This essay is reproduced here as it appeared in the print edition of the original Science for the People magazine. These web-formatted archives are preserved complete with typographical errors and available for reference and educational and activist use. Scanned PDFs of the back issues can be browsed by headline at the website for the 2014 SftP conference held at UMass-Amherst. For more information or to support the project, email sftp.publishing@gmail.com

Sociobiology: The Controversy Continues

by Freda Salzman for the Boston SftP Sociobiology Study Group

‘Science for the People’ Vol. 11, No. 2, March/April 1979, p. 20 – 27

I am greatly indebted to members of the Sociobiology Study Group for helpful comments and suggestions. Many, many thanks go to members of the Editorial Collective, particularly Martha and Connie, for their committed, time-consuming effort to have the ideas presented as clearly as possible, and for helpful suggestions. 

Freda Salzman is a member of the Sociobiology Study Group of the Boston chapter and a longtime member of SftP. She teaches physics at the University of Massachusetts/Boston.

After over almost a year’s reflection and review and after analyzing the reaction to the new wave of books this fall on sociobiology, particularly E.O. Wilson’s On Human Nature, the Sociobiology Study group of the Boston Chapter of Science for the People has decided on a new course of action. We find there is a growing attack on sociobiology from within the academic community. On the other hand, there is, as described in this article, a growing penetration of sociobiological thought into other disciplines, as well as an increasing amount of research focussed on finding evidence of the biological basis of human behavior and differences between groups. Given this situation, we decided both to widen the scope of our own critiques and also to continue the attack in a more popular vein. Our efforts in this direction will include a series of articles or columns in Science for the People, of which this is the first, on various aspects of a new generation of biological determinist theorizing.

Academic Victories and the Coming Popular Struggle 

But first, we must pause to recognize and take heart from our considerable achievements. The report “AAAS: Sociobiology on the Run,” which appeared in Science for the People (March/April 1978)¹, is, as the title suggests, a triumphant account of events at the two day symposium on sociobiology held at the 1978 annual meeting of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). We could discern growing criticism of E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology by members of the academic community, including sociobiologists themselves. For example, the official abstract for the symposium, written by one of the organizers, George Barlow, who considers himself a sociobiologist, states: 

They [social scientists], and most biologists, find that Wilson took all too much license, in the last chapter of his book, in trying to explain human behavior. He resurrected the nature-nurture issue in a way which ignores the conceptual advances of the last 20 years…

Given the universally favorable publicity and acclaim that Sociobiology received after publication, we considered this new trend in the debate to be a clear victory for Science for the People, which presented the first and most constant criticisms of the theory. Our criticisms emphasized that sociobiology is a new biological determinist theory of the status quo. 

While this success was quite an achievement, the article ends on a somber and cautious note. We pointed out that “academic refutations of these ideas do not prevent them from continually being presented in the popular media and school texts,” and that biological determinist theories “can have powerful social impact and must be combatted both in the academic and public arenas.” This dual aspect of the report reflected well our appraisal of the situation at the first meeting of the Boston Sociobiology Study Group after the AAAS meetings. Though we all agreed that the erosion of academic support for sociobiology was of the utmost importance, sober review made us realize that a long, hard struggle still lay ahead. As indicated in the article, we knew that sociobiology and related arguments continued to penetrate text books of many disciplines and that sociobiological themes were being presented favorably in the popular media even though authors conceded that this new field was “controversial.” 

A Brief Historical Review 

Further, we knew that in periods of social unrest and questioning, there is typically a resurgence of the nature-nurture question. Tremendous publicity is given to supposedly scientific theories that purport to show that poverty, hunger, unemployment, disease are due to our genes and not products of our social institutions. Biological determinist theories have been used as if they were fact as the basis for social policy, such as policies based on claimed innate racial and female inferiority and “female nature.”

 

According to these biological determinist theories of the status quo, aggression and competitiveness are basic aspects of “male nature” and are the driving force of what is called progress. Furthermore, it is claimed that these traits lead to male dominance, and, along with a catalogue of supposedly innate male-female differences, to sex roles. Aggression and competitiveness, along with claimed biologically-based differences between groups, are then used to explain the vast stratification of our society with respect to wealth, power, and privilege, based mainly on class, race. and sex. Clearly, the group that benefits most from such theories is a small, but powerful, wealthy and privileged class, the corporate elite. This group has extensive  influence over the media, education and funding institutions and can thereby strongly influence public opinion and the direction of research. 

The list of biological determinist theories of the status quo is long, spanning more than a century, starting with Social Darwinism, which led to the IQ and eugenics movement. This was followed by the use of Freudian ideas of human nature and the psychoanalytic theory of the psychology of women, which was supplemented in the post-World War II period by psychoanalyst John Bowlby’s theory of “maternal deprivation” and “attachment.” Bowlby’s theories were based on psychoanalytic theory and early findings in ethology (the study of animal behavior) and claimed that a child needs to have a continuous relationship with a “single” mother for the development of good mental health. Then, with the tarnishing of the Kennedy golden dream of a new, and more just, social order, the 1960’s saw a new wave of biological determinist theories, from the “naked apery” theories of Desmond Morris, Konrad Lorenz, and many others; to the revival of the IQ controversy; to claims that prenatal hormones organize male-female brains leading to sexually differentiated mental abilities and behavior; and finally, to sociobiology.

Social Darwinist and Freudian ideas stimulated diverse areas of behavioral studies and influenced the interpretation of findings, which were then used to confirm the original ideas. Thus, for example, Social Darwinism not only led to IQ testing, but also gave support to the claims that the IQ test measured intelligence and that the racial and ethnic differences in IQ scores were due to hereditary factors. Since the ranking of different racial and ethnic groups came out to be as expected, with white Anglo-Saxon Protestants achieving the highest score and Blacks the lowest, this was used to uphold the racist views of Social Darwinism. From the 1920’s on, this interplay of theory, studies performed, and interpretation of findings occurred in such areas as studies of the effects of hormones on sex differences in behavior, studies aimed at finding sex differences in mental abilities and personality, and studies of animal social behavior, particularly primate behavior. These supposed scientific theories have been thoroughly discredited, shown to rest on unsubstantiated claims or on highly questionable evidence or methodology.^{2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9} But many of these theories have had enormous social influence — and extremely pernicious effects — particularly where there has not been strong opposition to them from within the scientific establishment.

Social Darwinism, upheld by the intellectual and scientific elite, fueled the machinery that produced, increasingly, virulent racism in the United States from the late nineteenth century through the 1920’s.¹⁰ The intense racism was used to support the imperialist expansion of the United States abroad, the further, brutal subjugation of non-white groups within the country, particularly Native Americans and Blacks, and the increased stratification of the wage-labor force.¹¹ Scientific racism was explicitly influential in the passage of sterilization laws in many states and the racist Immigration Restriction Act of 1924. 

Scientific sexism, particularly the selective use of Freudian ideas, helped to reinforce woman’s subordinate role as wife and mother. It also provided the ideology by which the increasing number of women entering the wage labor force were relegated to marginal, sex-stereotyped, low-paying jobs. Bowlby’s “maternal deprivation” and “attachment” theories, upheld by all the professionals involved in child care, was enormously influential.¹² For example, it was immediately used, as if it were scientific fact, to support policies to reduce drastically government supported day care facilities in the United States and England in the post-World War II period. These facilities had been greatly expanded during the war to enable mothers of small children to work. Then, in the glutted post-war labor market, policy makers saw that reducing the facilities would help force women out of the regular wage-labor force.  

