LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  November 2002

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE November 2002

Subject:

Re: social analysis of evolutionary psych

From:

Ansar Fayyazuddin <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:48:35 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (129 lines)

It seems to me that the objections raised by progressives concerning biologism
has to do with the deterministic character of biologism.  Nobody denies that
animal or human behavior is contingent on the existence of certain biological
features.  Biology allows for the capacity for certain types of behavior, it
does not determine it.  Clearly a well developed brain is required to have the
capacity for language yet the need for language is contingent on the existence
of a community with which we need to communicate.  Even then the very fact that
language is a solution to the problem of communication does not mean that it is
the only solution.

In other words, as progressives we are not denying the role of biology in human
behavior only that there is no causal link between biology and behavior, just
that behavior is constrained by biology.  Even there I think the constraints of
biology are often exaggerated, since problems which appear to be biological may
have solutions outside of that domain: human flight falls in that category.

Finally, there is no shame in admitting that a problem is too complex to have a
simple solution.  Human intelligence, while something we experience
qualitatively, when put in the linear hierarchical scheme of IQ is nothing but
a sham order that we have been fighting for at least the past century.



Quoting NEWMAN STUART <[log in to unmask]>:

> I posted a few things a while back analogizing the biology of human behavior
> to the biology of animal domestication.  In domestication certain features
> that breed true and appear to be "genetic" (e.g., differing from nondomestic
> forms, or between distinct domestic varieties, because of mutations) are
> actually based on paramutations and are reversed when the animal becomes
> feral.  After reading all of Pinker's arguments for why language must be
> genetic because it has been subject to selection, is based on biological
> capacities, etc., I still haven't seen anything that indicates that it is
> based on genetic change.  If behaviors with a biological basis are subject
> to remolding by conditions of nurture, not one implication of Evolutionary
> Psychology (as opposed to the evolution of psychology during human history,
> which is undeniable) would hold up.  So, my response to Josť is: let's learn
> more about the biology of domestication.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Josť F. Morales" [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:54 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: social analysis of evolutionary psych
>
>
> OK, so I got a question.  Lets assume that the various forms of
> reductionism, biological determinism with their attendant political
> economic underpinnings of evolutionary psychology are in play.  Lets
> assume its part of the continuum from sociobiology etc.  Lets assume
> all that's true.
>
> Lets also assume that human beings are biological entities.  As such
> they possess a multi-leveled biological structure, one of the layers
> of which are cells which contain a genome.
>
> My question is ...What is the role of biology in human behavior from
> a progressive perspective?
> Presumably, there is one.  I would hope that we can do better than
> just saying its complex and we can't say much about it now.  I would
> like to believe that progressives can do more than just complain
> about other peoples activities.  What is our, presumably, "better"
> perspective?  Can we do this?
>
> If not, it seems to me that we are relegated to reacting to the
> rights initiative.  In the greater struggle for liberation,
> especially on the theoretical-ideological -level, ONLY responding to
> the rights initiatives seems to me to be a losing strategy.
>
> How 'bout it?
>
> Jose
>
>
>
> >>  1. The sociology and economics of evolutionary psychology: why is it
> >>  popular now?
> >
> >This question seems to me to break down into two parts. (a) Why is
> >one more version of biologism popular now? (By "biologism" I mean any
> >attempt to defend the status quo or reject the possibility of radical
> >social change on the basis of biology. Biological determinism is one
> >version of biologism, but one doesn't have to be a determinist to
> >argue that a more egalitarian society is impossible. Biologism is to
> >biology as scientism is to science.) (b) Why has contemporary
> >biologism taken the form of evolutionary psychology?
> >
> >I think the answer to the first question is that biologism is nearly
> >always popular-it's been a staple of bourgeois ideology since at
> >least the first half of the C19th. The one time that biologism went
> >out of favor was in the 25 years or so following WW2, when the
> >excesses of Nazism for a time discredited all versions of biologism.
> >But it came roaring back in the late 1960s as a response to the
> >various social movements. The fine work done by Science for the
> >People and other radical scientists in the 1970s and early 1980s
> >helped expose the scientific bankruptcy of the claims of Jensen,
> >Herrnstein, Wilson and others, and for a time in the early to
> >mid-1980s it seemed that biologism was a spent force. I remember
> >thinking when Philip Kitcher's demolition of sociobiology, Vaulting
> >Ambition, was published in 1985, that there was only mopping up work
> >left to be done. In retrospect that was rather naive. Biologism never
> >disappeared in the 1980s, but it was forced to retreat in the face of
> >numerous powerful criticisms. Then it reemerged in a new form in the
> >1990s.
> >
> >That takes us to the second question-why has the main strand of
> >contemporary biologism taken the form of evolutionary psychology? The
> >quick answer to that is that cruder versions of biologism have been
> >exposed and that evolutionary psychology is, in Val Dusek's words,
> >"sociobiology sanitized". There may not be a more satisfactory answer
> >than that. Reductionism is another staple of bourgeois ideology-we
> >can expect new reductionist theories to find favor as long as the
> >bourgeoisie remains around. But why a particular reductionist theory
> >finds favor at a particular time generally depends on a host of
> >specific details (including quirks of psychology and accidents of
> >circumstance) which may in the end not be very illuminating. In other
> >words if the question is why biologism rather than non-biologism,
> >there may be an interesting answer, but if the question is why this
> >version of biologism rather than some other version, there may not be
> >much of interest to say.
> >
> >--PG
>
>
> --
> |||///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\|||O|||///\\\///\\\///\\\///\\\|||
> Jose Morales Ph.D.
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager