 This is a study guide for Chapter 7 of Sociology for Optimists by Mary Holm, published in 2015, the chapter is called Nature. Please note that these study guides are meant to point out some important concepts of interest to introductory students. These are not designed to be thorough or provide an in-depth discussion of the chapter. Material will be skipped or barely discussed, while other concepts will be given more emphasis than the chapter may have given them. Also note that the purpose of this book is to look at ways in which sociology can provide a basis for optimism, so discussions of pessimism and optimism will be central to this guide. Sociobiology. Sociologists have considered a relationship between biology and sociology almost since Augusta Comte. Some sociologists who believe that there is a strong connection between nature and nurture created a subdiscipline called sociobiology. Most sociologists regard sociobiology critically, pointing out that the subdiscipline tends to be deterministic and reductionistic. Determinism means that there is only one path to an outcome, and that outcome will inevitably happen. This means that there is very little freedom on the part of an individual. Your biology, species, imperatives, and ecosystem creates you and no amount of personal choice can fight that. So this tends to be a pessimistic point of view. Reductionism means that the researcher or theorist looks for the simplest explanation, often ignoring complexity. This can mean that a lot of things that might help us understand human behavior get lost. It may be that a simple explanation can predict a great deal of human behavior, but it doesn't account for human variations. Again, this tends to be a pessimistic view because of its exclusive nature. In addition to specific criticisms of sociobiology, there are some criticisms of the way science itself is practiced. While scientific method and rationality are lofty goals, worthy aspiring to, often in practice, especially when it comes to applying scientific method to human behavior, the cultural biases of the scientist can create blind spots and thus create a biased theory or research. Since sociology has an excellent track record of identifying cultural biases and differences in normative behavior, if all sociology were reduced down in sociobiology, it would be difficult to find these biases and adjust theories accordingly. Holmes, the author of the book, gives an example of this problem by reviewing Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. She points out that Dawkins, in a search for an understanding of how humans pick mates and carry on the species, you know, passing their genes to the next generation, he ends up validating cultural stereotypes about women that are Western in focus. Not all women in all cultures share these characteristics by stating that what he has observed within his own culture is explained by biology, he has generalized to all humans when the evidence suggests otherwise. Holmes doesn't say this in the book, but this is basically ethnocentrism, the viewing of others through one's own cultural lenses. While sociobiology has its problems, Holmes is also pointed out that we do not interact with others strictly through our minds. We have physical bodies that are a part of biology and ecology. We interact with others in part based upon that physical presence. Sociologists, including Mark, Weber, and Durkheim, recognize that humans are animals. Mark Stevens talks about this as a species. However, when sociologists have written theorized and researched humans, they have held the same biases most Westerners have, the belief that humans are superior to other animals and that humans are masters of nature. This bias limits the ways in which those theologists study human behavior, but it has also led to an understanding of the responsibility of people to other species. Because sociology has highlighted oppression and ways to overcome oppression, it has provided a positive example of how humans can help other species. We regard the mistreatment of animals as oppression, and those who would protect animals use the language of rights, oppression, and liberation to help prevent such mistreatment. Another area where sociology provides basis for optimism is the area of human impact on our environment and ecology, especially when thinking about climate change. Because sociologists question both technology and the profit motive, pointing out the downside of such human activity and providing possible alternatives to these negatives, sociology can be quite useful in helping people find a better relationship with their environment. Sociology also offers some methodologies to create and assess social change and social policy, both needed to make changes that will slow down global warming and prevent pollution. So where is the optimism? Let's summarize this chapter. First of all, sociology studies group dynamics. The mutual cooperation that is needed for species to survive is basically group dynamics. And what sociologists understand about dynamics can help create better systems of cooperation. Sociology studies inequality. While these inequalities are mostly looking at human-to-human relationship, sociologists can show how human impact on other species in the form of oppression, and that oppression can be addressed in the same way that human-on-human oppression is addressed. Sociology studies structure and agency. This provides a basis for understanding how humans and other animals, even plants, interact with each other, providing a basis for seeing other species as having agency of their own. Sociology studies power and other cultures. Most of the environmental damage that has been done comes from an abuse of power. However, sociologists can locate and critique that power. In addition, since sociology helps and cross-cultural understanding, it can be the basis for learning from cultures who have not abused their environment, providing better models for human-nature relations.