Evolutionary and biosocial approaches in sociology: between programmatic statements and the emergence of new subfields
Sociology has long been criticized from scholars in other fields and from within the discipline for its lacking engagement, and sometimes even outright opposition against, evolutionary and biosocial approaches applied to social issues. In the past roughly 20 years, however, we've seen a cautious and gradually increasing curiosity of sociologists, even in the mainstream, to engage with evolutionary and biosocial explanations pertaining to their respective research interests. Whereas earlier, this curiosity was often limited to statements of intent and programmatic declarations, we now see more and more empirical research, published in top sociology and interdisciplinary journals, and we see signs for institutionalization of evolutionary and biosocial research in new sociological and interdisciplinary subfields. It is my aim with this keynote to exhibit, for an interdisciplinary audience, the variety of ways sociologists nowadays do or collaborate in evolutionary and biosocial research. This exhibit will show that parts of sociology have clearly left behind the discipline's earlier version of stereotyped, biologistic understanding of evolutionary accounts on human behavior and instead moved towards using evolutionary and biosocial explanations in their own empirical research and theory building, in a way that is consistent with and builds on work in neighboring disciplines. But the degree of success and institutionalization of this new development varies: whereas we see the emergence of new subfields like "neurosociology" and "social science genetics" or "sociogenomics", indicating a stronger degree of integration and institutionalization, we see sparser engagement with regard to topics involving questions of ultimate causality stemming from the evolutionary behavioral sciences, and with regard to hormones and behavior. In addition to exhibiting sociological research drawing on ultimate and proximate biosocial explanations, I offer thoughts on reasons for this difference in degree of institutionalization. Also, I aim to highlight further areas of biosocial collaboration that have so far not, or only hardly been explored.
Evolutionary Sociology in the U.S.: Accomplishments and Challenges
Evolutionary sociology examines the interaction between human biology (including evolved predispositions) with the social and material environment and its implications for social phenomena. In the U.S., evolutionary sociology incorporates a variety of subareas including neurosociology, biosociology, evolutionary demography, and sociogenomics. The theoretical origins of evolutionary sociology can be traced to Edward Westermarck, the Finnish sociologist, at the beginnings of the twentieth century. His influence on sociology largely disappeared in the U.S. by the mid-twentieth century, and it is only since the early 2000s that there has been substantial renewed interest in evolutionary sociology and all its subareas. Recent prominent evolutionary sociologists in the U.S. include Jonathan Turner, Alexandra Maryanski, and Stephen K. Sanderson. There has also been a growth in empirical work in the areas of neurosociology, biosociology, and sociogenomics. Challenges to the area include the reluctance of most American sociologists to incorporate evolutionary ideas or biology into their work, and fear that doing so legitimizes or promotes inequalities.
Opportunities and problems of genetically informed studies in sociology – the case of the TwinLife study
There is an increasing awareness of possibly flawed convictions about uniform strong social imprints. Pressure comes also from acknowledging, that most sociological research designs are causally weak, not least from neglecting hardly deniable, considerable genetic influences being intertwined with social ones. However, the traditional reluctance, if not hostility, regarding genetically informed designs did not yet disappear. In my talk I deal with three reasons for this: (1) misunderstandings about central concepts of behavioral genetics; (2) limited awareness of the threat of sociology’s standing if ignoring genetics; and (3) also a limited effort of researchers in the field of behavioral genetics and sociogenomics to bridge productively genetic concepts with the core of well-established sociological concepts and theories, or in other words: What does sociology gain for its own research questions and explanations by considering the role of genetics and applying appropriate methods. The TwinLife study, including new satellite projects adding molecular genetics and epigenetics, will serve examples for how these questions can be answered in a productive way. For this purpose I will concentrate on the field of social inequality research.