distribution of wealth and socialnpower remains.nThe fact that Americans live on annunprecedented scale of affluencenwould not, I think, impress them. Nonaspect of their argument is untaintednby ideology. Even the typographynmakes a statement: time after time a sicnis put after a quotation as if to say,n”Look, these people are self-evidentlynabsurd.”n”An orerlly exfjresucd politkal coniniilnienlnJIK’H iiol debar a .sr;’t’»//’.s7 tram vinviiii^nno fun’ accurately.”nSVc’/j/jc’f! jay ( -(HIIJnriic New ‘^nrk Rcic\ of BooksnIt is not that Lewontin and companyndo not have valid points to make onnthe perils of IQ testing and the abusesnof mind-controlling drugs, but most ofntheir book is taken up with laying rednherrings across the trail of rationalndiscourse: the usual slurs against KonradnLorenz’s youthful enthusiasm forneugenics, the intellectual limitationsnof Robert Ardrey, the popularity oiThenSelfish Gene with the National Front.nAt least they are upfront about theirnpolitics. They most definitely do notnlike the idea of a limited human nature.nThey believe these truths to benself-evident, that “the inequalities ofnwealth, power, and status are not ‘natural’nbut socially imposed.”nSince Lewontin, Rose, and Kaminnfind the methods and theory of sociobiologyn”fundamentally flawed,” it isnworthwhile to consider how responsiblenthey have been in constructing Notn18/CHRONKLES OF CULTUREnSchool of Hard Knocksnhi -.[u Jd IdlmsnHopkins’ crcillM- uiiliiis; pinyr.iiii.n(.'(iiiinieiiK 1)11 IIK. iiKiru’loiii “ifiloriiijlncdiiciition ill |)()litital aality’ ,n.liiialntliriiiii^li till.’ “tiiiiiiiltuDiit I M’liN on oiiin(.ampusi’s'” iliiiiiii; llu.- latt- fiUs .iinlnfaiK ~ll”s:nI tliiiik I pit till.’ caniiniM-i—aminllif ^tll(ll•Ml•., piiittsv)!-.. anilnaiiiiiiiii-.lrat(ii>>—vvlm «i.ri.- spaixilnall tlial: (111- takfovtis .iiid ilisrnp-nLIBERAL ARTSnin Our Genes. As a major proof test forntheir case, the authors take up thensubject of gender differences and whatnthey loosely describe as “patriarchy.”nSince much of the hostility to sociobiologynhas come from the feministsnand fellow-traveling males, L.R.&K.nmight be expected to have done theirnhomework. Our expectations are disappointed.nScientific arguments to support inherentngender differences represent,nthey suggest, “a systematic selection,nmisrepresentation, or improper extrapolationnof the evidence, larded withnprejudice and basted in poor theory.”nAnd yet, when we come to read thenchapter, we discover systematic selection,nmisrepresentation, and impropernextrapolation on a colossal scale. Nonreferences to the pioneering researchesnon newborn children by AnneliesenKorner, the sociology of Alice S.nRossi, the psychological studies ofnDonald Broverman, the animal studiesnof, for example, Joslyn, or thenentire issue of Science devoted to sexualndimorphism. They cite E. O. Wilsonnand Pierre Van Den Berghe forndisplaying a chauvinistic. Westerndominatednview of culture, but do notntake the trouble to look up the myriadncross-cultural studies on sex roles andnfamily patterns. Such research mightnbe fatal to their prejudices. Male dominancenis simply another form of oppression.nPatriarchy, they declare,ncould not be predicted from the biologicalndifiFerences between men andnwomen—that would be reductionist!nInstead, they prefer the more modestnview of dialectical materialism. Theyntiolls annkar yas.nIstr ko. tJK’ tra’-iiii 1!4S. IK-nIIK (“liMi.nil I’s am 1 VI] -ni.”^ . ml u-ai -I IMl kiiiys ,111(1n-U kiii> ^snj vr. •fiS. •( >’;.n11.nuai’idnL:iiiiinaminIVi laps Ml . M irlli’ -. iimlcnisnr’.n Hi- oilm­ Inn 4 hii •Sv •-Vi.n’SSni..inn^ .narimlnnnIVnremind us that the disciplines used toninvestigate gender differences are “predominantlynmale science” as if womenndid not dominate the field of gendernstudies in every discipline.nWhen they take up the issue ofnsociobiology directly, they perform nonbetter. “If aggression and patriotismnare universal human traits, then wasnA. J. Mustie, who spent many years innjail for obstructing patriotic wars, othernthan human?” Suppose we told themnthat man is a two-legged animal with ancapacity for language. “But,” theynwould object, “what about my unclenJake who lost his leg in the war? Whatnabout mutes?” It is hard to believe theynwant to be taken seriously. They saventheir highest flights of fancy for theirndiscussion of property. Real property,nthey claim, is a modern invention,nbecause in the Middle Ages propertynwas not a relation between man andnthing but between man and man. Putnaside what the authors don’t knownabout ancient land tenure or the varietiesnof landholding in primitive societies.nForget about the incredible diversitynof feudal Europe. Do they imaginenthat the world was collectivist until then17th century? or that because familiesn(and not individuals) frequently exercisenownership rights, this means therenis no owner? They even go so far as tonconfuse (apparently) real property withnother forms of private property whichnare demonstrably universal. EvennMarx knew better.nIt is, in fact, embarrassing to see tonwhat level this trio is willing to sink.nThat Steven Rose, a doctrinaire propagandistnwho has made a career out ofnvilification, should be guilty of such antravesty is no surprise, but for a distinguishedngeneticist like R. C. Lewontinnto lend his name to such a discreditablenenterprise is the saddest event innthe history of genetics since the daysnwhen J. B. S. Haldane allowed thenconsiderable magic of his reputation tonbe used by Stalin’s favorite scientist, T.nD. Lysenko. The issues raised by sociobiologynare important; the implicationsnmay even be dangerous. But thenclerical obscurantism of American academicsnposes an even greater danger.nIt is hard to escape the feeling that ifnthe heliocentric theory were inconsistentnwith Marxism, we would soon seenthe statues of Copernicus torn downnand replaced by Ptolemy. ccn