ABSTRACT
Essentialism If determinism is a slur word in social science branches unfriendly to science proper,
essentialism and reductionism are terms of abuse used even by most members of its
science-friendly branches (Sayer, 1997). There are varieties of essentialism and reduc-
tionism, but their enemies tend to attack only extreme versions that proponents barely
recognize, such as Platonic essences tied to his perfect, unalterable, and eternal Forms.
Essentialism is attacked most strongly by some feminist criminologists who believe that
many social science theories “homogenize” women based on “basic, stable sex differ-
ences that arise from causes that are inherent in the human species such as biologically
based evolved psychological dispositions” (Wood & Eagly, 2002:700). Believers in the
reality of race are also charged with essentialism. Naomi Zack alleges that “to this day
[believers in the reality of race] assume the following: (1) Races are made up of individuals
sharing the same essence; (2) each race is sharply discontinuous from all others”
(2002:63). I have never heard any scientist claim that racial groups share a common
“essence” or that racial boundaries are “sharply discontinuous”; if they were, we would
call them species (but even species are not sharply discontinuous). I will wager that Zack
has never heard any biologist make these claims either.
