International Security

International Security 26.1 (2001) 187-194

Correspondence

Start the Evolution without Us

Duncan S.A. Bell and Paul K. MacDonald

[The Author Replies]

To the Editors:

In his provocative article "Bringing in Darwin: Evolutionary Theory, Realism, and International Politics," Bradley Thayer appropriates arguments from sociobiology to provide a scientific basis for realist international relations theory, and in so doing he follows a recent trend in the social sciences. ¹ Thayer's argument is straightforward. First, traditional realist microfoundations are dependent on unacceptably "metaphysical" or "theological" assumptions about human nature (pp. 126-130). Second, findings in sociobiology about human nature provide transhistorical, universal, and sufficiently robust foundations for realist claims about international politics (pp. 131-138).

We welcome Thayer's contribution to this debate, but we dispute both his specific formulation of sociobiology and the general project of explaining political phenomenon through biological theories. First, we disagree that evolutionary theory "offers a widely accepted scientific explanation" of human behavior (p. 138). Instead, we argue that sociobiology remains the object of considerable scientific and ethical controversy, and that sociobiological approaches contain numerous methodological flaws. Second, we contend that even if sociobiology could overcome its inherent limitations, the microfoundations that a sociobiologically informed theory of international politics produces are indeterminate and contradictory. For this reason, sociobiological microfoun- dations provide no additional analytical leverage in explaining and understanding international politics. Finally, we contend that current microfoundations in the social sciences, including structural realist and rational actor approaches, can be just as "scientific" from the perspective of philosophy of science without importing sociobio- logical [End Page 187] hypotheses. Taken together, these three criticisms strongly suggest against using sociobiology as a panacea for realism or for international relations theory in general.

Sociobiology as a Contested Science

Thayer advocates the adoption of sociobiological reasoning to augment the traditional realist account of human behavior because sociobiology "offers a firm intellectual foundation" (p. 126) and a "sound scientific substructure" (p. 127) for understanding the ultimate causes of egoistic and dominating behavior by human beings. He implies that sociobiology, which can be broadly defined as the application of evolutionary theory to explain the genetic foundations of an organism's social behavior, ² is generally accepted as an unproblematic approach within the scientific community and that the extrapolation of findings from sociobiological theories into the realm of human behavior is also widely regarded as legitimate. Neither of these claims can be upheld: The science of sociobiology is the subject of great controversy within biology as well as other cognate disciplines. ³ Indeed, given the torrent of scientific criticism since the publication of Edward O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, ⁴ Thayer's failure to mention the ethically and scientifically contested nature of sociobiology is surprising.

Some advocates of sociobiology portray their opponents as motivated primarily by political correctness. We believe, however, that there are serious ethical issues at stake in the attempt to reduce complex social and political behavior to essential elements of human genetics. When accepted uncritically, sociobiological claims contain the potential to be utilized in the naturalization of behaviors that are variable and in the justification of discriminatory sociopolitical orders. ⁵ For this reason, sociobiological theories should be held to a high standard of intellectual and analytical scrutiny before they are adopted as scientific fact, or be avoided altogether. Given these concerns, international relations theorists should seriously consider the methodological criticisms leveled against sociobiology. We briefly highlight three of the most salient of these criticisms. [End Page 188]

First, the universality of the sociobiological project--and specifically its applicability to the study of human behavior--is extremely controversial. Thayer downplays the serious disagreements by claiming that the study of humans is central to the sociobio- logical project (p. 130). In contrast, one commentator has noted that "most 'sociobiologists' . . . are quite uninterested in humans." ⁶ In particular, many biologists themselves dispute the applicability of sociobiological approaches to humans because of the central role of culture, language, and self-reflexivity in determining human behavior. ⁷ Although advocates of human sociobiology acknowledge the dual influences of culture and...