Moving Pictures: Sociobiology and Public Persuasion

Understanding the sociobiology debate means understanding how its subject matter was presented to the public. The controversy about sociobiology quickly reached the national stage with publications such as the New York Times and the New York Review of Books providing room for debate and partisan coverage. Sociobiology’s fiercest critics Stephen Gould and Richard Lewontin presented sociobiology as yet another iteration of biological determinism to support reactionary politics, while E.O. Wilson stressed Sociobiology’s scientific achievements and portrayed himself as the victim of academic vigilantism by political ideologues on the left. This effort by proponents and critics alike to convince the public of their interpretation of sociobiology is exemplified in the history of a 1976 film entitled Sociobiology: Doing what comes naturally. Hoping to promote the explanatory power, disciplinary coherence and social relevance of sociobiology, three leading Harvard sociobiologists, including Wilson himself, gave interviews to the Canadian television network CTV in March 1972. However, the final product was not suitable to promote Wilson’s New Synthesis but instead played into the hands of Wilson’s critics. This film became a crucial weapon in their arsenal to convince the public of the true nature of sociobiology as genetic determinism and naïve reductionism. This paper explores the production, reception, and utilization of this film in one of the most public scientific controversies of the 20th century. It argues that sociobiology’s critics were successful in their mission to create public controversy, but that sociobiology’s actual impact is its immense influence on other disciplines.