I am wondering if any here have insight on this: I understand ‘environmental determinism’ to be tied with social darwinism, and generally critiqued for supporting racist arguments (thinking of Guns, Germs and Steel, here). What are those critiques and are those critiques applicable to Sapolsky’s stance on determinism – in his new Determined book? And/or are they applicable to determinism in general? (Obviously, this is absolutely not my area of primary study.)
In: 0
It isn’t my area of study exactly, either, but I want to jump on this for a point of clarification: the argument isn’t exactly “supporting racist arguments” directly, so much as a twofer: “being total bullshit” on the one hand, and “getting published anyway because racists like ‘academic’ justifications for their views” on the other.
I highlight it because an awful lot of bigots think that they have justifications for their views, and are only being held back because of political correctness. For the most part the truth is basically opposite: academic analysis runs contrary to their views, but some people have an interest in goosing their position so they get into the conversation not on the merits and we have to try to slap them down as being the bullshit they are. They hate that, and get a persecution complex from it.
Determinism is a philosophical stance about the existence of free will and the metaphysics of the universe.
Environmental determinism is an idea about how much material environment shapes human societies. It’s controversial but properly speaking it’s generally in opposition to racism, which claims that innate genetic characteristics shape human societies.
Anyway, the two aren’t really related at all, they are operating on very different scales.
Latest Answers