Controversies on Evolutionism: On the construction of scientific boundaries in public and internal scientific controversies about evolutionary psychology and sociobiology

Abstract

This article analyzes several more or less public controversies around evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. It is asked how participants in the debate draw the lines between science and non-science and what is at stake in their boundary work practices. Evolutionists and their critics practice boundary work both in scientific insider debates and in public scientific controversies. All contenders agree that science is characterized by authority relations and disciplinary gatekeepers and that science is distinguished from other social practices and by a certain code of conduct. Evolutionists and their critics differ in their assessment of scientific authorities’ roles and responsibilities, in their definition of scientific code of conduct, and in their conception of the relation between science and society. The analysis offers insights into the social production of knowledge in both scientific and public discourse and into the ways in which scientists negotiate the very nature of science as such.

Keywords

boundary work critical psychology evolutionary psychology public scientific controversy science and technology studies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

Beckwith

Chorover

Culver

Duncan

… Schreiber

(1975, November 13). Against “sociobiology”. The New York Review of Books, 13, 182–186. Retrieved from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1975/nov/13/against-sociobiology/

Borgia

Wilkinson

G. S.

(1992). Swallowing ornamental asymmetry. Nature, 359(6395), 487–488.

Borrell

(2007, January 1). A fluctuating reality. The Scientist – Magazine of the Life Sciences, 21(1), 26–31. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/39386/

Cassidy

(2005). Popular evolutionary psychology in the UK: An unusual case of science in the media? Public Understanding of Science, 14(2), 115–141.

Cassidy

(2006). Evolutionary psychology as public science and boundary work. Public Understanding of Science, 15(2), 175–205.

Cassidy

(2007). The (sexual) politics of evolution: Popular controversy in the late 20th-century United Kingdom. History of Psychology, 10(2), 199–226.

Dennett

D. C.

(1997, August 14). Darwinian fundamentalism: An exchange [Letter to the editors]. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/aug/14/darwinian-fundamentalism-an-exchange/

Derksen

Vikkelsø

Beaulieu

(2012). Social technologies: Cross-disciplinary reflections on technologies in and from the social sciences. Theory & Psychology, 22, 139–147. doi:10.1177/0959354311427593

Felt

(1999). Why should the public “understand” science? A historical perspective on aspects of the public understanding of science. In Dierkes

von Grote

(Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology (pp. 7–38). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Harwood Academic.

10.

Felt

(2003). When societies encounter “their” sciences: Conceptualising the relationships between sciences and publics. In Felt

(Ed.), O.P.U.S. – Optimising Public Understanding of Science and Technology: Final report (pp. 16–46). Vienna, Austria: Department of Philosophy of Science and Social Studies of Science, University of Vienna.

11.

Felt

Fochler

(2012). Re-ordering epistemic living spaces: On the tacit governance effects of the public communication of science. In Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(Eds.), The sciences’ media connection – Communication to the public and its repercussions: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook: Vol. 28 (pp. 133–154). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

12.

Felt

Nowotny

(Eds.). (1993). Science meets the public: A new look at an old problem [Special issue]. Public Understanding of Science, 2(4).

13.

Fleck

(1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact ( Bradley

Trenn

T. J.

Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1935)

14.

Gieryn

T. F.

(1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.

15.

Gould

S. J.

(1997, June 26). Evolution: The pleasures of pluralism. The New York Review of Books, 44(11), 47–52. Retrieved from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jun/26/evolution-the-pleasures-of-pluralism/

16.

Houle

(1997). Comment on “A meta-analysis of the heritability of developmental stability” by Møller and Thornhill. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 17–20.

17.

Latour

(1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.

Leamy

L. J.

(1997). Is developmental stability heritable? Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 21–29.

19.

Lewontin

R. C.

(1972). The apportionment of human diversity. Evolutionary Biology, 6, 381–397.

20.

Lewontin

R. C.

(1976). Sociobiology. A caricature of Darwinism. In Suppe

Asquith

P. D.

(Eds.), PSA 1976 (pp. 22–31). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.

21.

Lewontin

R. C.

(1981). Sleight of hand [Review of the book Genes, mind and culture by C. Lumsden & E. O. Wilson]. The Sciences, 21, 23–26.

22.

Lightman

(2007). Victorian popularizers of science: Designing nature for new audiences. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

23.

Lumsden

Wilson

E. O.

(1981a). Genes, mind, and culture: The co-evolutionary process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

24.

Lumsden

Wilson

E. O.

(1981b). Genes, mind and ideology. The Sciences, 21, 6–8.

25.

Markow

T. A.

Clarke

G. M.

(1997). Meta-analysis of the heritability of developmental stability: A giant step backward. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 31–37.

26.

McEwan

(2010). Solar. London, UK: Cape.

27.

Møller

A. P.

(1992). Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Nature, 357(6375), 238–240.

28.

Møller

A. P.

Thornhill

(1997a). A meta-analysis of the heritability of fluctuating asymmetry. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 1–16.

29.

Møller

A. P.

Thornhill

(1997b). Developmental instability is heritable. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 69–76.

30.

Møller

A. P.

Thornhill

(1998). Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: A meta-analysis. American Naturalist, 151, 174–192.

31.

Nowotny

Scott

Gibbons

(2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

32.

Palmer

(1999). Detecting publication bias in meta-analyses: A case study of fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. American Naturalist, 154, 220–233.

33.

Palmer

Hammond

(2000). The emperor’s codpiece: A postmodern perspective on biological asymmetries. International Society of Behavioral Ecology Newsletter, 12(2), 13–20.

34.

Palmer

Strobeck

(1997). Fluctuating asymmetry and developmental stability: Heritability of observable variation vs. heritability of inferred cause. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 39–49.

35.

Pomiankowski

(1997). Genetic variation in fluctuating asymmetry. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 51–55.

36.

Ruck

(2013a). Darwinian aesthetics? Criticizing the good-gene hypothesis of physical beauty. In Marvakis

Motzkau

Painter

Sullivan

Korir-Ruto

Triliva

Wieser

(Eds.), Doing psychology under new conditions (pp. 31–40). Concord, CA: Captus Press.

37.

Ruck

(2013b). Schönheit als Zeugnis: Evolutionspsychologische Schönheitsforschung und Geschlechterungleichheit [Talking beauty: Evolutionary psychological attractiveness research and gender inequalities]. Bielefeld, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

38.

Segerstråle

(2000). Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

39.

Sherman

(2004, May 20). The rebirth of the NYRB. The Nation. Retrieved from: http://www.thenation.com/article/rebirth-nyrb#

40.

Stewart

C. O.

(2009). Socioscientific controversies: A theoretical and methodological framework. Communication Theory, 19, 124–145.

41.

Swaddle

J. P.

(1997). On the heritability of developmental stability. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 57–61.

42.

Tooby

Cosmides

(1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow

Cosmides

Tooby

(Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–138). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

43.

Tooby

Cosmides

(1997). Letter to the Editor of The New York Review of Books on Stephen Jay Gould’s “Darwinian Fundamentalism” (June 12, 1997) and “Evolution: The Pleasures of Pluralism” (June 26, 1997). Retrieved from: http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html

44.

Venturini

(2010). Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273.

45.

Waddington

C. H.

(1975, August 7). Mindless societies. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1975/aug/07/mindless-societies/

46.

Whitlock

M. C.

Fowler

(1997). The instability of studies of instability. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 63–67.

47.

Wilson

E. O.

(1975a). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

48.

Wilson

E. O.

(1975b, December 11). For sociobiology. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1975/dec/11/for-sociobiology/

49.

Wright

(1997, August 14). Letter to the Editors. The New York Review of Books. Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/aug/14/darwinian-fundamentalism-an-exchange/