ABSTRACT
Of several hypotheses proposed by sociobiologists to explain “homosexuality, ” the most widely discussed is the inclusive fitness hypothesis, which is examined here in the work of the primary sociobiological proponents, E. O. Wilson, Michael Ruse, and James Weinrich. After reviewing the basic evolutionary concepts of natural selection, adaptation, and inclusive fitness/kin selection, I analyze the inclusive fitness hypothesis of homosexuality, taking as an exemplar the initial statement of E. O. Wilson. The implicit assumptions in this hypothesis are identified: that “homosexuality” is a unitary phenomenon, of direct genetic origin, occurring at similar frequencies across societies and through time, without direct reproductive gain, which therefore must be of genetic advantage to relatives. Each of these implicit assumptions is discussed and assessed in turn. The inclusive fitness hypothesis, derived primarily from current stereotypes about homosexuals in Western society, is found to be misconceived and without scientific merit. A general discussion of the nature-nurture, or essentialist-social-constructionist, controversy as it involves this hypothesis concludes the essay.
148I have been speculating last night what makes a man a discoverer of undiscovered things; and a most perplexing problem it is… As far as I can conjecture the art consists of habitually searching for the causes and meaning of everything that occurs. This implies sharp observation, and requires as much knowledge as possible of the subject investigated.
—Charles Darwin (cited in Bowlby, 1990, p. 412)