"Sociobiology"
I
very loosely used the term. It was a perhaps confusing choice--in the context that I used it, "indoctronation" or "conditioning" would have been clearer. I would expect the argument that sociobiology is exactly the opposite of how the people doing the program would say that they were proceeding. But they would also say that discrimination only works one direction. It was intended as a pointed remark that the program could be viewed as the application of "justified" systemic discrimination (for a short time) as the solution to real or perceived consequences of discrimination for a long time.
Anyway, heres a
link to a discussion of sociobiology. And
another.
[
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology is a peer-reviewed journal.
Yes, for absolute relativists this is anathema. This is just the type of thing that causes Anthro departments to split in two. I expect that it is not PC.
--------------
I posted that one particular article about the Changon controversy for the reasons stated--that it seemsed to touch upon more of the myriad aspects of the dispute, and makes an attempt to present both sides. In fact it discredits many of the more sensationalist claims of Tierney, particularly the smallpox.
I then pointed out that there was a lot more at the site. The site attempts to be a neutral repository of information and references. The second link takes one to the place where that is said. Honestly, I don't know of a single document that lays out the myriad issues and accusations better than the one posted.
The issue of whether human behavior influenced by "nurture" vs "nature", and whether modern humans capacity for violence is innate (evolutionary) or some very recent development brought on by "modern" civilization plays in important role in intellectual thinking in this and related areas. Concepts are rejected or selected as being fundamental properties of individual and social human behavior.
This used to be a philosophical question. A lot of religions would say that there is no question and describe how things are, and that's it. Many now think it can be turned into a scientific question.
Many Anthroplogy departments have split in two over this question.
Changon is unpopular--he thinks some components of human behavior are the result of evolution. If the Yanomami (or any people) are intrinsically violent, that clashes with what many people would like to accept.
Mead is on the opposite side of the spectrum, people only become violent because they are taught to. Culture is everything.
These ideas do get translated into social agendas and programs. If we raise little boys more like little girls, they will be quiet in class and won't be violent. They should never be allowed to pretend that they are playing with any weapons.
This kind of stuff is going on.
"Paternalistic societies are always violent, maternalistic societies aren't violent."
"Natural" human society is one where people look out for their own interests first and cooperate with others when in both parties interest to do so, vs "natural" human society is one where people look out for the interests of the society first and that automatically is most beneficial for them.
Ideas and ideologies are said to be "scientifically" supported.
So easy to make the jump to libertariansism vs socialism, or to performing experiments on classrooms of children.
I think there is a lot going on here, I hope that an introductory course that will be the one and only course that many take in such a topic would discuss the internal divisons of the field, but I doubt it.
Both Changon and Mead were able to make many contributions by being the first to study a relatively "untouched" group of primitive people. It launched boths' careers. Their ideas became widely diseminated. There is a question whether their methods influenced the results they obtained. Without a time machine, is impossible to duplicate the results.
---
I'm concerned about what significance people attach to the results and how they use them to justify other things, I guess. People will use most anything to rationalize making other people do things "for thier own good", and even to get them believe that those things should be done to them.
It seems that most of the time extreme poles are not where the answer is.
Skepticism and open-mindedness should be two sides of the same coin.
