No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The implications of sociobiology as presented in Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis are examined to determine to what extent 1) sociobiology can subsume sociology; 2) sociobiology is antithetical to sociology; 3) sociobiology reflects a movement within sociology. Basic assumptions of sociobiology pertinent to sociology--degree of determinism, existence of human universals, and definitions of society, culture, and human nature--are scrutinized alongside Wilson's view of sociology as a scientific discipline. The thesis explores weaknesses of both sociology and sociobiology and concludes that sociobiology, in ignoring culture as a source of behavioral motivation, is limited in reducing the sociological perspective to a biological one. Although the two disciplines have antithetical foundations, sociology has already begun to incorporate selected aspects of the sociobiological perspective.

The following thesis offers a philosophical critique of sociobiology, which is identified as a recent attempt to produce a general theory of animal behaviour, encompassing an account of human nature. The first chapter examines the empirical and theoretical foundations of sociobiology, highlighting some of the philosophical topics regarding the relation of the natural and social sciences, and the attempt to offer an account of human nature within a largely mathematical and mechanistic theoretical framework. Chapter two looks at the major specific areas of human behaviour featured in sociobiological accounts. A close examination of empirical evidence, underlying theoretical assumptions, behavioural categories and definitions, and finally deduced conclusions reveals several weaknesses and examples of fallacious reasoning. The third chapter continues to examine the account of human nature in relation to the broadest and most abstract features of social structures and interactions. The political dimension of sociobiology is examined - both in terms of its account of political behaviour, and in the theoretical opposition between sociobiology and left wing ideologies. The sociobiological account of religious behaviour is rejected in favour of one couched in terms of social rather than genetically heritable dispositions. Chapter four evaluates the attempt to respond to early criticisms of sociobiology. It is argued that the main theoretical stance regarding human behaviour remains little changed, and that the new theoretical models create even more conceptual problems, thus failing to provide a framework for an account of human nature. The final chapter applies some ideas from evolutionary theory to specific areas of philosophical controversy: the relation of mind to language; the ascription of mental life to other species; functionalist and epiphenomenaiist accounts of consciousness. It is argued that empirical and theoretical considerations from the natural sciences may thus inform traditional areas of philosophical debate, creating useful interdisciplinary dialogues.

No description available.

What happens when feminist body theory and reductionist theories of biological sex difference are brought together? In this work I take as my starting point the increasing ubiquity of appeals to biology as an explanation for ‘human’ and ‘woman’s’ nature on the one hand, and the reactive and reflexive distancing of biology within feminist body theory on the other, to begin to question the middle ground. I aim to constructively dissent from taking up either of these positions in order to confront the question: what if the reductionists prove to be, even partially, right? In acknowledging that possibility, I am interested in whether/where there is potential for feminist theory to be more relaxed about biologically sex differentiated attributes. I position myself as a women’s studies scholar taking a walk across the campus to see what evidence is being produced by ‘the opposition’. To place my walk in context, I first briefly explore various feminist approaches to the problem of biological sex differences, and the continuing difficulties surrounding binaries and binary thinking. Next, in the main part of the thesis, I review the historical and contemporary reasoning and claims made within three areas of reductionist science that are aligning at this time, and which have been reproached for promoting a return to a more biologically determinist social environment. I then take a brief excursion off campus to demonstrate the dangerous aspects of these scientific enterprises when their interpretation into popular culture is not carefully monitored. Finally, I return again to my own side of the campus to look at some of the ways feminists have already begun the work of overturning outworn and contested conventional theories about biology and human nature in conversation with reductionist theory. Having done this, was it worth the walk? My assessment is that while, in some cases, feminism’s defensive antiessentialism is warranted, there is work being undertaken within these reductionist sciences that is less rigid and reactionary than some critical interpretation would suggest. I conclude that there is a certain futility in feminist body theory’s oppositional stance to biology, and that its utility is put at risk by a continued investment in one side of a binary. Further, my walk across the campus leads me to believe that, while perhaps not imminent, there is every reason to expect that the scientific pursuit of an unequivocal genetic basis for specific sex differentiated behaviours will succeed. That being so, there are spaces where the insights of both sides might be productively brought together so as to avoid the worst excesses of biological determinism and, at the same time, loosen the grip of binary thinking on approaches to biology and the body.