In a recent Chronicle essay David Barash asks whether teaching sociobiology (or what he thinks is its equivalent, evolutionary psychology) is tantamount to "corrupting the youth." As in the famous case of Socrates, Barash argues that the charge is unwarranted.
Socrates was introducing the youth of Athens to a world beyond the narrowly defined perspective of their elders, encouraging them to question the values and beliefs of the status quo. This, of course, would be deemed corrupting only by those whose worldview was under scrutiny and who authority was undermined. We know that Socrates was not corrupting anyone; instead he intended to open minds to the corruption (political and intellectual) that was already in existence.

What is the parallel with teaching sociobiology? Barash notes that some people take evolutionary theory to promote selfish behavior, leading them to conclude that "evolution is a dispiriting guide to human behavior." Should we then keep the youth at some distance? As Barash reminds us, a correct and complete reading of the theory really attempts to explain (at least in part) how altrusitic (and otherwise virtuous) behavior can emerge from the collective behavior of "selfish genes."

"Gene-centered theories are often reviled," writes the gene theorist David Haig, "because of their perceived implications for human societies. But even though genes may cajole, deceive, cheat, swindle, or steal, all in pursuit of their own replication, this does not mean that people must be similarly self-interested. Organisms are collective entities (like firms, communes, unions, charities, teams) and the behaviors and decisions of collective bodies need not mirror those of their individual members."

Rather than abandon the teaching of sociobiology entirely, Barash suggests we teach sociobiology "along the lines of sex education: Teach what we know, but do so in age-appropriate stages."

This is a sensible response. We can teach the appropriate lessons without misleading or corrupting youth who are not yet prepared to fully appreciate the theory's implications. Though I think evolutionary psychology is saying much more than the claims on which Barash is focused (much of which may be false), the value of this sort of explanation cannot be denied; and any misinterpretations of the theory should be corrected. And we can target the appropriate audience, much as we believe Socrates might have done. Still, the teaching of sociobiology remains importantly different from the situation in which Socrates finds himself. Socrates didn't come under attack because his students were too young to understand the message; rather the problem was they were old enough to understand and to challenge the values of the status quo. That's not quite the warning Barash is outlining in this essay.

If correct, sociobiology (evolutionary psychology) helps explain the moral behaviors and values to which we already subscribe. For those of appropriate age, what is turned over is simply the misreading of the consequences of evolutionary theory for moral behavior (or better: moral systems that prescribe certain kinds of behavior). The only ones who would think of such teaching as corrupting the youth would be those who would favor another reading of evolutionary theory, or who prefer a non-evolutionary account of our systems of morality.

I'm not sure that a sociobiology emphasizing genetic explanations alone can go far enough: we will need to talk about epigenetic processes, cultural evolution, socialization, and neurobiology to fully understand our moral nature. We will also need a naturalistic account of responsibility and free will. I do agree that attempting to understand the source and nature of our moral systems has a liberating effect. And as with any subject, educators have an obligation to promote viable explanations and to clarify misunderstandings.

The Chronicle: 11/17/2006: The Social Responsibility in Teaching Sociobiology

TrackBack