Against Integration

A lack of integration is often identified as a fundamental problem in psychology and the social sciences. It is thought that only through increased cooperation among the various disciplines and sub-disciplines, and integration of their different theoretical approaches, can psychology and the social sciences make real progress. An increasing number of psychologists have recently been proposing that the theory of evolution must be accepted as the foundation of all the sciences that deal with human beings, including their behaviour and culture. I argue, however, that the ideal of integration is based on a mistaken idea of natural science as a seamless whole. Moreover, the close connection between language and mind entails the need for a different approach to behaviour and culture than the one offered by evolutionary psychology. Rather than to seek integration, psychology and the social sciences need to make the existing pluralism more productive. I argue that the concept of boundaries offers a good starting-point for reflecting on disciplinary diversity.

Patterns of Infection and Patterns of Evolution: How a Malaria Parasite Brought "Monkeys and Man" Closer Together in the 1960s

In 1960, American parasitologist Don Eyles was unexpectedly infected with a malariaparasite isolated from a macaque. He and his supervisor, G. Robert Coatney of the National Institutes of Health, had started this series of experiments with the assumption that humans were not susceptible to "monkey malaria." The revelation that a mosquito carrying a macaque parasite could infect a human raised a whole range of public health and biological questions. This paper follows Coatney's team of parasitologists and their subjects: from the human to the nonhuman; from the American laboratory to the forests of Malaysia; and between the domains of medical research and natural history. In the course of this research, Coatney and his colleagues inverted Koch's postulate, by which animal subjects are used to identify and understand human parasites. In contrast, Coatney's experimental protocol used human subjects to identify and understand monkey parasites. In so doing, the team repeatedly followed malaria parasites across the purported boundary separating monkeys and humans, a practical experience that created a sense of biological symmetry between these separate species. Ultimately, this led Coatney and his colleagues make evolutionary inferences, concluding "that monkeys and man are more closely related than some of us wish to admit." In following monkeys, men, and malaria across biological, geographical, and disciplinary boundaries, this paper offers a new historical narrative, demonstrating that the pursuit of public health agendas can fuel the expansion of evolutionary knowledge.

Popularizing the ancestry of man: Robert Ardrey and the killer instinct

This essay examines Robert Ardrey (1908-1980)-American playwright, screenwriter, and prolific author-as a case study in the popularization of science. Bringing together evidence from both paleoanthropology and ethology, Ardrey became in the 1960s a vocal proponent of the theory that human beings are innately violent. The essay shows that Ardrey used his popular scientific books not only to consolidate a new science of human nature but also to question the popularizer's standard role, to reverse conventional hierarchies of scientific expertise, and to test the boundaries of professional scientific authority. Understanding how he did this can help us reassess the meanings and uses of popular science as critique in Cold War America. The essay also shows that E. O. Wilson's sociobiology was in part a reaction to the subversive political message of Ardrey's science.

Claude Lévi-Strauss on Race, History, and Genetics

In 1952, the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss published a small booklet titled Race and History. It formed part of a series of pamphlets on the so-called "race-question" by leading anthropologists and geneticists, which UNESCO published as part of its campaign against racism. Roughly twenty years later, in 1971, UNESCO invited Lévi-Strauss to give a lecture to open the International Year of Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination. This time the lecture, titled "Race and culture," caused a scandal. In 2005, on occasion of the Organisation's 60th anniversary, Lévi-Strauss was once again invited by UNESCO to give a lecture. It followed the same lines as his 1971 speech, but now met with acclaim. In my paper I will analyze Lévi-Strauss' interventions with respect to their reliance on contemporary genetics. Lévi-Strauss always saw a close analogy between structuralist anthropology and genetics, and derived his anti-evolutionary stance from the combinatory logic that both disciplines endorsed. I will argue, that it was this combinatory logic which created room for historical contingency and agency in Lévi-Strauss' understanding of the history of humankind.

When is 'race' a race? 1946-2003

There has been a widely perceived sense of a contemporary resurgence of the category of race in western genetics, epidemiology and medicine. In what follows, some important American and British journals in these fields are surveyed for their content from 1946-2003, with the aim of comparatively tracing the use of the race category among American, British and Israeli authors. Three crucial stages are delineated along this time line, and the correlations between the use of the race category and developments in genetics, as well as the changing guidelines for researchers in the USA, are examined. Concepts of individuality and collectivity in the three fields are analysed in relation to the use of 'race' in the surveyed journals; there follows also a discussion of some recent critical reflections on that use. It is concluded that there has been both continuity in, and reconstruction of, the roles of 'race' within the genetic/medical discourse.

History in the gene: negotiations between molecular and organismal anthropology

In the advertising discourse of human genetic database projects, of genetic ancestry tracing companies, and in popular books on anthropological genetics, what I refer to as the anthropological gene and genome appear as documents of human history, by far surpassing the written record and oral history in scope and accuracy as archives of our past. How did macromolecules become "documents of human evolutionary history"? Historically, molecular anthropology, a term introduced by Emile Zuckerkandl in 1962 to characterize the study of primate phylogeny and human evolution on the molecular level, asserted its claim to the privilege of interpretation regarding hominoid, hominid, and human phylogeny and evolution vis-à-vis other historical sciences such as evolutionary biology, physical anthropology, and paleoanthropology. This process will be discussed on the basis of three key conferences on primate classification and evolution that brought together exponents of the respective fields and that were held in approximately ten-years intervals between the early 1960s and the 1980s. I show how the anthropological gene and genome gained their status as the most fundamental, clean, and direct records of historical information, and how the prioritizing of these epistemic objects was part of a complex involving the objectivity of numbers, logic, and mathematics, the objectivity of machines and instruments, and the objectivity seen to reside in the epistemic objects themselves.