What do you think?
The Sociobiology Debate
- GenresEvolution
Paperback
First published September 1, 1978
About the author
Arthur L. Caplan
44 books4 followersArthur L. Caplan is Director of the Division of Medical Ethics in the Department of Population Health at New York University's Langone Medical Center.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 24, 2026
The Sociobiology Debate is an anthology of essays that agree and that disagree with Sociobiology The New Synthesis, by Professor Edward O. Wilson. My book review of Sociobiology the New Synthesis can be found here:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Sociobiology The New Synthesis was published in 1975. This book did not present progressives with the existential challenge the 1994 publication of The Bell Curve did present them with. Nevertheless, progressives dislike Wilson’s book.
In Chapter One of his book Wilson defined sociobiology as “the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior.” Progressives do not want to believe that social realities they dislike, such as war, inequality, different roles for men and women, and racial, ethnic, and national loyalty are due to instincts we share with the rest of the animal kingdom, including insects. They want to believe they were due to social conditioning. Instincts must be acknowledged. Social conditioning can be changed.
Typically, progressives try to suppress ideas they dislike without addressing them. Too frequently they succeed.
I approached sociobiology from a liberal perspective. Before I read Sociobiology the New Synthesis, and before I knew word “sociobiology” existed, I was appalled by the existence and duration of the War in Vietnam, and I was frightened by the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union were preparing to fight a nuclear war everyone knew would destroy civilization, and which might cause the extinction of humans, and many other animal species as well.
I concluded that human behavior was influenced by instincts that enabled our ancestors to thrive, but which may prevent our descendants from ever being born.
Sociobiology is conservative in the broadest sense of the word. A Republican who reads Sociobiology the New Synthesis in search of confirmation of supply side economics and the Laffer Curve will be disappointed. Nevertheless, we should heed the words of Charles Murray, who wrote in “The Inequality Taboo,” “specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often, they do harm.”
With this in mind we should consider the presidential election of 1964. President Johnson defeated Senator Goldwater with 61% of the vote. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress. In 1964 the Democrats had mandates to preserve the basic reforms of the New Deal, and to avoid war with the Soviet Union. The Democrats overstepped their mandates by making punishment for criminals less likely and less severe, and by making welfare benefits more generous and easier to qualify for.
The crime rate doubled during the 1960’s. Welfare rolls expanded along with illegitimacy and the cost of the welfare system.
The result of this was to end the New Deal coalition that had dominated the United States since the 1933 election of President Franklin Roosevelt. The result included the election and reelection of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump.
More recently, we should consider the election of Zohran Mamdani as the Mayor of New York City. If I was a resident of New York City I would have voted for Mamdani with the hope that he would achieve his most important goal, which is to make New York City affordable for working class and middle class people to live in, as it once was. My fear is that he will fail in ways that strengthen the arguments of those who desire more economic inequality.
Defenses of sociobiology found in The Sociobiology Debate do not mean that we cannot reform the status quo. They are warnings that efforts to make American society more benign need to consider the restrictions of human nature.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Sociobiology The New Synthesis was published in 1975. This book did not present progressives with the existential challenge the 1994 publication of The Bell Curve did present them with. Nevertheless, progressives dislike Wilson’s book.
In Chapter One of his book Wilson defined sociobiology as “the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior.” Progressives do not want to believe that social realities they dislike, such as war, inequality, different roles for men and women, and racial, ethnic, and national loyalty are due to instincts we share with the rest of the animal kingdom, including insects. They want to believe they were due to social conditioning. Instincts must be acknowledged. Social conditioning can be changed.
Typically, progressives try to suppress ideas they dislike without addressing them. Too frequently they succeed.
I approached sociobiology from a liberal perspective. Before I read Sociobiology the New Synthesis, and before I knew word “sociobiology” existed, I was appalled by the existence and duration of the War in Vietnam, and I was frightened by the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union were preparing to fight a nuclear war everyone knew would destroy civilization, and which might cause the extinction of humans, and many other animal species as well.
I concluded that human behavior was influenced by instincts that enabled our ancestors to thrive, but which may prevent our descendants from ever being born.
Sociobiology is conservative in the broadest sense of the word. A Republican who reads Sociobiology the New Synthesis in search of confirmation of supply side economics and the Laffer Curve will be disappointed. Nevertheless, we should heed the words of Charles Murray, who wrote in “The Inequality Taboo,” “specific policies based on premises that conflict with scientific truths about human beings tend not to work. Often, they do harm.”
With this in mind we should consider the presidential election of 1964. President Johnson defeated Senator Goldwater with 61% of the vote. The Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress. In 1964 the Democrats had mandates to preserve the basic reforms of the New Deal, and to avoid war with the Soviet Union. The Democrats overstepped their mandates by making punishment for criminals less likely and less severe, and by making welfare benefits more generous and easier to qualify for.
The crime rate doubled during the 1960’s. Welfare rolls expanded along with illegitimacy and the cost of the welfare system.
The result of this was to end the New Deal coalition that had dominated the United States since the 1933 election of President Franklin Roosevelt. The result included the election and reelection of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump.
More recently, we should consider the election of Zohran Mamdani as the Mayor of New York City. If I was a resident of New York City I would have voted for Mamdani with the hope that he would achieve his most important goal, which is to make New York City affordable for working class and middle class people to live in, as it once was. My fear is that he will fail in ways that strengthen the arguments of those who desire more economic inequality.
Defenses of sociobiology found in The Sociobiology Debate do not mean that we cannot reform the status quo. They are warnings that efforts to make American society more benign need to consider the restrictions of human nature.
February 17, 2011
Disclaimer: I have a chapter in this book. That said, it holds up pretty well over time. This is an edited volume, in which editor Arthur Caplan provides a set of essays on sociobiology, particularly controversial at the time this volume came out.
The first part considers historical forebears of sociobiology. There are essays by Darwin himself, Peter Kropotkin, Herbert Spencer, T. H. Huxley and the like. The next section includes essays on "Animal Behavior and Morality." Here, we see essays by Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, and V. C. Wynne-Edwards. Part II focuses upon "Biology, Human Nature, and Ethical Theory," with chapters by Anthony Flew, Leon Eisenberg, et al. Part IV features a series of essays on the biology of sociobiology. Here, we see chapters by Wynne-Edwards (a bête noire to sociobiologists), W. D. Hamilton, George Williams, Robert Trivers, and Edward O. Wilson.
Following is a key part of the book--the scientific debate over the validity of sociobiology. Experts are arrayed on different sides of that issue here. The essayists? Among this distinguished set of authors: C. H. Waddington, Wilson himself, the Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People, Caplan, and Stephen J. Gould, among others. Part VI explores extensions, implications, and critiques of sociobiology. Among authors: Michael Ruse, Ethel Tobach, Marshall Sahlins, and Ruth Mattern (my co-authored essay shows up here, too).
Historically, a good document, showing the nature of sociobiology, what is at stake with this perspective, and the nature of controversies generated.
The first part considers historical forebears of sociobiology. There are essays by Darwin himself, Peter Kropotkin, Herbert Spencer, T. H. Huxley and the like. The next section includes essays on "Animal Behavior and Morality." Here, we see essays by Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, and V. C. Wynne-Edwards. Part II focuses upon "Biology, Human Nature, and Ethical Theory," with chapters by Anthony Flew, Leon Eisenberg, et al. Part IV features a series of essays on the biology of sociobiology. Here, we see chapters by Wynne-Edwards (a bête noire to sociobiologists), W. D. Hamilton, George Williams, Robert Trivers, and Edward O. Wilson.
Following is a key part of the book--the scientific debate over the validity of sociobiology. Experts are arrayed on different sides of that issue here. The essayists? Among this distinguished set of authors: C. H. Waddington, Wilson himself, the Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People, Caplan, and Stephen J. Gould, among others. Part VI explores extensions, implications, and critiques of sociobiology. Among authors: Michael Ruse, Ethel Tobach, Marshall Sahlins, and Ruth Mattern (my co-authored essay shows up here, too).
Historically, a good document, showing the nature of sociobiology, what is at stake with this perspective, and the nature of controversies generated.
May 1, 2011
Still one of the best books to read as an introduction to this controversial subject.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews