Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Whither the Blank Slate? A Report on the Reception of Evolutionary Biological Ideas among Sociological Theorists

2014; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 34; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/02732173.2014.947451

1521-0707

Mark Horowitz, William Yaworsky, Kenneth Kickham,

Cultural Differences and Values

Abstract Sociologists have drawn considerable criticism over the years for their failure to integrate evolutionary biological principles in their work. Critics such as Stephen Pinker (Citation2002) have popularized the notion that sociologists adhere dogmatically to a "blank slate" or cultural determinist view of the human mind and social behavior. This report assesses whether sociologists indeed ascribe to such a blank slate view. Drawing from a survey of 155 sociological theorists, we find the field about evenly divided over the applicability of evolutionary reasoning to a range of human tendencies. Although there are signs of a shift toward greater openness to evolutionary biological ideas, sociologists are least receptive to evolutionary accounts of human sex differences. Echoing earlier research, we find political identity to be a significant predictor of sociologists' receptiveness. We close by cautioning our colleagues against sociological reductionism and we speculate about the blank slate's political-psychological appeal to liberal-minded social scientists. Notes 1Among sociologists, Emile Durkheim is perhaps most often targeted for holding a blank slate view in his discussion of social facts. Anthropologists of the Boas circle, most prominently Margaret Mead, also receive considerable criticism. 2When we refer throughout this paper to "evolutionary theory," "evolutionary scientists," and "evolutionary explanations," we have in mind evolutionary biology and related approaches (sociobiology, human behavioral ecology, evolutionary psychology, gene-culture co-evolution, etc.) that apply the logic of natural selection to human behavioral tendencies. We do not mean to include wider social-scientific theories of "evolutionism" shorn of Darwinian selection. 3After several pages of critique of sociology as the "stronghold of the Standard Social Science Model," Wilson (Citation1998:204–205) goes on to acknowledge that it is rare today. He provides no evidence for his claim beyond personal impressions. 4Note that the data reported in the paper may leave out an incidental number of missing cases. We should add that we received a total of 191 signed consent forms, though 35 respondents entered the survey without answering a single question, and one respondent answered fewer than 20% of the questions. Given the amount of negative responses to our survey, which we address later, we speculate that the high number of post-entry refusals (19%) were likely to have been unfriendly to our project. If this is the case, our sample may have some self-selection bias in favor of sympathizers to evolutionary reasoning, though we are unable to verify this. 5We asked respondents to rank order their top three theoretical perspectives from the following: Conflict theory; Critical theory; Evolutionary biology/Sociobiology; Exchange/Rational choice; Feminism; Functionalism/Neofunctionalism; Marxism; Phenomenology/Ethnomethodology; Postmodernism/Post-Structuralism; Symbolic interactionism; Weberianism; World systems theory; No preferred perspective/eclectic. 6Respondents may also mark "undecided." Note that sociologists were not asked whether they believe the evolutionary hypotheses are likely to be true, but merely plausible. We believe the language of plausibility sets the bar lower for sociologists to accept evolutionary reasoning (with rejection of such suggesting, a fortiori, a blank slate standpoint). 7He writes, "I find it truly surreal to read academics denying the existence of intelligence. Academics are obsessed with intelligence. They discuss it endlessly in considering student admissions, in hiring faculty and staff, and especially in their gossip about one another …. In any case, there is now ample evidence that intelligence is a stable property of an individual, that it can be linked to features of the brain …" (emphasis his). 8We included in our survey a final open-ended question allowing respondents to elaborate on their view of the blank slate criticism and respond to any of the survey questions in depth. We were delighted to receive 98 comments in 12 pages of single-spaced text. 9We should note that we agree with one respondent who pointed out that such differences are "average" differences between men and women, and that the question could have been clearer had we indicated such. We can only speculate that it would not have altered the findings in a significant way. 10We are unaware of any broad-based surveys on the politics of sociobiologists. However, we are skeptical that they lean to the political right. See Sanderson (Citation2001: 138, note 3) for discussion of the left-of-center politics of leading sociobiologists. Two surveys were carried out recently of evolutionary-oriented graduate students in psychology and anthropology (Tybur, Miller, and Gangestad Citation2007; Lyle and Smith Citation2012). The results show that evolutionary students are as liberal as their non-evolutionary cohorts. We thank a reviewer for directing us to this literature. 11One of our reviewers suspects that sociologists' aversion to evolutionary biology is much greater than our survey suggests. The reviewer notes our modest response rate (29%) and the likelihood of self-selection bias, given the large number of post-entry refusals that we acknowledge in note 4 above. Should it be the case that declining the survey indicates rejection of evolutionary ideas, then our survey may indeed overstate sociologists' receptiveness. As we are limited to the data we have available, we would welcome further investigation of the "evolving" state of the field. 12Moss's (Citation2013) investigative critique of how the food giants invest in quantifying the precise salt, sugar, and fat content in their processed foods is revealing. The consumers' sugary "bliss point" is especially profitable—and insiders acknowledge that their industry would cease to exist without millions of veritable "addicts." Needless to say, we are unaware of evidence of a "bliss point" of compulsive consumption of broccoli or asparagus. 13The lead author of this report encountered animus from peers and mentors from graduate school for his budding interest in evolutionary biology. Bizarre disputes with such colleagues over whether E. O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins are closet Social Darwinists, or if sexual orientation were a purely social construct, were a partial motivation for this survey research. 14The handful of hostile comments we received from respondents suggests that the survey was provocative to some. One respondent referred to the questions on gender as "idiotic" and not to be "dignified [with] a response." Another revealed "no confidence in [our] capacity or willingness for a disinterested, careful analysis." On balance, we should note that we received numerous positive comments, including much interest in the results. Additional informationNotes on contributorsMark Horowitz Mark Horowitz (PhD, University of Kansas, 2004) is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Texas at Brownsville. He is a specialist in social theory with research interests in globalization, social psychology and the U.S.-Mexico border region. His previous articles have appeared in Critical Sociology, the Journal of Social Justice, and the Journal of Borderlands Studies. William Yaworsky William Yaworsky (PhD, University of Oklahoma, 2002) is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Texas at Brownsville. His research interests include social organization and political violence in Latin America. His previous articles have appeared in the Journal of Anthropological Research, Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, the Journal of Strategic Studies, Small Wars and Insurgencies, and the Latin Americanist. Kenneth Kickham Kenneth Kickham (PhD University of Oklahoma, 2000) is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Central Oklahoma. His research interests include public administration and welfare reform. His previous articles have appeared in Social Science Quarterly, Publius, Public Administration Review, and the Policy Studies Journal.