As we think about how science relates to society, we’re going to encounter arguments that might be roughly grouped together under the label ‘biological determinism.’ We’ll be exploring this concept – including a series of critiques of the concept – in detail in this and the coming weeks. Let’s get started by thinking carefully about the following questions (remember – this is not a
What might it mean to say that an individual is determined by their biology? Or that someone is essentially who and how they are due to biological characteristics?
What role does biology play in relation to society? What role does society play in relation to biology? In other words, does biology influence society? Does society influence biology? How, exactly?
Can we think of examples where biology is used to explain individual behaviors and social relations? That is, can we think of examples where society is explained by reference to biology? Do we find such examples persuasive? Yes? No? Maybe? It depends?
Can we think of critiques of using a biological determinist approach to understanding people and society?
A related series of questions that we will begin considering this week concern the ‘big picture’ concept of classification/categorization – how individuals and groups of individuals come to be grouped into certain ‘boxes’ (for better or for worse) in terms of gender, sex, sexuality, race, ethnicity, etc. Processes of categorization/classification lead us to ask a number of questions…
What might it mean to suggest that gender is socially constructed? How does thinking of gender in terms of social construction compare with the logic of biological determinism that we’ve begun to discuss?
What about race? What might it mean to suggest that race is socially constructed?
In scientific, medical, and other (e.g. legal) contexts, folks are often categorized. What do these classification or categorization schema do?
In particular, what scientific purpose(s) do they serve? Do forms of classification based on gender or race serve beneficial ends? Harmful ends? Both? Neither? It depends?
How might attending to multiple intersecting variables (i.e. race/gender/class) inform particular STEM research projects and/or practical applications/interventions?
reply to this assignment it’s included
There’s a bigger picture at hand. The psychical body has distinct differences between sex’s, and genes, and chemical makeup, but there is also a differences within the human mind. As far as I can remember, there have always been two biological sex’s. Male/female. I have come to learn, and quite recently, that there is a big difference in gender identities. Many have misunderstood this concept and still think that our characteristics are defined by our sexual reproductive organs. What it means when an individual says they are determined by their biology is just that. They think that their reproductive organs are supposed to be an identifier that an individual is either male/female, or that they are only supposed to be with the opposite sex, but really it isn’t and life isn’t meant to be restricted like that. We are all here in the world trying to make a difference, and we deserve the human right to have our own individual feelings. A critique of using a biological determinist approach to understanding people is to have people learn this stuff, and learn psychology earlier in life. Lets make what is learned in life and college, taught in our elementary, middle, and high schools. What it means to suggest that gender is socially constructed, is that well it’s true. Everything in our world is made up by us. We have created this culture and defined it, restricted it, oppressed it, and for what? So that humanity is controlled to the point where you can’t have your own identity without being criticized? Or be the one criticizing because you just misunderstand? Even race to an extent is socially constructed. People come from all walks of life, and all around the world. People have acknowledged this and have put races, countries, cultures to terms that are understandable, but take a look at the tribes that satellite is just now finding in forests all over the world. Look at their culture and their livelihoods and think of life in a more naturalist way. One isn’t necessarily better than the other, from an outside perspective, but if you ask individuals from a hidden tribe, or from a big city, both would probably tell you that their own way is preferable. This just goes to confirm that feelings of life have now grown into a subjective perspective. Do forms of classification based on gender or race serve beneficial ends? Harmful ends? Both? Neither? It depends? If you look at things through a specific scale (or smaller than the bigger picture in life) then yes, these classifications do have both harm and good. Some harms are that people don’t want to be labeled anything, and that has a huge influence in the chain reaction events. I can think of so many. Some goods are that these people in their fields of study (STEM, whichever) are finding the specifics based on individual characteristics, and they are trying to make their own difference, and essentially they are trying to help people.
0 comments