Anne Applebaum, You Gotta (Be) Put(ting) Me On

Yglesias finds Anne Applebaum going to the nearly inevitable stage 2 of teleological arguments that attempt to justify systematic inequalities: arguing that whether patterns are innate or socially constructed doesn’t matter. As it happens, Charles Murray himself tried that routine on for size. From his 1994 New Republic “apologia”:

Given the weight of the many circumstantial patterns, it seems improbable to us–though possible–that genes have no role whatsoever. What might the mix of genetic and environmental influences be? We are resolutely agnostic on that. Here is what we hope will be our contribution to the discussion. We put it in italics; if we could, we would put it in neon lights: The answer doesn’t much matter. Whether the black-white difference in test scores is produced by genes or the environment has no bearing on any of the reasons why the black- white difference is worth worrying about. If tomorrow we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt what role, if any, were played by genes, the news would be neither good if ethnic differences were predominantly environmental, nor awful if they were predominantly genetic.

Leaving aside the fact that The Bell Curve–like Larry Summers–is anything but agnostic on this question, the whole argument is silly. Indeed, I’m afraid this argument is so bad that even Mickey Kaus himself can see through it. From the same issue:

The only problem with the assertion that “it matters little whether the genes are involved” is that it’s crazy. It matters a lot if the black-white difference is genetic, because genetic differences in mental ability are almost certainly much harder to alter. Yes, there are simple cures for some hereditary conditions, like baldness. But as yet there is no Rogaine for the brain. At a recent symposium on his book, Murray delivered a sweeping pronouncement along the lines of the one on page 34 of this issue: “whether the black-white difference in test scores is produced by the genes or the environment has no bearing on any of the reasons why the black-white difference is worth worrying about.” What about affirmative action? someone asked. Wasn’t the argument that if blacks were artificially vaulted into the middle class, the environment in which the next generation was raised would change? Doesn’t it matter for that argument if environment is the key? Gee, Murray responded. He hadn’t thought of that example!

When you lose a debate to Mickey Kaus, I think the line of reasoning you’re advancing can be pronounced officially dead.

And the same thing is true, as Yglesias points out, with respect to the issues raised by Applebaum. If women taking on a disproportionate burden of childrearing is largely a social norm, than it can (and, in my view, should) be altered by intelligent public policy. If it is derived from innate characteristics, than public policies designed to change it would probably be ineffective and also probably undesirable. The effectiveness of European social policies in allowing women greater access to the workplace makes a strong case for the former, but at any rate to say that the difference doesn’t matter is indefensible on its face.