https://caspercollege.cvlcollections.org/files/original/373bb2263bca49d5ac9d598fc0c62567.pdf 39f93496d3153f82fd276b77536f6e61 PDF Text Text V AM Conversations AMCIUCAM SOCIOLOCAOU AS$OCMTfOM Teach Softly and Debunk with a Big Stick: A Response to “Evolution, Biology, and Society: A Conversation for the 21st-Century Sociology Classroom” Teaching Sociology 38(1) 50-53 © American Sociological Association 2010 DOI; lO.1177/0092055X09354075 http'7/ts.sagepubcom ®SAGE Chad Hanson' I would like to begin by thanking Richard Machalek and Michael Martin. Their work serves as a reminder that our discipline is diverse and dynamic. I appreciate the effort to urge us to include genetic concepts in lower-division courses, but I do not share the enthusiasm for sociobiology. In what follows, I suggest that the call to include genetic principles in the sociology curriculum is part of a historic effort to discuss social patterns in terms that are individualistic, and in the end I offer my views on the role of freshman-level courses in an academy where the boundaries of fields are shifting. I reviewed Machalek and Martin’s (2010) essay in the spring of 2009. Al that time, I felt surrounded by the field of biology. The year marked the bicen­ tennial of Charles Darwin’s birth, and also the 150th anniversary of the publication of On t/ie Origin of Species. Television news covered the occasion, and the blogosphere buzzed with discus­ sions of Darwin’s contribution to science and humanity. The completion of the Human Genome Project added meaning to the event, and in the wake of that accomplishment. Social Forces (Guo 2006) and the American Journal of Sociology (Bearman 2008) both published issues committed to exploring the link between genes and behavior. A story even appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education, boasting a subtitle that claimed, “Genetic research finally makes its way into the thinking of sociologists” (Shea 2009). Machalek and Martin’s suggestions for teaching hinge on the thought that 21st-century break­ throughs in biology now warrant the inclusion of genetic concepts in our lower-level classes. But there has been no revolution in the field of sociobiology. The preceding suggestions are instead part of a slow but long-running attempt to use biology to explain or account for human trails and actions. The attempt begins, arguably, with Herbert Spencer’s 19th-century social Darwinism; the effort runs through the 20th century with the controversial publication of books such as The Bell Curve (Hermstein and Murray 1994); and the line of thought continues here in the 21st cen­ tury, up to and including this very conversation. There is nothing new about attempts to use genetics to interpret social life. For example, when Machalek and Martin present biological concepts for faculty members to include in soci­ ology courses, the citations date back 27 years or more. When they describe how our personal traits grow out of an interaction between genes and the environment (p. 42), they quote from Sociobiology and Behavior, a 1982 book by David Barash. When they mention that we pos­ sess a nearly universal potential for language (p. 42), they turn to the 1975 work of the linguist Noam Chomsky, and when they explain how human beings are biologically prone to develop skills that allow us to detect behaviors such as 'Casper College. WY. USA Corresponding Author: Chad Hanson, Casper College. Department of Sociology. 125 College Drive. Casper. WY 82601, USA Email: chanson@caspercollege.edu DownHtaMd from nnpjAto.taoapub.csm at WYOMING COMM COLLEGE LIBRARIES on January 27,2010 �Hanson 51 lying and cheating (p. 42) they cite a study con­ ducted in 1966. Machalek and Martin are right to point out that there is an increasing tendency to look toward individuals and their unique biology to e?q}Iain social behavior, but that tendency has not been driven by persuasive new research or evidence. The completion of the Human Genome Project marked a significant breakthrough; however, that undertaking concluded that humans are 99.9 percent identical. Even though that still leaves room for wide-ranging variety, the finding suits most soci­ ologists, as we tend to assume that our similarities outweigh our differences, at least at birth. The heightened focus on genetics has resulted not from new, compelling explanations of behav­ ior but rather from a shift of emphasis in our soci­ ety. Geneticists and sociobiologists have been more successful than others when it comes to con­ vincing the public of the value of their work and perspective. Alvin Gouldner (1970) first discussed this matter almost 40 years ago. He suggested. The most basic changes in any science commonly derive not so much from the invention of new research techniques, but rather from new ways of looking at data that may have long existed. Indeed, they may neither refer to nor be occasioned by “data,” old or new. The most basic changes are in theory and in conceptual schemes, especially those that embody new back­ ground assumptions. They are thus changes in the way the world is seen, in what is believed to be real and valuable, (p. 34) At this stage in our history, the genetic explanation for behavior enjoys a privileged position in the marketplace of ideas. An unschooled observer might ask why we do not turn to the humanities for an understanding of the human condition, but I have doubts about whether the editors of the American Journal of Sociology have plans to pub­ lish an issue with the American Academy of Poets. With few exceptions (Miley 1988; Moran 1999) I am also unaware of any “Conversations” in Teaching Sociology in which authors plea for the inclusion of poems or sonnets in the sociology cur­ riculum. For reasons that relate to the exercise