To what degree does an organism’s genetic make-up determine its attributes? Is it possible to summarize all aspects of an organism, physical or abstract, in terms of its genotype alone? This is the hope of sociobiology: that all traits of biological life including behavior, personality, social structures, etc. can be explained and simplified in terms of genetics. Proponents for the advancement of sociobiology, such as Edward O. Wilson, clamor for the inevitable simplification of all humanities and social sciences into the domain of genetics. However, some philosophers, including Stephen Jay Gould, contend that sociobiology is still far too speculative and that attributing genetic influences to human behaviors and experiences could have serious implications.
E.O. Wilson defines sociobiology as “the systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior, in all kinds of organisms, including man” (Heredity 244). The idea is that by comparatively studying social species, principles of social evolution can be assembled for all species. This method could then hypothetically determine specific genetic influences on human behaviors such as aggression, generosity, altruism, etc. According to Gould, however, there is not nearly enough experimental data to support the hypothesis; he writes, “…it is difficult to amass much data on heritability. More importantly, we cannot… perform the kind of breeding experiments… that would yield the required information” (Gould 256). The explanations obtained through sociobiology often rely on assumptions and speculative story-telling, and therefore oversimplify the problem.
An adaptive cause can be arbitrarily attributed to any trait ex post facto and easily construed such that it agrees with the predictions of natural selection. Gould argues that when sociobiologists attempt to explain behavioral patterns in terms of natural selection, “virtuosity in invention replaces testability as a criterion for acceptance” (Gould 252). Wilson argues that evolutionary causes for human social traits should be easy to uniquely determine, as “Human behavior is something that can be defined with fair precision, because the evolutionary pathways open to it have not all been equally negotiable” (Wilson 245). However, while some solution in terms of heredity and selection advantage can be conceived to explain the existence of certain behaviors such as altruism, compassion, and loyalty, there is no guarantee that this is the correct solution. The perceived plausibility of the explanation in accordance with Darwinian theory takes priority over the strength of experimental observations that support the hypothesis.
Gould writes, “this style of storytelling might yield acceptable answers if we could be sure… that only one selective explanation exists for each bit” (Gould 252). Wilson and other proponents of sociobiology argue that if certain behaviors are observed to be shared among humans and our fellow primates, it is reasonable to infer a common genetic cause. The issue with this line of reasoning is that a trait that manifests itself in multiple species could have arisen by entirely different means in each case. Gould explains this concept by clarifying the difference between homologous and analogous traits; “Similar features due to common ancestry are ‘homologous’; similarities due to common function, but with different evolutionary histories, are ‘analogous’” (Gould 417). Temporarily suspending skepticism that a list of behavioral traits invariably shared among humans and other primates could even be assembled, Gould argues that this still would not be enough evidence to suggest common genetic control. Even if a certain behavioral trait is shared between primates, there is no way of testing whether or not the traits evolved in homologous or analogous fashion (Gould 416-417).
Gould argues an additional requirement for sociobiological storytelling to yield valid answers is that “… all bits of morphology and behavior arise as direct results of natural selection…” (252). He emphasizes that “Sociobiologists have anchored their stories in the basic Darwinian notion of selection as individual reproductive success” (Gould 253). This reasoning is problematic because it assumes that all adaptive traits arise through natural selection processes, and therefore not only underestimates the role played by other genetic mutational processes but also the influence of cultural evolution. While natural selection acts “continuously and relentlessly to fit organisms to their environments” (Gould 418), cultural evolution is not subject to the same limits and constraints and differs in several profound ways, namely that it can proceed at a much more accelerated rate; “Cultural evolution, as a ‘Lamarckian’ process, can proceed orders of magnitude more rapidly than Darwinian evolution” (259). Cultural modifications can be communicated and transferred through mimesis and indoctrination and can display dramatic, complex changes in relatively short periods of time. The impact of cultural adaptation on social evolution in humans is far from negligible, and therefore indications that a trait might be adaptive are not sufficient to imply a direct genetic control.
The reluctance to assume that all human social behaviors are determined entirely by genes is framed by sociobiologists as “defiantly self-indulgent anthropocentrism” (Wilson 245). Wilson would assert that opponents of sociobiology are employing dichotomization as a last-ditch effort to view humanity as separate from and superior to the rest of the animal kingdom. Surely, if natural selection operates on gene frequencies to produce adaptive qualities in other animals, implying this process has no implication on human traits and behaviors is anthropocentric and irrational. Wilson writes, “The question of interest is no longer whether human social behavior is genetically determined; it is to what extent” (245). However, Gould and other adversaries of sociobiology can hardly be described as “ultra-environmentalists” who believe human behavior is unaffected by genetic influences (Wilson 243-250). Gould simply favors biological potentiality over the determinism advanced by Wilson, and agrees that “…the range of our potential behavior is circumscribed by our biology” (416). An individual human’s genotype confines the subset of possible behaviors that the individual may engage in; humans have two legs and no wings, making bipedal motion highly likely and flying particularly unlikely. However, abstract characteristics such as altruism, generosity, aggression, intelligence, etc. cannot be confirmed to be the direct result of genetic influence without intensive extrapolation of current data on social evolution in other species.
The potential dangers that could arise as a result of the advancement of sociobiology are non-trivial and well documented. Gould writes that sociobiology is “an extended speculation on the existence of genes for specific and variable traits in human behavior” (416). He also contends that “…biological determinism has always been used to defend existing social arrangements as biologically inevitable…” (419). The implementation of policies on the basis of sociobiological concepts opens the door for racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and prejudicial hate of all forms to masquerade as empiricism and practicality. In this regard, sociobiology is no different from the pseudoscience of phrenology, which was used to justify racism, persecution, and slavery in Europe and America for decades. The potential hazards associated with the deterministic ideas advanced by Wilson have been witnessed during several notable applications of eugenics in human history. In Nazi Germany, concepts of genetic inferiority led to the forced sterilizations and deaths of millions, but this is only the most infamous example; sterilization practices in the name of eugenics have been employed in Sweden, the United States, Canada, and the UK, as well as in other areas of Europe, Latin America, and Asia (Kelves). While a proponent for sociobiology might not share the hateful sentiments of those who have taken advantage of it throughout history, attempting to reduce something as complex and abstract as human behavior and personality to a deterministic science inevitably leads to group-based persecution and inequity.
While the biological potentiality proposed by Gould allows for no convenient simplification of all knowledge of human behavior into a single category, it gives humanity the ability to take responsibility for its own social structures and cultural progress. The complex behaviors and personality traits exhibited by humans are highly variable and clearly adaptive, either by natural selection or Lamarckian cultural evolution. Rather than invent “just-so” stories to explain these characteristics in terms of Darwinian theory, the scientific community should accept that our knowledge of evolutionary processes is not yet nearly as comprehensive for humans as it is for other species. Instead of extrapolating the finite experimental data on social evolution in other species to imagine our personalities are under the control of specific genes, humans should rejoice “that the brain’s enormous flexibility permits us to be aggressive or peaceful, dominant or submissive, spiteful or generous…” (Gould 419). Formulating mechanisms such as kin selection and reciprocal altruism in order to make sense of human attributes that do not seem to agree with traditional Darwinian theory becomes unnecessary if we “emphasize our difference as flexible animals with a vast range of potential behavior” (Gould 419). Our evolutionary history does not uniquely determine our personalities and future actions, and therefore does not prevent continuous social reform. Natural selection may have been the driving agent in hominid evolution for millennia, but today humans are complex, intellectual beings with a capacity for logical thinking, altruism, generosity, and empathy. Reducing these attributes to some quantitative measurement of gene frequencies seems absurd when one considers that embracing these seemingly unlikely characteristics are humanity’s best chance at attaining a peaceful and progressive society.