The reductionism of genopolitics in the context of the relationships between biology and political science

Wajzer, Mateusz (2022): The reductionism of genopolitics in the context of the relationships between biology and political science. Published in: Endeavour , Vol. 47, No. 3 (1 September 2023)

Abstract

The past two decades have seen an increase in the use of theories, data, assumptions and methods of the biological sciences in studying political phenomena. One of the approaches that combine biology with political science is genopolitics. The goal of the study was to analyse the basic ontological, methodological and epistemological assumptions for the reductionism of genopolitics. The results show that genopolitics assumes methodological reductionism but rejects ontological and epistemological reductionism. The key consequences of the findings are the irreducibility of political science to biology and the complementarity of genopolitical explanations and political science explanations based on culturalism. If my findings prove to be correct, they give rise to the formation of a hypothesis regarding the anti-reductionist orientation of the contemporary links between political science and biology. An important step towards confirming or falsifying such a hypothesis will be exploring the reductionism of contemporary biopolitical approaches such as neuropolitics or evolutionary political psychology.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: reductionism, genopolitics, biology, political science, political attitudes and behaviours
• Subjects: Z - Other Special Topics > Z0 - General > Z00 - General

References

Aarøe, L., Appadurai, V., Hansen, K. M., Schork, A. J., Werge, T., Mors, O., … Petersen, M. B. (2021). Genetic predictors of educational attainment and intelligence test performance predict voter turnout. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(2), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-00952-2 Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051579 Araujo, M. M. y. (2011). Attitudes, political. In B. Badie, D. Berg-Schlosser, & L. Morlino (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Political Science (pp. 96–100). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412959636.n26 Ayala, F. J. (1974). Introduction. In F. J. Ayala & T. Dobzhansky (Eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (pp. vii–xvi). London: Macmillan. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Bickle, J. (1998). Psychoneural Reduction: The New Wave. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bogen, J. E., De Zure, R., TenHouten, W. D., & Marsh, J. F. (1972). The other side of the brain, IV: The A/P ratio. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, 37(2), 49–61. Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9–64. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051053737843 Carnap, R. (1932). Psychologie in physikalifcher Sprache. Erkenntnis, 3(1), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01886414 Carrier, M., & Mittelstrass, J. (1990). The unity of science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 4(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698599008573343 Charney, E. (2008). Politics, genetics, and “greedy reductionism”. Perspectives on Politics, 6(2), 337–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592708080651 Charney, E., & English, W. (2013). Genopolitics and the science of genetics. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 382–395. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000099 Craver, C. F. (2005). Beyond reduction: Mechanisms, multifield integration and the unity of neuroscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 36(2), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.008 Craver, C. F., & Bechtel, W. (2007). Top-down causation without top-down causes. Biology & Philosophy, 22(4), 547–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-006-9028-8 Darden, L., & Maull, N. (1977). Interfield theories. Philosophy of Science, 44(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1086/288723 Dawes, C. T., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Partisanship, voting, and the dopamine D2 receptor gene. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1157–1171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160909094X Dawes, C. T., Settle, J. E., Loewen, P. J., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2015). Genes, psychological traits and civic engagement. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1683), 20150015. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0015 Dawes, C. T., & Weinschenk, A. C. (2020). On the genetic basis of political orientation. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.012 Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press. de Jong, H. L. (2000). Genetic determinism: How not to interpret behavioral genetics. Theory & Psychology, 10(5), 615–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354300105003 de Vries, R. E., Wesseldijk, L. W., Karinen, A. K., Jern, P., & Tybur, J. M. (2021). Relations between HEXACO personality and ideology variables are mostly genetic in nature. European Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211014035 Deppe, K. D., Stoltenberg, S. F., Smith, K. B., & Hibbing, J. R. (2013). Candidate genes and voter turnout: Further evidence on the role of 5-HTTLPR. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000087 DiFrisco, J. (2017). Time scales and levels of organization. Erkenntnis, 82(4), 795–818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-016-9844-4 Dupré, J. (1983). The disunity of science. Mind, 92(367), 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XCII.367.321 Eaves, L. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2008). Transmission of attitudes toward abortion and gay rights: Effects of genes, social learning and mate selection. Behavior Genetics, 38(3), 247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-008-9205-4 Engelmann, S. G. (2010). Theory trouble: The case of biopolitical science. Österreichische Zeitschrift Für Politikwissenschaft, 39(1), 55–71. Fleck, L. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Basel: Benno Schwabe & Co. Fleck, L. (1946). Problemy naukoznawstwa. Życie Nauki. Miesięcznik Naukoznawczy, 1(5), 322–336. Fleck, L. (1981). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Fleck, L. (1986). Problems of the science of science. In R. S. Cohen & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and Fact: Materials on Ludwik Fleck (pp. 113–128). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Fodor, J. A. (1974). Special sciences (or: The disunity of science as a working hypothesis). Synthese, 28(2), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485230 Fowler, J. H., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Two genes predict voter turnout. The Journal of Politics, 70(3), 579–594. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608080638 Fowler, J. H., & Dawes, C. T. (2013). In defense of genopolitics. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 362–374. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000063 Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2020). Models in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University: Metaphysics Research Lab. Gabriel, O. (2020). Political behavior. In D. Berg-Schlosser, B. Badie, & L. Morlino (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Political Science (pp. 584–601). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Grantham, T. A. (2004). Conceptualizing the (dis)unity of science. Philosophy of Science, 71(2), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1086/383008 Guo, G., & Stearns, E. (2002). The social influences on the realization of genetic potential for intellectual development. Social Forces, 80(3), 881–910. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2002.0007 Han, Y., Yang, L., Lacko, L. A., & Chen, S. (2022). Human organoid models to study SARSCoV- 2 infection. Nature Methods, 19(4), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-022- 01453-y Hatemi, P. K., Byrne, E., & McDermott, R. (2012). Introduction: What is a ‘gene’ and why does it matter for political science? Journal of Theoretical Politics, 24(3), 305–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951629812437752 Hatemi, P. K., Dawes, C. T., Frost-Keller, A., Settle, J. E., & Verhulst, B. (2011). Integrating social science and genetics: News from the political front. Biodemography and Social Biology, 57(1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2011.568276 Hatemi, P. K., Funk, C. L., Medland, S. E., Maes, H. M., Silberg, J. L., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2009). Genetic and environmental transmission of political attitudes over a life time. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1141–1156. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609090938 Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (2012). The genetics of politics: Discovery, challenges, and progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2012.07.004 Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Morley, K. I., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2007). The genetics of voting: An Australian twin study. Behavior Genetics, 37(3), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-006-9138-8 Hatemi, P. K., & Verhulst, B. (2015). Political attitudes develop independently of personality traits. PLOS ONE, 10(3), e0118106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118106 Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X Herculano-Houzel, S., Catania, K., Manger, P. R., & Kaas, J. H. (2015). Mammalian brains are made of these: A dataset of the numbers and densities of neuronal and nonneuronal cells in the brain of glires, primates, scandentia, eulipotyphlans, afrotherians and artiodactyls, and their relationship with body mass. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 86(3–4), 145– 163. https://doi.org/10.1159/000437413 Hufer, A., Kornadt, A. E., Kandler, C., & Riemann, R. (2020). Genetic and environmental variation in political orientation in adolescence and early adulthood: A Nuclear Twin Family analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 762–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000258 Kincaid, H. (1990). Molecular biology and the unity of science. Philosophy of Science, 57(4), 575–593. https://doi.org/10.1086/289580 Kitcher, P. (1984). 1953 and all that: A tale of two sciences. The Philosophical Review, 93(3), 335–373. https://doi.org/10.2307/2184541 Kleppestø, T. H., Czajkowski, N. O., Vassend, O., Røysamb, E., Eftedal, N. H., Sheehy- Skeffington, J., … Thomsen, L. (2019). Correlations between social dominance orientation and political attitudes reflect common genetic underpinnings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(36), 17741–17746. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818711116 Kluge, F., & Seebold, E. (1995). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. Ksiazkiewicz, A., & Friesen, A. (2017). Genes and politics. In S. A. Peterson & A. Somit (Eds.), Handbook of Biology and Politics (pp. 85–105). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Ksiazkiewicz, A., & Friesen, A. (2019). The higher power of religiosity over personality on political ideology. Political Behavior, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019- 09566-5 Ksiazkiewicz, A., & Krueger, R. F. (2017). The role of genes and environments in linking the need to evaluate with political ideology and political extremity. Social Justice Research, 30(4), 381–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-017-0292-3 Ksiazkiewicz, A., Ludeke, S., & Krueger, R. F. (2016). The role of cognitive style in the link between genes and political ideology. Political Psychology, 37(6), 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12318 Ladyman, J., & Wiesner, K. (2020). What Is a Complex System? New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Ludeke, S., Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J. (2013). “Obedience to traditional authority:” A heritable factor underlying authoritarianism, conservatism and religiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(4), 375–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.018 Malim, T., & Birch, A. (1998). Introductory Psychology. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Mansell, J. (2020). Causation and behavior: The necessity and benefits of incorporating evolutionary thinking into political science. Social Science Quarterly, 101(5), 1677– 1698. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12856 Mayhew, A. J., & Meyre, D. (2017). Assessing the heritability of complex traits in humans: Methodological challenges and opportunities. Current Genomics, 18(4), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389202918666170307161450 McDermott, R., Dawes, C., Prom-Wormley, E., Eaves, L., & Hatemi, P. K. (2013). MAOA and aggression: A gene–environment interaction in two populations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 57(6), 1043–1064. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002712457746 McDermott, R., Tingley, D., Cowden, J., Frazzetto, G., & Johnson, D. D. P. (2009). Monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA) predicts behavioral aggression following provocation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(7), 2118–2123. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808376106 Mills, M. C., & Tropf, F. C. (2020). Sociology, Genetics, and the Coming of Age of Sociogenomics. Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1), 553–581. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-121919-054756 Mitchell, S. D., & Dietrich, M. R. (2006). Integration without unification: An argument for pluralism in the biological sciences. The American Naturalist, 168(S6), S73–S79. https://doi.org/10.1086/509050 Murphy, N. (2009). Introduction and overview. In N. Murphy, G. F. R. Ellis, & T. O’Connor (Eds.), Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will (pp. 1–28). Berlin: Springer Verlag. Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nathan, M. J. (2017). Unificatory explanation. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68(1), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axv022 Neurath, O. (1931). Physicalism: The philosophy of the Viennese Circle. The Monist, 41(4), 618–623. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist19314147 Nowak, L. (2000). The idealizational approach to science: A new survey. In I. Nowakowa & L. Nowak (Eds.), Idealization X: The Richness of Idealization (pp. 109–184). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & M. Grover (Eds.), Concepts, Theories and the Mind-Body Problem (pp. 3–36). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Petersen, M. B. (2015). Evolutionary political psychology: On the origin and structure of heuristics and biases in politics. Political Psychology, 36(S1), 45–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12237 Potochnik, A. (2011). A Neurathian conception of the unity of science. Erkenntnis, 74(3), 305– 319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-010-9228-0 Potochnik, A. (2017). Idealization and the Aims of Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Potochnik, A. (2021). Our world isn’t organized into levels. In D. S. Brooks, J. DiFrisco, & W. C. Wimsatt (Eds.), Levels of Organization in the Biological Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Potochnik, A., & McGill, B. (2012). The limitations of hierarchical organization. Philosophy of Science, 79(1), 120–140. https://doi.org/10.1086/663237 Potochnik, A., & Sanches de Oliveira, G. (2020). Patterns in cognitive phenomena and pluralism of explanatory styles. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(4), 1306–1320. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12481 Radziszewska-Szczepaniak, D. (2016). Redukcjonizm antropologiczny i jego konsekwencje [Anthropological reductionism and its consequences]. Nurt SVD, (2), 378–395. Remisiewicz, Ł. (2017a). Biologia w socjologii—Trzy sposoby wiązania [Biology in sociology: Three ways of linking]. Filozofia Nauki, 1(97), 65–89. Remisiewicz, Ł. (2017b). Zarzut redukcjonizmu w kontekście relacji biologia–socjologia [Problem of reductionism in the context of the relations between biology and sociology]. Progress. Journal of Young Researchers, (1), 37–49. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Sarkar, S. (1992). Models of reduction and categories of reductionism. Synthese, 91(3), 167– 194. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00413566 Schaffner, K. F. (1999). Complexity and research strategies in behavioral genetics. In R. A. Carson & M. A. Rothstein (Eds.), Behavioral Genetics: The Clash of Culture and Biology (pp. 61–88). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Schreiber, D. (2017). Neuropolitics: Twenty years later. Politics and the Life Sciences, 36(2), 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2017.25 Sesardic, N. (2005). Making Sense of Heritability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511487378 Shultziner, D. (2013). Genes and politics: A new explanation and evaluation of twin study results and association studies in political science. Political Analysis, 21(3), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps035 Sigelman, L. (2006). Report of the Editor of the American Political Science Review, 2004– 2005. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(1), 171–173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104909650622033X Smith, K. B., Oxley, D. R., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Linking genetics and political attitudes: Reconceptualizing political ideology. Political Psychology, 32(3), 369–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00821.x Spencer, H. (1885). The Induction of Sociology. London/Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate. Suppes, P. (1978). The plurality of science. In P. Asquith & I. Hacking (Eds.), PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association: Vol. Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (pp. 3–16). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association. Taubman, P. (1976). The determinants of earnings: Genetics, family, and other environments: A study of white male twins. The American Economic Review, 66(5), 858–870. Verhulst, B., Eaves, L. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2012). Correlation not causation: The relationship between personality traits and political ideologies. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00568.x Wailly, N. F., & Wailly, É. A. (1822). Nouveau vocabulaire français, où l’on a suivi l’orthographe adoptée pour la prochaine édition du dictionnaire de l’Académie. Paris: Remont. Wajzer, M. (2021). Idealisation, genetic explanations and political behaviours: Notes on the anti-reductionist critique of genopolitics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 90, 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.10.014 Wajzer, M., & Dragan, W. Ł. (2023). It is not only the environment that matters: A short introduction to research on the heritability of political attitudes. Political Studies Review, 21(1), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211053780 Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (Eds.). (2003). Biosocial Criminology: Challenging Environmentalism’s Supremacy. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publisher. Weekley, E. (1967). An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English. Volume II: L - Z. New York: Dover Publications. Weinschenk, A. C., Dawes, C., Klemmensen, R., & Rasmussen, S. H. R. (2023). Genes, personality, and political behavior: A replication and extension using Danish twins. Politics and the Life Sciences, 42(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2022.11 Weinschenk, A. C., Dawes, C. T., Kandler, C., Bell, E., & Riemann, R. (2019). New evidence on the link between genes, psychological traits, and political engagement. Politics and the Life Sciences, 38(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/pls.2019.3 Weisberg, M. (2015). Simulation and Similarity: Using Models to Understand the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weiss, M. G. (2016). Genopolitics: Behavioural genetics and the end of politics. In S. Prozorov & S. Rentea (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Biopolitics (pp. 314–327). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315612751.ch20 Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.