« Jonathan Haidt on the Reactions to bin Laden’s Death | Main | Economics Professors’ Favorite Economic Thinkers »

May 10, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dear Jonathan,

Many thanks for this detailed response to my comment and blog-post. Please allow me some clarifications. I am definitely not arguing for a kind of either-or, where the terms of the either-or are nature/nurture, instincts/institutions, genes/environment, biology/culture. Also I am definitely not arguing against anthropological engagement. Anthropological engagement is very necessary, precisely to question the terms of what you call the “new science.”

What I am arguing against is how under the guise of “both-and,” at least some of the practitioners of this new science have actually resurrected an either-or, prioritizing the nature-instincts-genes dimension of human behavior. I am arguing that while “both-and” is probably better than either-or, a truly new science must emerge which goes beyond both-and. That can only happen when we dissolve the dichotomies bedeviling previous approaches:

The implied essentialisation of biology as a constant of human being, and of culture as its variable and interactive complement, is not just clumsily imprecise. It is the single major stumbling block that up to now has prevented us from moving towards an understanding of our human selves, and of our place in the living world, that does not endlessly recycle the polarities, paradoxes and prejudices of Western thought. (Ingold 2006:276)

The problem with continuing a both-and approach can be seen in the history of the discipline of economics. I love the Adam Smith quote you choose in point #2. But if I correctly read Sandra Peart and David Levy’s work on The “Vanity of the Philosopher”: From Equality to Hierarchy in Postclassical Economics (2005), there was a long period when economics (and other disciplines including anthropology) got pulled away from Smith’s view of shared human capacities and into some noxious racism. I also appreciate the work on institutions you mention in point #1, but if I read Malcolm Rutherford’s work correctly on The Institutionalist Movement in American Economics (2011), views that might have been more sensitive to the role of institutions were actually defeated, marginalized, and forgotten.

There is a lot to be gained by revisiting and recapturing the richness of the people you mention in #1 and #2, and I am grateful for your work and to this blog for pointing us there. I am also grateful to the participants and professors at the 2010 NEH Summer Institute held at the Duke University Center for the History of Political Economy. We do have to recognize, however, how often it has been that "both-and" keeps getting pulled back into an "either-or."

As for the researchers in point #3, I find this work interesting, but I’m often not sure what they are trying to tell us. When we want to explain the emergence and dominance of a market economy, is oxytocin release really more important than the historical and political decisions made (sometimes violently) to institutionalize that economy? Yes, there are hormones and neurons at work, but no hormone, neuron, or “instinct” exists outside of its particular historical context. When mothers breastfeed—which is very much a learned behavior—the oxytocin release occurs in a particular context of reciprocal interaction. These days, the mother may even be breastfeeding while checking Facebook, which Paul Zak also says increases oxytocin release. Whether we should encourage the use of social media is a very different question, and it won’t be answered by measuring oxytocin levels.

Anthropology is at the forefront of understanding the interplay between experience and biology (as long as we do not reduce biology to genetics). My blog is in part an effort to highlight the work that has been done but not received much attention. I thank you again for the opportunity to respond on your blog. For further reference to anthropology-related work:

- Fuentes, Agustín, et al. 2010, “On Nature and the Human,” http://www.anthrosource.net/Abstract.aspx?issn=0002-7294&volume=112&issue=4&doubleissueno=0&article=313210&suppno=0&jstor=False&cyear=2010

- Keller, Evelyn Fox, 2010, The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture (Duke UP)

- Gravlee, Clarence, 2009, “How race becomes biology: Embodiment of social inequality,” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20983/abstract

- Ingold, Tim, 2006 (cited above), “Against Human Nature,” http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-4020-3394-0#section=436048&page=1&locus=0

- Lende, Daniel, 2011 blog-post “How Experience Gets Under the Skin” and other work at Neuroanthropology,, http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2011/01/03/how-experience-gets-under-the-skin/

Jason,
Thanks for the clarification and the helpful cites.
Best,
Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,
Thank you again for writing and linking. I am grateful for your efforts to rescue Adam Smith from the caricatures, as you did in Saving Adam Smith. I put a link to your book in my blog-comments. Anthropology can learn from recapturing a fuller and richer vision of what Adam Smith was trying to do.
Best regards,
Jason

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment