A sociologist writes a paper (itself an act of aggression against the illiterate – but I digress) wondering out loud if the progressive “biosocial agenda” embraced by sociologists can be reconciled with the “priorities of biology itself”. Using historical tools (hmmm – wonder what those might be?) to perform a bit of “historical revisionism” (Oh! Those historical tools!) one can reconcile sociology with biology because of “recent developments” in biology. (H/T to a retweet from William Briggs of a tweet from a Charles Murray. William Briggs’ blog can be found here.)
Although sociologists in Britain have debated the nature of their field’s relationship with biology since the late nineteenth century, interest in the full range of responses has only grown in recent years. This paper contributes to the spirit of historical revisionism by turning to the work of the biologist and first director of UNESCO, Julian Huxley (1887–1975). Paying particular attention to the doctrine he called ‘scientific humanism’ and his ideas about a biosocial agenda separate from the priorities of biology itself, the paper uses historical tools to address a concern that has frequently cast a shadow over debates about biosocial science: does it interfere with the progressive agenda sociologists have traditionally seen themselves as contributing to? The paper argues that Huxley’s work is evidence that biosocial science is compatible with progressive goals and that recent developments in biology mean it may be the ideal time to reconsider long-standing attitudes. (non-italics mine – ed.)
In English: can the insistence of biologists that they’re doing science and not social activism be reconciled with the progressive agenda that trumps any science and under which sociologists operate? Can biologists who insist on finding stuff about Nature that could be construed by certain troglodytes as failing to confirm the progressive biosocial agenda be beaten into submission?
Why, yes! Yes they can! Because of “recent developments”. Let me guess: campus witch hunts against any who dare bring science to bear on progressives’ pet dogmas? The fear of losing one’s job or even career if one crosses the powers that be in the University system? Note: humanities + soft science faculties at virtually all universities outnumber real scientists and professors in other fields that depend at least to some extent on objective verification. The raging director of the Women’s Studies department generally carries the same weight as a physicist in hiring and funding decisions, and she and her buddies outnumber you and yours. She will be appeased!
And so on down the line. Add in the extreme touchiness of professors who know in their hearts that they have their positions through no merit of their own, but only because they conformed to expectations and allowed the hiring committee to check off the right boxes, and you have a fundamentally petty and volatile mix, ready to explode at the slightest trigger. To suggest that the sociologists, to take the present example, are frauds using professorships to fund political activism, no matter how patently true and confirmed by their own words (see: above) is high heresy! You will be handed over to the PC Inquisition, which sadly lacks the balance and restraint of the historical Inquisition.
We pay for this. More-or-less innocent children – our children(1) – are subjected to this. People steeped in these effluvia are made to believe that they are educated, open minded and morally superior to those who reject it, and taught to whine and burst into tears of rage when challenged. The progressive immune system treats any real idea as a foreign body to be attacked and destroyed. And for good reason: once you start thinking, the ectoplasm dissipates.
Once we’ve brought down the K-12 schooling system, the colleges and universities are next. Man’s gotta dream.
Minor update: Googled the vaguely familiar sounding Julian Huxley, mentioned in the abstract as the go-to dude for the sociology-biology historical revisionist, and – piece of work! He was a eugenicist – no surprise, that, as all the right people were and are. Huxley, coming as he did from a large herd of prominent Huxleys and Arnolds, could see quite plainly the manifest benefits of good breeding. It’s just that the little issue of Hitler and the Holocaust has tainted the otherwise noble and helpful movement – noble and helpful, that is, unless you’re one of the people of which there are too many.
So, the authors of the Wikipedia article go out of their way to show that Huxley was a kinder, gentler arrogant elitist prick by noting that he just wanted the indigent sterilized and the poor bribed with goods on the condition that they didn’t have any more kids, and of denying healthcare to the really poor so that their kids were more likely to die off. But not like rounding them up and euthanizing them – no! That would be a little extreme! Unless you really, really needed to, I suppose…
In other words, the sociologists have found in this biologist a kindred spirit! Lacking all imagination, they cannot envision a case where *they* are the targets of control and extermination. It’s like they never heard of the French or Russian revolutions at all, or, more likely, had those stories defanged by the historical revisionists, who, after all, have a progressive agenda of their own.
- Well, not mine and probably not yours. Thank God for the Newman List.