Evolutionary sociology and biosociology

Evolutionary sociology and biosociology are subfields of sociology. Evolutionary sociology refers to scholarship examining the interaction between human evolved traits and predispositions with social and material environments. Biosociology refers to scholarship examining the interaction between biomarkers (genes, hormones, polygenic scores, etc.) and social and material environments. This distinction roughly follows the classical distinction between “ultimate” and “proximate” causes. Ultimate or evolutionary causation focuses on the reasons a trait evolved and its adaptive functionality, and the role of evolved traits in social behavior is the focus of evolutionary sociology.[1] Biosociology, by contrast, has a proximate focus, emphasizing mechanisms driving behaviors via hormonal, (epi-)genetic, neural, or other physiological pathways.[2][3]

Historical development

Edward Westermarck and the beginnings of evolutionary sociology and biosociology

Early sociologists such as Marx, Spencer, Sumner, Weber, and Westermarck applied evolutionary concepts to theories of human social behavior. Theories such as those of Spencer selectively interpreted Darwin's ideas for theories of how societies change through Sociocultural evolution.[4][5] Central to many theories of sociocultural evolution is the analogy of society as a living organism, and processes of social change as analogous to biological evolution. While Durkheim largely rejected explanations involving biology or psychology, the analogy of society as an organism persisted metaphorically in functionalist theories.[6]

Of these early sociologists, Finnish sociologist Edvard Westermarck (1862–1939) was the first to examine how evolved traits interacted with social and material settings to shape social behavior, earning him recognition as the “father” of evolutionary sociology and biosociology. Although he was much influenced by Darwinian ideas, he rejected the analogy of society to an organism and was primarily concerned with how the evolved traits of humans in interaction with other factors influenced aggregate social phenomena. He is best known for the Westermarck effect, the finding that children raised together tend not to find each other sexually attractive as adults.[7] Influenced by Hume, Smith, and Darwin, Westermarck also worked under Alfred Russel Wallace, who wrote the introduction to his The History of Human Marriage.[8]

Westermarck emphasized the interaction between evolved predispositions and social contexts. Moral emotions, shaped by evolution, were expressed as norms through social learning and contextual factors.[9]

Unlike other social theorists influenced by Darwinian ideas, Westermarck was not concerned with sociocultural evolution at the aggregate level and rejected "group selection" theories of social behavior. He thought that evolved traits that supported social processes evolved primarily because of the adaptive benefits they offered to the individual. Despite early success, Westermarck's influence declined by the late 1920s, as sociologists largely rejected biological explanations, influenced by Durkheimian functionalism, the rise of behaviorism, and the association of evolution with eugenics and social Darwinism.[10]

The sociobiology debate

Edward O. Wilson’s 1975 publication Sociobiology: A New Synthesis aimed to establish a discipline integrating biological insights to explain human and non-human social behavior.[11] Sociobiology introduced concepts such as inclusive fitness and a gene-centered view of evolution.[12][13][14]

In sociology, Pierre van den Berghe applied evolutionary perspectives to family and ethnic group structures.[15][16] Another prominent sociologist who utilized evolutionary ideas at this time was Joseph Lopreato. While the sociobiology movement revived interest in biological explanations, it was met with widespread criticism in sociology, often politically and ideologically motivated.[17][18]

Despite limited acceptance, the sociobiology debate highlighted the potential for interdisciplinary engagement between biology and sociology.[19]

Evolutionary and biosociology in the 21st century

By the early 2000s, advances in genomics, neuroscience, and behavioral sciences fostered renewed interest in evolutionary sociology and biosociology.[20][21] Proximate studies in behavioral neuroscience, endocrinology, and genetics highlighted the interplay between biological and social processes.[18]

Key developments in sociology included Jeremy Freese et al., advocating incorporating biology into sociological research.[22] Subsequent contributions focused on biosocial influences on families.[23][24] Journals such as Social Forces and American Journal of Sociology published special issues on biosociology, signaling its institutionalization.[25][26] In 2004 an Evolution and Sociology section of the American Sociological Association was established, [27] now renamed Biology and Society. [28]

