Genetic Inheritance

The question of whether or not differences in educational performance reflect natural or cultural differences is an important one to resolve, not just in this particular case but in the context of our understanding of the social world in general. Although this debate is sometimes reduced, rather crudely, to the question of "Inheritance or Environment?", it's not really very helpful to think in terms of such a rigid separation between the two ideas.

However, it is clear that different social scientists do place different levels of emphasis on inherited intelligence and cultural learning.

At one end of this debate are psychologists such as Burt, Eysenck, Jensen and Herrnstein ("The Bell Curve" 1994, with the political scientist Charles Murray).

In Britain in the 1930's, for example, one of the most famous studies of inherited intelligence was carried-out by Cyril Burt, who claimed to have discovered that the intelligence levels of identical twins raised in different environments was identical.

Since identical twins develop from the same egg that separates in the womb, they share the same genetic inheritance from their parents. If they are subsequently raised in different environments, yet can be shown to have very similar levels of intelligence, this would be a very powerful argument in favour of the idea that intelligence is largely inherited...

However, in recent years Burt's work has been severely criticised by writers such as Collie (who found evidence that Burt did not do the research he had claimed to have done) and Kamin (who argued that Burt’s findings were too perfect in terms of their statistical correlation’s, thereby suggesting that Burt had simply made-up his evidence). This evidence probably makes Burt’s work unreliable and invalid (but an interesting footnote here is the fact that Burt's research formed the basis for the 1944 Education Act that created two basic classes of school (Grammar and Secondary Modern) to cater for two different types of pupil; those with high levels of academic intelligence and those, less intelligent than their peers but with the ability to benefit from a more practically-based education).

Herrnstein and Murray's argument, on the other hand, is that in America at least, Black Americans have generally lower IQ scores than White Americans.

Sociologists such as Peter Saunders ("A Social Divide Based on Merit", 1994), although rejecting the more extreme (methodologically dubious and probably racist) claims of writers such as Burt, Herrnstein and Murray, argues that there is a well-established cultural link between intelligence and social class. In basic terms, Saunders argues that, over numerous generations, an intellectual filtering process has taken place in our society. Saunders doesn't, in this respect, argue that intelligence is inherited, as such; rather, he suggests that those social classes (such as the professional middle class) where a certain type of intelligence is a necessary economic prerequisite orientate their off-spring towards the kind of academic education that will ensure their future economic and class position. In short, he argues that a certain level of intelligence correlates closely with certain types of work.

At the other end of the debate are sociologists such as Marshall and O'Donnell, and social biologists such as Stephen Rose ("Not in our Genes" 1984, written with Lewontin and Kamin), who place greater emphasis on the way powerful groups in any society are effectively able to define the concept of "intelligence" in ways that are favourable to their particular (political, ideological and economic) interests.

Illich ("Deschooling Society"), for example, argues that the fact "academic" (theoretical) knowledge has higher status in our education system than "practical" knowledge reflects the ability of powerful interest and status groups (doctors, lecturers, lawyers and the like) to impose their educational values on other groups.

O'Donnell ("A New Introduction To Sociology", 1987), on the other hand, argues it is possible to demonstrate that the relationship between intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) is insignificant in relation to an individual's life chances in the world of work.   Rather, he argues that it is the socio-economic background into which an individual is born (rather than "IQ") that conditions the likelihood of success or failure in both the educational system and wider society.

Although the above section has mainly focused on the possible relationship between inherited intelligence, class and ethnicity, it is evident that a further dimension (gender) is both important and, in this particular instance, highly significant.

When we apply the concept of genetic inheritance to the idea of "intelligence" and "gender", a major problem with this theory as an explanation of differential educational achievement is revealed.

Over the past generation in Britain, the academic performance of girls has changed dramatically; from a situation, 25 - 30 years ago, where boys outperformed girls in most subjects to one in which girls outperform boys in virtually every examined subject at all levels of the education system.

If, a generation ago, we could explain male educational dominance in terms of their superior natural intelligence, how do we explain the sudden (in evolutionary terms) reversal of this situation? Boys, for example, have not become "less intelligent" (their overall academic performance is relatively greater now than a generation ago). Girls, on the other hand, appear to have become "more intelligent" since, relatively, their overall academic performance is far higher now than a generation ago. Have girls, therefore, become genetically "more intelligent"?

The obvious answer is clearly "no" since, in evolutionary terms, the time span for the performance improvement is much too short. What has changed, in broad terms, is British society - both in terms of its overall attitude to female education and in terms of the social roles played by women (and men). Many more women today see at least part of their role as involving economic activity (work) as opposed to even a generation ago when many more women saw their primary social role as involving family and child care.

What has changed, therefore, is the perception of male and female roles, rather than any increase or decrease in "intelligence". Thus, the question of whether or not "intelligence" is inherited is largely irrelevant in the context of academic performance since it is evident that, even if we allow for some level of inherited intelligence (which, for the sake of argument we will assume to be the case), it is not a significant factor in educational performance. What matters most, it would seem, is the perception each student develops about their future adult roles.

In very basic terms, those students - of whatever social class, gender or ethnic background - who see educational performance as a significant factor in their future adult roles (as economic provider, as a particular class of worker and so forth) are more-likely to achieve academic success than those who, for whatever reason, do not see educational performance as a significant factor in their future adult life.