Context
Biologism is “the belief that genetic contributions to phenotypes are exclusively or at least much more important than the contributions of other factors such as epigenetic and environmental ones, even in the case of complex traits such as behavior and personality” (Carver et al, 2017). To simplify, an individual’s characteristics are solely attributed to their biology/genetics. This is also referenced using the terms “biological determinism” and “genetic determinism,” which are synonymous. This concept often implies “a rigid causation [between genes and human attributes] largely unaffected by environmental factors” (Brittanica 2013). The direct contrast to this concept is “social determinism,” which explains personality as a result of social context and learned behaviors.
Biologism is a relatively new concept, first appearing in texts in the early 1900s, and increasing in frequency as it approached modern day (Google Ngram Viewer 2017). It can be assumed that the usage of these words only represent a small portion of when the concept of biological determinism has been used, it has simply previously not been put into a specific term. An instance of this was the rediscovery of Mendel’s concept of heredity, which drove the foundations of genetic research, often incorporating the concept of genetic determinism.
Attributing human success and failures as merely the ‘way they are’ predates “biologism” as a term. For instance, one could observe the divide between nobility and the working class/people in poverty. One is not made noble, one is born noble. They have noble blood; as such, they were meant for positions of power, not because they are good leaders, nor because they have a lot of connections. One can’t alter blood content socially — that’s something one is born with. Similarly, the impoverished are sequestered to the bottom of the social ladder because they are fated to be poor. Poor people are not the same as rich nobles, and thus they must live out their lot in life as well — in the slums of cities, regarded as a different breed of human.
Critique
Science has moved to an age where we are almost exclusively regarding biology as the sole explanation for all human actions, interactions, and faults (Velden, 2009, 8). The issue is rooted in the current problem of viewing psychology as a natural science, which lends itself to biologistic explanations for occurrences (Velden, 11-14, 2009). Velden explains it as, “Trying to find a biological basis for mental functions,” instead of recognizing it as something that is possibly influenced by the social, and one’s personality (Velden, 2009, 28). Scientists are trying to mix humanities and natural sciences, creating whole new disciplines, such as “sociobiology,” and ignoring the important academic divide, where psychology can use themes from biology, but should not let biology alone be how it explains human behavior (Valden, 2009, 28).
The progression of genetic research has proved that no single gene is responsible for an individual’s traits. Despite this, many references to biological determinism consist of “gene for” statements, such as a “gene for intelligence” or “gene for violent tendencies” (Carver et al. 2017, 3). These statements, while functional when referring to eye color, oversimplify genetics and genomics as well as personality, providing the illusion of a direct causation, when it is often a vague, complex web of traits that could potentially lead to one’s actions. Public knowledge of heredity, largely based in Mendel’s research with peas, leans towards the simplified model of a 1-1 relationship between a gene and trait. This justifies personality attributes, historical events, and social constructions as unchangeable or unpreventable, equating with “genetic essentialism” (Carver et al. 2017, 4). By not considering how genetic causation is often flexible and unclear, there is a compliance with issues such as violence, racism, sexism, etc. on both institutional and individual level.
Additionally, eugenics, as a subset of biologism, tries to combine natural science with social science, creating a theories that lack the intellectual integrity of valued research (Allen, 2011, 315). The theories are rife with contradictions and assumptions, trying to place character traits on genes. For example, ([the] assumption of feeblemindedness as the result of a Mendelian recessive gene (expressed in the homozygous state) as too simplistic to be believable” (Allen, 2011, 316). It’s also extremely difficult to qualify character traits such as “feeblemindedness” mentioned above; for example, what does it mean to be feebleminded? (Allen, 2011, 316) How does one know their child is simply “feebleminded,” or is that behavior actually being influenced by another, different social stimulus? How would you track feeble-mindedness through generations to prove it is being passed down if there is a range of intensity of the trait? How then should one assign a biological process to something so qualitative? The fundamental problem with psychology as a natural science and the use of biology to describe human behavior is that one is mixing qualitative processes (biology), with quantitative processes (psychology). These are two different methods of measuring our world, and don’t typically mix well, as they are contradictions of the other.
Conclusion
Belief in genetic determinism is not isolated to discussions in academics. For individuals with strong religious beliefs, many human qualities are attributed to God or a higher power that “protects human genes from the effects of people’s unhealthy behaviors” (Carver et al. 2017, 5). This makes one’s belief in biologism not only difficult to measure, but can also conflict with any attribution of traits to environmental or social factors, which are now widely accepted as having significant influence on an individual. For example, in the field of public health genetic deterministic views can “lead people to devalue the role of the environment or experiential factors… which in turn can hamper efforts to prevent disease” (Carver el al. 2017, 5). The combination of genetic determinism and faith can impede the progress towards curing various illnesses, especially long term ailments including obesity, cancer and mental illness.
Biologism confuses the natural sciences with the social disciplines, muddling how we define human behavior. Biology cannot be the sole discipline used to explain the human experience. Making this mistake results in essentialist judgements about different human experiences, such as inheriting the feeble-mindedness trait mentioned above, or poverty as an explanation for why a group of humans is inferior. Moreover, trying to define psychology using biological terms mixes two methods that by definition are opposites: qualitative and quantitative. Thus, one is forced to fit quantitative means into qualitative contexts, producing data with poorly supported conclusions and a multitude of contradictions. While biologism has it faults, it is an essential portion of explaining why people do what they do; however, there are some improvements to be made. Genetics educations must put greater emphasis on the complexities of genetics and the multidimensional interaction between biology, society and the environment an individual is exposed to. This will reduce the prominent oversimplification of human nature, leading to greater recognition of the influence of one’s society and environment. With a greater focus in these areas, issues ranging from institutionalized racism and pollution can be addressed, instead of justifying their existence by claiming ‘that’s just how people are.’
Works Cited