universal values?

[phildwyer]

individual survival, survival of the gene, survival of the meme, survival of Life.

And another one! Two out of two for the initial responses.

The hold of Darwinism over ordinary people now really does appear to be approaching the total.

Medieval churchmen could only dream of such dogmatic Pavlovianism.

If we can explain this phenomenon we will be approaching the truth about late capitalist ideology.

Any ideas?

 

[phildwyer]

Also meme theory is a load of balls.

This goes without saying. So let's not say it.

Let us instead shift this discussion up a notch, and talk about the reasons behind the apparently unstoppable expansion of Darwinism beyond biology (where it clearly does have a useful though strictly limited role to play) into the social sciences, cultural studies and basically everywhere. How can we explain the common man's desire to universalize Darwinism?

I believe that to be the most pressing question of our age.

 

[DotCommunist]

The mis application of Darwinist ideas to realms that do not really bear much benefit from the 'Survival of the fittest' idea is prcisely because taken on a limited understanding the idea can excuse all manner of shit as 'natural'. I mean, evolutionary psychology for instance is pretty wrong. The ideas of mutual co operation by kropotkin for instance find far less purchase in modern west european thought. I think we know why.

 

[the button]

This goes without saying. So let's not say it.

Let us instead shift this discussion up a notch, and talk about the reasons behind the apparently unstoppable expansion of Darwinism beyond biology (where it clearly does have a useful though strictly limited role to play) into the social sciences, cultural studies and basically everywhere. How can we explain the common man's desire to universalize Darwinism?

I believe that to be the most pressing question of our age.

Hmmm... the closest parallel I can think of is the British empiricists' desire to universalise Newtonian physics. Which was driven (IMO) by the desire to introduce a series of "Aha!" moments into philosophy which would not so much solve the classical 'questions of philosphy' as make them disappear.

 

[phildwyer]

The mis application of Darwinist ideas to realms that do not really bear much benefit from the 'Survival of the fittest' idea is prcisely because taken on a limited understanding the idea can excuse all manner of shit as 'natural'. I mean, evolutionary psychology for instance is pretty wrong. The ideas of mutual co operation by kropotkin for instance find far less purchase in modern west european thought. I think we know why.

Do we though?

I know what you mean of course: the rational pursuit of self-interest in the marketplace etc. But I'm beginning to think there is something deeper than such crass ideology afoot here. The "Modern Synthesis" of genetics and Darwinist biology seems to have convinced the general population that it can explain everything. And anti-capitalists are by no means immune, indeed they are often among the most fervant dupes. I think there is more to it than just a rationalization of the market.

"Memetics" is I suppose the example that everyone knows. Intended by its founder as basically a joke, a throw-away provocation at best, it has gained quite a few reasonably respectable adherents among scientists, and it seems to be taken seriously among the general public. There is something about the Darwinian paradigm that is inherently expansionist. Personally I think that this calls into question Darwin's biological credentials too.

 

[revol68]

Well it's quite clearly an attempt to reduce social problems to a series of technocratic issues, to be managed and worked around. Much like New Labours Third Way, it is an attempt to naturalise certain social relations.

It's not a new thing, it's been pretty much a constant tendency that has ebbed and flowed with social struggles, coming in and out of fashion accordingly.

 

[phildwyer]

Hmmm... the closest parallel I can think of is the British empiricists' desire to universalise Newtonian physics. Which was driven (IMO) by the desire to introduce a series of "Aha!" moments into philosophy which would not so much solve the classical 'questions of philosphy' as make them disappear.

Yes, that's a good analogy.

Lots has been written on the ideological purport of empiricism: focus on appearance rather than essence parallels the imposition of symbolic exchange-value onto substantial use-value. But relatively little has been done on Darwinism, presumably for fear of being taken for a creationist. But it seems foolish to allow such fears to deter us at this critical stage.

 

[phildwyer]

It's not a new thing, it's been pretty much a constant tendency that has ebbed and flowed with social struggles, coming in and out of fashion accordingly.

I'd argue that the near-absolute predominance of the "Modern Synthesis" is new, especially its expansion into the humanities. But I have to go to bed now.

