This is the heart of the matter; very clear and to the point!
Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
I do not believe sociobiology can be progressive. It is inherently
reactionary, no matter what spin its advocates put to it. And even if we
could put politics aside (in some theoretical world) it is flat-earth
science. Why do I think self-described leftists subscribe to the view?
Some, I think, are liberals claiming to be leftist. Others I know,
including Marxists, believe that everything operates on the principle of
the vulgar dialectic and that the phantoms of the brain reflect some
physiological process. They misunderstand Marxian materialism. For Marx,
materialism is the world human beings build through their collective
activities and their social being that is realized through the
construction of that world. Vulgar materialism is a species of
physicalism. There are others still who wish to articulate a vision of
human nature where the individual is altruistic (a nature undermined by
capitalism). These people do not disagree with the search for a human
nature, only with the human nature Wilson and others come up with. This is
an ideological position, however more desirable an altruistic nature is
over a selfish one. Of course, there is no human nature, since being human
is to stand at the intersection of an assemblage of social and historical
relations. I think the processual frightens the hell out of some people,
and they want that one essential truth that will give them ontological
security. The hard empirical body seems to afford them that truth. But
this is an illusion.
Andrew
>>
>>On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
>
>>>the socio-biological claim that people differ because they differ
>>>genetically is called RACISM, which is what Wilson does eventually.
>
>>This is the crux of the matter. If one supposes that culture is
>>determined
>>by genes, then one is left explaining cultural differences in terms of
>>genetic differences. Different cultures, different people. If you claim
>>that there are different types of people, you are making a racist
>>argument.
>
>>Andrew
>
>this is *exactly* Wilson! finally somebody has attempted to challenge
>socio-biology. i appreciate your contribution Andy!! where have
>you been lately?
>
>My problem is that why is this person popular among leftists so much given
>that he is a self-proclaimed anti-marxist. What makes Wilson so
>attractive and appealing to some people? and why? this the heart of the
>matter that seems worth looking at. why are the marxists critical of
>socio-biology are minority in every forum i have been to, and forced to
>declare their own scientific status? I get from your reading that there
>are "fundamental" problems with socio-biology? so one can not be, in
>principle, progressive and socio-biologist? am i right?
>
>Mine
>
>
>
>