of power, attention is lavished on some fields, to the exclusion of others. Within the academy, the histor­ ical record is unequivocal: masculine, hypothesis­ testing, hard sciences triumphed over soft, feminine accounts of social history or personal biography (Bean 1998). At present, the fields of biology and medicine dominate discussions of a broad spectrum of issues, including obesity, homicide, and alcohol­ ism. Thus, grant money flows toward researchers who take a genetic approach to such topics. In the American Sociological Association’s 2005 presidential address, Troy Duster (2006) docu­ mented the difference between grants awarded to life scientists and those who emphasize the role of social structure in the analysis of social prob­ lems. The differences were noteworthy. In the supplement to the 2008 volume of the American Journal of Sociology, Freese (2008;S28) also suggested that attempts to understand the link between genetics and social structure are currently considered “hip,” and he is correct, at least with respect to the views of those in a position to award grants or publish articles. As a case in point, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation provided partial funding for the American Journal of Sociology's genetic supplement (Bearman 2008). The foundation’s goal is to improve health care delivery. In The Medicalization of Society, Conrad (2007) suggests that genetic explanations for behavior are welcomed into public conversations. He explains that our culture has been primed for the genetic point of view, because of “an abiding faith in science, rationality, and progress; the increased prestige of the medical profession; and the American penchant for individual and techni­ cal solutions to problems” (p. 8). As a nation, our assumptions about the underpinnings of our actions lean toward biological science. With respect to undergraduate students, socio­ biology is the perspective that they bring with them to class. In my introductory courses, students start each semester assuming that violence, greed, and selfishness are all part of the natural order. In my courses on marriage and family, students imagine that new mothers are guided by the benevolent hand of parental instincts, and when I teach criminology, I find that students believe that the high U.S. crime rate is the result of prolonged, elevated levels of testosterone. Thus, the question becomes. What are we to do as teaching sociologists? 1 do not know anyone who would deny that our lives rest, delicately, on foundations of biology. Familiarity with one single case of autism or Alzheimer’s disease is enough to remind us that we are all trapped in OcMMoaded front nOpJfaoM^tpub.oom al WYOMING COMM COLLEGE LIBRARIES on January 27,2010 �52 Teaching Sociology 38( I) the web of genetics. For most, the web is support­ ive. For some, it is unthinking and ruthless. Still, I believe I can speak for at least a subset of us when I say that we became sociologists because, after careful thought, we determined that geneticists will always be limited to explaining a small por­ tion of our similarities and differences. Most of us surely came to realize that the variables that shape who we are and what we become are historic and cultural. We manage our identities and determine our actions as we observe norms, enact roles, and share the values maintained within the groups to which we are meaningfully attached. As such, are we obliged to include a wide range of genetic terms and concepts in our lower-level courses? I say no. I see no need for an adjustment to the way we address biological views on human character or potential when we teach introductory courses. In my class, 1 take time to talk about the dubi­ ous history of sociobiology. I discuss the most egregious of the attempts at eugenics. Then I move to a more immediate application of biolog­ ical principles. 1 tell students that my male pattern baldness is a sign that my genes are more highly evolved than those of them with lush, full, apelike heads of hair. At this point in the term, they know when I am playing the role of the court jester. Machalek and Martin paint a more sober picture of biological research. They work to make a case that our thoughts and actions often proceed on the basis of a “common, biological platform shared by all humans" (p. 42). Of the concepts they describe, 1 plan to use the “startle response” as an example of the degree to which our genes deter­ mine our behaviors (p. 43). I know that my students will appreciate the discovery that people all over the planet squint their eyes and clench their back­ sides when a firecracker goes off unexpectedly. Introductory students deserve the best of what our discipline offers. I realize that priorities are subjective, but from my standpoint, sociobiology is not our field’s finest or highest achievement. There is a place for sociobiology within the disci­ pline, but studies of genetics and social structure are best reserved for graduate students or upper­ division undergraduates. The population of stu­ dents who take the introductory course have differ­ ent goals than those who enroll in our advanced classes. Most introductory students are not sociol­ ogy majors. They take our courses as part of the liberal arts curriculum. The introductory class is often their only exposure to the field. Thus, the survey course serves a distinctive role. Students take introductory biology and psychology along­ side sociology in their freshman or sophomore years, and at that time we should offer an effective counterpoint to the views espoused in fields where attention is focused on individuals, as opposed to historic and cultural context. I am sympathetic to the call to cross the bound­ aries of disciplines. My background is interdisci­ plinary, and I cherished the time I spent in pursuit of a multifaceted degree, but I did not venture into other fields until after I earned two credentials in the field of sociology. I benefited from having an intellectual home, so to speak, and I have done my best to pass that lesson on to my students. Wellestablished disciplines are needed to make the most of projects where researchers take an interdis­ ciplinary approach. Each field brings something valuable to a study—a method or a perspective. Without strong and unique fields, interdisciplinary woric simply becomes undisciplined. No matter where genetic principles are taught in the curriculum, however, the suggestion to stay apprised of new biological research is laud­ able. For my part, I have already taken the steps that Machalek and Martin suggest, although for different reasons than they had in mind. If discus­ sions with students are part of your courses, then the views, if not the data, of biologists are already present in your classroom. We owe it to students, and we owe it to ourselves, to stay engaged with scientists working to unravel the mysteries of genes. I can think of no better way to make our debunking sophisticated. With respect to our colleagues in the life scien­ ces, Machalek and Martin are right to point out that they have begun to see the limits of a narrow, biological perspective on human endeavors. For the sake of advancing all the fields of the acad­ emy, we should be in a position to help them bring social theory and social research to bear on what are ultimately social problems. That will likely mean sharing concepts and vocabulary. It should also mean collaboration on research that brings out the best in diverse disciplines. The improvement of our understanding of humanity gives us reason enough to consider the data and findings of biochemists and geneticists. 1 keep a quotation from one of my favorite poets in the top drawer of my office desk, however. It is a line in a poem by Muriel Rukeyser (1968). In The Speed of Darkness, she wrote, “The universe is made of stories, not of atoms” (p. 111). OownloMM from nttpJ/taoaa^tpub.ooni « WYOMING COMM COLLEGE LIBRARIES on January 27.2010 �Hanson 53 REFERENCES Barash, David P. 1982. Sociobiology and Behavior, 2nd ed. New York; Elsevier. Bean, John. 1998. “Alternative Models of Professorial Roles: New Language to Reimagine Faculty Work.” Journal of Higher Education 69(5): 496512. Bearman, Peter. 2008. “Introduction: Exploring Genetics and Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology 114(Suppl.): v-x. Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon. Conrad, Peter. 2007. The Medicalization of Society: On the Transformation of Human Conditions into Treatable Disorders. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Duster, Troy. 2006. “Comparative Perspectives and Competing Explanations: Taking on the Newly Configured Reductionist Challenge to Sociology.” American Sociological Review 71(1): 1-15. Freese, Jeremy. 2008. “Genetics and the Social Science Explanation of Individual Outcomes." American Journal of Sociology 114(Suppl.): Sl-35. Gouldner, Alvin. 1970. The Coming Crisis of ff'estem Sociology. New York: Basic Books. Guo, Guang. 2006. “The Linking of Sociology and Biology.” Social Forces 85(1): 145-49. Hermstein, Richard and Charles Murray. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press. Machalek, Richard and Michael W. Martin. 2010. “Evolution, Biology, and Society: A Conversation for the 21st-Century Sociology Classroom.” Teaching Sociology 38(1):41-51. Miley, James. 1988. “By Its Right Name: The Relevance of Poetry for Sociology.” Teaching Sociology 16(2): 173-76. Moran, Timothy Patrick. 1999. “Versify Your Reading List: Using Poetry to Teach Inequality.” Teaching Sociology 27(2): 110-25. Rukeyeser, Muriel. 1968. The Speed of Darkness. New York: Random House. Shea, Christopher. 2009. “The Nature-Nurture Debate, Redux.” Pp B6 Chronicle of Higher Education. January 9. Bio Chad Hanson teaches sociology at Casper College in Casper, Wyoming. When he is not in the classroom he studies the behaviors of brook trout; up to his knees in mountain streams and with a fly rod in his hand. His book The Community College and the Good Society: How the Liberal Arts were Undermined and fVhat we can do to Bring them Back is forthcoming from Transaction Publishers. DownMaM (rem hBpJMo.Mgepub.oom al WY0MN6 COMM COLLEGE LBRARIE5 on Jwtuary 27,2010 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data Print Journal Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Teach Softly and Debunk with a Big Stick: A Response to "Evolution, Biology, and Society: A Conversation for the 21st-Century Sociology Classroom" Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <div id="dublin-core-rights" class="element"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div id="dublin-core-rights" class="element"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text"> <div class="element-text"> <div class="element-text"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text five columns omega"> <div class="element-text"><a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2010-01 Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Chad Hanson Language A language of the resource ENG Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Chad Hanson Journal Publications, CCA 04.ii.e.2025.01 WyCaC US. Casper College Archives and Special Collections. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context CCA 04.ii.e.2025.01_ChadHansonPapers_13 Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource Searchable PDF Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <em>Teaching Sociology</em> is published by the American Sociological Association