Sociobiology plans its Blitzkrieg. Are Historians Ready? 

From 'evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com'
February 10, 2001
IDEAS
Tilling History With Biology's Tools
By EMILY EAKIN

Evolutionary biology has become the scholarly equivalent of Starbucks or the
Gap. Neo- Darwinist explanations for everything from artistic creativity to
morality and rape spill off the presses. Every academic department, it seems,
has its biology-enamored theorist. Every department, that is, except history.

Until recently, historians were virtually the only remaining holdouts in an
otherwise successful conquest of American universities by the science of innate
traits, adaptive strategies and biological imperatives.

To some degree, their resistance was based on moral qualms. From the late
19th-century social Darwinists, who invoked evolution to justify nationalism,
war and poverty, to more recent thinkers like Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles
Murray, whose 1994 book "The Bell Curve" linked intelligence, race and genes,
biological accounts of human affairs have frequently been accused of being
simplistic and biased.

Full text:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/10/arts/10HIST.html?pagewanted=all

What will be the response of the historical community to this brash, and,
yes, tiresome new initiative of sociobiologists (evolutionary psychologists)
to impose their brand of scientism on the study of history? This familiar
strain has too often been a prelude to some very flawed reasoning, and a
failure to consider the challenges, past and current, to the Neo-Darwinian
Synthesis.

Let us note the usual quite arrogant language, 'conquest', to describe this
offensive. It won't work, period. Man is not exterior to his own evolution, 
nor is history reducible to simplistic mechanisms. 
While this is  no doubt proof of bravery, it might also reflect overconfidence, 
for the moment might constitute a proper occasion not only
for a full review of the current  status of Darwinian evolutionary theory,
but a series of hard questions about the contemporary mythology of the
Descent of Man, and the myth that Darwinism has resolved it in any
fundamental way.

At a time when the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis is itself under harsh scrutiny,
the tactics of sociobiologists would seem to provide an invitation to take
apart their theory at the seams, for its exposure to historical facts will
prove its undoing, and its basic tenets are incoherent. Making claims about
deep time that noone can disprove will not work with historical subjects.
This does not refer to the issues of the general context of evolution, but
to the unobserved claims for natural selection as the sole mechanism of
evolution, in particular the rapid rise of the brain.  Nor does it gainsay
the interest of applying biology to history as such. But many historians are
aware, though afraid to speak, of the severe limitations of the theory of
Darwinism, and dread the encounter with the tide of nonsense now threatened
on their own subjects.

Many critics have challenged Darwinian claims on the basis of religious
perspectives, which, however limited, correctly point to the preconceptions
of naturalistic explanation.  Although naturalism can and should receive a
defense even at the brink of theoretical failures, the nature of its
foundations are in a state of ambiguity, and we might, as to history,
resolve the question of 'evolution' in terms of the modern parallel
traditions of universal history, taking into account their equal
limitations. But these subjects are at least the foundation for advance if
this is possible.  We might also look at the empirical data of archaeology
which has transformed our picture of the evolution of civilization, to show
us something different from anything contained in the Neo-Darwinian
Synthesis.

Is the historical community aware of the fatal flaws in Darwinian theory?
The scientific community has shown demonstrated incapacity for responding to
some obvious critiques of Darwinism.  The sociobiological research project
has also notwithstanding proved remarkable over the years for succeeding
without much evidence to support its claims amounting to a prospectus, and
seems to simply expect the rote submission of all disciplines to its
outright speculations.

But the whole game is reaching the end of the line. Further, the confusion
over the ideological debate here, that has accompanied the original texts of
E.O.Wilson and others,  has, if anything, accelerated its acceptance, with a
blank check.  This, along with a flawed perspective of its critics as the
'nature-nurture' dilemma, has produced a false and quite illusory, and
certainly temporary, victory, and often sterile debate within the confines
of common assumptions, flawed assumptions. The issue therefore is more than
an interior debate. Something much deeper is required.

The misapplication of sociobiology to history is already producing its tide
of ill-conceived notions and ill-considered theories, operating with the
assumptions of selection and adaptation applied to cultural subjects where
they fail as explanation. Religion is not a genetic evolution, and does not
evolve by natural selection. Its genesis, to be understood, requires a new
methodology. The concept of a science of history is the object of numerous
critiques stretching back to the nineteenth century, with the later views of
Karl Popper being one of this lineage. This thought pointed to many problems
with a science of history, problems evolutionary psychology seems eager to
repeat. Will we find these critiques applied to this 'conquest' of history,
or will an ideological agenda prevail as the 'new discipline' declares its
media victory over a new generation raised on the deceptive biological
textbooks that even Creationists can now debunk? Indeed, these groups,
whatever their own views, have consistently found flaws in Darwinist
reasoning (P. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, M. Behe, The Black Box, Johnathan
Wells, Icons of Evolution). Apparently noone in the biological community can
achieve this level of criticism, leaving the counterargument phase to
another agenda.  The canned textbook presentations have been exposed on many
occasions, the work Icons of Evolution being one of the most recent. Will
the study of history now be burdened with this inadequate record? Before
evolutionary psychologists impose their powerfully promoted agenda it is
important for the public to realize they are under no obligation to accept
such inadequate work, at the theoretical level.  Before another generation
is conditioned to a false view of historical subjects using this
inappropriate methodology, it is essential to find some way beyond the
current tactics, that's all it can be called, of Darwin promotion.


