Sociological Perspectives

In a thought-provoking appraisal of the state of macrosociological theory, Gerhard Lenski argues that its shortcomings can be rectified, in part, by reference to nomological reasoning. Moreover, developments in behavioral ecology, evolutionary biology, and population genetics offer interesting insights into analyses of social behavior across time and space and, in the process, reveal some useful hints about the manner in which sociocultural theorists might proceed in developing more elegant theoretical statements. With these considerations in mind, the argument elaborated in this essay suggests: (1) that contemporary sociocultural science has much to contribute to the development of a general theory of social behavior, (2) that theory refinement in the sociocultural sciences can be enhanced significantly by reference to general principles (specifically, an amended version of the “maximization principle”) developed in recent years in the evolutionary behavioral sciences; and (3) that reliance on such general analytical principles is enormously helpful in clarifying some seemingly troublesome theoretical problems in, for example, studies of social demography and human ecology and of social stratification and mobility.

The author rejects as unfounded the argument that sociobiology can provide a nomothetic foundation for the sociocultural sciences. The theoretical logic of sociobiology is reviewed, the scope of the theory is discussed, and its problems of inference, ecology, and myth making are analyzed. The explicit claim made by interpreters that the theory provides ultimate explanations, and the implicit claim to a privileged status for these, cannot be theoretically, empirically, or logically justified.

Outside of sociology, evolutionary theory is once again commanding widespread attention in social science. Having sat out the spirited debates over sociobiology in the 1970s, most sociologists are largely unaware that the field has prospered and is now a respected, interdisciplinary science with a growing number of influential scholars within the social sciences. This article takes a critical look at sociobiology with a consideration of both its historical origins and its now modified theoretical stance, which is exemplified by Timothy Crippen's article “Toward a Neo-Darwinian Sociology.” In addition, this essay summarizes an alternative approach that might be called “evolutionary sociology.” While it also incorporates the Modern Synthesis, it uses established sociological methods and theory, along with primate data and the fossil and archaeological records, to consider the biological legacy of humankind.

Sociologists have been unusually reluctant to incorporate into their explanatory systems the theoretical insights of evolutionary biology, behavioral ecology, and population genetics. This skepticism toward genuinely evolutionary approaches is expressed, to varying degrees, in the reactions of Freese and Maryanski to my essay on neo-Darwinian sociology. In this brief response to their comments, I suggest that these general reservations are grounded in an unnecessary fear of resurgent Social Darwinism, unwarranted concerns regarding determinism and reductionism, unjustified allegations of teleology and tautology, and/or general misconceptions of the logic and principles of neo-Darwinian theory.

The article begins by underscoring the widely noted “sociological crisis” and the message from the history of science that the crisis may be susceptible to resolution through an application of a general law pertaining to a neighboring science (sociobiology in our case). From here, the article proceeds to pinpoint the basic argument of Professor Crippen's article (this issue) and then critically examines the two articles that critically accompany it. We find some errors of interpretation in Professor Maryanski's article, but on the whole it is a constructive critique of Crippen's essay and a related invitation to a biologically informed evolutionary sociology. By contrast, Professor Freese's interminable article fails to confront Crippen's argument and in the process offers a tortuous, tendentious itinerary of politically correct interpretations of scientific inquiry in general and sociobiological science in particular.

Using data from the June 1986 and June 1988 Current Population Surveys, we look at differences in occupational achievement, education, occupational prestige, and per capita income among a large number of first-generation immigrant groups. We seek to explore a central question in the debate about the economic prospects of immigrants: Do groups convert education into occupational prestige in similar ways? To address this issue, we examine differences in estimated rates of returns to socioeconomic occupational scores for education among immigrant groups. Notwithstanding language difficulties and unfamiliarity with the labor market—characteristics that we could not measure with this dataset—the labor market experiences of higher-skilled immigrants appear not to differ appreciably from that of native whites of native parentage. By contrast, low-skilled immigrants are concentrated in low-level jobs where the structure of employment seems to limit the rewards to additional gains in skill.

During the last half-century, the number of one-person households has consistently increased faster than other households. An overlooked part of this process has been the adults who live alone while they are between 25 and 54 years of age. Through recent decades, the growth in the number of these households has been affected by the longer delay before marriage, increase in divorce, and a decline in traditional family values. A majority of these lone adults have never married, have had college education, have had no children, have been dating have good or excellent health, and are working for pay. Whether living alone during middle adulthood is, on balance, beneficial to the person, to the person's significant others, or to society in general depends on the circumstances.