Sociobiology and New Biological Determinist Theorizing 

Despite the inroads that have been made in the support for sociobiology, members of the Sociobiology Study Group realized that sociobiology was still the most important biological determinist theory being used as an argument for the genetic basis for many features of our society. Male aggression and competitiveness, male dominance and sex roles; cheating, spite, and altruism; the capitalist market economy: and, ethnic and racial prejudice and conflict are all claimed to have a genetic basis. Biological explanations for these aspects of our society help to justify them and divert our attention from the overridingly important social causes. For example, after there was racial conflict at Carson Beach in South Boston in summer, 1977, Wilson was interviewed on the Paul Benzaquin program, a popular radio talk show. Following Wilson’s description of sociobiology, Benzaquin justified the Carson Beach incident:

I’m hearing you right now in the context of an ugly confrontation at Carson Beach in Boston, which seems to be dependent upon some sort of a drive by people to say that they are racially superior… We persist in this cellular urge to be superior… 

Wilson did not object to this application of sociobiology, and later Benzaquin stated: ” …if that [racism] comes out of our genes, I can forgive it…” Thus, the real social problems are ignored, such as high unemployment rates, poor schools and housing, and the way in which federally imposed busing in South Boston has helped to foment racial tensions. Wilson’s Sociobiology does not attempt to define racial differences or to evaluate which racial characteristics are superior; but, the theory clearly can be used in this manner.¹³ Because of its use in maintaining many inequalities in our society, the Sociobiology Study Group was quite certain that sociobiology was not going to be readily discarded by the ideologues of the existing order. 

At the meeting of the Sociobiology Study Group just after the 1978 AAAS meetings, we focussed on some areas of particular concern. We knew that there would be a flood of new books on sociobiology in the fall, including a new book by E.O. Wilson, On Human Nature. We wondered how to respond to the growing acceptance, use, and legitimacy of sociobiological arguments for the genetic basis for socially significant human traits, though they were not identified explicitly as “sociobiology.” One of our members pointed to sociologist Alice Rossi’s “A Biosocial Perspective on Parenting,” the lead article in a special issue of Daedalus on “The Family.”¹⁴ In this article, Rossi presents a somewhat updated and modified version of Bowlby’s theory of “maternal deprivation” and “attachment” (without any of its psychoanalytic trappings). Her theory is based on a “bio-evolutionary perspective,” and claims the development of innate sex differences in behavior and ability are due to natural selection. It supports a current model of male-female differentiated human brains, which causes the sexes to respond differently to stimuli and hormones. (Her “bio-evolutionary perspective” is totally speculative and essentially untestable and the model of a sexually differentiated brain is unsubstantiated in humans.¹⁵) Rossi argues that the biological mother is predisposed to be the best caretaker of a child and that fathers cannot be equally good parents “unless males receive compensatory training for parenthood far in excess of anything now envisioned.”¹⁶

On the same theme, there was also psychoanalyst Selma Fraiberg’s Every Child’s Birthright: In Defense of Mothering, which had been well-received in the press and which presented “maternal deprivation” theory essentially unaltered from that of Bowlby. Both Rossi and Fraiberg do not see the possibility of our society providing adequate, decent day care facilities. Given the rapidity with which Bowlby’s theory was applied to support policies concerning child care and day care, it is evident what use will probably be made of these new works, whose claims are as scientifically unsupported as Bowlby’s. 

Other members of our group were aware of other biological determinist theories which appeared to be gaining a foothold. While waiting to see how the new books on sociobiology would be received, we embarked upon an active “study” program which would help us to assess the new developments and trends in biological determinist theorizing. Besides Rossi’s article, we read one by Sandra Scarr and Richard Weinberg, “Attitude, Interests and IQ,” which appeared in Human Nature and which claimed evidence for a genetic basis for IQ, career interest and attitudes.¹⁷ The Scarr and Weinberg claim is based on two large-scale studies, launched in 1973, of adopted children as compared both with “biological” children raised in the same family and with their biological parents. The authors gave the children and parents in ths studies a battery of tests, including an IQ test, a test that supposedly measures “a person’s degree of authoritarianism, rigidity of belief, and prejudice,” and a vocational interests test. They found that the scores on the tests of genetically related members of a family resemble each other more (are more highly correlated) than those of the adopted, genetically unrelated, family members, and conclude that IQ, attitudes, and vocational interests must therefore be due to genetic factors. 

