How criticism of Evolutionary Psychology works
Criticism of evolutionary psychology is usually by sociologists. The more stuff I read by sociologists, the less respect I have for them.
The criticism usually stems from postmodernism. This is rather cheating, of course. You can argue against anything with postmodernism.
So, anyway. Criticism of evolutionary psychology often takes this form:
Evolutionary psychologist: You can explain X by natural selection.
Sociologist: Aha! Look at his language! Look how he uses the language of religious fervour! He considers no other explanations! He is a knowledge fascist! I make snide remarks and jokes that are barely funny!
And it gets nowhere. It’s a shame. There are very valid criticisms to make of evolutionary psychology, but they’re difficult to find amongst the language-based critique and postmodernist stuff.
2 comments
I’m no sociologist, but it seems to me that human biological sciences have a dark history of showing “scientifically” that society’s prejudices about certain groups of people are actually true, so we don’t have to feel bad about holding them. See Gould’s _The Mismeasure of Man_ for the history of this sort of thing with respect to race.
The pronouncements of evolutionary psychologists regarding _sex_ have a disturbing ring of familiarity in this respect.
Draw your own conclusions.
There is little doubt that explanations offered by evolutionary psychologists have considerable popular purchase. However, sociologists have a very important role to play in this respect. Some of the work I am currently reading around kin selection theory seems unbeleivably crass to me, deterministic at best. Whatever discipline, its surely important to critically reflect upon the conceptual and explanatory models employed. This seems one area where sociologists are taking the lead. Ultimately, it is a question of developing more pluralist, less deterministic, models.