Bartlett's Bizarre Bazaar
Comment, Comics and the Contrary. Contact: aj_bartlett1977*at*yahoo*dot*co*dot*ukMonday, December 06, 2004
Protestantism (and the synonymous work ethic) may be hereditable – but it is not genetic
I studied genetics as both an undergraduate and postgraduate. Now I investigate the sociology of genetics. I keep close eye on stories about genetics in newspapers, and keep a watch on the infiltration of ‘the gene’ into discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with genetics. And I don’t think I’ve ever read a more garbled pinning of personal character on ‘genes’ than this:
“Ellis is a product of his environment, having inherited the workaholic Leicester gene”
Now, I know that the author of this piece more than likely knows that there is no such thing as a ‘Leicester gene’. It does, nevertheless, concern me. The popular presentation and perception of genes is that they are a more or less deterministic and inalterable factor in human development. Speaking with ease about culture as genetic is at least a little way towards legitimising a reactionary response towards cultural and social problems, particularly when they can be identified with a distinct group, rather than an ameliorating and integrationist approach.
“Ellis is a product of his environment, having inherited the workaholic Leicester gene”
Now, I know that the author of this piece more than likely knows that there is no such thing as a ‘Leicester gene’. It does, nevertheless, concern me. The popular presentation and perception of genes is that they are a more or less deterministic and inalterable factor in human development. Speaking with ease about culture as genetic is at least a little way towards legitimising a reactionary response towards cultural and social problems, particularly when they can be identified with a distinct group, rather than an ameliorating and integrationist approach.
Comments:
<< Home
Andrew
There are a small number (1-2% ?) of persons who are “workaholics” to the point that a mental health professional will think of obsessive-compulsive behavior. That is probably heritable though genetic may not be entirely out of the question. Ellis may or may not be a part of this fringe. One danger of over assuming genetic determinism is that if it is established that genetics is determinate for those who may need professional help many will assume that it applies to the whole population, and reccomend mental health solutions for the healthy.
What Max Weber called the Protestant work ethic produced a change in behavior of a population in two or three generations, not long enough for any genetic drift or change. Even allowing the heritability may have caused some individuals to do better or worse in the new culture, it was obviously a cultural phenomenon.
The thing that needs to be remembered is that both genetics and environment set limits, but the individual can choose what to do in those limits. Usually from the individual perspective, if no one else’s, these are fairly rational choices.
The big danger of over-assuming that we are determined by either genetics or environment the fact that an indivdual will make his own decions will be over looked. The rational choice from the individuals point of view may fit his situation, but it may not be a good decision for any one else.
Post a Comment
There are a small number (1-2% ?) of persons who are “workaholics” to the point that a mental health professional will think of obsessive-compulsive behavior. That is probably heritable though genetic may not be entirely out of the question. Ellis may or may not be a part of this fringe. One danger of over assuming genetic determinism is that if it is established that genetics is determinate for those who may need professional help many will assume that it applies to the whole population, and reccomend mental health solutions for the healthy.
What Max Weber called the Protestant work ethic produced a change in behavior of a population in two or three generations, not long enough for any genetic drift or change. Even allowing the heritability may have caused some individuals to do better or worse in the new culture, it was obviously a cultural phenomenon.
The thing that needs to be remembered is that both genetics and environment set limits, but the individual can choose what to do in those limits. Usually from the individual perspective, if no one else’s, these are fairly rational choices.
The big danger of over-assuming that we are determined by either genetics or environment the fact that an indivdual will make his own decions will be over looked. The rational choice from the individuals point of view may fit his situation, but it may not be a good decision for any one else.
<< Home
Archives
August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 March 2007
