Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-11T11:28:39.159Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The social stratification of population as a mechanism of downward causation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2023

Emily Klancher Merchant Open the ORCID record for Emily Klancher Merchant [Opens in a new window]
Emily Klancher Merchant*
Affiliation:
Science and Technology Studies, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA ekmerchant@ucdavis.edu https://emilyklancher.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary expands on Burt's concept of downward causation to include any association between genomic variants and a given outcome that is forged through social practices rather than biochemical pathways. It proposes the social stratification of population, through which endogamy over a period of generations produces allele frequency differences between socioeconomic strata, as a mechanism of downward causation.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e219
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brumpton, B., Sanderson, E., Heilbron, K., Hartwig, F. P., Harrison, S., Vie, G. Å., ... Davies, N. M. (2020). Avoiding dynastic, assortative mating, and population stratification biases in Mendelian randomization through within-family analyses. Nature Communications, 11(3519), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Domingue, B. W., Fletcher, J., Conley, D., & Boardman, J. D. (2014). Genetic and educational assortative mating among U.S. adults. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(22), 7996–8000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groeger, C. V. (2021). The education trap: Schools and the remaking of inequality in Boston. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hamer, D. H. (2000). Beware the chopsticks gene. Molecular Psychiatry, 5(1), 11–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harden, K. P. (2021). The genetic lottery: Why DNA matters for social equality. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Haworth, S., Mitchell, R., Corbin, L., Wade, K. H., Dudding, T., Buddu-Agrey, A., ... Timpson, N. J. (2019). Apparent latent structure within the UK Biobank sample has implications for epidemiological analysis. Nature Communications, 10(333), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, B., & Marsden, D. (2012). Education and the working class. Routledge.Google Scholar
Kalmijn, M. (1991). Status homogamy in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 97(2), 496–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, D. S., Wagner, B., Donnelly, L., McLanahan, S., Brooks-Gunn, J., Garfinkel, I., … Notterman, D. A. (2018). Neighborhood disadvantage and telomere length: Results from the Fragile Families Study. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(4), 28–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, T. T., Davies, N. M., Hemani, G., & Smith, G. D. (2020). Population phenomena inflate genetic associations of complex social traits. Science Advances, 6(16), eaay0328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neidhöfer, G., & Stockhausen, M. (2019). Dynastic inequality compared: Multigenerational mobility in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Review of Income and Wealth, 65(2), 383–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, C. R., & Mare, R. D. (2005). Trends in educational assortative marriage from 1940 to 2003. Demography, 42(4), 621–646.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Leeuwen, M. H. D., Maas, I., & Miles, A. (Eds.) (2005). Marriage choices and class boundaries: Social endogamy in history. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar