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  January 2003

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE January 2003

Subject:

Re: The Mythical Threat of Genetic Determinism

From:

Louis Proyect <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:35:11 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (147 lines)

> Chronicle of Higher Education
>From the issue dated January 31, 2003
>
> The Mythical Threat of Genetic Determinism
> By DANIEL C. DENNETT

 From Dennett's article:

The issue is not about determinism, either genetic or environmental or
both together; the issue is about what we can change whether or not our
world is deterministic. A fascinating perspective on the misguided issue
of genetic determinism is provided by Jared Diamond in his magnificent
book Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997). The question Diamond poses, and
largely answers, is why it is that "Western" people (Europeans or
Eurasians) have conquered, colonized, and otherwise dominated "Third
World" people instead of vice versa. Why didn't the human populations of
the Americas or Africa, for instance, create worldwide empires by
invading, killing, and enslaving Europeans? Is the answer ... genetic?
Is science showing us that the ultimate source of Western dominance is
in our genes? On first encountering this question, many people -- even
highly sophisticated scientists -- jump to the conclusion that Diamond,
by merely addressing this question, must be entertaining some awful
racist hypothesis about European genetic superiority. So rattled are
they by this suspicion that they have a hard time taking in the fact
(which he must labor mightily to drive home) that he is saying just
about the opposite: The secret explanation lies not in our genes, not in
human genes, but it does lie to a very large extent in genes -- the
genes of the plants and animals that were the wild ancestors of all the
domesticated species of human agriculture.

----

 From Jim Blaut's "ENVIRONMENTALISM AND EUROCENTRISM: A REVIEW ESSAY"

Finally we come to Europe. Most of the argument of Guns, Germs, and
Steel is devoted to proving the primacy throughout history of
midlatitude Eurasia, and within this region of Europe (supposed heir to
the Fertile Crescent) and China. If the argument stopped there, we would
have a sort of Eurasia-centrism, not Eurocentrism. But Diamond's purpose
is to explain "the broadest patterns of history," and so he must answer
this final question: Why did Europe, not Eurasia as a whole, or Europe
and China in tandem, rise to become the dominant force in the world?
Diamond's answer is, predictably: the natural environment. The
"ultimate" causes of Europe's rise, relative to China, are a set of
qualities that Europe's environment possesses and China's environment
lacks, or China's possesses but in lesser degree. The "ultimate"
environmental causes then produce the "proximate" causes -- which are
cultural:

"[The] proximate factors behind Europe's rise [are] its development of a
merchant class, capitalism, and patent protection for inventions, its
failure to develop absolute despots and crushing taxation, and its
Graeco-Judeo-Christian tradition of empirical inquiry (p. 410)."

This is, of course, utterly conventional Eurocentric history. There is
now a huge literature that systematically questions each of these
economic, political, and intellectual explanations for the rise of
Europe, much of this literature consisting of Eurocentric arguments of
one sort attacking Eurocentric arguments of some other sort -- yet
Diamond ignores all this scholarship and simply announces that these
(and a few other cultural things) are the true "proximate" causes of the
rise of Europe. Evidently he views the matter as settled. The problem,
for him, is to find the underlying environmental causes.

Topography is the key; or more precisely topographic relief and the
shape of the coastline.

"Europe has a highly indented coastline, with five large peninsulas that
approach islands in their isolation...China's coastline is much
smoother...Europe is carved up...by high mountains (the Alps, Pyrenees,
Carpathians, and Norwegian border mountains), while China's mountains
east of the Tibetan Plateau are much less formidable barriers (p.414)."

These somewhat inaccurate observations about physical geography lead
into one of the truly classical arguments of Eurocentric world history:
the theory of Oriental despotism.[9] This is the belief that the
so-called "Oriental" civilizations -- essentially China, India, and the
Islamic Middle East -- have always been despotic; that Europeans alone
understand and enjoy true freedom; that Europe alone, therefore, has had
the historical basis for intellectual innovation and social progress.
Diamond invokes a pair of well-known environmentalistic theories, adding
nothing new to them, about how physical geography is the main reason why
Europe, not China, acquired the cultural attributes that gave it
ultimate hegemony: "a merchant class, capitalism...patent protection for
inventions...failure to develop absolute despots and crushing taxation,"
and the rest. Here is how it works: China is not broken up
topographically into isolated regions, because it does not have high
mountains like the Alps and does not have a coastline sufficiently
articulated to isolate nearby coastal regions from one another. This
explains the fact that China became unified culturally and politically
2,000 years ago. Europe, on the other hand, could not be unified
culturally and politically because of its indented coastline (its "capes
and bays," in the traditional theory) and because of its sharply
differentiated topographic relief (its "many separate geographical
cores" in the traditional theory). Europe therefore developed into a
mosaic of separate cultures and states. China's geographically
determined unity led it to become a single state, an empire; and an
empire must, by nature, be despotic. Why? Because a person cannot leave
one state and emigrate to another to avoid oppression, since there is
only the one state, the Chinese empire. Hence there is continued
oppression of the populace and centralized manipulation of the economy.
So: no freedom, little development of individualism, little incentive to
invent and innovate (taxation, political control, etc.), no development
of free markets, and no development of a polity resembling the modern
democratic nation-state. These "harmful effects of unity" (p. 413) led
China to, in essence, stagnate after the 14th or 15th century. Europe,
by comparison, continued to forge ahead. Hence Europe triumphed.

The geography is wrong and so is the history. Southern Europe has the
requisite "capes and bays" and separate "geographic cores." But the
historical processes that Diamond is discussing here pertain to the last
five or six hundred years of history, and most of the major developments
during this period, those that are relevant to his argument, occurred
mainly in northern and western Europe, which is flat: the North European
Plain from France to Russia; the extension of that plain across France
almost to the Spanish border; southern England. Even Central Europe is
not really isolated from northern and western Europe. There are no
serious coastline indentations between Bordeaux and Bremen. If we look
at the distribution of population throughout this region, there is no
isolation and not very much development of cores. The crystallization of
northern Europe's tiny feudal polities into modern states occurred for
reasons that had little to do with topographic differentiation; the
boundaries of most of these states do not reflect topographic barriers
and most of their cultural cores are not ecological cores. The idea that
the pattern of multiple states somehow favored democracy is (in my view)
a Eurocentric myth: each of these states was as despotic as -- indeed,
usually much more despotic than-- China, and emigration from one polity
to another was not substantial enough to have had any effect on the
development of democracy. Further: what Diamond calls Europe's
"competing" states often were warring states; probably China was more
peaceful during most centuries than Europe was, and an environment of
peace surely is more conducive to development than one of war. And
finally, Diamond's view of Chinese society is based on outdated European
beliefs. China did not stagnate in the late Middle Ages: Chinese
development continued without interruption, and Europe did not outdo
China in technology, in the development of market institutions, and
indeed in the ordinary person's standard of living, until the later 18th
century. In short, the idea that China's topography led to China's
achievement of a unified society and polity, and that this unity somehow
led to despotism and stagnation, is simply not supported by the facts.

full: http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/Blaut/diamond.htm

--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org

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

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