RE: Re: genome news (fwd)
You "gather"? In truth you haven't a clue as to either what our "policies" are or how they are "determined". Our relation to the 'bigwigs' is similar to yours with dead Trotskyists. We are motivated by their interests, and we try to avoid offending them. To take the infamous example of trade, anyone who tracked the respective statements and pubs of EPI and trade union orgs, including the Federation, would find EPI was a leading indicator, not a lagging one. mbs From what I can gather, the policies of EPI are determined more by the AFL-CIO bigwigs on the board rather than the philanthropic establishment. But I would have assumed that EPI, following the lead of similar groups such as the Sierra Club and Public Citizen, does not disclose the identity of major donors. As far as getting funding from Stuart Mott and the Rockefeller Foundation is concerned, virtually the entire liberal left is implicated, from the Nation Magazine to all of the mainstream Green groups. For that matter, my own organization was always hitting up Mott and the Rockefellers, as well as the Ford Foundation. Sort of like Lenin taking a ride on a German train. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian sociology. Here's a precious snippet from this nitwit (Steve Rosenthal) from a couple of years ago: . . . This line of attack against the Clintonites is being led by Dick Gephardt and the business and big labor forces behind him. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), whose funding comes from the Rockefeller Foundation, C.S. Mott (GM), Russell Sage (Cabot gas and banking money), sets forth the line Gephardt has been offering . . . http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/jan98/0072.html No I don't save this stuff. I remembered since I wrote a reply (which he didn't answer), and I thought I would see if I could find it quickly with Google. Came up instantly. Google rules. mbs Google Rules! Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: the socio-biological claim that people differ because they differ genetically is called RACISM, which is what Wilson does eventually. This is the crux of the matter. If one supposes that culture is determined by genes, then one is left explaining cultural differences in terms of genetic differences. Different cultures, different people. If you claim that there are different types of people, you are making a racist argument. Andrew this is *exactly* Wilson! finally somebody has attempted to challenge socio-biology. i appreciate your contribution Andy!! where have you been lately? My problem is that why is this person popular among leftists so much given that he is a self-proclaimed anti-marxist. What makes Wilson so attractive and appealing to some people? and why? this the heart of the matter that seems worth looking at. why are the marxists critical of socio-biology are minority in every forum i have been to, and forced to declare their own scientific status? I get from your reading that there are "fundamental" problems with socio-biology? so one can not be, in principle, progressive and socio-biologist? am i right? Mine
RE: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian sociology. Here's a precious snippet from this nitwit (Steve Rosenthal) from a couple of years ago: . . . This line of attack against the Clintonites is being led by Dick Gephardt and the business and big labor forces behind him. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), whose funding comes from the Rockefeller Foundation, C.S. Mott (GM), Russell Sage (Cabot gas and banking money), sets forth the line Gephardt has been offering . . . http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/jan98/0072.html No I don't save this stuff. I remembered since I wrote a reply (which he didn't answer), and I thought I would see if I could find it quickly with Google. Came up instantly. Google rules. mbs
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
In a message dated 00-04-09 00:04:25 EDT, you write: the socio-biological claim that people differ because they differ genetically is called RACISM, No it's not. It would be racist (and genetically illiterate, for the most part) to say that some groups of people are inferior to another because of their genes, but it is not racist to say, for example, that Black people are different in the color of their skin from whites in large part because of their genes. That is just true. Genes are causally efficaous; they do account for some of the variation in differences between groups and individuals, and anyone who denies that has no idea what he is talking about. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
part of what has made "race" -- and "gender" for that matter -- so confused, etc. is that it regards the *social* assignment of meaning to traits that are biologically inherited-- so people say "what are talking about, of course gender is biological" because we see anatomical differences, but the meaning of those differences is what is socially constructed. people have had a hard time making these distinctions. so we either get the pure social constructionist position, and some people feel uneasy about that because they see anatomical differences, or we get the other extreme and people know that isn't right. racism takes physiognomic differences and assigns social meaning to them. the meaning is arbitrary and socially constructed and has no basis in anatomy or biology, etc. but there are biological reasons for having whatever color hair you have, etc. of course, now it is possible to change one's