Summary
Title: The Triumph of Sociobiology
Author: John Alcock
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0195143833
Pro:
• Readable text suitable for a wide range of audiences
• Clear and informative with regards to science, biology, and sociobiology
• Great appendix; Novel but handy method of citation of sources
Con:
• Some examples used probably won't be very convincing to some readers
Description:
• Basic introduction to the methods and findings of sociobiology
• Dissection of many of the major criticisms and objections about sociobiology
• Argues that sociobiology is not only scientific, but a very successful modern science
Book Review
Controversy and personal attacks followed sociobiology and sociobiologists almost from the time that E.O. Wilson introduced the term (although he certainly didn't introduce the basic principle of studying behavior from an evolutionary perspective). In an attempt to explain what the fuss is about and, hopefully, why criticisms of sociobiology are mistaken or overblown, John Alcock has written The Triumph of Sociobiology. This may sound like a grandiose title, but in addition to showing how wrong the criticisms are, Alcock also attempts to show that, despite those criticisms, sociobiology has made great strides - even to the point of becoming a standard means for studying and describing behavior today.
Just about every chapter is devoted to a different misconception or misunderstanding. Some say that sociobiology is just an idiosyncratic theory of Wilson's. Some say that it argues that behavioral traits are genetically pre-determined, ignoring cultural and environmental factors. Others say that it is only concerned with animal behavior or that it draws inappropriate comparisons between human and animal behavior. Still others say that it cannot be tested and hence isn't really a scientific discipline.
That's quite a lot, and it doesn't even cover everything. I think that there can be a grain of truth to all of those criticisms because, as with any science, sociobiology is a human construct. This means that it can be misused and abused by the wrong people with the wrong intentions. There is no doubt that people who don't know what they are talking about can employ sociobiology for the sorts eugenics or genetically deterministic ideologies that critics complain about. Critics who argue that sociobiology must be like this are wrong, but defenders of sociobiology would nevertheless do well to take the criticisms to heart as reminders about what direction they don't want to take.
Perhaps the most important point that can be made in the defense of sociobiology is: what's the alternative? Sociobiology is, to put it most simply, the attempt to answer one basic question: "What role did natural selection play in shaping the evolution of this society or that social behavior?" It's not possible to reasonably argue that it played no role at all; therefore, it's just a matter of how much of a role. Sociobiology as a subject is secure - the only question is just how much sociobiology has to offer.
