Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
Nagłówek strony

Artykuły

Nr 2(15) (2018): „Chłop polski” z perspektywy stulecia

The Change in William I. Thomas’s View of Biology

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14394/srz.15.6
Przesłane
27 kwietnia 2020
Opublikowane
01-11-2018

Abstrakt

In this article the author shows how the exploding role of biology in William Thomas’s sociology and social psychology has changed. Since the beginning of his career, this researcher addressed numerous topics that involved both biological and social factors – he commented on the nature of gender, race, instincts, prejudice and evolution. His departure point was biologism, which proclaimed that innate predispositions are a variable independent of social processes. In the following years, Thomas changed his beliefs, recognising that it was culture and society that left its mark on physiological and psychological development. The changes in Thomas’s reasoning are described by the author against the background of past and present views on the relationship between society and the brain, claiming that his late views could resonate with today’s approaches.

Bibliografia

  1. Alcock J. 2001. The Triumph of Sociobiology, Oxford University Press.
  2. Ayabe-Kanamura S., Schicker I., Laska M., Hudson R., Distel H., Kobayakawa T., Saito S. 1998. “Differences in Perception of Everyday Odors: A Japanese-German Cross-Cultural Study,” Chemical Senses, vol. 23(1), pp. 31–38, https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/23.1.31.
  3. Bailes F., Dean R.T., Broughton M.C. 2015. “How Different Are Our Perceptions of Equal-Tempered and Microtonal Intervals? A Behavioural and EEG Survey,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10(8), e0135082, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135082.
  4. Bernstein B. 1975. Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language, Schocken Books.
  5. Bourdieu P., Passeron J.C. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture, SAGE Publications.
  6. Duch W. 2009. “Reprezentacje umysłowe jako aproksymacje stanów mózgu,” Studia z Kognitywistyki i Filozofii Umysłu, vol. 3, pp. 5–28.
  7. Franks D.D. 2010. Neurosociology: The Nexus between Neuroscience and Social Psychology, Springer.
  8. Jeynes W.H. 2010. “Race, Racism, and Darwinism,” Education and Urban Society, vol. 43(5), pp. 535–559, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510380723.
  9. McDougall W. 2001. An Introduction to Social Psychology, Batoche Books.
  10. Merz E.C., Maskus E., Melvin S., Meyer J., He X., Noble K. 2019a. “Socioeconomic Factors, Family Stress, and Children’s Hippocampal Structure,” Psychoneuroendocrinology, vol. 100, p. 54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.12.184.
  11. Merz E.C., Wiltshire C.A., Noble K.G. 2019b. “Socioeconomic Inequality and the Developing Brain: Spotlight on Language and Executive Function,” Child Development Perspectives, vol. 13(1), pp. 15–20, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12305.
  12. Noble K.G., Houston S.M., Kan E., Sowell E.R. 2012. “Neural Correlates of Socioeconomic Status in the Developing Human Brain,” Developmental Science, vol. 15(4), pp. 516–527, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01147.x.
  13. Noble K.G., Tottenham N., Casey B.J. 2005. “Neuroscience Perspectives on Disparities in School Readiness and Cognitive Achievement,” The Future of Children, vol. 15(1), pp. 71–89, https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2005.0006.
  14. Perry B.L. 2015. “The Sociology of, in, and with Genetics: The Role of Medical Sociology in the Era of '-omics,'” [in:] Genetics, Health and Society, ed. B.L. Perry, Emerald Group Publishing, pp. xi–xxiii.
  15. Remisiewicz Ł. 2017a. “Biologia w socjologii – trzy sposoby wiązania,” Filozofia Nauki, vol. 97(1), pp. 65–89.
  16. Remisiewicz Ł. 2017b. “Zarzut redukcjonizmu w kontekście relacji biologia–socjologia,” Progress, vol. 1, pp. 37–49, https://doi.org/10.4467/25439928PS.17.003.6509.
  17. Richards R.J. 2018. “Instinct,” [in:] Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior, eds. J. Vonk, T.K. Shackelford, Springer International Publishing.
  18. Rosenberg R. 1975. “In Search of Woman’s Nature, 1850–1920,” Feminist Studies, vol. 3(1/2), p. 141.
  19. Sacks P. 2000. Standardized Minds: The High Price of America’s Testing Culture and What We Can Do to Change It, Da Capo Press.
  20. Sociobiology Study Group of Science for the People. 1991. “Socjobiologia: nowy determinizm biologiczny,” [in:] Człowiek, zwierzę społeczne, eds. B. Szacka, J. Szacki, Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza “Czytelnik,” pp. 429–438.
  21. Spencer H. 1855. Principles of Psychology, Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans.
  22. Szacka B. 1991. “Wstęp,” [in:] Człowiek, zwierzę społeczne, eds. B. Szacka, J. Szacki, Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza “Czytelnik,” pp. 5–40.
  23. TenHouten W.D. 1985. “Right Hemisphericity of Australian Aboriginal Children: Effects of Culture, Sex, and Age on Performances of Closure and Similarities Tests,” International Journal of Neuroscience, vol. 28(1–2), pp. 125–145.
  24. Thomas W.I. 1897. “On a Difference in the Metabolism of the Sexes,” Journal of Sociology, vol. 3, pp. 31–63.
  25. Thomas W.I. 1907. “The Mind of Woman and the Lower Races,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 12, pp. 435–469.
  26. Wilson E.O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Harvard University Press.
  27. Wong P.C.M., Ciocca V., Chan A.H.D., Ha L.Y.Y., Tan L.-H., Peretz I. 2012. “Effects of Culture on Musical Pitch Perception,” PLoS ONE, vol. 7(4), e33424, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033424.
  28. Young K. 1962. “Contributions of William Isaac Thomas to Sociology I,” Sociology and Social Research, vol. 47, pp. 381–397.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.