On Sociology

[Herbert Gintis <gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Devine writes:
>
>Herb, is there some reason why you exclude sociology?  Yes, I
>know that sociology is often vague, jargon-ridden, inconclusive,
>or worse.  (OOPS did I sneak in a description of econ.? :-) ) But
>sociology is dealing with a more difficult subject than biology
>or economics!
>
	There are very important developments in sociology that are
relevant, but much of traditional sociology (following Parsons and
Durkheim) substitute description for explanation: they assume that
there are 'norms' that individuals are 'socialized' to follow. This
seems to me to be completely incorrect. Actually, Talcott Parsons
criticized me in the QJE shortly before his death, and I replied with
this sort of critique of sociology.

>More importantly, our biological nature as human beings
>involves a necessary cultural and sociological layer. (As one
>of my favorite dead white European males said, people are
>political and social animals.)  Many experts on evolution
>(e.g., S.J. Gould) have argued that *cultural, social, and
>technical* evolution has replaced biological/genetic evolu-
>tion for human beings.
>
	Human evolution is no longer described by genetic evolution,
probably, since the rise of civilization.  I am very much in sympathy
with the works of Feldman and Cavalli-Sforza, Boyd and Richerson,
Dawkins, and other proponents of a cultural approach to human
evolutionary theory.

	But our nature as a species was determined under highly
Darwinian circumstances, and we still are a species, after all. We are
'wired in' for many responses, although most are also subject to
environmental control to some extent. Of course there is a huge
literature in this area. I would call it contemporary sociobiology,
without of course the political program and ideology of and earlier
period. I can give a bibliography on request.

Herbert Gintis
Department of Economics
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003
gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx