Biosocial theories (race relations)

SIGNIFICANCE: Biosocial theories of ethnicity were developed to explain the persistence of ethnic and racial divisions in society, which assimilationists had earlier predicted would become less significant over time. These theories emphasize similarities in the behavior of humans and other species and use certain concepts derived from evolutionary biology to analyze ethnocentrism, xenophobia, and racial inequality.

The pioneers of biosocial theories—especially sociobiology, which gained popularity in the 1970s—were William D. Hamilton, who introduced the concept of inclusive fitness, and Edward O. Wilson, who postulated that certain human behaviors such as aggressiveness and xenophobia are genetically determined aspects of human nature and therefore unchangeable. Other prominent authors within this perspective are Pierre L. van den Berghe, Vernon Reynolds, Richard Alexander, Richard Dawkins, and David Barash. Milton Gordon, who, like van den Berghe, had initially been an assimilationist, later adopted a biologically based conception of ethnicity that can be categorized as “primordialist” because it maintains that ethnic and racial group affiliation is an ascribed primordial identity rooted in human nature.

Assumptions and Conceptual Framework

Sociobiological theory is universalist because it asserts that all humans have a single, common nature, regardless of their social or historical circumstances. It is also individualistic because it attempts to explain social relations and institutions as the result of individual choices intended to maximize benefits and minimize costs.

The main tenet of this kind of theory is the principle of fitness maximization or inclusive fitness, a narrower version of which is the principle of kin selection. According to this principle, human beings are genetically predisposed to favor and marry their kin—those with whom they share common ancestry, physical characteristics, and/or culture—in order to maximize the reproduction of their own genes.

In The Ethnic Phenomenon (1981), van den Berghe suggests that ethnic and racial classifications are extensions of kinship classifications, that is, groupings of individuals into categories of kin and non-kin based on “objectively reliable predictors” of common descent. Kin groups organize for the pursuit of selfish but common interests; this social practice is called nepotism and may lead to coercive social institutions when the dominant ethnic group establishes a hierarchy of positions (stratification) and allocates them on the basis of race and ethnicity. Some types of racial and ethnic stratification are slavery, colonialism, and imperialism.

The principle of inclusive fitness, however, does not mean that people will always behave nepotistically. In certain cases, individual fitness may be maximized by cooperating with nonrelatives, a practice called reciprocity. In societies in which a group is subject to discrimination or stigmatization, its members may maximize their fitness by associating and cooperating with unrelated people.

In Human Nature, Class, and Ethnicity (1978), Gordon adopted an approach that includes biosocial development and interaction variables. He argued that the sense of ethnicity (understood as racial, religious, or national origin identification), socially considered an ascribed status, becomes incorporated into the self during the process of socialization. Therefore, injury to the ethnic group is seen by individuals as an injury to the self, and these injuries or threats to the self evoke aggressive responses.

Stereotyping, reinforced by affective tendencies and lack of contact in primary groups between different ethnic groups, triggers aggression derived from social dissatisfaction and frustration, which is then directed toward the group perceived as the source of dissatisfaction or toward scapegoats. In cases of generalized ethnic conflict, the calculation by each group of its chances of success may bring about an escalation of the conflict.

Criticism of the Theories

In Theories of Ethnicity (1989), Richard Thompson argues that van den Berghe’s theory fails at the substantive level because after asserting that ethnic solidarity is based on underlying biological drives, he admits that culture and genes are inextricably intertwined and that culture has sufficient autonomy to mold social behavior. Therefore, Thompson observes, van den Berghe’s “weak” version of sociobiology does not add anything to the explanation of ethnic relations already offered by cultural determinism and has no predictive power.

Besides, sociobiology cannot offer any evidence in support of its assertions. Existing studies from which a genetic tendency for fitness maximization might be inferred have been done on nonhuman animal species with long evolutionary and reproductive histories in which culture has played no part.

At the methodological level, van den Berghe’s theory is reductionistic; that is, it subsumes other theories of racial and ethnic relations under the fundamental principle of fitness maximization. However, this principle, Thompson argues, has not been proved to explain any existing or past forms of ethnic and racial organization, and he concludes that the reduction is improper.

Philip Kitcher criticizes sociobiology on the grounds of its misplaced reductionism and its tendency to make vague general predictions or to derive from its principles conclusions that cannot be empirically verified.

Edna Bonacich, an advocate of split labor market theory, observes that “primordialist” conceptions cannot explain the problem of defining the boundaries of ethnic and racial groups. Because of interbreeding, the population of most societies is of mixed ancestry. In order to define ethnic identity, a descent rule is necessary, and the historical variability in such rules indicates their social rather than biological origin. Another criticism is that ethnicity may be redefined as a consequence of contact with another society: This is the case with Asian Americans, who, in spite of having very diverse national origins, are nevertheless defined as an ethnic group within the United States. Finally, Bonacich asserts that shared ancestry has not prevented intra-ethnic conflict and that primordialist theories cannot explain variations in the frequency and intensity of those conflicts.

In spite of criticisms, it must be noted that sociobiologists deny that their theory lends any support to racist claims about the alleged natural superiority or inferiority of any racial group.

Bibliography

Chellappoo, Azita, and Jan Baedke. "Where the Social Meets the Biological: New Ontologies of Biosocial Race." Synthese vol. 201, no. 14, 4 Jan. 2023, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-022-04006-0. Accessed 27 Nov. 2024.

Gordon, Milton M. Human Nature, Class, and Ethnicity. New York: Oxford UP, 1978.

Hartigan, John, ed. Anthropology of Race: Genes, Biology, and Culture. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research, 2013.

Jones, Siân. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Kitcher, Philip. Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge: MIT P, 1985.

Schifellite, Carmen James. Biology after the Sociobiology Debate: What Introductory Textbooks Say about the Nature of Science and Organisms. New York: Lang, 2011.

Schramm, Katharina, David Skinner, and Richard Rottenburg, eds. Identity Politics and the New Genetics: Re/Creating Categories of Difference and Belonging. New York: Berghahn, 2012.

Thompson, Richard H. Theories of Ethnicity: A Critical Appraisal. Westport: Greenwood, 1989.

Van den Berghe, Pierre L. The Ethnic Phenomenon. New York: Elsevier, 1981.

Van den Berghe, Pierre L. “Race and Ethnicity: A Sociobiological Perspective.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 1.4 (1978): 401–11. Rpt. in Racism: Essential Readings. Ed. Ellis Cashmore and James Jennings. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001. 122–28.