The Use of Inheritance to Promote Social Order
The principle of biological determinism lies at the interface between biology and society. A philosophical extension of the use of determinism in other sciences, such as physics, biological determinists view human beings as a reflection of their biological makeup and hence simple extensions of the genes that code for these biological processes. Long before scientists had any knowledge of genetics and the mechanisms of inheritance, human societies considered certain groups to be innately superior by virtue of their family or bloodlines (nobility) while others were viewed as innately inferior (peasantry). Such views served to preserve the social order. According to evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, Plato himself circulated a myth that certain citizens were “framed differently” by God, with the ranking of groups in society based on their inborn worth.
As science began to take a more prominent role in society, scientists began to look for evidence that would justify the social order. Since mental ability is often considered to be the most distinctive feature of the human species, the quantification of intelligence was one of the main tactics used to demonstrate the inferiority of certain groups. In the mid-1800s, measurements of the size, shape, and anatomy of the skull, brain, and other body features were compiled by physician Samuel George Morton and surgeon Paul Broca, among others. These measurements were used to depict races as separate species, to rank them by their mental and moral worth, and to document the subordinate status of various groups, including women. In the first decades of the twentieth century, such measurements were replaced by the intelligence quotient (IQ)
test. Although its inventor, Alfred Binet, never intended it to be used in this way, psychologists such as Lewis M. Terman and Robert M. Yerkes promoted IQ as a single number that captured the complex, multifaceted, inborn intelligence of a person. IQ was soon used to restrict immigration, determine occupation, and limit access to higher education. Arthur Jensen, in 1979, and Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in 1994, reasserted the claim that IQ is an inherited trait that differs among races and classes.
Problems with the Principle of Biological Determinism
Geneticists and sociobiologists (who study the biological basis of social behavior) have uncovered a variety of animal behaviors that are influenced by biology. However, the genetic makeup of an organism (“nature”) is expressed only within the specific context of its environment (“nurture”). Thus genes that are correlated with behavior usually code for predispositions rather than inevitabilities. For such traits, the variation that occurs within a group is usually greater than the differences that occur between groups. In addition, the correlation between two entities (such as genes and behavior) does not necessarily imply a causal relationship (for example, the incidences of ice cream consumption and drowning are correlated only because both increase during the summer). Complex, multifaceted behaviors such as intelligence and violence are often reified, or treated as discrete concrete entities (as IQ and impulse control, respectively), in order to make claims about their genetic basis. Combined with the cultural and social bias of scientific researchers, reification has led to many misleading claims regarding the biological basis of
social structure.
Biological and cultural evolution are governed by different mechanisms. Biological evolution occurs only between parents and offspring (vertically), while cultural evolution occurs through communication without regard to relationship (horizontally) and thus can occur quickly and without underlying genetic change. Moreover, the socially fit (those who are inclined to reproduce wealth) are not necessarily biologically fit (inclined to reproduce themselves). The reductionist attempt to gain an understanding of human culture through its biological components does not work well in a system (society) shaped by properties that emerge only when the parts (humans) are put together. Cultures cannot be understood as biological behaviors any more than biological behaviors can be understood as atomic interactions.
Impact and Applications
Throughout history, biological determinism has been used to justify or reinforce racism, genocide, and oppression, often in the name of achieving the genetic improvement of the human species (for example, the “racial health” of Nazi Germany). Gould has noted that claims of biological determinism tend to be revived during periods when it is politically expedient to do so. In times of economic hardship, many find it is useful to adopt an “us against them” attitude to find a group to blame for social and economic woes or to free themselves from the responsibility of caring for the “biologically inferior” underprivileged. As advances in molecular genetics lead to the identification of additional genes that influence behavior, society must guard against using this information as justification for the mistreatment or elimination of groups that are perceived as “inferior” or “undesirable” by the majority.
Key Terms
determinism
:
the doctrine that everything, including one’s choice of action, is determined by a sequence of causes rather than by free will
intelligence quotient (IQ)
:
performance on a standardized test, often assumed to be indicative of an individual’s level of intelligence
reductionism
:
the explanation of a complex system or phenomenon as merely the sum of its parts
reification
:
the oversimplification of an abstract concept such that it is treated as a concrete entity
Bibliography
Begley, Sharon, and Andrew Murr. “Gray Matters.” Newsweek 27 Mar. 1995): 48. Print.
Carlson, Elof Axel. “The Blank Slate, the Human Nature, and the Biological Determinism Fallacies.” Neither Gods nor Beasts: How Science Is Changing Who We Think We Are. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 2008. Print.
Dar-Nimrod, Ilan, and Steven J. Heine. "Genetic Essentialism: On the Deceptive Determinism of DNA." Psychological Bulletin 137.5 (2011): 800–18. Print.
Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton, 1996. Print..
Grossinger, Richard. “The Limits of Genetic Determinism.” Embryos, Galaxies, and Sentient Beings: How the Universe Makes Life. Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2003. Print.
Herrnstein, Richard, and Charles Murray. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Simon, 1994. Print.
Krimsky, Sheldon, and Jeremy Gruber. Genetic Explanations: Sense and Nonsense. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2012. Print.
McDermott, Robyn. “Ethics, Epidemiology, and the Thrifty Gene: Biological Determinism as a Health Hazard.” Health and Healing in Comparative Perspective. Ed. Elizabeth D. Whitaker. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2006. Print.
Moore, David S. Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of Nature vs. Nurture. New York: Freeman, 2001. Print.
Rose, Steven. “The Rise of Neurogenetic Determinism.” Nature 2 Feb. 1995): 380–82. Print.
Sussman, Robert, ed. The Biological Basis of Human Behavior: A Critical Review. 2d ed. New York: Simon, 1998. Print.
Tattersall, Ian. "Remembering Stephen Jay Gould." Natural History 121.1 (2013): 10–39. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment