Symbolic Interaction, Volume 26, Number 4, pages 631–644, ISSN 0195-6086; online ISSN 1533-8665. © 2003 by the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction. All rights reserved. Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223. Direct all correspondence to Robert Dingwall, Institute for the Study of Genetics, Biorisks and Society, Law and Social Sciences Building, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD United Kingdom. Biological Determinism and Symbolic Interaction: Hereditary Streams and Cultural Roads Robert Dingwall University of Nottingham Brigitte Nerlich University of Nottingham Samantha Hillyard University of Nottingham This article discusses current claims to have demonstrated a biological basis for elements of human behavior. It argues that many of these are seri- ously flawed by their misunderstandings of the nature of culture and social interaction, which leads to the adoption of an inappropriate realist episte- mology. These issues were extensively debated during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when the intellectual and institutional bound- aries between the social and biological sciences were more fluid. The argu- ments of that period about the role of “instinct” in human behavior are important resources for responding to the recent revival of biological deter- minism. As defined by Blumer and Strauss, however, symbolic interactionism has moved away from its engagement with biology. This article argues for reengagement and for a reappraisal of the historical resources available to sociologists in sifting the “imperialist” claims of biology while acknowledging the importance of embodiment as a constraint on social constructionism. This article contributes one more chapter to the long history of the intersection be- tween physiological and social psychology. The impetus for this article is a report by Caspi et al. (2002) published in Science, one of the most prestigious general science journals. 1 This report attracted considerable media attention in summer 2002 for its claim that some criminal behavior had a biological basis, arising from childhood ex- periences of maltreatment. That claim provides a powerful reminder of the extent to which many people are receptive to a kind of “biological imperialism,” however naive its understanding of the social and cultural dimensions of the problem being