Important scholars in the field include Jonathan H. Turner and Alexandra Maryanski, who linked human emotions and social attachments to evolutionary history.[29][30] Stephen K. Sanderson developed a “Darwinian conflict theory” addressing reproductive behavior, kinship, gender inequality, and religiosity.[31]

In German sociology, scholars such as Meißelbach and Müller-Schneider integrated evolutionary perspectives into middle-range theories, highlighting complementarity between evolutionary and sociological accounts.[32][33]

References

  1. ^ Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134(3489), 1501–1506.
  2. ^ Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of Ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.
  3. ^ Laland, K. N., Sterelny, K., Odling-Smee, J., Hoppitt, W., & Uller, T. (2011). Cause and effect in biology revisited: Is Mayr's proximate-ultimate dichotomy still useful? Science, 334(6062), 1512–1516.
  4. ^ Baldus, B. (2002). Darwin und die Soziologie. Kontingenz, Aktion und Struktur im menschlichen Sozialverhalten. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 31(4), 316–331.
  5. ^ Degler, C. N. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. ^ Pries, L. (2021). Verstehende Kooperation Herausforderungen für Soziologie und Evolutionsforschung im Anthropozän. Campus Verlag.
  7. ^ Westermarck, E. (1891). The History of Human Marriage. London: Macmillan.
  8. ^ Pipatti, O. (2019). Morality made visible: Edward Westermarck's moral and social theory. London; New York: Routledge.
  9. ^ Westermarck, E. A. (1906). The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas, Bd. 1. London: Macmillan.
  10. ^ Degler, C. N. (1991). In search of human nature. New York: Oxford University Press.
  11. ^ Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
  12. ^ Hamilton, W. D. (1964a). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16.
  13. ^ Hamilton, W. D. (1964b). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 17–52.
  14. ^ Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene, 30th anniversary edition. Oxford University Press.
  15. ^ Van den Berghe, P. L. (1979). Human family systems: An evolutionary view. Westport, CT: Greenwood Pub Group.
  16. ^ Van den Berghe, P. L. (1981). The Ethnic Phenomenon. New York: Elsevier.
  17. ^ Segerstråle, U. C. O. (1986). Colleagues in conflict: An ‘in vivo’ analysis of the sociobiology controversy. Biology and Philosophy, 1(1), 53–87.
  18. ^ a b Schnettler, S. (2016). Evolutionäre Soziologie. Soziologische Revue, 39(4), 507–536.
  19. ^ Lopreato, J., & Crippen, T. A. (1999). Crisis in sociology: the need for Darwin. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  20. ^ Brown, G. R., Dickins, T. E., Sear, R., & Laland, K. N. (2011). Evolutionary accounts of human behavioural diversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1563), 313–324.
  21. ^ Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. R. (2002). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour. Oxford University Press.
  22. ^ Freese, J., Li, J.-C. A., & Wade, L. D. (2003). The potential relevances of biology to social inquiry. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 233–256.
  23. ^ Booth, A., Carver, K., & Granger, D. A. (2000). Biosocial Perspectives on the Family. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1018–1034.
  24. ^ D’Onofrio, B. M., & Lahey, B. B. (2010). Biosocial Influences on the Family: A Decade Review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 762–782.
  25. ^ Guo, G. (2006). The linking of sociology and biology. Social Forces, 85(1), 145–149.
  26. ^ Bearman, P. (2008). Introduction: Exploring genetics and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 114(s1), v–x.
  27. ^ http://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/savvy/images/sections/docs/pdf/Evolution/news-spr05.pdf
  28. ^ https://www.asanet.org/asa_sections/biology/
  29. ^ Turner, J. H. (2000). On the Origins of Human Emotions. Stanford University Press.
  30. ^ Turner, J. H., & Maryanski, A. (2005). Incest: Origins of the Taboo. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
  31. ^ Sanderson, S. K. (2015). Darwinian conflict theory: A unified evolutionary research program. In J. H. Turner, R. Machalek, & A. Maryanski (Hrsg.), Handbook on Evolution and Society. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
  32. ^ Meißelbach, C. (2019). Die Evolution der Kohäsion: Sozialkapital und die Natur des Menschen. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
  33. ^ Müller-Schneider, T. (2019). Liebe, Glück und menschliche Natur. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.