 

[DotCommunist]

I don't think it calls into question his credentials as a biologist. He was describing a massively abundant energy driven ecology, hence he saw massive competition as all life thrusted to the best design to exploit the largesse. Kropotkin studied an environ devoid of spare fat and found co-operation and interdependency. Niether were 'wrong' in any sense but both looking at different environs.

 

[Knotted]

Academic specialists and their little turf wars. Profound stuff.

 

[revol68]

Yes, that's a good analogy.

Lots has been written on the ideological purport of empiricism: focus on appearance rather than essence parallels the imposition of symbolic exchange-value onto substantial use-value. But relatively little has been done on Darwinism, presumably for fear of being taken for a creationist. But it seems foolish to allow such fears to deter us at this critical stage.

There's quite a lot been written on it, Steve and Hilary Rose have an article in the latest New Left Review about it, they also Edited a book of collected essays on Evolutionary Psychology called 'Alas Poor Darwin'.

I mean it makes sense that it is so in vogue in a time where all the social and political grand narratives that can make sense of the world on some macro scale are a prior written off and where religious fundamentalism is having something of a revival.

 

[revol68]

Academic specialists and their little turf wars. Profound stuff.

it's a bit more than that, the 'naturalisation' of social darwinism in the ideology of everyday life is a large factor in the maintenance of the status quo.

I suppose it could be seen as a long drawn out collective punishment of the arts and humanities for the sins of some of the more bat shit social constructivists, the drawn out reprisals after the "Science Wars".

 

[Knotted]

What the fuck are you on about? Social darwinism is totally discredited. You might as well be yacking on about the 'naturalisation' of phrenology or ufology.

 

[revol68]

What the fuck are you on about? Social darwinism is totally discredited. You might as well be yacking on about the 'naturalisation' of phrenology or ufology.

and yet it's spirit lives on in the work of evolutionary psychologists and social biology, same shit more PC terminology.

 

[CJohn]

How can we explain the common man's desire to universalize Darwinism?

Well, I think, it gives an account of human behaviour which is fairly asocial/ahistorical and in that sense it isn't particularly challenging to capitalist ideology. It, then, also seems to serve a political purpose of naturalising capitalism. So the 'common man' seems particularly receptive to darwinism, in its evolutionary psychology form, as it probably mirrors or articulates a lot of unconsciously held beliefs engender by our society/culture - it seems to be used to legitimise the status quo.

On topic: I think its fairly uncontroversial to say that our genetic inheritance equips us with certain drives, motivations, or temperamental characteristics, but that the content of these (their object) is totally flexible and determined by our environment / social contect etc.

 

[Knotted]

and yet it's spirit lives on in the work of evolutionary psychologists and social biology, same shit more PC terminology.

Paranoid piffle.

 

[revol68]

Paranoid piffle.

Yeah, in my paranoid head there are evolutionary psychologists going about publishing books arguing that rape can be explained as an adaptation.
Another paranoid fantasy I have is that the most famous living evolutionary biologist popularises an absurd theory by which ideologies, religions and all ideas can be explained by a sister theory of natural selection.

 

[Knotted]

Yeah, in my paranoid head there are evolutionary psychologists going about publishing books arguing that rape can be explained as an adaptation.
Another paranoid fantasy I have is that the most famous living evolutionary biologist popularises an absurd theory by which ideologies, religions and all ideas can be explained by a sister theory of natural selection.

That's got nothing to do with social darwinism.

 

[revol68]

That's got nothing to do with social darwinism.

it shares the same thrust, it's just race is taboo and let's not forget that social darwinism wasn't simply focussed on race.

but it's open season for everything else, economics, sex and gender, even things like depression are being naturalised into evolutionary adaptations.

I mean what isn't social darwinian about the idea of memes? It's almost so fucking mental it's a parody of social darwinism, no longer are certain racial, ethnic groups simply pitted against each other in a survival of the fittest but ideas themselves can be reduced to such nonsense.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What the fuck are you on about? Social darwinism is totally discredited.

In academe, maybe, but in popular understanding?
It's still used by the media, and in politics as a catch-all to "explain" some social issues.

 

[dilute micro]

in nature there also exists animals such as the Tasmanian Devil, that cannot stand another TD's company - they automatically fight when they meet, *except* come mating time. But Homo Sap is a *social* animal, and thus seems more likely to develop cooperative social codes. I am wondering if a system of universal values can be built upon those biological drives.

You're putting an awful lot of attention on the values of animals.

 

[dilute micro]

It really is amazing how this knee-jerk Darwinism springs to the forefront of people's minds with regard to almost every issue these days.

Obviously Darwinism cannot explain anything about human society or morality.

The interesting question however is why so many people think it can. We are approaching a situation in which Social Darwinism is the only acceptable explanatory thesis for the masses. That is the phenomenon to which we should be paying attention.

Thank Mr (Jew hatin) Dawkins and watch him put social darwinism to work.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/10/dawkins-on-the-.html

^ sweetass room. Sieg Heil and carry on - don't want to derail this thread which is a good one btw.

 

[DotCommunist]

links for the widow peakers anti smetism or I call lie

 

[dilute micro]

links for the widow peakers anti smetism or I call lie

Oh you're getting too stuffy.


Think fun!

 

[Knotted]

it shares the same thrust, it's just race is taboo and let's not forget that social darwinism wasn't simply focussed on race.

but it's open season for everything else, economics, sex and gender, even things like depression are being naturalised into evolutionary adaptations.

I mean what isn't social darwinian about the idea of memes? It's almost so fucking mental it's a parody of social darwinism, no longer are certain racial, ethnic groups simply pitted against each other in a survival of the fittest but ideas themselves can be reduced to such nonsense.

Social darwinism is a romanticisation of nature. It proclaims that "survival of the fittest" should be a moral motto for how we live our lives. It owes more to Malthus than to Darwin. It's basically a political program of neglect and cruelity. Very few people outside the far right take it seriously.

Memetics is completely unrelated. It's about units of culture which replicate - words, symbols, features of architecture etc. It's not a powerful tool for understanding anything for the simple reason that when it comes to understanding social phenomenon the main problem isn't one of understanding a complex, adaptive design. The main problem with memetics is that it struggles to get beyond trivia, but it's not mental and it's certainly not social darwinism. You have nothing to fear from memetics. You can take the barricades down from your college's humanities department.

 

[Knotted]

Thank Mr (Jew hatin) Dawkins and watch him put social darwinism to work.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/10/dawkins-on-the-.html

Zionist froths about "anti-semitism" shocker.

 

[Knotted]

In academe, maybe, but in popular understanding?
It's still used by the media, and in politics as a catch-all to "explain" some social issues.

You might be right, I don't pay the media or politicians much attention.

 

[phildwyer]

Social darwinism is a romanticisation of nature. It proclaims that "survival of the fittest" should be a moral motto for how we live our lives. It owes more to Malthus than to Darwin.

But Darwin's theory is Malthus applied to biology:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".

Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)

I'd argue that the Social Darwinists and evolutionary psychologists (Revol is perfectly right to equate them) have got Darwin right. The problem is with Darwin himself, he can't be excused by blaming his followers, as for instance in titles like Alas Poor Darwin. Darwin is not some misappropriated colossus; the same logical absurdities and political problems we find in evolutionary psychology are found in Darwin's biology. Darwin's unidirectional, monocausal approach is reductive and undialectical, and therefore manifestly false to the philosophically literate.

Attempts to point this out are generally shouted down with accusations of creationism. Such intolerance is highly revealing, both of the weakness of Darwin's theory and of the political investments that have been made in that theory.

Let's not bother with memetics eh?

 

[Knotted]

Yes, Phil, I know. The least controversial part of Darwin's theory - the part that nobody has ever seriously doubted - was based on Malthus. It is the argument that natural selection exists at all ie. some organism fail to reproduce or reproduce less successfully than they could potentially reproduce. This argument needn't be based on Malthus - it's bleedin' obvious.

I think we're all agreed not to bother with memetics. It's just odd that you and revol and yapping on about it as if it were relevant.

 

[Knotted]

I'd argue that the Social Darwinists and evolutionary psychologists (Revol is perfectly right to equate them) have got Darwin right. The problem is with Darwin himself, he can't be excused by blaming his followers, as for instance in titles like Alas Poor Darwin. Darwin is not some misappropriated colossus; the same logical absurdities and political problems we find in evolutionary psychology are found in Darwin's biology. Darwin's unidirectional, monocausal approach is reductive and undialectical, and therefore manifestly false to the philosophically literate.

This is complete nonsense.