On Human Nature Appears 

As expected, Wilson’s On Human Nature received considerable attention in the press and periodicals. Some of the reviews panned the book, criticizing Wilson’s conception of human nature and the evidence he gave to support his claims, while some of those who wrote favorable reviews pointed to its being less rigorous but more accessible than Sociobiology. Wilson states in the Preface of On Human Nature that it “is not a work of science: it is a work about science,”¹⁸ implying that the book is a popularized version of the theory. But the chapter in Sociobiology on humans is not rigorous at all: it is written in a highly speculative and undocumented manner. 

In substantiating his theory in On Human Nature, Wilson trots out many by now well-known references: Konrad Lorenz and Robin Fox on sociobiological themes: the work Women in the Kibbutz by Lionel Tiger and Joseph Shepher, which claims a biological basis for the increase in the sexual division of labor and sex-role inequality in the kibbutz (with men predominantly in management and decision making positions and women predominantly in the service and childcare sectors) in what was supposedly a system of total sexual equality; the work Man and Woman, Boy and Girl, by John Money and Anke Ehrhardt in which the authors claim that prenatal hormones organize male-female brains; the work The Psychology of Sex Differences by Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin, generally regarded as a definitive review of sex differences, in which the authors claim a biological basis for greater aggressiveness in males than females. These works have been subjected to extensive criticism in the scientific community for making claims based on highly questionable evidence and using deeply flawed methodology.^19,20 

Besides these older “warhorses,” Wilson also draws upon a whole new generation of claims for biological determinants of behavior. He refers to the Scarr and Weinberg work as providing “important new evidence of the inheritance of intelligence and personality traits based on comparisons of children raised by biological as opposed to adoptive parents.”²¹ He cites new twin studies of J.C. Loehlin and R.C. Nichols, Heredity, Environment and Personality (1976), and states in a forward to another book on sociobiology that “the most carefully controlled of the twin studies, such as those by John C. Loehlin and Robert C. Nichols…., strongly indicate the existence of a moderate amount of heritability in a wide range of mental abilities and personality traits basic to the development of social relationships.”²² Wilson also cites a recently reported study by June Reinisch and William Karow on the effects of prenatal exposure to androgens (frequently referred to as “male” sex hormones because they occur in higher levels in males) on female personality, a study which Wilson states “is especially important because it demonstrates effects on the personality of girls who were exposed prenatally to progestins but were not hermaphroditic at birth and hence not treated in any special way subsequent to birth.”²³

Other research programs are in the offing. For example, Maccoby and Jacklin of Stanford University are embarked on a long-range study in which they measure the levels of testosterone (one of the androgens) and estrogen (“female”) hormones in new-borns. They propose then to follow the children as they grow up, supposedly to determine the relative influence of biology and environment in producing differences in males and females in mental abilities and personalities. How many more research undertakings have been “inspired” by a newly found interest in or a “need to know” the biological basis for behavior and for differences between individuals and between groups, we do not know — but we suspect that the number is considerable. 

At the present time, the field of sex differences has become particularly active, not only in studies of the effects of hormones on the brain and behavior, but also in other areas, such as the burgeoning field of sex differences in brain lateralization.²⁴ Lead articles on the question of sex differences, claiming an irreducible core of innate sex differences, have appeared in diverse places, from The New York Times to Psychology Today, as well as in On Human Nature — “So at birth the twig is already bent a little,” as Wilson puts it.²⁵ Sex differences in behavior naturally plays a central role in sociobiology, an evolutionary theory which tries to draw analogies with animals which have limited social interactions and to find universal human social traits that hold for all societies and epochs, including very primitively living groups. 

The growth of explicit claims of biologically based sex differences in behavior reflects the present political climate. As Wilson notes in On Human Nature, the question of a biological basis for “racial” differences in behavior “is the most emotionally explosive and politically dangerous of all subjects.”²⁶ But claims for a biological basis for sex differences in behavior — and sex roles — have not caused protest. Thus, Wilson feels at liberty to make statements such as “Even with identical education for men and women and equal access to all professions, men are likely to maintain disproportionate representation in political life, business, and science,”²⁷ without offering any scientific evidence.

Wilson asserts, as do Rossi and others, that sex role inequality is not necessarily inevitable. Sociobiology is not nineteenth century determinism, as the dust jacket of On Human Nature states, Wilson “arrives at conclusions far removed from the social Darwinist legacy of the last century. Sociobiological theory, he shows is compatible with a broadly humane and egalitarian outlook.” For example, society could choose to compensate for the supposed innate sex differences — but, according to Rossi and Wilson, only at a price! For Rossi, the compensatory training that males would need to be equally good parents is “far in excess of anything now envisioned.” For Wilson the price of sex equality is that “… the amount of regulation required would certainly place some personal freedoms in jeopardy, and at least a few individuals would not be allowed to reach their full potential.” ²⁸ Neither Rossi nor Wilson offer any evidence that equality would involve the cost they claim. We have here a twentieth century form of genetic determinism which serves to legitimate the scientific engineering and management of human society.²⁹ We are equipped, Wilson tells us, with “a jerry built foundation of partly obsolete Ice-Age adaptations.”³⁰ Or, as Rossi states, in italics:³¹

Westernized human beings now living in a technological world are still genetically equipped only with an ancient mammalian primate heritage that evolved largely through adaptations appropriate to much earlier times. They claim we need professionals and scientific experts to tell us what our genetic propensities are and to make a cost-benefit analysis in terms of the compensatory training and regulation of behavior that would be required to realize different kinds of social systems. 

Sociobiologists draw evidence from several major fields: analogies with animal behavior, cross-cultural anthropological studies and evolutionary anthropology, and specific studies designed to determine the genetic basis of human social traits. There are now increasing numbers of criticisms of these claims from within the academic community. For example, a recent indictment of sociobiology with respect to animal analogies has been made by a noted anthropologist who has done important primate studies, S.L. Washburn:³²

The claim that genes are responsible for different types of behavior in animals and in people is the most controversial part of sociobiological theory. More to the point, this way of thinking, in its application to human behavior, repeats the errors of past generations of evolutionists, social Darwinists, eugenicists and racists. 

Literature on Sociobiology Available  Now available from Science for the People is a packet of articles on sociobiology, written by members of Science for the People and the SftP Sociobiology Study Group. The packet includes:  “Sociobiology — A New Biological Determinism”. by the Sociobiology Study Group, reprinted from Biology as a Social Weapon by the Ann Arbor SftP Editorial Collective.  “The Fallacy of Biological Detrminism”, by Richard Lewontin, reprinted from The Sciences (March–April 1976). “A Methodological Analysis of Sociobiology” by Joseph Alper and Hiroshi Inouye.  “Sociobiology is a Political Issue” by Joseph Alper, Jon Beckwith, and Larry Miller, from Arthur Caplan’s The Sociobiology Debate.  “The Ethical and Social Implications of Sociobiology” by Joseph Alper From Sociobiology and Human Nature.  “Sociobiological Determinism Theme with Variations” by the Ann Arbor SftP Sociobiology Study Group, from Michigan Discussions in Anthropology, Vol. 3. Winter 1978.  “Sociobiology: A Sexist Synthesis” by Barbara Chasin, and “Are Sex Roles Biologically Determined?” by Freda Salzman, from Science for the People magazine. May 1977 and July 1977. respectively.  The packet costs $3.00. which includes postage (add 50 cents more in U S money for foreign orders), and is available from Science for the People, 897 Main Street. Cambridge. MA 02139.

Politics of Sociobiology 

The proposed sociobiological program is a pseudoscientific myth — the program can not even get off the ground because we lack any means at present of rigorously determining the genetic basis for human social behavior (in the normal range), as we made clear in our first extensive critique of sociobiology.³³ Due to the enormous importance of learning and the social environment in the development of humans, and due to the degree of bias and stratification in our society, the methodological problems in doing rigorous studies are essentially insurmountable. Of course, there is still a prior problem: Most complex social traits, such as intelligence, aggression, dominance, cannot be quantified so that they can be dealt with in a scientifically meaningful manner. The fact that such studies are proliferating, as well as new claims for evidence for the genetic basis for human social behavior, is, as we stated in our earlier critique, a political problem.³⁴

The politics of the controversy is nowhere more evident than in the manner in which critics of sociobiology are dealt with in pro-sociobiology reviews and works of sociobiologists. Critics of sociobiology, with Science for the People usually singled out, are simply dismissed as being Marxists or left-leaning liberals who are letting their politics interfere with hard science — “Burning Darwin to Save Marx,” as the title of a recent article in Harper’s states.³⁵ It is claimed that these left-leaning professors, because of their politics, wish to believe that humans are born with a clean slate, and are infinitely malleable. Thus, the argument goes, these politically motivated scientists are trying to discourage studies which would show the genetic basis of human social traits because they are afraid to know the truth. This characterization of our position is a pure fabrication, attributing totally false motives to us. We are indeed political, as well as scientific, and our claim is that human sociobiology, as presently formulated and promoted, is without any real scientific merit, but is political ideology for the status quo masquerading as pure, objective, value-free science.

The political nature of the scientific establishment is clearly discernible in the way in which the tremendous publicity and praise given to sociobiology — and to the whole string of biological determinist theories preceding it — has noticeably affected the direction of research. Behavioral and social scientists now know, wittingly or unwittingly, that they will get far more professional and public recognition from coming up with evidence for the biological basis for human traits than from work in what is considered less fashionable or exciting fields of endeavor. As was the case with Social Darwinism, claims for biologically-based behavior gain new significance if a supporting evolutionary argument is given. For example, at a recent lecture,³⁶ Shepher noted that sociobiologist Trivers’ “parental investment” theory, based on evolutionary principles of sociobiology, provides a new and deeper understanding of the biological basis of sex role inequality observed in the kibbutz. In turn, sociobiologists use these new claims for biologically-based behavior to buttress their own theories, which is well-illustrated in On Human Nature. We have again the same interplay of theory, the studies performed, and interpretation of findings as occurred earlier.

 

In summary, we find that while the attack on sociobiology has grown, the cancer of biological determinist theorizing has metastasized. The Boston Sociobiology Study Group is committed to continuing the attack on various aspects of these theories. Future articles will include a variety of topics: a review of Wilson’s On Human Nature; a critique of the Scarr and Weinberg article; an examination of the question of objectivity in science: a critique of the present upsurge of biological theories of mothering: and perhaps, ones on sex equality in the kibbutz and revisiting twin studies. This series of articles is in line with our belief that while it is imperative that sociobiology continue to be refuted on the academic level, it is equally important to continue the critique in the public arena. That is, it is imperative that we help to demystify this work and enable people to become aware that sociobiology is a powerful political weapon, which is used to maintain inequality and to justify our present oppressive social institutions.

 

>>  Back to Vol. 11 No. 2  <<

 

REFERENCES

1. J. Beckwith and B. Lange, “AAAS: Sociobiology on the Run,’ Science for the People, March/ April 1978, pp. 38–39.
2. For a critique of the IQ controversy, see Science for the People pamphlet “IQ: Scientific or Social Controversy?”: The Ann Arbor Science for the People Editorial Collective, Biology as a Social Weapon (Burgess, 1977), section “Race and IQ,” pp. 19–55; and N. Block and G. Dworkin, eds., The IQ Controversy (Pantheon, 1976).
3. For a critique of hormones and sex differences in behavior studies in the 1920’s, see D.L. Hall “Biology, Sex Hormones and Sexism in the 1920’s,” in C.C. Gould and M.W. Wartofsky, eds., Women and Philosophy (Putnam’s Sons, 1976), pp. 81–96.
4. For a historical review and critique of dominant theories of the psychology of women, see S.A. Shields, “Functionalism, Darwinism, and the Psychology of Women, A Study in Social Myth,” American Psychologist, Vol. 30, July 1975, pp. 739–754.
5. For a humorous, excellent critique of primate studies, see R. Herschberger, Adam’s Rib (1948)(Har/Row Books, 1970), Chapter 2, “Josie Takes the Stand,” pp. 5–14.
6. For a description and critique of primate studies, particularly from the perspective of the emergence of sociobiology, see D. Haraway, “Animal Sociology and a Natural Economy of the Body Politic,” Parts I and II, Signs, Vol. 4., No. I (Autumn 1978), pp. 21–60.
7. For an excellent critique of “maternal deprivation” and “attachment” theories, see R.P. Wortis, “The Acceptance of the Concept of the Maternal Role by Behavioral Scientists: Its Effects on Women,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41 5 (1971), pp. 733–746; see, also M. Rutter, Maternal Deprivation Reassessed (Penguin, 1972); and R.F. Baxandall, “Who Shall Care for Our Children? The History and Development of Day Care in the United States,” in J. Freeman, ed., Women: A Feminist Perspective (Mayfield, 1975), pp. 88–102.
8. For a critique of current studies of sex hormones and sex differentiated behavior, see E. Adkins, “Genes, Hormones, and Gender,” in G. Barlow and J. Silverberg, eds., (forthcoming); and F. Salzman, “Are Sex Roles Biologically Determined?” Science for the People, Vol. 9, No.4 (1977), pp. 27–32, 43; and for a critique of current biological determinist theorizing, see The Ann Arbor Science for the People Editorial Collective (cited above, note 2).
9. For a critique of the racist, as well as sexist, implications of sociobiology, see J. Alper, “The Ethical and Social Implications of Sociobiology,” M.S. Gregory, A. Silvers, and D. Sutch, eds., Sociobiology and Human Nature (Jossey-Bass, 1978), pp. 195–220.
10. For a critique of the role of Social Darwinism and racism in American thought and politics, see C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, 2nd revised edition (Oxford University Press, 1966); T.F. Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America (Schocken, 1965); and R. Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought (Beacon, 1955).
11. See G. Allen, “A History of Eugenics in the Class Struggle,” Science for the People pamphlet, (cited above, note 2), pp. 4–10.
12. For an excellent critique of “maternal deprivation” and “attachment” theories, see R.P. Wortis, “The Acceptance of the Concept of the Maternal Role by Behavioral Scientists: Its Effects on Women,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41 5 (1971), pp. 733–746; see, also M. Rutter, Maternal Deprivation Reassessed (Penguin, 1972); and R.F. Baxandall, “Who Shall Care for Our Children? The History and Development of Day Care in the United States,” in J. Freeman, ed., Women: A Feminist Perspective (Mayfield, 1975), pp. 88–102.
13. For a critique of the racist, as well as sexist, implications of sociobiology, see J. Alper, “The Ethical and Social Implications of Sociobiology,” M.S. Gregory, A. Silvers, and D. Sutch, eds., Sociobiology and Human Nature (Jossey-Bass, 1978), pp. 195–220.
14. A. Rossi, “A Biosocial Perspective on Parenting,” Daedalus, Spring 1977, pp. 1–31.
15. For a critique of current studies of sex hormones and sex differentiated behavior, see E. Adkins, “Genes, Hormones, and Gender,” in G. Barlow and J. Silverberg, eds., (forthcoming); and F. Salzman, “Are Sex Roles Biologically Determined?” Science for the People, Vol. 9, No.4 (1977), pp. 27–32, 43; and for a critique of current biological determinist theorizing, see The Ann Arbor Science for the People Editorial Collective (cited above, note 2).