biological features, too, so sex changes, and lightening skin color, and etc., and this has to be dealt with and factored in. but constructing discrete categories out of what is essentially a continuum (skin shades) is pure social construction, but a social construction that is mediated by physiognamy? I still think Harry Chang in the special issue of Review of Radical Political Economics had this right how many years ago now, but we are still going around in circles some of us some of the time on all this. Of course, Chang wasn't the only one or the first or anything. the discussion below is still sloppy in these regards, because, e.g., the sentence that includes the categories "Black people" and "whites" uncritically assumes that these term themselves are unproblematic with regard to the very issues the sentence is discussing. which individuals end up in the "Black" category and the "white" category depends. so it is true that the shade of one's skin is biological but the categories that are mediated by this are not, and either is the social meaning assigned to them. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, April 09, 2000 10:46 AM Subject: [PEN-L:17872] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd) In a message dated 00-04-09 00:04:25 EDT, you write: the socio-biological claim that people differ because they differ genetically is called RACISM, No it's not. It would be racist (and genetically illiterate, for the most part) to say that some groups of people are inferior to another because of their genes, but it is not racist to say, for example, that Black people are different in the color of their skin from whites in large part because of their genes. That is just true. Genes are causally efficaous; they do account for some of the variation in differences between groups and individuals, and anyone who denies that has no idea what he is talking about. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
In a message dated 00-04-09 12:38:32 EDT, you write: the sentence that includes the categories "Black people" and "whites" uncritically assumes that these term themselves are unproblematic with regard to the very issues the sentence is discussing. which individuals end up in the "Black" category and the "white" category depends. so it is true that the shade of one's skin is biological but the categories that are mediated by this are not, and either is the social meaning assigned to them. Don't assume any such thing. Of course I am aware of the social contruction of race, and I don't uncritically assume anything. I also don't need to do the dance every time I use a loaded word,a t least, I hope, in this context. Among people to whom the social construction of race might bea new thought, I'd emphasize it. Here, I might have hoped that I could take it for granted. How very foolish of me. I might have said, I briefly contemplated it, that malinin content avrirs with geographic origin; that genetics explains why people from subSaharan Africa have darker skins, because of higher melanin content, on average, than people fron Northern Europe. But it is tiresome, particularly when one is talking about race, to pretend that one is not. Political correctness is very boring. Incidentally, when I use the word "group" or "race"; I am not implying anything about a class of persons constututed by some feature entirely apart from human choice and conventions. I am not, in other words, being "essentialist." (Boo, hiss.) Racism is not a matter of talking as if people are divided into differenbt groups,a nymore than it is natioanlsit of me to talk about Americans, Sudanese, French. It is a matter of buying into certain assumptions abour superiority, inferiority, entitlement, etc. These assumptions need not be tied to any beliefs about genetics or "blood"--cultural racism is pretty common. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
This is the heart of the matter; very clear and to the point! Andrew Wayne Austin wrote: I do not believe sociobiology can be progressive. It is inherently reactionary, no matter what spin its advocates put to it. And even if we could put politics aside (in some theoretical world) it is flat-earth science. Why do I think self-described leftists subscribe to the view? Some, I think, are liberals claiming to be leftist. Others I know, including Marxists, believe that everything operates on the principle of the vulgar dialectic and that the phantoms of the brain reflect some physiological process. They misunderstand Marxian materialism. For Marx, materialism is the world human beings build through their collective activities and their social being that is realized through the construction of that world. Vulgar materialism is a species of physicalism. There are others still who wish to articulate a vision of human nature where the individual is altruistic (a nature undermined by capitalism). These people do not disagree with the search for a human nature, only with the human nature Wilson and others come up with. This is an ideological position, however more desirable an altruistic nature is over a selfish one. Of course, there is no human nature, since being human is to stand at the intersection of an assemblage of social and historical relations. I think the processual frightens the hell out of some people, and they want that one essential truth that will give them ontological security. The hard empirical body seems to afford them that truth. But this is an illusion. Andrew On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: the socio-biological claim that people differ because they differ genetically is called RACISM, which is what Wilson does eventually. This is the crux of the matter. If one supposes that culture is determined by genes, then one is left explaining cultural differences in terms of genetic differences. Different cultures, different people. If you claim that there are different types of people, you are making a racist argument. Andrew this is *exactly* Wilson! finally somebody has attempted to challenge socio-biology. i appreciate your contribution Andy!! where have you been lately? My problem is that why is this person popular among leftists so much given that he is a self-proclaimed anti-marxist. What makes Wilson so attractive and appealing to some people? and why? this the heart of the matter that seems worth looking at. why are the marxists critical of socio-biology are minority in every forum i have been to, and forced to declare their own scientific status? I get from your reading that there are "fundamental" problems with socio-biology? so one can not be, in principle, progressive and socio-biologist? am i right? Mine
RE: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian sociology. Here's a precious snippet from this nitwit (Steve Rosenthal) from a couple of years ago: . . . This line of attack against the Clintonites is being led by Dick Gephardt and the business and big labor forces behind him. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), whose funding comes from the Rockefeller Foundation, C.S. Mott (GM), Russell Sage (Cabot gas and banking money), sets forth the line Gephardt has been offering . . . http://csf.colorado.edu/mail/psn/jan98/0072.html No I don't save this stuff. I remembered since I wrote a reply (which he didn't answer), and I thought I would see if I could find it quickly with Google. Came up instantly. Google rules. mbs Max, I appreciate the information you found in the archives of the list. however, Steven Rosenthal is not here so I can not make speculations about him. moreover, I don't know the context of the discussion between you and him. It does not seem fair to me to interpret somebody else's citation out of context, also because i don't have time (seriously!) to go over past posts one by one. What I understand is that Economic Policy Institute may have a finger in socio-biological research in a similar way to Human genome project conducted by the Clinton administration. Liberal position (as well as liberal leftist type) on socio-biology is very clear. Their liberal leftism does not excuse their implicit racism. These people think "scientific" exploration of biological differences can help cure 1)certain diseases, physical and mental disorders. 2) can help promote an understanding of "individual differences" for achieving a democratic pluralist society. If I have a child scored a high degree in IQ test, let's say in humanities, I am supposed to send her to a liberal arts college.So the argument locates mental achievement in genetics, rather than looking at the social, class and gender envioroment of the people. thus, it is class, race and gender blind. I reject this argument becasue once you "presuppose" certain biological differences, you are inevitably left with "explaining" those differences or "attributing a meaning to them", so they will inevitably be politicized or create a discourse of the "other", essentialized identities, as Andy rightly said, "different people, different cultures", irrational people, rational people, bla, bla.. Given that we are not living under ideal circumstances, but in a society charecterized by all sorts of stratificaitons, politics always underwrites biology. Just as allocation of resources is a "political act" which vulgar economism conceals that it is not, production of scientific knowledge is too a political act. One can not seperate the two. Let's stick with the original article written by Steven Rosenthal "How Science is Perverted to Build Fascism: A Marxist Critique of E.O. Wilson's Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge." If you disagree with this article, we can talk about the specifics. these are my last comments on this issue.I say no kudos to biological and cultural racism! thanx.. Mine
RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
MD: . . . What I understand is that Economic Policy Institute may have a finger in socio-biological research . . . We don't do sociology we don't do biology. I would wager that the word 'socio-biology' does not appear in one EPI publication. I don't even know what it means, but if you don't like it, I probably wouldn't either. cheers, mbs
Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
Mine. You still haven't answered Brad's point. S.R. either tells a deliberate lie or he doesn't know what he is talking about. Wilson did not "remake himself" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Doyle,I agree! you too are getting the heart of the matter.. actually, check out the articles in _Mankind Quartely_, a journal edited by Roger Pearson, and its liberal co-associate JCPES. see especially the one called _Virtues in Racism_. the man is implying that it is not racist to say that people differ because they differ genetically. It is somewhat treathening to see how the liberal rhetoric of "individual differences" relies on geneticist arguments to justify a morality of ethics of difference! another one published by a Washington policy analyst "boldly" says that affirmative action has erased our differences, and created a society of equals and conformity. See how equality is equated there with "confirmity