The Potential Relevances of Biology to Social Inquiry

Abstract

Key Words sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics, testosterone, neurosociology s Abstract Sociologists often react with hostility to explanations that evoke biology, and some critics of the discipline contend that this "biophobia" undermines the credibility of sociology and makes it seem increasingly irrelevant in larger public debates. The negative reactions are many times diffuse and undiscerning of the different endeavors lumped together whenever one speaks broadly of biological (or "biosocial") explanations. We seek to introduce greater awareness of these distinctions with a review organized in terms of some of the distinct ways that the biological can be asserted to be relevant to the conduct of social inquiry. The review has three sections. First, we discuss assertions of the relevance of the human evolutionary past for understanding the character of human nature, for which evolutionary psychology currently receives the most attention. Second, we consider the work of behavioral genetics and the assertion of the relevance of genetic differences between persons for understanding differences in behaviors and outcomes. Third, we consider assertions of the relevance of particular proximate bioindicators for understanding how the biological and social interact, focusing particularly on studies of testosterone and the prospects of developments in neuroscientific measurement. We do not believe that developments in these fields will force sociologists to acquire considerable biological expertise to pursue questions central to the discipline, but we do advocate further efforts from biologically minded sociologists to articulate understandings of the relationship between sociology and biology that will continue to push us past the commonplace view that biological and sociological explanations are inevitably opposed.

What is a representative brain? Neuroscience meets population science

“…Moreover, evidence is mounting that that brain-behavior links may be powerfully moderated by experience, context, and culture (102,107). As population research has recently begun to acknowledge the usefulness and importance of including genetic and other biomarker data (108)(109)(110)(111)(112)(113), scholars note a lack of brain research in the examination of the influence of macrolevel processes on health and behavior (111,114). Moreover, we argue that even though most population researchers may not use MRI data, a better general understanding of the behaviorally relevant elements of basic brain research will be important for the progress of the field, especially as cross-discipline studies are becoming the norm rather than exception.…”

“…It should be noted that several relevant fields already have models for success: research in demography has transitioned from relatively coarse measures from the census to an emphasis on mechanisms and processes, statistical methods, and recent integration of biomarkers to the field (90,110,111). Methods from demography might also be harnessed as best practices for cross-cultural/cross-national analysis and work across broader sets of multilevel problems (i.e., international, national, regional).…”

Genetics and the Social Science Explanation of Individual Outcomes

“…Heritability estimates in traditional behavioral genetics studies are derived from the relationship between outcome similarity of individuals and the (assumed) similarity of their genotypes and their exogenous environments (for one highly accessible introduction, see Schaffner [2006]; for critiques, see Wahlsten [1990] and Freese, Li, and Wade [2003]). Twin studies take advantage of the natural experiment of separate individuals with identical G, comparing identical (MZ) twins to fraternal (DZ) twins.…”

Positive Social Interactions and the Human Body at Work: Linking Organizations and Physiology

“…Medical researchers and health psychologists' interests in these findings are tied to their disciplinary focus on disease prevention and health promotion. In sociology, the study of physiological functioning is more controversial (Freese, Li, & Wade, 2003). For organizational scholars, the theoretical implications are only beginning to be discussed outside of the stress paradigm (e.g., White, Thornhill, & Hampson, 2006).…”

“…The research agenda we suggest stands in contrast to scholars who draw on evolutionary psychology. Instead of conceptualizing physiological processes as shaped by the evolutionary past (Freese et al, 2003;Ilies, Arvey, & Bouchard, 2006), we focus on the more local, social construction of physiological resources and physical health.…”