Behaviouralism, biosociology and the perils of biobehaviouralism

Abstract

There is a curious, growing interest among social scientists in biosociology — an interest that is revealed in Professor Wahlke's criticism of post‐behaviouralism. His presidential address is an appeal to adopt hard‐line behaviouralism; it is also, unwittingly a warning of the dangers inherent in attempts to transplant ideas and methods from other disciplines to political science.

There is solid empirical basis for distinguishing between two branches of knowledge: physical science (studying the world of things and using the concept of causation) and normative science or ethics (studying human behaviour and using the concept of value or norm). According to the theory of evolution, the empirical evidence against bringing men into the system of the inanimate world should be disregarded. While the behaviouralists have accepted this view, the philosophically‐minded political theorists have stressed the immediate influence of norms. Wahlke argues against what he considers the excessive use of normative elements in post‐behaviouralism. A major weakness in his behaviouralist appeal is that his “empiricism” excludes deduction; if social sciences were to follow him and abandon inference, they would become solipsistic.

The revival of biosociology is an attempt to expand the set of ‘drives’ that psychology regards as the basis of all human behaviour. Wahlke's bio‐behaviouralism goes beyond the current school of biosociology as represented by Edward O. Wilson: he tries to revive the instinct school of behaviourism and favours an obsolete form of determinism. His plea to stop thinking and simply look for evidence of ‘instinctive’ patterns is non‐rational.