16. A. Rossi, “A Biosocial Perspective on Parenting,” Daedalus, Spring 1977, pp. 30.
17. S. Scarr and R. Weinberg, “Attitude, Interests and IQ,” Human Nature, April 1978, pp. 29–36.
18. E.O. Wilson, On Human Nature (Harvard University Press, 1978), p. x.
19. For a critique of current studies of sex hormones and sex differentiated behavior, see E. Adkins, “Genes, Hormones, and Gender,” in G. Barlow and J. Silverberg, eds., (forthcoming); and F. Salzman, “Are Sex Roles Biologically Determined?” Science for the People, Vol. 9, No.4 (1977), pp. 27–32, 43; and for a critique of current biological determinist theorizing, see The Ann Arbor Science for the People Editorial Collective (cited above, note 2).
20. For a critique of Women in the Kibbutz, see P. Bart, “Biological Determinism: Is It All in the Ovaries?”, in Ann Arbor Science for the People Editorial Collective, (cited above, note 2), in particular pp. 77–81; and, R. M. Kanter, review of Women in the Kibbutz, Science, Vol. 192, 14 May 1976, pp. 662–663. For an account of women’s experience in the kibbutz see Y. Talman, Family and Community in the Kibbutz (Harvard University Press, 1972). For an analysis that shows that the evidence pertaining to humans cited by Maccoby and Jacklin to support their claim (that there is a biological basis for greater aggressiveness in males) is so methodologically flawed as to invalidate their conclusion, see F. Salzman, “Aggression and Gender: A Critique of the Nature-Nurture Question for Humans,” in R. Hubbard and M. Lowe, eds., Genes and Gender II: Pitfalls in Research on Sex and Gender (Gordian, forthcoming).
21. E.O. Wilson (cited above, note 18), p. 230.
22. E.O. Wilson, “Foreward,” in A.L. Caplan. ed.. The Sociobiology Debate (Harper and Row, 1978), pp. xii–xiii.
23. E.O. Wilson, (cited above, note 18), p. 242.
    For a critique of the Reinsich and Karow study, “Prenatal Exposure to Synthetic Progestins and Estrogens: Effects on Human Development” in Archives of Sexual Behavior 6 (1977), pp. 257-288, see E. Adkins 33(cited above, note 8).
24. The brain is divided into two hemispheres and a number of functions, such as language, analytic abilities, and visual-spatial perception, seem to be controlled by the left or right hemisphere. This is called left or right lateralization. There are reports that boys’ and girls’ brains may be lateralized differently with respect to certain tasks, such as those involving visual-spacial ability, and that this may be associated with differences in performance. D. Kimura, “The Asymmetry of the Human Brain,” Scientific American, March 1973. For a critique of brain lateralization studies and the interpretations of the findings, see S. Leigh Star, “Right and Left: An Examination of Research on Sex Differences in Hemisphereic Brain Asymmetry,” in R. Hubbard and M. Lowe (cited above, note 20); and for a more general critique of sex differences studies of cognitive abilities, see D. Griffiths and E. Saraga, “Sex differences in Cognitive Abilities: A Sterile Field of Enquiry?” in O. Harnett and G. Boden, Sex Role Stereotyping (Tavistock, forthcoming).
25. E.O. Wilson (cited above, note 18), pp. 132–133.
26. E.O. Wilson (cited above, note 18), pp. 47.
27. E.O. Wilson (cited above, note 18), pp. 132–133.
28. E.O. Wilson (cited above, note 18), pp. 132–133.
29. D. Haraway, (cited above, note 6), p. 28.
30. E.O. Wilson (cited above, note 18), p. 208.
31. A. Rossi, (cited above, note 14), p. 3.
32. S.L. Washburn, “What We Can’t Learn About People from Apes,” Human Nature, November 1978, pp. 70–75.
33. Sociobiology Study Group, “Sociobiology — A New Biological Determinism,” in Ann Arbor Science for the People Editorial Collective, (cited above, note 2), p. 142.
34. E.O. Wilson (cited above, note 18), pp. 132–133.
35. T. Betheell, “Burning Darwin to Save Marx,” Harper’s, December 1978, pp. 31–38,91–92.
36. J. Shepher, lecture “Is Sex Role Equality Possible? Kibbutz Research,” Kibbutz Lecture Series, Harvard Graduate School of Education, November 21, 1978.