The poverty of public knowledge.

As a symbol bearing species one can ponder whether or not it is an inevitability that the human condition necessitates the prevalence of myths. Interest in the relation between the human condition and myths is not a new phenomena, but rather has been present in the work of anthropologists since the time of Sir Edward Tylor. Since then it has donned a variety of cloaks. These have ranged from it being the lowest form of intellectual activity, predominantly performed by 'savages' and peasants, to the notion that it is the means through which inconsistencies are universally worked out. It is not however my intention to discuss the ways in which the concept "myth" has been formulated over the years. Thus a sufficient, albeit extremely simplified, working definition for this post would position it as a false belief. The myths I am specifically referring to in this post are sociobiology and it's offshoot evolutionary psychology.

It is extremely unfortunate that both these fields seem to enjoy a, largely, unquestioned loyalty from the public at large. I have come to expect this of people who are unfamiliar with the social sciences, due to their very nature of presenting simplified and reductionistic explanations which can be readily consumed by the mainstream. Not to mention their painfully ethnocentric underpinnings which only aid in making them more identifiable, and comforting, to 'Western' audiences. Indeed due to their toolboxes lacking in necessary sociocultural theory it is not a surprise that they are unable to approach these myths from a more critical perspective. What has distressed me of late however has been when I have per chance overheard conversations between supposedly more informed people implying faith in such myths. I wonder then what the chance is in saving the public knowledge from poverty imposed upon it by sociobiology and evolutionary psychology when even people who are aware of the complexities inherent in society are still able willing consumers.