I think you have completely missed Gould's point in his opposition to
Wilson's sociobiology. I think that his point does not come out of any sense that
humans are able to attain perfection. Rather it comes out of the heavy
emphasis that sociobiology places upon genetics which comes out of a
commitment to biological determinism. Gould's (and Lewontin's) point
is that the interaction between the gene and environment is too
complex to say that such and such a behaviour is determined by the
expression of a gene(s) (which is what sociobiology is trying to
establish... and for the matter the Human Genome Project) but is also dependent
upon the surrounding environment, physical and social. In terms of social
ideology, Gould's position comes more out of a concern for people trying to
excuse themselves from social responsibility by blaming genes rather than
environment and social structures. Read Gould's "The Mismeasure of
Man" and "Not in Our Genes" by Rose, Lewontin and Kamin.
> E.O. Wilson
> wrote a book called "Naturalist" (1994, Island Pres) which was an
> autobiography of sorts. In it, he recalls how Stephen Jay Gould, his
> colleague at Harvard, was vehemently opposed to sociobiology when Wilson
> first proposed it because of Gould's Marxist ideology (Marxism believes
> in the perfectibility of man while sociobiology implies that we're all
> genetically constrained). Rather ironic when one considers what Gould
> thinks of those who uncomfortable with evolutionary theory for religious/
> philosophical reasons.
>
> - Steve.
>
> --
> Steven H. Schimmrich KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu
> Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246
> http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Fides quaerens intellectum
>
________________________________
Neil Haave, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Division of Biology and Chemistry
4901 - 46 Avenue
Camrose, AB T4V 2R3
Canada
email haavn@wildrose.net
http://www.augustana.ab.ca/
fax (403) 679 1129
voice (403) 679 1100