Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:16:02.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Sociobiology Adapt to Cultural Selection?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Sandra D. Mitchell
Sandra D. Mitchell*
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sociobiology is, in the words of Philip Kitcher (1985), a motley comprised of a variety of arguments defending biological explanations of behavior. Kitcher has shown that sociobiology offers no new theory to the corpus of evolutionary biology but, rather consists of the application of the neo-Darwinian synthesis to social behavior. In fact, one major line of attack on sociobiology (cf. Gould and Lewontin 1979, and Gould 1986) is to identify it as an instance of the worst kind of adaptationism found in evolutionary biology generally. In order to avoid the evil of just-so stories, this strategy aims to eliminate completely explanations by adaptation (including the sociobiological ones) from biology. I believe that explanations by adaptation can be legitimate provided certain necessary conditions are met. After laying out those conditions, I will address the question of the adequacy of explanations offered by William Durham (1976, 1978,1979,1982) in defense of human sociobiology.

Type
Part III. Sociobiology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 87 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

1

'I would like to thank James Boster, Nancy Cartwright, Tim Maudlin, Merrileee Salmon and George Schumm for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Alexander, R. D. (1979) Darwinism and Human Affairs. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (1985) Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, A. (ed.). (1978) The Sociobiology Debate. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. and Feldman, M. W. (1981) Cultural Transmission and Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Chagnon, N. A. and Irons, W. (ed.). (1979) Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective. North Scituate, Massachusetts: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1978) “Replicator Selection and the Extended Phenotype”, Zeitschrift fwTierpsychology,4n: 61-76. (As reprinted in Sober (ed.) (1984a). Pages 125-142.)Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982) “Replicators and vehicles” in King's College Sociobiology Group (ed.) (1982). Pages 45-64.Google Scholar
Durham, W. H. (1976) “The Adaptive Significance of Cultural Behavior”, Human Ecology 4: 89-121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1978). “Towards a «revolutionary theory of human biology and culture”, in A. Caplan (ed.). Pages 428-448.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1979). “Towards a coevolution theory of human biology and culture” in N. A. Chagnon and W. Irons (eds.), (1979). Pages 39-59.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982) “Interactions of genetic and cultural evolution: models and examples” Human Ecology 10: 289-323.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1986). “Cardboard Darwinism. Review of Vaulting Ambition by P.Kitcher, Myths of Genderby A. Fausto-Sterling and Females of the Species. Sex and Surivival in the Animal Kingdom by B. Kevles”, New York Review of Books XXXIII, No. 14, September 25, 1986:47-54.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. and Lewontin, R. C. (1979). “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm. A critique of the adaptationist programme”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 8: 205-258.Google Scholar
Kettlewell, H. B. D. (1956) “Further selection experiments on industrial melanism in the Lepidoptera”, Heredity 10: 287-301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King's College Sociobiology Group, Cambridge (ed.). (1982) Current Problems in Sociobiology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1985) Vaulting Ambition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lumsden, C. and Wilson, E. O. (1981) Genes, Mind and Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J., (1972) On Evolution. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. (1987). “Competing Units of Selection? - A Case of Symbiosis”, Philosophy of Science: forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mundinger, P. C. (1980) “Animal cultures and a general theory of cultural evolution” Ethology and Sociobiology 1: 183-223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruyle, E. E., Cloak, F. T., Slobodkin, L. B. and Durham, W. H. (1977). “The adaptive significance of cultural behavior. Comments and reply.” Human Ecology 5: 49-68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. A. (1982) “Book Review: Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior. An Anthropological Perspective.” Ethology and Sociobiology 3: 163-167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (ed.). (1984a) Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1984b) The Nature of Selection. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steward, J. (1955) Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
White, L. (1959) The Evolution of Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar