Sociobiology: The New Synthesis
LC Class QL775 .W54 2000 | | |
Preceded by | The Insect Societies | |
---|---|---|
Followed by | On Human Nature (1978) |
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975; 25th anniversary edition 2000) is a book by the biologist
The book was generally well-reviewed in biological journals. It received a much more mixed reaction among sociologists, mainly triggered by the brief coverage of the implications of sociobiology for human society in the first and last chapters of the book; the body of the text was largely welcomed. Such was the level of interest in the debate that a review reached the front page of the
Context
Book
Publication
The book was first published in 1975. It has been reprinted at least 14 times up to 2014. It has been translated into languages including Chinese, Japanese, and Spanish. An abridged edition was published in 1980.[7]
Illustrations
The book is illustrated with 31 halftone figures, 209 line drawings by Sarah Landry, and 43 tables.[8] The drawings of animal societies were considered "informing and attractive".[9]
Contents
Part I. Social Evolution
The section summarizes the concepts of
- 1. The Morality of the Gene
- 2. Elementary Concepts of Sociobiology
- 3. The Prime Movers of Social Evolution
- 4. The Relevant Principles of Population Biology
- 5. Group Selection and Altruism
Part II. Social Mechanisms
This section describes the types of
- 6. Group Size, Reproduction, and Time-Energy Budgets
- 7. The Development and Modification of Social Behavior
- 8. Communication: Basic Principles
- 9. Communication: Functions and Complex Systems
- 10. Communication: Origins and Evolution
- 11. Aggression
- 12. Social Spacing, Including Territory
- 13. Dominance Systems
- 14. Roles and Castes
- 15. Sex and Society
- 16. Parental Care
- 17. Social Symbioses
Part III. The Social Species
The section describes the distribution of social behaviour in different taxa. The theme is that
- 18. The Four Pinnacles of Social Evolution
- 19. The Colonial Microorganisms and Invertebrates
- 20. The Social Insects
- 21. The Cold-Blooded Vertebrates
- 22. The Birds
- 23. Evolutionary Trends within the Mammals
- 24. The Ungulates and Elephants
- 25. The Carnivores
- 26. The Nonhuman Primates
- 27. Man: From Sociobiology to Sociology
Reception
Contemporary
Sociobiology attracted a large number of critical reviews, not only by biologists, but by social scientists who objected especially to Wilson's application of Darwinian thinking to humans, asserting that Wilson was implying a form of biological determinism.
By biologists
The theoretical biologist
The
By sociologists
The
Marion Blute, in Contemporary Sociology, noted that it was rare for any book to be reviewed on the front page of the
Allan Mazur reviewed the book for the American Journal of Sociology. He called it an excellent and comprehensive survey, and said he found very few errors, though for instance squirrel monkeys did have dominance hierarchies. But he found the chapter on Man disappointing: it was trite, value-loaded, or wrong; used data uncritically, and seemed to be based on "Gerhard and Jean Lenski's introductory textbook". Further, he agreed with Wilson that scientific theories must be
Devra G. Kleiman reviewed the work for Signs. She called it "a remarkable attempt to explain the evolution of social behavior and social systems in animals by a synthesis of several disciplines within biology", but noted that it had been severely criticised by some biologists and social scientists. She observed that "it gives less attention to the environmental control of behavior" than to genetics. But "Wilson's ultimate sin" was to include the final chapter, "unfortunately titled 'Man'", attracting "the wrath of those who would deny the influence of biology on human behavior because of its political and social connotations." She called this a pity, since while his attempt to include humans in his analysis was "admittedly weak and premature", the general principles were correct – for instance, she argued, it was useful to know the genetic relatedness of individuals when assessing social interactions. She considered Wilson "nonrigorous and biased in his application of theory in certain areas". His biases included over-representation of insects, genetics, and the dominance of male mammals over females: Wilson had further exaggerated a bias from an ethology literature written mainly by males. Conversely, he had undervalued co-operative behaviour among mammals, except where it concerned males, ignoring the fact that, Kleiman argued, genetically related females were the core of most mammal societies. Wilson's book was in her view valuable as a framework for future research, but premature as a "Synthesis".[21]
By other disciplines
The
Philip L. Wagner, a
The biology teacher Lotte R. Geller, reviewing the book in The American Biology Teacher, thought the book meticulously researched; no one would take exception to its thesis, but for the inclusion of man. "[Wilson] is well aware of the difficulties this presents." Geller called the last chapter, relating biology to sociology, a "step from scientific study to speculation". In her view, the most controversial and disturbing thing was the call for scientist and humanists to "temporarily" remove ethics "from the hands of the philosophers and biologize" it. She called it "dangerous to say that biologists should have a monopoly on truth and ethics."[24]
The anthropologist Frances L. Stewart, writing in the Bulletin of the Canadian Archaeological Association, noted that "An anthropologist reading this book is confronted by statements which contradict anthropological theory. The main argument that all social behavior has a biological basis would be questioned."[25]
Human biological determinism controversy
The application of sociobiology to humans (discussed only in the first and last chapters of the book) was immediately controversial. Some researchers, led by Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, contended that sociobiology embodied biological determinism.[26][27] They argued that it would be used, as similar ideas had been in the past, to justify the status quo, entrench ruling elites, and legitimize authoritarian political programmes. They referred to social Darwinism and eugenics of the early 20th century, and other more recent developments, such as the IQ controversy of the early 1970s, as cautionary tales in the use of evolutionary principles as applied to human society. They believed that Wilson was committing the naturalistic fallacy, attempting to define moral principles using natural concepts. Academics opposed to Wilson's sociobiology, including Gould, Lewontin, Jon Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Anthony Leeds created the Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People to counter his ideas.[10][28]
Other critics believed that Wilson's theories, as well as the works of subsequent admirers, were not supported scientifically. Objections were raised to many of the
Wilson and his admirers countered these criticisms by saying that Wilson had no political agenda, and if he had one it was certainly not authoritarian, citing Wilson's environmentalism in particular.
Noam Chomsky, a linguist and political scientist, surprised many by coming to the defense of sociobiology on the grounds that political radicals needed to postulate a relatively fixed idea of human nature in order to be able to struggle for a better society, claiming that leaders should know what human needs were in order to build a better society.[36]
Retrospective
With the publication of the 25th anniversary edition in 2000, the
Concerning the anniversary edition, Yudell and Desalle thought it strange that nothing worth adding had happened in 25 years: the book remained a primary text, and Wilson's failure to develop it weakened the edition's impact. The early chapters still seemed a "lucid and engaging" introduction to population biology, but much of the rest seemed after 25 years to lack "methodological breadth", given that it did not cover the new fields that had emerged; while barely mentioning the growing importance of phylogenetic systematics seemed "curious". They pointed out that comparing human and "animal" social evolution "is tantamount to making homology" claims, but Wilson had said nothing about the need for a methodology to test behavioural homology. The reviewers were also troubled by Wilson's attitude to the debate, remaining "contemptuous of his anti-sociobiological opposition" and "opprobrium towards Marxism" (especially Gould and Lewontin). Yudell and Desalle noted the irony that Wilson despised Marxism but advocated an "aggressive paradigm ... seeking to blaze an historical path towards the future" (as Marxism did). They argued that by demonising his opponents in this way, Wilson created support for Sociobiology "not necessarily sustainable by his data and methodologies." He was still doing that 25 years on, stated the reviewers.[37]
An extensive account of the controversy around the book was published at the same time as the new edition, largely supporting Wilson's views.
References
- PMID 11643303.
- ^ Thorpe, Vanessa (June 24, 2012). "Richard Dawkins in furious row with EO Wilson over theory of evolution". The Guardian. London.
- ^ "Lord of the Ants documentary". VICE. 2009. Archived from the original on 15 October 2013. Retrieved 18 February 2013.
- ^ "Edward O. Wilson PhD Biography". Academy of Achievement. 3 June 2013. Archived from the original on 18 September 2015. Retrieved 3 October 2015.
- JSTOR 1933995.
- ^ "Discover Interview: E.O. Wilson". DiscoverMagazine.com. June 2006. Retrieved 2015-12-06.
- ^ "Sociobiology : the new synthesis". WorldCat. Retrieved 3 April 2017.
- ^ "Sociobiology The New Synthesis, Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Edition". Harvard University Press. Retrieved 3 April 2017.
- ^ JSTOR 3800189.
- ^ a b Fisher, Helen (16 October 1994). "'Wilson,' They Said, 'Your All Wet!'". New York Times. Retrieved 21 July 2015.
- ^ a b Ruse, Michael (31 March 2010). "Edward O. Wilson on Sociobiology". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
- ^ JSTOR 2063068.
- ^ Rensberger, Boyce (28 May 1975). "Sociobiology: Integration of Darwin With the Latest Research on Behavior". The New York Times. p. 1.
The tightly organized societies of bees and ants, the mating rituals of birds, the hunting tactics of lion prides, the social hierarchies of monkey troops these and dozens of other examples of animal behavior have long fascinated people. But they have rarely been offered as anything more than intriguing evidence for the remarkable variety of nature.
- ^ a b Rensberger, Boyce (9 November 1975). "The Basic Elements of the Arguments Are Not New". The New York Times.
- ^ (Eberhard 1976, p. 92)
- JSTOR 1297251.
- JSTOR 40255239.
- JSTOR 589826.
- JSTOR 2576242.
- S2CID 147661664.
- JSTOR 3173302.
- JSTOR 1978394.
- ^ JSTOR 2562148.
- JSTOR 4445492.
- JSTOR 41242410.
- .
- JSTOR 1297246.
- ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (16 November 1978). "Sociobiology: the art of storytelling". New Scientist. 80 (1129): 530–533.
- ISBN 978-0-231-53357-7.
- ISBN 978-1-139-44995-3.
- S2CID 144309747.
- ^ Kaufman, Whitley (2013). "The Evolutionary Ethics of E. O. Wilson". The New Atlantis (Winter/Spring 2013). Retrieved 4 April 2017.
- ^ Stephenson, Frank (2009). "A Chat with E.O. Wilson" (PDF). Research in Review (Summer 2009): 14–19. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 4 April 2017.
- JSTOR 1297247.
- ^ Wilson, Edward O. (1978). Gregory, Michael S.; Silvers, Anita; Sutch, Diane (eds.). What is Sociobiology. Jossey-Bass. pp. 1–12.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help) - ^ Segerstråle, Ullica (2000). Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond. Oxford University Press. p. 205.
- ^ S2CID 88047081.
- ISBN 0-19-850505-1
Bibliography
- Eberhard, Mary Jane West (1976), "Sociobiology. The New Synthesis. by Edward O. Wilson", S2CID 84213631
External links
- Sociobiology: The New Synthesis 1975, ISBN 0-674-00089-7)