628
PARTISAN REVIEW
with the operati on of the free market economy. As a result, the con cept
of natural selection has been tran sformed from the initial Darwini an
"appropriation of natural resources" in to a capitalisti c "expropria ti on
of others' resources." To document this all ega ti on , Sahlins cites
exampl es from the sociobiological literature in whi ch the authors
resort to economic terminology, such as "cost benefit analysis, "
"in vestment," and "p rofit," and regard animals as entrepren eu rs
seeking to maximize their gen eti c capital. Moreover, since economi c
theory is addressed
to
p urposive transacti ons among economicall y
motivated person s, the free market conception of na tural selection has
smuggl ed animi stic elements into evoluti ona ry theory. T hus sociobiol–
ogists are wont to a ttribute intention al sta tes
to
genes, such as self–
determined strategies and the moral qua lities of altruism and selfish–
ness. Once more, Sahlins weakens hi s va lid criti cisms of socio biology
by exaggera ting hi s case. First, (contrary
to
their own preten sions,
apparentl y accepted by Sahlins ) sociobio logists are on the frin ge ra th er
than in the van of p resent-day evoluti onary bi ology. H ence the
sociobi ological "derailment" of na tural se lecti on by o bstructing its
tracks with economic baggage is a rather local phenomenon , of littl e
significance for the general sta tus of current evo luti onary though t.
Second, the mere bo rrow ing of the noti on of the free market does not by
itself invalidate the sociobiological approach
lO
na tural selecti on , no
more than the borrowin g of the con cepts of mechani cal and hydrauli c
engineering by Descartes and hi s contemporari es invalida ted human
physiology. T ha t Sahlins is abl e to present some cases from the
sociobi ologica l litera ture where shoddy reasoning based on th e eco–
nomi c metaphor has led to ludi crous p ropos iti on s does not mean that
the whole of Wilson 's treatise is to be rejected as crackpot science. Does
Sahlins reall y beli eve tha t there is no t a sing le case of a comp lex social
behav ior pattern of infrahuman species whi ch has been successfull y
expl ained by the socio bi ological, free-market approach to evo luti on ?
For instance, what about the discovery in sp ired by the theory of kin
sel ection that in the rare cases of polyandry found among birds the two
males sharin g a single female u suall y turn out to be brothers? Maybe
there is some other expl anati on for thi s curi ous fact of na tural hi story,
but wh y not give sociobiology a little credit where it is due?
Finall y Sahlins raises an issue whi ch , though he considers it onl y
in the context of the deba te surrounding the socio bi ologica l project,
reaches down to the very founda ti ons o f science: can there be such a
thing as a science tha t is an objecti ve exercise of pu re reason , not
subj ect to influence by human affects or culture? David Hume, who
h eld tha t " reason is, and ought to be, the slave o f the pass ions" had
