[Marxism-Thaxis] hull_sociobiology Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org Wed Jan 25 15:11:26 MST 2006
Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Domains of knowledge, particular spheres; levels of organization of reality; materialist dialectic Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] hull_sociobiology Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > More specifically, Segerstråle attempts to discover exactly what the >views of the biologists she studied were and why they held them. On what >basis do the sociobiologists as well as their opponents evaluate >sociobiology? For example, the versions of evolutionary theory that >sociobiologists extended to behaviour and social structure tended to be very >individualistic and competitive. Sociobiologists tend to think that >selection occurs only at the lowest levels of organization, a position their >critics attribute to their economic leanings: the individual is paramount in >free-enterprise economic systems. The Marxist opponents of sociobiology tend >to think that selection can occur at higher levels of organization, >including groups. Is this an accurate way of putting the distinction? ^^^^^ CB; I don't think so. It is still individual members of species that either survive long enough to produce offspring or die before they do. The "group" that is thereby selected for or against is the multiple offspring ( or lack of offspring) and offspring of offspring...and who bare the trait that causes survival to reproduce or failure to survive long enough to reproduce. There is the slight sense that this is true in that , especially with humans, it is the high level and qualitatively unique sociality or socialness as compared with other species, culture, that gives humans high relative fitness. In this sense it is "groupness" not "the group" that was selected for in the first human individuals. >In Marxism, groups are more important than individuals. >Capitalists view nature as competitive, whereas these Marxist critics tend >to view it as being much more cooperative. This is false through and through. ^^^^ CB: I think you might be rejecting the stereotype of Marxism as anti-individual. You are correct. I'd say there might be some vague sense in this in that I think we can say that it was advances in the quantity and quality of cooperation ( socialness, and culture, tradition, which is social connection to dead members of the species that other animals don't have, "cooperation" with the dead through the culture they leave) that was the great advantage of _human_ nature at our origin. ^^^^^ > As Segerstråle notes, one problem with posing the issue in the way >she does is that sociobiology's opponents lived in exactly the same array of >societies and subsocieties as their opponents. During their formative years, >nearly all of the protagonists in this controversy were raised in >competitive, sexist and racist societies. Why did some of them internalize >these features of their societies whereas others did not? Was Wilson really >a racist, or did his work just exhibit tacit racism? Segerstråle makes no >mention of anyone calling Lewontin a racist. How did he avoid picking up >this feature of his society? > > According to externalists, political leanings influence the >scientific views that scientists hold. Lewontin, Levins and Gould are >Marxists; hence, their views on evolution should be influenced by their >Marxism. But John Maynard Smith was a more active Marxist than any of these >people. Yet he held and still holds views on evolution that are at variance >with those of other Marxists and in support of such capitalist running dogs >as Wilson and Dawkins. If both internal and external factors affect the >course of science, these influences are extremely complicated and at times >they conflict. This whole line of argumentation under review seems pretty crude. ^^^^ CB:I have to agree with you. Anyway, the author himself is saying that there are Marxists on either side of the dispute, so evidently political ideology is not determining the scientific position. ^^^^ >Segerstråle does not just relate what she has read or what her >respondents have told her; she evaluates it and passes judgement on it.>Looking back over the past quarter-century, she considers one of the>gratifying developments to have been that we have a "relative vindication of >the sociobiologists unfairly accused at the beginning of the controversy". In what does this vindication consist? ^^^^^ CB: I don't know. I don't know of much that sociobiologists have been vindicated on with respect to humans, however, I am not familiar with a wide range of sociobiology. Sociobiologists have no basis for establishing a discipline with a name different from anthropology. ^^^ >To complicate matters further, Segerstråle was engaged in the same >sort of activity as her subjects. She was a scientist studying scientists, a >meta-scientist if you will. She had to make decisions about what she thought >she was doing. The fact that she spends a lot of time explaining the >relevant science implies that she thinks it matters. If it can influence >her, it can influence other scientists as well. This problem confronts all >students of science. How we study science implies something about what we >take science to be. > > As Segerstråle sees it, the significant difference between Wilson >and Lewontin was in their attitude towards science. Wilson was willing to >take chances, to come up with new ideas and to pursue them even if they >seemed implausible or overly ambitious. He admits that his early efforts to >biologize all of the social sciences, not to mention the humanities, might >seem too simplistic. But he says the beginnings of general theories come out >of such oversimplifications. Lewontin, in contrast, possibly because he >thinks that such things as social class can influence science, holds a >hard-nosed attitude to science—new theories must be clearly formulated and >backed up with significant amounts of data. Interesting. ^^^^^ CB: How new are Wilson's ideas ? Aren't they mainly derived from bourgeois concepts of individualism, Robinsonades , as roughly mentioned above. ^^^^^^ > Accurate though her explanation of the differences between Wilson >and Lewontin might be, Segerstråle pays insufficient attention to one >crucial aspect of the sociopolitical context of the time — the Vietnam War. >Many Americans felt helpless during this time. They were faced with a lot of >problems, not the least of which was a cruel, stupid war about which there >was so little they could do. They could sign petitions, march in protest and >burn draft cards, but that was about it. Early in her discussion, >Segerstråle remarks that the sociobiology controversy was not between the >left and right. "The actual dividing line went, rather, between a particular >type of New Left activist on the one hand and traditional liberals and >democrats on the other." The key term is "activist". The battle waged >against sociobiology was part of this activism. Very interesting. ^^^^ CB; Yea, sociobiology is under significant suspicion as having been established outside of anthropology , because anthropology was coming up with a picture of human nature that supported the communist ideas about it, and contradicted the bourgeois concepts of it. This fills out the cruder statement earlier in the essay. ............... > [ David L. Hull, "Activism, Scientists and Sociobiology," 2000; >Nature ><http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v407/n6805/full/407673a0_fs.html> , >407, pp. 673-674. ] > ________________________________ > > Home Page <http://www.stephenjaygould.org/> _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
