A blank slate indeed

Sociobiology is a branch of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology which became controversial about 35 years ago, when some scientists started applying it to humans. The sociobiologists claimed that war, violence, gender inequality and social hierarchies were "human universals" and therefore "adaptive traits", moulded by our biological evolution. Changing these things was assumed to be difficult, perhaps so difficult that it became positively harmful (especially feminism was seen as dangerous). In other words, sociobiology when applied to humans was simply a new version of the claim that the status quo is genetically predetermined and hence natural. In times past, religion was used to justify the status quo. Today, science fills the same social function. Or rather pseudoscience, since this kind of sociobiology cannot stand closer scrutiny.

Enter Steven Pinker, stage right. Pinker is apparently a demoralized liberal who attempts to sell sociobiology to other liberals. It's a hard sell indeed. Frankly, the book is interesting only in the sense that it might tell us something about the political climate in certain elite circles in contemporary America. It seems America still has a long way to go towards real enlightenment and civilization!

The ideological function of sociobiology is obvious. After reading a number of these books, I was struck by the following fact: they never defend slavery. Why isn't slavery a "human universal"? Sociobiologists claim that all societies wage war, have hierarchies and are patriarchal. But all such societies also have slavery. By *sociobiological* standards, slavery should be seen as a human universal. Slavery is also common among insects, in particular ants. Yet, we never hear sociobiologists claim that slavery is adaptive, genetic, and so on. Why not? The reason is simple: it's no longer politically feasible to defend slavery, hence you can't say *that's* adaptive. Indeed, some sociobiologists claim that *abolitionism* is genetic! Well, thank you. However, you can still trivialize racism, something Pinker does when defending a coded racist statement made by Richard Herrnstein in 1973, and again when defending the decidedly less coded racist work "The Bell Curve", incidentally co-authored by the very same Herrnstein. And, of course, you can still attack feminism! More on that later. In Sweden, one of the most gender-equal societies in the world, even the attacks on feminism would be out of order. "Politics", cry the sociobiologists. Yes, indeed. And so is sociobiology. Who knows, maybe in 35 years, they will at least stop trivializing Herrnstein?

The most despicable part of Pinker's book is his view of rape. Are we to believe the author, rapists are always losers and nobodies. They are stupid, too, since they risk being injured by the woman or her relatives, and ostracized by the community at large. Therefore, the author concludes, there is no patriarchy at work in rape cases. He also claims that rape increases only when law and order breaks down (as in war). Pinker admits that rapists often walk, but argues that this has absolutely nothing to do with patriarchy either. Apparently, the Western court system is enlightened and presumes that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. (Please note the disingenous line of argument: apparently, patriarchy is universal...except in cases of rape!) Later, Pinker defends Randy Thornhill's idea that rape is an adaptive trait selected for by evolution. Some insects, after all, rape.

Is it really necessary to point out the utter absurdity of all this? In the real world, rape is often encouraged by the officer corpse during war as a way of terrorizing and humiliating the enemy. Rape is also condoned by many communities as a form of punishment against "loose" women. That raped women are often seen as whores, while rapists get away, is common in all patriarchal societies. So are rapes by upper class and middle class men. The idea that only "losers" and "nobodies" rape, and then mostly behind the back of their superiors during war time, it's patently ridiculous. No, more: it's obnoxious, since Pinker cannot possibly be unaware of the real state of affairs. His defense of the rogue entomologist Thornhill, who really should have stayed with his beloved scorpion flies, says it all. Thornhill explicitly believes that privileged men don't rape. After all, sociobiological theory predicts that they shouldn't! (Based on hypergamy.)

The rest of the book argues the usual sociobiological case on war, gender inequality, genetic determinism, etc. The "usual case" on the latter issue is denial. Pinker points out that no scientist actually believes that gene X absolutely determines behaviour Y. True, but sociobiologists nevertheless believe that genes constrain our behaviour to such a large extent, that the vernacular expression "genetic determinism" is perfectly apt. What else to call it? I guess we could make a trade off and call it "epigenetic constraints". The usual attacks on Margaret Mead are included, ignoring anthropological and archaeological evidence for the existence of egalitarian, peaceful and matrifocal societies (covered in some of my other reviews). Obviously biased research is used to "prove" that men and women think and act differently due to genetic differences. And so on.

To repeat: sociobiology is simply the latest ideology of status quo domination, a kind of "Social Darwinism lite". If and when American society changes in a more liberal direction, this kind of sociobiology will be cast aside. Nobody will hear from it ever again.

"The Blank Slate" does live up to its name. Zero stars.