Christopher D. Horvath

Departments of Philosophy and Biological Sciences

Illinois State University

Current Research Interests

Evolution is the central, unifying theory of the modern life sciences. Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory serves as the organizing principle around which almost all biological knowledge and research is arranged. There remain, however, many important life science disciplines that were not incorporated into the evolutionary paradigm during the “Evolutionary Synthesis”. In disciplines like Systematics, Conservation Biology, Psychology, and Developmental Biology, the integration of key concepts is taking place right now. My research interests focus on the sites of these “integrations”.

My training as both a philosopher and a biologist has led me to take a very interdisciplinary approach to my research. I utilize both traditional philosophical methodologies and more “scientific”, empirical methodologies in my work. I also draw on conceptual and theoretical frameworks from both disciplines.

To date, my research has focused on three main areas: First, I am interested in the synthesis of modern Systematics and Taxonomy with an evolutionary understanding of the pattern of genealogical descent. There is still a great deal of controversy over the validity of phylogenetic approaches in these fields. In my research and writing I have attempted to show that any identification and formalization of the “pattern” of organization observed in the natural world must be compatible with our theoretical understanding of the causal processes by which that pattern is formed. Given that we think the relevant causal processes are evolutionary (e.g. mutation, selection, genetic drift, etc.), and we think that the pattern of organization we observe in the world is a product of natural processes and not a construct of human consciousness, then our formalization of that pattern in terms of taxa (e.g. species) must be consistent with our understanding of those evolutionary processes.

I plan to continue my active participation in the ongoing dialogue over the integration of evolutionary theory into the conceptual framework and methodology of Systematics. My recent work on individuality and the concept of species as individuals has established me as one of the principle interlocutors in an important dialogue currently underway in the literature.

More recently, I have begun to focus on the development of cutting-edge evolutionary approaches in psychology, anthropology, and sociology. The consensus within the philosophical community is that the naïve sociobiology of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s was a scientific failure. Nevertheless, biologists and behavioral scientists have continued to refine their use of evolutionary theory as a way to gain explanatory insight into all aspects of human behavior including specifically gender and human sexuality. Despite the difficulties, these attempts are more than justified given the unifying position evolutionary theory has in the life sciences. If evolution is the process that explains the development and diversification of all life on Earth, then it must serve an important role in explaining the development and diversity of humans and human culture. In my work in this area I have argued in favor of the unifying power of evolutionary theory and against the naïve move from evolutionary explanations for human behavioral and psychological phenomena to moral and social policy applications of the resulting biological understanding of “human nature”. I have also argued against the false dichotomy between “Biological Determinism” and “Social Constructionism” and in favor of a more synthetic, “developmentalist” view.

Given the rapid rate at which evolutionary theory is making significant inroads into studies of human behavior and culture, I find that more of my time is being devoted to research in this area. I have recently completed three projects dealing with evolutionary explanations for human sexuality and gender. One of these is a collaborative project with Michael Bailey (Psychology, Northwestern University) and Richard Pillard (Psychiatry, Boston University) both of whom have received substantial funding from prestigious sources for this project. The second project involves a philosophical examination of the work being done in various biobehavioral disciplines to develop a concept of gender that is consistent with an evolutionary understanding of human development. In the third project, I defend biogenetic research on sexual orientation against those who argue all such research is inherently unethical. A fourth project currently underway focuses on the ways in which philosophy, biology, psychology, and medicine interact around issues of gender and sexual orientation. How does our biological understanding of the evolution of human nature influence or become manifest in medical and psychiatric practice? How do our medical and psychiatric concepts of disease, deformity, and normalcy affect the hypotheses we generate regarding the evolution and development of human sexuality?

My recent research on gender and sexuality led to the development of a very successful course that now plays an important role is Illinois State University’s general education program. In this course, students investigate how disciplinary knowledge both shapes and is shaped by the larger social context in which it is situated. Students investigate two competing accounts of human nature: the biological determinist account, and the social constructionist account. In particular, they examine how each of these theories sets about explaining the facts concerning our sex, gender and sexuality. They then examine the normative consequences that flow from each of these views about human sexuality--e.g., what a biological determinist explanation of sexual orientation would mean for how the law should treat homosexuality, or what a social constructionist account of sex would mean for how doctors should treat children born with ambiguous genitalia. But they also investigate ways in which the practices within our culture concerning sex, gender and sexuality may have made certain theories of human sexuality seem more plausible than the evidence actually warrants. They thus explore the question, what role scientific knowledge can and should play in helping us decide what sorts of social arrangements we ought to adopt.

In addition to my work on gender and sexual orientation, I have also begun working on a more fundamental problem in evolutionary psychology. While most researchers who use evolutionary theory to investigate human nature describe themselves as “interactionists”, there is no clear consensus on the meaning of this term in this context. By interactionism most people in the field mean something like, both nature and nurture “count" in the development of human behavior and psychology. Nevertheless, the multi-disciplinary nature of Evolutionary Psychology results in a wide variety of interpretations of this general claim. Because interactionism is so vaguely defined, it’s defenders often argue about whether the same bodies of data support or refute Evolutionary Psychology. What is needed at this point is some “conceptual house-cleaning” -- a perfect problem for a philosopher of science.

The complete integration of disciplines such as psychology, sociology and medicine into the evolutionary paradigm is inevitable. Nevertheless, that integration will transform evolutionary theory as well as the basic theoretical framework of the integrated sciences. I believe that this integration will drive the social sciences way from a naïve interactionist paradigm in the same way it is driving the biological sciences away from a naïve determinist paradigm. The resulting joint paradigm is likely to place far more emphasis on complex, integrated developmental systems with necessary inputs at many different levels.

Finally, because of my frequent interaction with colleagues and students in Illinois State University’s Program in Conservation Biology I have begun to think seriously about the ways in which philosophy (especially philosophy of biology) and evolutionary theory can advance our understanding of conservation biology. Obviously, philosophers have a greater role to play here than just addressing ethical issues about resource utilization and the rights of non-humans (though these are clearly important). The interdisciplinary insights of both philosophers and evolutionary biologists can also help solve tricky problems such as clarifying important concepts like “natural population”, “species diversity”, and “natural environment”. To date, philosophers of biology have not been very active in addressing questions about ecological restoration or conservation biology. Thus, there is a great deal of work to be done.