and sameness" and genetics is praised for celebrating difference. Basically, you will find this as an interesting example on post-modern version of right wing and neo-liberalism, which approves my claim that socio-biology is inherently a reactionary science. Mine -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 11:02:54 -0700 From: Doyle Saylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:17884] Re: genome news (fwd) Greetings Economists, JKS writes in reply to Mines, JKS, No it's not. It would be racist (and genetically illiterate, for the most part) to say that some groups of people are inferior to another because of their genes, but it is not racist to say, for example, that Black people are different in the color of their skin from whites in large part because of their genes. That is just true. Genes are causally efficaous; they do account for some of the variation in differences between groups and individuals, and anyone who denies that has no idea what he is talking about. Doyle The theory of sociobiology is that genes control behavior. In other words any social group are the way they are because of their genes. Is that true? Well you say above that is not true (falsifiable in the traditional sense of the words in science). Let's look at Mine's comment again, Mine the socio-biological claim that people differ because they differ genetically is called RACISM, Doyle JKS says anyone who claims sociobiology does not assert control over the human social behavior has no idea what he is talking about. And I have no idea from JKS what exactly makes him different from Sociobiology. If I pick up a book on evolutionary psychology is that not the whole thrust of their theory? See "The Adapted Mind, Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture", Jerome H. Barkow Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Oxford University Press, 1992. In replying to M. Forstater, JKS writes, JKS Don't assume any such thing. Of course I am aware of the social contruction of race, and I don't uncritically assume anything. I also don't need to do the dance every time I use a loaded word,a t least, I hope, in this context. Among people to whom the social construction of race might bea new thought, I'd emphasize it. Here, I might have hoped that I could take it for granted. How very foolish of me. I might have said, I briefly contemplated it, that malinin content avrirs with geographic origin; that genetics explains why people from subSaharan Africa have darker skins, because of higher melanin content, on average, than people fron Northern Europe. But it is tiresome, particularly when one is talking about race, to pretend that one is not. Political correctness is very boring. Doyle Your comments do not explain "black" skin, because you don't understand genetics or you wouldn't so loosely assert something about black skins. When groups are relatively isolated from each other there are directions to that in changes arising or falling in a pool in relation to other pools otherwise related to the isolate, selection may make dark skin arise, and it may not according to a climate, because the source of change is contingent. Color vision in primates is interesting in that sense. But not in the crude way you articulate your views. That is why arguments such as yours fade away in time in the sciences because they are not sufficiently accurate and practical in understanding reality. In current times when all the human community intermarries there is not going to be a geographic origin to skin color and your point seems just plain Eurocentric to others. Which comes first, light or dark in skin? What about a Baboon's blue ass, why aren't humans blue skinned, since they are our relatives too. And your point is just how you insert yourself into this argument when you have no sense what so ever that Mine's outrage is justified and important about the re-rise of socio-biology under the name
Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
Mine. You still haven't answered Brad's point. S.R. either tells a deliberate lie or he doesn't know what he is talking about. Wilson did not "remake himself" okey!!! Whoever calls Steven Rosenthal a "lier" either does not have any slightest notion of who Steven Rosenthal is or has not digested his article completely. "Lier" is an uprofessional and disgusting accusation, Rod! The fellow is an "honest" Marxist and a sociologist, who has put his years on this topic. I am presenting "again" the context of Steven's discusssion of Wilson, and the reasons why he thinks Wilson is insincere when he remakes himself as an enviromentalist. Let's pay attention to Wilson's main argument here rather than spending gas over whether he prentends to be an enviromentalist or not.Even if we assume that he is an enviromentalist (which is not sincere anway), this does not justify his "real" side that "At my core, I am a social conservative, a loyalist. I cherish traditional institutions, the more venerable and ritual-laden the better." or when he talks about Rwandan genocide in 1994 as an example of "ethnic rivalry run amuck," reflecting our genetically based tribal instincts" (quotes are from Steven's article).what an enviromentalist bio-diversity! Since it is asked, Steven says the following about Wilson's enviromentalist side (refer to article): Wilson put these arguments into Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, published in 1975 by Harvard University Press and widely promoted by the popular media. Many natural and social scientists exposed human sociobiology as an unscientific attempt to defend the capitalist status quo as natural and unchangeable. Because of these sharp critiques, Wilson reinvented himself as an environmentalist concerned about bio-diversity. A quarter century and five books later, Wilson today poses as a reasonable advocate of genetic and cultural "co-evolution" and as a proponent of genetic/environmental interaction. He pretends to reject biological determinism, social Darwinism, and eugenics. The ruling class has extolled Consilience as the crowning achievement of a visionary elder statesman of capitalist science. The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal lavishly praised his call for the subjugation of the social sciences and the humanities to the natural sciences, and for the elevation of his pseudo-science to state religion. The Atlantic Monthly interviewed Wilson and published excerpts of Consilience. I continue: Moreover, Edward Wilson says the following in introduction to _What is Sociobiology_: "Sociobiology is defined as the systematic study of the biological basis of all forms of social behavior, including sexual and parental behavior, in all kinds of organisms including humans. As such, it is a discipline inevitable discipline, since there must be a systematic study of social behavior. Sociobiology consists mostly of zoology. About 90 percent of its current material concerns animals, even though over 90 percent of the attention given to sociobiology by nonscientists, and especially journalists, is due to its possible applications to the study of human social behavior. There is nothing unusual about deriving principles and methods, and even terminology, from intensive examinations of lower organisms and applying them to the study of human beings. Most of the fundamental principles of genetics and biochemistry applied to human biology are based on colon bacteria, fruit flies, and white rats. To say that the same science can be applied to human beings is not to reduce humanity to the status of these simpler creatures". (http://www.runet.edu/~lridener/courses/SOCBIO.HTML) (From Edward O. Wilson, "Introduction: What is Sociobiology?" In Michael S. Gregory, Anita Silvers, and Diane Such (Eds.). 1978. Sociobiology and Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Critique and Defense. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 1 - 12.) Mine
Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
We're at an impasse here. Rosenthal is not here. Nor is Wilson. I wonder however about how many people today would change their ideas just because somebody remains unnamed showed that their ideas supported capitalism. Perhaps the majority of academics would wear the defense of capitalism as a batch of honor. Let's not go back and forth on this anymore unless somebody has something more substantial to contribute. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wilson put these arguments into Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, published in 1975 by Harvard University Press and widely promoted by the popular media. Many natural and social scientists exposed human sociobiology as an unscientific attempt to defend the capitalist status quo as natural and unchangeable. Because of these sharp critiques, Wilson reinvented himself as an environmentalist concerned about bio-diversity. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian sociology. moreover, it is a serious critique of socio-biological assumptions about human nature and biological determinism of Wilson. the man (wilson) is briefly saying that capitalism, sexim and racism are in our genes, which is what almost all the socio-biologists fundamentally share theoretically (Pearson, DAwkins, Lynn, Rushton, etc...).Racism is not "accidental" to socio-biological assumptions; on the contrary, it is very intrinsic. Steve wrote: Because of these sharp critiques, Wilson reinvented himself as an environmentalist concerned about bio-diversity. You replied: Serious critics of Wilson don't make such an accusation because it is false. One can be--and Wilson always has been--both a sociobiologist this is not an accusation, Brad!; this is what Wilson says. Below *is* real Wilson, not the enviromentalist Wilson you are talking about. I have fought with folks elsewhere who tend to give a progresive reading of Wilson, but this is *not* Wilson. Marxists should solve the problem of socio-biology because this is completely an an ideological science. Wilson is racist, sexist and anti-labor..see below.. Steve wrote: The unifying concept of Consilience is human nature. According to Wilson, human nature "is the_hereditary regularities of mental development that bias cultural evolution in one direction_and thus connect the genes to culture" (p. 164). Therefore, in all human societies we favor our own family, ethnic and religious group, impose male dominance, create hierarchies of status, rank, and wealth and rules for inheritance, promote the territorial expansion and defense of our society, and enter into contractual agreements (pp. 168-172). Recycling the main ideological assertions of Sociobiology, Wilson claims that racism, religious hatred, sexism, and war are not inevitable features of capitalism, but universal traits of our genetically evolved human nature. I wrote: A Marxist sociologist Steve Rosenthal replies to those who think that there is no problem with studying genome. Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
Brad,can you please read the rest of Steve's post, or the sentence that prior to the sentence you cite? since Steve is not here, I can not talk on behalf of him, but his work is an excellent piece in Marxian sociology. Steve wrote: Because of these sharp critiques, Wilson reinvented himself as an environmentalist concerned about bio-diversity. If it is an excellent piece of Marxian sociology, why does it make false claims about Wilson's intellectual development? Either Steve does not know enough about E.O. Wilson to know that he was always *both* a sociobiologist and an environmentalist--in which I have better things to spend my time reading, things written by people who have done their homework--or Steve knows that he is lying when he claims that Wilson's environmentalism is an intellectual re-make--in which case I have better things to spend my time reading, things written by people who don't lie to me. Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
Steve wrote: Because of these sharp critiques, Wilson reinvented himself as an environmentalist concerned about bio-diversity. Brad replied: If it is an excellent piece of Marxian sociology, why does it make false claims about Wilson's intellectual development? Either Steve does not know enough about E.O. Wilson to know that he was always *both* a sociobiologist and an environmentalist--in which I have better things to spend my time reading, things written by people who have done their homework--or Steve knows that he is lying when he claims that Wilson's environmentalism is an intellectual re-make--in which case I have better things to spend my time reading, things written by people who don't lie to me. Brad, please know what you are saying. Nobody is a lier about Wilson's intellectual development here. Steve is DOCUMENTING passages from Wilson's book. Accordingly, he CITES Wilson who says that human nature "is the_hereditary regularities of mental development that bias cultural evolution in one direction_and thus connect the genes to culture" (p. 164). well, how do you interpret this? just a naive bio-diversity or an objective scientific statement?If you agree with what Wilson says, there is no point in continuing this debate because my reading of him is that he is obviously racist. This is because Wilson is reducing cultural and other social differences to genes, and then reconstructing and universalizing an hypothetical theory of human nature, which is completely false and ideological. Human beings are *not* determined by their genes. They are shaped by the social, cultural, ideological and political-economic environment they live in. As cross-cultural anthropological studies further proves that many societies such as tribal bands, small communities, ancient groupings did not have the same perceptions of masculinity and feminity that we have today. these are socio-historical constructions, sex roles, broadly defined, not genetic givens. the socio-biological claim that people differ because they differ genetically is called RACISM, which is what Wilson does eventually. thus, i don't understand why you support the man! -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
Of Steve Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: genome news (fwd)
For the record, the Steve referred to below is Steve Rosenthal, not me... Steve (The "PEN Steve") Stephen Philion Lecturer/PhD Candidate Department of Sociology 2424 Maile Way Social Sciences Bldg. # 247 Honolulu, HI 96822 On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote: Steve wrote: Because of these sharp critiques, Wilson reinvented himself as an environmentalist concerned about bio-diversity. Brad replied: If it is an excellent piece of Marxian sociology, why does it make false claims about Wilson's intellectual development? Either Steve does not know enough about E.O. Wilson to know that he was always *both* a sociobiologist and an environmentalist--in which I have better things to spend my time reading, things written by people who have done their homework--or Steve knows that he is lying when he claims that Wilson's environmentalism is an intellectual re-make--in which case I have better things to spend my time reading, things written by people who don't lie to me. Brad, please know what you are saying. Nobody is a lier about Wilson's intellectual development here. Steve is DOCUMENTING passages from Wilson's book. Accordingly, he CITES Wilson who says that human nature "is the_hereditary regularities of mental development that bias cultural evolution in one direction_and thus connect the genes to culture" (p. 164). well, how do you interpret this? just a naive bio-diversity or an objective scientific statement?If you agree with what Wilson says, there is no point in continuing this debate because my reading of him is that he is obviously racist. This is because Wilson is reducing cultural and other social differences to genes, and then reconstructing and universalizing an hypothetical theory of human nature, which is completely false and ideological. Human beings are *not* determined by their genes. They are shaped by the social, cultural, ideological and political-economic environment they live in. As cross-cultural anthropological studies further proves that many societies such as tribal bands, small communities, ancient groupings did not have the same perceptions of masculinity and feminity that we have today. these are socio-historical constructions, sex roles, broadly defined, not genetic givens. the socio-biological claim that people differ because they differ genetically is called RACISM, which is what Wilson does eventually. thus, i don't understand why you support the man! -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
