuse of biology, London, 1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and The Ann Arbor Science for the People Editorial Collective, Biology as a social weapon, Minneapolis, 1977Google Scholar, which I have reviewed in Radical science journal, 1979, 8, 105–9.Google Scholar

7 Smith, J. M., ‘In the safety of confusion’ New scientist, 29 03 1979, 81, 1051.Google Scholar

8 Dawkins, R., ‘Defining Sociobiology’, Nature, 2 08 1979, 280, 427–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 See Wilson, E. O., op. cit. (1), pp. 63–4Google Scholar; Lewontin, R. C., ‘Sociobiology—a caricature of Darwinism’, in Suppe, F. and Asquith, P. (eds.), PSA 1976; Proceedings of the 1976 biennial meetings of the Phitosophy of Science Association, vol. ii, East Lansing, Michigan, 1977Google Scholar; and Miller, L. G., ‘Fated genes’, Jouunal of the history of the behavioural sciences, 1976, 12, 183–90.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Sahlins, , op. cit. (5), pp. 71–91.Google Scholar

11 Kuhn, T. S., The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago. 1962, pp. 136–9.Google Scholar

12 See for example, ‘Sociobiology: scientific bandwagon or travelling medicine show?’, Transaction society, 1978, 15, 50–9Google Scholar; ‘The sociology of sociobiology’, New scientist, 21 09 1978, 79, 862–5Google Scholar; and ‘Altruism in science: a sociobiological model of co-operative behaviour among sciemists’, Animal behaviour, 1978, 26, 685–97.Google Scholar

13 The conference took place on Friday 29 September 1978 at the Geological Society of London. The proceedings are shortly to be published, together with a number of additional contributions, in the form of a book.

14 Dawkins, , op. cit. (8), p. 427.Google Scholar

15 Ibid.

16 Prominent among the many criticisms of human sociobiology is the argument that it rests upon a projection of human experience—in the form of concepts such as division of labour, hierarchy, caste, etc.—into nature. (See for example Biology as a social weapon, op. cit. (6), p. 141.)Google Scholar There are now one or two historical studies which address this problem (see for example Haraway, D., ‘Animal sociology and a natural economy of the body politic’, Signs, 1978, 4, 21–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Crocker, D. R., ‘The ethological concept of dominance and its popularisation’, University of Manchester MSc dissertation, 1979)Google Scholar; but it is fair to say that a great deal remains to be done.

17 See Barnes, B. and Shapin, S. (eds.), Natural order: historical studies of scientific culture, Beverly Hills & London, 1979, parts I & III.Google Scholar

18 In their study of ‘The XYY male: the making of a myth’ (reprinted in Biology as a social weapon, op. cit. (6), pp. 86–100)Google Scholar, R. Pyeritz et al. note that the expansion of aggression research in the late 1960s was linked with increasing ‘public concern’ over the problems of crime and violence (p. 96). This link, which bas often been noted in passing, deserves detailed examination.

19 The recent appearance of Thorpe, W. H.'s book, The origins and rise of ethology (London, 1979)Google Scholar has done nothing to improve the situation. With the important exception of some very interesting personal reminiscences, it contains little which is of interest to the historian.