Hereditarianism - Political Implications

Political Implications

Pastore has claimed that hereditarians were more likely to be conservative, that they view social and economic inequality as a natural result of variation in talent and character. Thus, likewise they explain class and race differences as the result of partly genetic group differences. He contrasted this with the claim that behaviorists were more likely to be liberals or leftists, that they believe economic disadvantage and structural problems in the social order were to blame for group differences. Conservative economist Thomas Sowell has noted the converse relationship, noting that conservatives tend to have a hereditarian view of human nature (Sowell calls this the "constrained" view) and liberals tend to have a behaviorist ("unconstrained") view.

However, the historical correspondence between hereditarianism and conservatism has broken down at least among proponents of hereditarianism. Many notable hereditarians are avowedly liberal. A notable example was Noam Chomsky's defense of sociobiology. Philosopher Peter Singer describes his vision of a new liberal political view that embraces hereditarianism in his 1999 book. Similarly, in his 2002 book, psychologist Steven Pinker endorses the view that hereditarianism is the empirically correct view of human nature, that this does have political implications which would constrain the goals of some liberal philosophies, but that embracing rather than rejecting the hereditarian view of human nature is the best way to achieve liberal goals.

The Pioneer Fund, established in 1937 is now a leading source of funding for scientists wishing to investigate hereditarian hypotheses.