SOCIOBIOLOGY AND GENERAL SYSTEMS-THEORY - CRITIQUE OF THE NEW SYNTHESIS

Can sociobiology be the basis of sociology? Granting certain genetic contributions to human conduct, are these contributions expressed in the same way in humans as in other animals? Based upon the type of sign processed, a comparison is made of types of control subsystems. Symbols are arbitrary signs and icons are directly related to the thing for which they stand. The hominid control subsystem (brain) is capable of extensively processing symbols, whereas other species rely upon icons. The ability to process symbols allows hominids to engage in extensive learning and the development of elaborate cultures. Thus, in humans, genetic impulses can never be expressed purely. They would always be mediated by symbolic thought which invests meaning in any behavior. Control subsystems capable of processing symbols allow for a new form of evolution, sociocultural evolution. This is exosomatic evolution as opposed to biological, somatic, evolution. It allows for culture as an emergent phenomenon, while at the same time biology (inheritance) is setting certain limits on what kind of culture is likely to develop. Yet at the macro level those limits are likely to be extremely minimal. Thus, sociobiology is of some use in explaining micro level (social psychological) phenomena (although social variables must always be considered at the same time), but is of negligible importance in explaining macro level phenomena. Thus, sociology must be studied at its appropriate system level and sociobiology cannot serve as its foundation. Copyright © 1979 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.