Gene Promoters: On Chagnon and Diamond

Like clockwork (or a comet, perhaps), the noisiest problem in anthropology makes its return every few years. And this year we are blessed with the two noisiest comets in anthropology returning together. Both Diamond and Chagnon have new books and, more importantly, new book campaigns with money for appearances and exposure to media outlets. Even better, they both have stone axes to grind.

The worst slur slung by both Chagnon and Diamond is that cultural anthropology is an unrepentantly anti-scientific activity that has intentionally turned away from the dominate paradigm in the biological and behavioral sciences in favor of navel gazing. The obvious follow-up question on the lips of bloggers and journalists alike becomes: What the hell is wrong with cultural anthropology?

The hyperbolic leader in this round of hippie bashing is Razib Khan whose blog bio says he has “an academic background in the biological sciences.” In a lovely post entitled Against The Cultural Anthropologists, Khan writes, “The reason I post about cultural anthropology now and then isn’t that I want to argue or discuss with cultural anthropologists. Rather, I want to aid in spreading the message the discipline should be extirpated from the academy, just as Creationists have been extirpated from biology.”

Sidebar: I make the hippie bashing comparison jokingly, but I think the comparison isn’t far off base. The metaphors and sentiments are similar. At the very least, there is the sense that the moral economy, and particularly the scientific establishment at the center of the moral economy is somehow under threat from an unwashed (literally) group of skeptics.

While the line between self-reflection and narcissism may be thinner than anyone wants to admit, cultivating a critical attitude towards knowledge production should be accepted as the starting point for scientific inquiry, not as an obstacle to it. As the field of STS studies has demonstrated time and again, the process of scientific inquiry, even in the controlled environs of a laboratory, is messy business. And the field further demonstrates that there is always a gap between the lived reality of an experiment and its idealized reconstruction in reports and journal articles.

That cultural anthropologists have long been concerned with exposing some of what Pickering termed the “mangle” in their practice is not a sign of laggardness or a slouch into solipsism, but rather an institutionalized form of critical practice. And, it must be this way in cultural anthropology because the position of researcher to researched is far complex and nuanced than it is for laboratory science, or those like Chagnon and Diamond who believe that they are doing science in a laboratory idiom.

The recent #overlyhonestmethods topic on Twitter would seem to hilariously demonstrate that quite a few “hard” scientists are fully aware of the uncomfortable gap between their practice and what they are institutionally allowed to report.

For the last 18 months I have been conducting research in a DIYBio lab, and I have worked on several projects over that span. In the laboratory, it is routine to make nature uniform so that experimental results can be predicted and repeated. The importance of a hypothesis rests precisely on the assumption that, for a brief moment, the workings of some small part of the world can be made uniform. Away from the bench, in the world of language and social life, this illusion quickly falls apart. It also falls apart when some piece of lab equipment malfunctions, but that is another story.

But, what of the dominant paradigm that Chagnon and Diamond use and which cultural anthropologists deny? Certainly this must be SCIENCE as it was meant to be. The paradigm that informs Chagnon, Diamond and their chorus of supporters in the blogosphere is an adherence to the modern synthesis in evolutionary biology. To be more specific, they are both, more or less, sociobiologists who believe in genetic determinism.

For fields like population genetics, evolutionary psychology and sociobiology, the gene is a unit of calculation in the exact sense formulated by Johannsen in 1909. This is unproblematic if one understands that in this conception, a gene is more rhetorical topic than scientific fact. And, like Geertz noted of “mind”, when deployed in this sense by Diamond and Chagnon, a “gene” is a social concept which explains behavior, values, attitudes and social mores.

The problem comes in considering the gene as a unit which transmits determinate behavioral traits on a one-to-one basis, which is precisely what Chagnon does. Why are the fierce people so fierce? Because they inherit the genes from the most violent males among them. Note also, that in Chagonon’s formulation, women are of little import except as carriers of genetic information.

In contrast, the molecular view of the gene has undergone what can only be called a deconstruction since 1909. In the molecular view, the gene, as a unit, can be located in multiple spots (some quite mysterious) and behave in any number of surprising ways. It is, in the molecular view, far from the kind of determinate factor which Chagnon and Diamond rely upon for their analysis. At best, the molecular gene fuzzily transmits traits, more or less.

For example the definition of a gene given in the 4th edition of Molecular Cell Biology is “the entire nucleic acid sequence that is necessary for the synthesis of a functional polypeptide.”  In other words,  a gene is a string of macromolecules that code for a protein. Note that the one-to-one correspondence between gene and behavior is absent and in its place has been substituted a definition which leaves open questions of the relation of elementary to complex phenomena.

23 Responses to “Gene Promoters: On Chagnon and Diamond”

  1. [...] at Ethnography.com a late response to my post Against the cultural anthropologists from someone named Michael [...]

  2. [...] I wrote a perfectly mild blog post which argued two obvious and non-controversial points. First, there is a gap between science as it [...]

  3. [...] the message [cultural anthropology] should be extirpated from the academy” (in bold no less).  Scroggins countered with a broad side against Khan now countered by Khan (and the exchanges continue).  Most of the [...]

  4. [...] taken down, the kommissars may come for us all”) to a radical Islamesque attack on infidels who dare to create caricatures of such sacred objects as the gene (“This is not “Not Even [...]

  5. [...] Then there is someone like Michael Scroggins’, who can write with a straight face that “in this conception, a gene is more rhetorical topic than scientific fact”, who makes a big point of pointing out that I used the term gene in a singular. Are there really [...]

  6. [...] who do nothing productive, and are anti-scientific.  A cultural anthropologist at Ethnography.com, Michael Scroggins, responded by kindly pointing out that population genetics is a cover for “hippie bashers” who [...]

  7. [...] I haven’t been able to blog much because of various other responsibilities, but I definitely do feel pent up posting energy. So when I come back I assume that I’ll have a lot of stuff to say. Meanwhile I’m chortling a bit about this bizarre attack on my friend Steve Hsu. Here’s the issue that I always have with this: Steve managed to get tenure as a theoretical physicist. When you’re talking to someone who is an academic theoretical physicist it is generally optimal to not assume a priori that they’re ignorant dullards. Unless that is you want to just engage in empty signalling rhetoric. [...]

  8. [...] about what they think they can talk about. Michael Scroggins, who has the temerity to assert that “a gene is more rhetorical topic than scientific fact” is certainly in this category. But he is one of many. The standard way to identify this sort of [...]

  9. […] March, Michael Scroggins posted about “Gene Promoters: On Chagnon and Diamond,” pointing out that the connection between race, genetics, and social deterimination was rearing […]

  10. khmer movie says:

    Although some of these applications may not be as powerful as other
    paid third-party solutions, they all come in one
    pack, are very friendly towards home users and are
    usually quite stable, as they are tuned specifically
    for the Windows platform. Death doesn’t have to be the end of the relationship.
    The movies obtainable online are at the present
    time the most popular assortment of pleasure throughout the globe.

    Visit my weblog … khmer movie

  11. On the way by collecting some kind angry birds friends cheats of programming languages.

  12. Hi there mates, how is all, and what you desire to say concerning this paragraph, in my view its
    truly remarkable in favor of me.

  13. rp gratuit says:

    you’re in point of fact a excellent webmaster. The web site
    loading speed is incredible. It seems that you are doing any unique trick.
    In addition, The contents are masterwork. you’ve performed a wonderful process on this topic!

  14. Have you ever thought about writing an e-book or
    guest authoring on other sites? I have a blog based on the same information you discuss and would
    really like to have you share some stories/information. I know my audience would enjoy your work.
    If you are even remotely interested, feel free to send me an e-mail.

  15. Google says:

    is updated frequently with free advice about Google Ad – Words strategy, tactics,
    tips tricks and techniques for success in Ad – Words advertising.
    20 percent of customers have the potential to spend five times as much as they do currently A relatively small amount of marketing
    effort creates the majority of output. The only tab of
    your concern is Public Templates, and no actions are necessary as it is already on the
    screen.

  16. see here says:

    Although Anavar is not necessarily a fat burning steroid, one of
    its side effects is that it helps inn eliminating unwanted fat and many people consider this
    steroid because of that purpose. It is due too the
    very low rate off aromatization, which is basically tthe
    metabolic conversion rate into estrogen. As their name suggests, these
    steroids hav both anaboloic and androgenic effects.

    Look at my webpage :: see here

  17. Madeline says:

    I’ll right away grab your rss as I can not in finding your email subscription hyperlink or newsletter service.

    Do you’ve any? Please let me recognise in order that I could subscribe.
    Thanks.

    my page :: respawnables hack tool (Madeline)

  18. Excellent site. Plenty of useful information here.
    I am sending it to several friends ans also sharing in delicious.
    And naturally, thanks to your effort!

  19. I really like what you guys are usually up too. This type of clever
    work and exposure! Keep up thhe terrific works guys
    I’ve incorporated you guys to my own blogroll.

  20. ulta coupons says:

    Good day very cool site!! Man .. Excellent .. Wonderful ..

    I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds also? I’m happy to search out a lot of useful information here in the submit, we want
    develop extra strategies on this regard, thank
    you for sharing. . . . . .

  21. Annabelle says:

    Haave fun att Thanksgiving, because you might not see Christmas.
    Onee could easily find these foods at Central
    Market. Impress Your Family and Friends With Exaact Replicas of The Following Recipes:.

    my web blog sausage recipies (Annabelle)

  22. Hi there would you mind letting me know which hosting company you’re working with?
    I’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different internet browsers and I must say
    this blog loads a lot faster then most. Can you suggest a good internet hosting provider at a honest price?
    Thanks, I appreciate it!

  23. Facebook is a method to an end, not the top itself.

Leave a Reply