Soci326-002 – Evolutionary Sociology

Module 3 – Human Nature II – Discussion Topics – 13 Sep 2005

Thanks to Elizabeth for passing along the following website that has links to Pinker's videos and slide shows:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/pinker.html

Today the readings deal with the nature of the controversy surrounding the new biological perspective on human nature.  Readings from The Blank Slate cover four principal fears generated by the biological approach: Chapter 8, Fear of Inequality; Chapter 9, Fear of Imperfectibility; Chapter 10,  Fear of Determinism; Chapter 11, Fear of Nihilism), and also some of the "hot buttons" that are pushed by the new approach: Chapter 16, Politics; Chapter 17, Violence; Chapter 18, Gender).  If we are technically lucky we will introduce the class with excerpts from a talk on The Blank Slate Pinker gave at MIT.

1.  In Chapter 16, Politics Pinker distinguishes two hot buttons along two dimensions of political philosophy:

1. conceptualization of the nature of society: sociological / superorganic tradition vs. economic / social contract tradition
2. conceptualization of human nature: Utopian Vision vs. Tragic Vision (renamed from Thomas Sowell's Unconstrained Vision vs. Constrained Vision distinction)

• How do these two conceptualizations of society and two visions of human nature differ?
• How useful are these two distinctions in understanding the logic of political and moral debates?
• Have you noticed or been confronted with these alternative views in the course of your own intellectual development?

2.  In his discussion of Gender (Chapter 18) Pinker discusses the issues of

1. the gender gap
2. rape

as particularly hot "buttons" with respect to gender.

• What reasons does Pinker's discussion suggest for the particularly "radioactive" quality of the gender gap issues in contemporary American society (as manifested, e.g., in the storm of protests following the suggestion by Harvard president that the small percentage of women in sciences and engineering might be due to ability differences between men and women)?
• What reasons for the "radioactivity" of the rape issue? 
• Why does any deviation from current received theory (that the gender gap is due to differences in encouragement, stereotypes, discrimination against women, etc.; that rape is a crime of violence that has nothing to do with sex and represents domination of the female gender by the male gender) cause such a strong opposition?
• In what ways does the biological approach help resolve (or, conversely, contribute to aggravate) these controversies?

3.  Chapter 8, Fear of Inequality, touches upon the relation of the biological approach to social stratification in a broad sense.  Pinker argues that in the contemporary world view, the existence of innate inequalities among individuals and groups can lead to 3 evils:

1. prejudice / discrimination against members of some group
2. Social Darwinism (i.e. if differences in station in life among individuals and groups is due to innate differences, then inequality is justified)
3. eugenics

• Are these 3 dangers real?
• How do episodes of large-scale atrocities by both Marxist and Nazi regimes bear on these questions?

4.  In Chapter 9 on the Fear of Imperfectibility Pinker distinguishes two fallacies:

1. the naturalistic fallacy: if a trait is found in nature it must be moral (is --> ought)
2. the moralistic fallacy: if a trait is moral it must be found in nature (ought --> is)

•  How do these fallacies affect public opinions concerning various social policy issues? 

5.  How do philosophical ideas concerning the causes of human actions, i.e. a belief in the existence of free will versus a deterministic view of behavior, affect policy choices concerning the punishment of violent offenders?  Does the justification of punishment depend on the existence of free will (i.e., does explanation mean exculpation)?  Does a biological approach to human nature provide an alternative justification for penal codes (other than reliance on free will)?  Think of examples of how these philosophical issues might "pop up" in contemporary debates about crime.

Last modified 13 Sep 2005