The question of historical evolution has already been partially
solved in World History and the Eonic Effect, no wonder Darwinists are
afraid of it, witness this   preemptive strike, by the discovery of the
'eonic effect' or puncutated equilibrium effect, noticed long ago but
negelected by biologists themselves, and which allows us a glimpse of
evolution visible in history, and this shows us something  very different
altogether from what we had expected, and also able to sort out the
confusions of the religion-science debate. The demonstration of a non-random
pattern in world history is a fatal objection to the application of
Darwinism, and a reminder that nothing speculative about deep time can
override the historical data that we do have. Historical evolution is far
more complex than anything Darwinists suspect. And this work was the
original attempt to structure rightly and answer, at least in part, the
problems and questions so acutely raised by Kant. This is a new and
different hypothesis that, as to history, leaves Darwinism dead in the
water.

The flaws in the whole Darwin paradigm are evident at all points if we bring
them home to history, and the attempt to reduce history to these aggressive
oversimplifications about religion, art, philosophy, and consciousness,
claiming the full status of science can only impoverish the study of
history. Darwinism is an excellent empirical research project, but it is
very far off the mark as a theory, and not ready for action in its
application to history. We are, to repeat, under no obligation to accept
the current Darwinian claims as a solid foundation, and, indeed, the current
claims for the evolution of religion, just as one example, are gainsaid by
the spectacle of this process in world history, if we can understand it.




Full Text

NY Times, February 10, 2001

IDEAS: Tilling History With Biology's Tools

By EMILY EAKIN

Evolutionary biology has become the scholarly equivalent of Starbucks or
the Gap. Neo- Darwinist explanations for everything from artistic
creativity to morality and rape spill off the presses. Every academic
department, it seems, has its biology-enamored theorist. Every department,
that is, except history.

Until recently, historians were virtually the only remaining holdouts in an
otherwise successful conquest of American universities by the science of
innate traits, adaptive strategies and biological imperatives.

To some degree, their resistance was based on moral qualms. From the late
19th-century social Darwinists, who invoked evolution to justify
nationalism, war and poverty, to more recent thinkers like Richard J.
Herrnstein and Charles Murray, whose 1994 book "The Bell Curve" linked
intelligence, race and genes, biological accounts of human affairs have
frequently been accused of being simplistic and biased.

As Robert S. McElvaine, a historian at Millsaps College in Jackson, Miss.,
put it in a talk at the American Historical Association's annual convention
last month, "Connecting biology with history is a practice that does not
have a distinguished pedigree."

But Mr. McElvaine was forging ahead anyway. He was one of the principal
organizers of the convention's panel on biohistory, the first of its kind.

"The time is past when historians or the general public can afford to
ignore the valid findings of science because some researchers have abused
this sort of investigation and reached outrageous conclusions," Mr.
McElvaine said in a speech that had the crusading ring of a manifesto. "So
far what we have generally had is evolutionary science without the
perspective of history and history without the perspective of evolution.
Now the attempt must be made to bring together neo-Darwinian evolutionary
biology and history to form a new way of understanding the human
experience: biohistory."

Biohistory is still so new that its practitioners can be counted on one
hand. Among the initial efforts are "Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of
Biology in Early Religions" (Harvard University Press, 1996) by Walter
Burkert, a Swiss classicist, and "Brutality and Benevolence: Human
Ethology, Culture and the Birth of Mexico" (Greenwood, 1996) by Abel A.
Alves, a historian of the Spanish empire who teaches at Ball State University.

Noting that some form of religion is found in all human societies, Mr.
Burkert proposed that basic religious rituals like animal sacrifice and
food-sharing had their roots in survival strategies used by early humans
and their primate cousins.

Mr. Alves turned to biology while investigating the eating habits of the
Aztecs and the Spaniards during the Spanish conquest of Mexico in the 16th
century. "I found that both groups had tendencies to create hierarchies of
food — the Spanish said maize is fit only for burros, for example — and to
engage in food- sharing," he said in an interview. "That prompted me to
look for universals. I found these things were also true of chimp culture."

In his book, Mr. Alves applies a biological analysis to a broad range of
behaviors exhibited by both the Spaniards and their victims, including
benevolence, brutality, xenophobia and curiosity. From this perspective, a
diplomatic meeting between the Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortés and
Aztec ambassadors is less a contest of wits than of primate-like status
displays. Mr. Alves compares Cortés's decision to have his men arrive at
the meeting on horseback, their armor clanging with bells, to the behavior
of Mike, a Tanzanian chimp studied by Jane Goodall, who achieved alpha male
status in his band by banging on some empty kerosene cans and intimidating
the other males.

"Mike used a noisy metallic display to gain power," Mr. Alves said. "I
would characterize that as the kind of agonistic display you find across
human cultures, although we can do it often enough with words. In this
case, the Spaniards were more likely to use symbolic and visual display
than on other occasions."

While much current historical scholarship emphasizes the unique features of
cultures, populations and historical moments, biological explanations
stress similarities between groups and even species. For some historians
this is part of biohistory's appeal. "Cultural relativism frightens me,"
Mr. Alves said. "You almost have alien species at war with each other, the
emphasis on differences can be so great."

Similarly for Mr. McElvaine, biology provided a way of redressing what he
believed was an overemphasis on differences, specifically differences
between the sexes. A historian of 20th-century America, Mr. McElvaine
turned to science while studying Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential
campaign, in particular his appeal to traditional values.

"I began to see how some values were perceived as masculine —
aggressiveness, competitiveness — and some as feminine — things like
compassion and cooperation — and I wondered whether what was shaping values
was innate," Mr. McElvaine said in a telephone interview. A foray into the
history of human evolution convinced him the answer was complicated enough
to warrant an entire book.

In "Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes and the Course of History" (McGraw-Hill,
2000), Mr. McElvaine argues that biological differences between the sexes
were originally of much less consequence than contemporary stereotypes
about strong men and weak women would suggest.

In early hunter and gatherer societies, he writes, men and women shared
power more or less equally. Men hunted, women foraged for edible plants.
The labor of both sexes was essential for the survival of the group.

Then agriculture was invented, a development that Mr. McElvaine attributes
to women. No longer called upon to be hunters and unable to bear or nourish
children, men suddenly found themselves — around 8000 B.C. — out of a job.

"Hunting is of no particular value when you can herd," Mr. McElvaine said.
"Meanwhile, women's chief role in reproduction is not only still there but
greatly enhanced. Men have to start looking for new roles and move in to
take over agriculture."

According to Mr. McElvaine, the legacy of this prehistoric sex role
imbalance is what evolutionary biologists call a "maladaptive strategy,"
and what feminists call patriarchy.

Aggressive male hunting behavior, which had been advantageous on the
African savannah, gets redirected toward other men (war) and especially
women. The succeeding millenniums of male dominance and female subjugation,
whether in tales about Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden or
Bill Clinton's skirt-chasing, he says, should be understood as the effect
of men trying to compensate for the roles for which human evolution had
designed them and which an accident of history had deprived them.

Like other biohistorians, Mr. McElvaine often cites the work of E. O.
Wilson, a renowned Harvard scientist. He invited Mr. Wilson to speak at the
association panel on biohistory. Mr. Wilson, who had been heckled at
conferences in the 1970's when he first proposed that biology might be used
to explain social behavior, talked about human traits believed to be
universal, such as preferences for where to live. (When given a choice,
people of various backgrounds opt for high ground surrounded by open space
and near a large body of water.)

This, Mr. Wilson explained, "is probably the residue of our evolution,
which took place in bulk on the African savannah."

For historians trying to figure out precisely how evolutionary science
would alter interpretations of, say, why the North won the Civil War or an
analysis of the New Deal, the panel appeared to raise more questions than
it answered.

"This is prehistory," one perplexed member of the audience commented during
the question-and-answer session. "There is very little a historian can know
about it. And it seems a little circular. You take the data from history
and say this can be explained by conditions that existed in prehistory? I'm
not sure I get it."

Other historians harbor similar reservations. "Where's the evidence?" asked
Joan Wallach Scott, a historian at the Institute for Advanced Study in
Princeton, who did not attend the panel but who has written critically
about the use of biology by historians. "These reductive biological
explanations obviate the need for interesting close readings. You end up
with claims like: men go to war, there's innate aggression in all humans,
especially men, and that we're stuck with a lot of maladaptive behaviors.
It's driven by a fantasy of total knowledge, a drive for a unified theory
of everything."

To the new wave of biohistorians, such skepticism is misplaced. "The amount
of biology that can serve a useful purpose in history is relatively small
but nonetheless important," Mr. McElvaine said. "It's clear to me that
there are innate tendencies that can be brought under control but can't be
ignored."

Bobbi Low, a professor of ecology at the University of Michigan who also
spoke at the session, said in an interview that the dialogue between the
disciplines was just beginning. "At one end of the biological continuum are
the universal questions about what it means to be human," she said. "At one
end of the historical continuum is the question of how Talleyrand's club
foot changed the course of history. But there's a lot of overlap in the
middle."