Biological determinism has a long and chequered history, much of it discredited and consigned to the hell reserved for pseudo-sciences such as craniometry, phrenology and astrology. However it resurrects itself in every age, taking the garb of science in order to achieve respectability. Today biological determinism is couched in genetic terms, and the refrain it's in the genes is sounded to explain everything from sexual desire to black under-achievement in schools to alcoholism and obesity.
According to the authors of Alas Poor Darwin, this new determinism is most fully developed in evolutionary psychology. The contributors to this polemical volume come form a variety of disciplines, including biologists, sociologists, philosophers, cultural critics and more. They are gathered here in one place to attack the kind of 'scientific' idea which is used to gloss over and explain away the status quo. They are here because the notion that the world is as it is because it most fully reflects a fixed and regressive human nature is as dangerous now as it has ever been.
There are some excellent pieces here. Cognitive psychologist Annette Karmiloff-Smith's chapter Why Babies Brains Are Not Swiss Army Knives, for example, rigorously attacks the views of evolutionary psychologists and nativists who believe that our brains are 'pre-wired' to deliver certain cognitive functions. Mary Midgely's article Why Memes? exposes the confusion inherent in Richard Dawkins idea of 'memes' as units of cultural transmission.
There is much else to commend here, many of the arguments against genetic determinism are convincing and important. Similarly the idea that ultra-Darwinism excludes any mechanism bar natural selection at the genetic level is important - indeed Darwin himself did not claim that natural selection is the only mechanism at work in evolution.
However while there is much of value here, there are also doubts that the arguments attributed to evolutionary psychologists are fair or true reflections of their ideas. It has been documented in a number of places, (including The Skeptic), that evolutionary psychologists have been misquoted and misinterpreted by some of the contributors to this collection. Given the scientific pedigree of many of the contributors, this kind of misquoting can hardly be attributed to sloppy writing and research.
This is currently one of the most hotly contested areas of science. The conjunction of psychology and genetics represents an ideological mine-field. Resorting to dishonest tactics does nothing to counter the new determinism, if anything this kind of self-defeating strategy serves to strengthen those who view the selfish gene as the cornerstone of their world-view.
Read it, but not it alone seems, like always, to be the best strategy.Hit the 'back' key in your browser to return to subject index page