Richard Machalek

The nature of crime

The classical social theorist Emile Durkheim proposed the counterintuitive thesis that crime is beneficial for society because it provokes punishment, which enhances social solidarity. His logic, however, is blemished by a reified view of society that leads to group-selectionist thinking and a teleological account of the causes of crime. Reconceptualization of the relationship between crime and punishment in terms of evolutionary game theory, however, suggests that crime (cheating) may confer benefits on cooperating individuals by promoting stability in their patterns of cooperation.

Sociology and the second Darwinian revolution: A metatheoretical analysis

Sociologists tend to eschew biological explanations of human social behavior. Accordingly, when evolutionary biologists began to apply neo-Darwinian theory to the study of human social behavior, the reactions of sociologists typically ranged from indifference to overt hostility. Since the mid-1960s, however, neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory has stimulated a “second Darwinian revolution” in traditional social scientific conceptions of human nature and social behavior, even while most sociologists remain largely uninformed about neo-Darwinian theory and research. This article traces sociologys long-standing isolation from the life sciences, especially evolutionary biology, to divergence in the metatheoretical assumptions that typify conventional sociological thought versus contemporary evolutionary biology. We conclude with a discussion of the recent emergence of a nascent “evolutionary sociology” that integrates sociobiological reasoning with contemporary sociological thought.

Evolution, Biology, and Society: A Conversation for the 21st-Century Sociology Classroom

Recently, a growing contingent of “evolutionary sociologists” has begun to integrate theoretical ideas and empirical findings derived from evolutionary biology, especially sociobiology, into a variety of sociological inquiries. Without capitulating to a naive version of either biological reductionism or genetic determinism, these researchers and theorists have begun to synthesize sociological thought with research produced in various branches of the evolutionary life sciences. These recent developments provide sociology instructors with new opportunities to reconsider how they address the topic of biology’s relevance to sociology. In this article, the authors review key issues pertaining to evolutionary explanations of social behavior, offer clarifications and explanations of several issues that are sometimes misrepresented and misunderstood, and provide specific suggestions for instructors who are interested in updating and improving the quality of instruction on this important topic.

Suspending Routine Duty The Sociological Significance of Military Holidays and Ceremonies

Recently, the sociologist Amitai Etzioni developed a theory of the significance of holidays as “seedbeds of virtue” and agents of socialization. With minor modifications, Etzioni’s theory can shed light on the sociological significance of holiday celebrations and ceremonies in military organizations. This article focuses on two key aspects of military holidays that distinguish them from their civilian counterparts: (1) the centrality of the normative notion of “duty” in military culture and (2) the unique temporal constraints to which military holiday celebrations are subjected. Consistent with Etzioni’s claim that holidays function, in part, as agents of socialization, the authors examine holiday celebrations and ceremonies at a major organizational site of military socialization, the United States Air Force Academy. The authors explain how unique properties of military organizations and cultures shape the nature and sociological functions of holiday celebrations and ceremonies in the armed forces.

Sociobiology and Sociology: A New Synthesis

Sociobiology is the study of the biological basis of social behavior among animals and humans. In recent years, sociologists have begun incorporating key ideas and explanatory principles from sociobiology into sociology. This has resulted in criticism of the tabula rasa model of the human mind and its replacement by the adapted mind model. Evolutionary sociologists have proposed new explanations of the evolutionary origins of human sociality and societies, and they have applied evolutionary principles to the study of social behaviors including mating and reproduction, gender and gender inequality, social capital, and dominance and social inequality.

Sacrifice, Gratitude, and Obligation: Serial Reciprocity in Early Christianity

Purpose – Uses Kenneth Bouldings concept of “serial reciprocity” in conjunction with information about the evolution of emotions and social exchange processes to identify possible mechanisms that can help explain the rise of early Christianity. Design/methodology/approach – Using the concept of serial reciprocity as a central organizing principle, a theoretical account is developed that integrates ideas from evolutionary sociology, the sociology of emotions, and exchange theory in order to extend Rodney Starks analysis of social forces responsible for the success of early Christianity as a social movement. Findings – Patterns of serial reciprocity may develop when evolved emotions such as gratitude, sympathy, and empathy are activated by recipients of altruism who, in turn, become motivated to repay their benefactor by transmitting a benefit to a third-party recipient. Historical evidence reviewed by Stark is consistent with the claim that serial reciprocity may have conferred benefits to victims suffering from plagues that swept the Roman Empire during the early history of Christianity. Similar processes may be operating today in regions of the world in which aid workers provide assistance to victims of natural and man-made disasters. Originality/value – This analysis demonstrates the value of integrating conventional sociological analysis and evolutionary theory to gain new explanatory insights about social processes such as serial reciprocity that have received relatively little prior attention by sociological researchers.

“Evolutionary Theory Seems So Easy” Reply to Lucal and Hanson

As we stated early in our article (Machalek and Martin 2010), evolutionary ideas have been gaining traction in the work of a growing number of sociologists in recent years. Much of their thinking derives from work inspired by sociobiology. However, many sociologists are critical of and unreceptive to incorporating evolutionary biology in general and sociobiology in particular into sociological thought and research. Often (but not always), these criticisms are rooted in misconceptions about sociobiological reasoning. We identified a number of these misconceptions and five concepts which, when understood will help allay such misconceptions. We are pleased by the seriousness and focus that Lucal (2010) brought to her reading of our article, and it is gratifying to learn that she took the time and effort to investigate and read additional material about evolution and human social behavior and now sees herself as ‘‘better informed’’ about biology and human social behavior. Lucal also reports that she remains skeptical toward sociobiology, and we respect and applaud her steadfast skepticism, a quality that we see as indispensable for doing good sociology, regardless of the topic of inquiry. As we understand it, Lucal’s major criticism of our paper is that we failed to identify and discuss deficiencies in sociobiology. Our basic reason for not reviewing and discussing criticisms of sociobiology is not that we are uncritical enthusiasts of this perspective but that our primary goal was to identify common misconceptions which, if allowed to persist, inhibit the development of an accurate understanding of this field. And only by gaining an accurate understanding of what actually is entailed in sociobiological reasoning and analysis can one begin to mount meaningful criticisms, much less purport to ‘‘debunk’’ sociobiological thinking. First things first! In addition, Lucal explains that skepticism about sociobiology can derive from sources other than ‘‘bioilliteracy,’’ and she is absolutely correct. Even scholars who are highly informed about evolutionary biology can, and do, pose legitimate criticisms of sociobiological reasoning. And, absolutely, we see it as the duty of instructors who choose to discuss sociobiology with their students to encourage well-informed, carefully reasoned criticism toward this perspective, as we believe should be the case with any perspective to which students are exposed. Finally, we are in full agreement with Lucal that evolutionary thinking (and, for that matter, almost any explanatory system) could be misused to support patterns of social dominance, and we think such efforts should be criticized vigorously and opposed whenever they appear. But we also agree with Lucal, citing Diamond (1999), that ‘‘explanation and justification or acceptance of that explanation are not the same.’’ In fact, by our reading, Thornhill and Palmer’s (2000) effort to explain the phylogenetic origins of sexual coercion seems to be a good example of an analysis in which critics sometimes confuse explanation with justification. Thornhill and Palmer explicitly avow that they would like to see rape ‘‘eradicated from human life’’ (p. xi), and they offer specific policy recommendations for combating sexual coercion (pp. 179-88). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Thornhill and Palmer’s work is a good example of an evolutionary analysis that

Sociobiology, sociopathy, and social policy

Evolutionary analysis suggests that policies based on deterrence may cope effectively with primary sociopathy if the threat of punishment fits the crime in the cost/benefit calculus of the sociopath, not that of the public. On the other hand, policies designed to offset serious disadvantage in social competition may help inhibit the development of secondary sociopathy, rather than deter its expression.

Keeping them Out of the Hands of Satan: Evangelical Schooling in America.

1. A Search for Coherence 2. Morals and Quarrels: Christian Schools and Social Change 3. To Live in Fellowship: Covenant Community 4. School Life: Covenant School 5. To Live in Fellowship: Lakehaven Community 6. School Life: The Academy 7. Spheres of Influence 8. Rhetoric and Reality: Two Views of the World 9. Teaching Discipline: Socializing Disciples 10. Re-creation or Re-production? A Critique of Christian Schools.