Dear Mr Carling. I am on a couple of lists with Jim Farmelant, and he has forwarded yuor preview of your book _The Proof of the Pudding : Reason and Value in Social Evolution to the lists. So, I have been developing some comments.
The first point I would make is that culture is a mechanism by which humans can " inherit acquired characteristics" , i.e. a socalled LaMarckian mechanism. This would answer one of your main issues. Since a LaMarckian mechanism is a much more rapid adaptive feedback loop than a Darwinian mechanism this answers one of the main issues of your essay. It is a non-Darwinian mechanism that is adaptive. I discuss this issue more fully below in my post to the list. The second issue is that there is a very big school of anthropology that has done an enormous amount of empirical work basically based on the experimental design that would come out of your proposal. It is the cultural evolutionist /cultural materialist school of Leslie A. White, Julian Steward, Marshall Sahlins ( who has now left that school of thought), Elman Service, Kent Flannery ( archeology) and many others. I happen to have majored in anthropology in undergraduate school at the University of Michigan and was trained in this paradigm. I have also posted to the list on this and it is copied below. I am glad you have set things out as you have, and hope to hear from you on the above. Charles Brown ^^^^^^^ Jim, I read this paper when you posted it on Marxmail. Thank you again. I think the answer to Carling's question in the following passage is , in part, that language, symbolic behavior, what cultural anthropologist generalize to culture, is a mechanism by which acquired characteristics can be inherited ( non-biologically of course). In other words , culture is a LaMarckian mechanism. It should be obvious why a LaMarckian mechanism would meet Carling's requirement that what he is looking for is an adaptive mechanism that is not a Darwinian selective mechanism. Culture or language and symbolling allow the experiences of one generation to be the basis for learning without going through the same hardknocks of experience for future generations. This is a much more rapid process than Darwinian selective adaption. Carling says on page 4: "But now the special explanatory puzzle presented by this case becomes clear. Given an overarching commitment to Darwinian explanations for the existence of all mental traits (modular and non-modular alike), how does it come about that it was in the genetic interest of proto-humans that certain of their behaviours (i.e. the ones governed by non-modular mental processes) were released from genetic control? Or, putting the puzzle in even more pointed terms: why did natural selection act so as to work genes out of a job? We are seeking, in short, a neo-Darwinian explanation for the non-applicability of neo-Darwinian sociobiology. It was noted above that the premise of this problem is the existence of some non-modular human mental traits, without the need to specify in detail which traits are modular and which are not.[7] But we also know enough to know that the principal traits at issue are those that involve language, meaning and reference. This focus on the means of symbolic communication reflects an emerging consensus about the central distinctiveness of the human species.[8] " Later in the essay Carling says: "But the existence of such consequences is a plausible contention, since, as Engels expressed the point, ideas are a material force. To drive the point home, imagine a proto-human world populated by egos and alters.[10] In this world, ego s thoughts and beliefs affect what ego does (including ego s speech acts), and what ego does or says affects what alter thinks and believes, and therefore what alter does, which has possible consequences for ego too. And the same goes not just for alter 1, but alters 2, 3 and 4. The emergence of symbolic communication thus allows the output of each brain to become an input to many other brains, and this creates a network of interaction effects. " CB:Here Carling addresses what I term the "expanded sociality" that symbolic use and language allows. However, the biggest expansion of sociality is that between generations in the non-genetic inheritance that culture allows. Seems to me that complexity theory's notion of self-organization is supported by things like crystal structure in rocks. It seems to be the principle of aesthetics in nature. A beautiful sunset is self-organizing. So, I agree with Carling that they can be a factor in a process but not a replacement for selection. However, symbolizing can include such aesthetics and therefore some culture has order in it which is not related to selection. Of course the following is controversial in that many believe that Marx and Engels etc. had already given their theory a "coherent theoretical statement". Perhaps it is better said that Cohen clarified things for himself , Carling and others. But isn't Marx's theory one of class struggle determinism, not technological determinism ? "It is widely agreed that the most significant event in the recent history of Marxist scholarship was the publication in 1978 of G.A.Cohen s Karl Marx s Theory of History: a Defence.[28] Two of the book s multiple achievements stand out in the present context. First, it was shown that the classical Marxist theory of history, as summarised most perspicaciously in Marx s 1859 Preface, can be given a coherent theoretical statement. This statement centred on the role played by the (technological) forces of production in either promoting or inhibiting the historical development of the (social) relations of production. The treatment was analytical in its mode of presentation and classically Marxist in content, although orthodox technological determinism was given a sophisticated twist by Cohen s novel formulation. The Defence thus offered a very sharp, and for its devotees refreshing, contrast to the work then prevalent within Anglophone Marxist theory, which was Althusserian in provenance, holistic in content and dialectical in mode of address" I was going to mention my next comment in reference to Carling's claim that human intention cannot change social structures , but will mention now in relation to the next quoted section below. With Marx and Engels's scientific socialism this rule of history turns into its opposite. It becomes possible to intentionally and consciously move from the capitalist mode of production to the socialist mode of production. It seemed appropriate to call this mechanism Competitive Primacy (of the forces of production) and to support its claims against alternative conceptions, especially Intentional Primacy (of the forces of production).[30] The latter conception envisages the deliberate creation of relations of production of a type that will enhance the development of the forces of production. It says essentially that relations attached to superior forces prevail because people have taken successful collective action designed to bring about this result, motivated by the economic and social benefits superior productivity brings in its train. But this requires the intentional creation of social structure, which has been ruled out by the arguments of Chapter 4. So the only theoretically defensible version of historical materialism is the one that centres on the concept of Competitive Primacy. "I note for future reference that these theoretical arguments are by no means innocent politically. Intentional Primacy is close to the doctrine that has officially informed the revolutionary attempts to establish Communist societies. The rejection of it therefore entails the rejection of some yet-to-be-determined proportion of the received Marxist-Leninist political project. The open question that remains, to be taken up in the final Chapter 12, is whether a defensible egalitarian politics of a Marxian type can be developed on the basis of the alternative doctrine of Competitive Primacy. The argument will be, very roughly, that while social engineering of the sometimes-envisaged Communist type is largely ruled out, radical egalitarian politics is not thereby negated, since the alternative of social gardening remains a distinct possibility. If the idea of Competitive Primacy is to be put forward as the centrepiece of a reconstructed historical materialism, the question arises rather urgently whether it is true. A main factor in the inspiration for writing this book is the growing conviction that it may be true, or, to be precise, that it is probably consistent with the historical record, which is about as much as can be expected of any theory according to Popperian criteria." I was a little concerned that Carling relied on Jared Diamond's book _Guns, Gems and Steel_ . Although I haven't read it, the discussion of it on PEN-L made it seemly kind of grossly off in some areas of the history of capitalism debate. Charles Following up the below, as I was walking home last night I realized that there has been an enormous empirical project in pursuit of the general experimental design suggested by Carling has been carried out in cultural and evolutionary materialist anthropology, following Leslie A. White and others. The culminating theoretical book of that school is _Evolution and Culture_, by Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service. ( Sahlins is no longer sanguine about the approach). There the adaptive metaphor from Darwinism is applied fully to cultures. Many , many anthro and archaeology profs and grad students have done field work and writing based on this schema. Actually the below discusses this in summary http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/material.htm _Evolution and Culture_ is circa 1960 not 1988 ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORIES: A GUIDE PREPARED BY STUDENTS FOR STUDENTS Dr. M.D. Murphy AMERICAN MATERIALISM KAREN SMITH Basic Premises Key Works Accomplishments Sources and Bibliography Points of Reaction Principal Concepts Criticisms Relevant Web Sites Leading Figures Methodologies Comments Basic Premises Materialism, as an approach to understanding cultural systems, is defined by three key principles, cultural materialism, cultural evolution, and cultural ecology, and can be traced back at least to the early economists, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (see Principal Concepts). These basic premises, defined below, have in common attempts at explaining cultural similarities and differences and modes for culture change in a strictly scientific manner. In addition, these three concepts all share a materialistic view of culture change. That is to say, each approach holds that there are three levels within culture --- technological, sociological, and ideological --- and that the technological aspect of culture disproportionately molds and influences the other two aspects of culture. Materialism is the "idea that technological and economic factors play the primary role in molding a society" (Carneiro 1981:218). There are many varieties of materialism including dialectical (Marx), historical (White), and cultural (Harris). Though materialism can be traced as far back as Hegel, an early philosopher, Marx was the first to apply materialistic ideas to human societies in a quasi-anthropological manner. Marx developed the concept of dialectical materialism borrowing his dialectics from Hegel and his materialism from others. To Marx, "the mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness" (Harris 1979:55). The dialectic element of Marx's approach is in the feedback or interplay between the infrastructure (i.e., resources, economics), the structure (i.e., politcal makeup, kinship), and the superstructure (i.e., religion, ideology). The materialistic aspect or element of Marx's approach is in the emphasis placed on the infrastructure as a primary determinate of the other levels (i.e., the structure and the superstructure). In other words, explanations for culture change and cultural diversity are to be found in this primary level (i.e., the infrastructure). Marvin Harris, utilizing and modifying Marx's dialectical materialism, developed the concept of cultural materialism. Like Marx and White, Harris also views culture in three levels, the infrastructure, the structure, and the superstructure. The infrastructure is composed of the mode of production, or "the technology and the practices employed for expanding or limiting basic subsistence production," and the mode of reproduction, or "the technology and the practices employed for expanding, limiting, and maintaining population size" (Harris 1979:52). Unlike Marx, Harris believes that the mode of reproduction, that is demography, mating patterns, etc., should also be within the level of the infrastructure because "each society must behaviorally cope with the problem of reproduction (by) avoiding destructive increases or decreases in population size" (Harris 1979:51). The structure consists of both the domestic and political economy, and the superstructure consists of the recreational and aesthetic products and services. Given all of these cultural characteristics, Harris states that "the etic behavioral modes of production and reproduction probabilistically determine the etic behavioral domestic and political economy, which in turn probabilistically determine the behavioral and mental emic superstructures" (Harris 1979:55,56). The above concept is cultural materialism or, in Harris' terms, the principle of infrastructural determinism. Cultural evolution, in a Marxian sense, is the idea that "cultural changes occur through the accumulation of small, quantitative increments that lead, once a certain point is reached, to a qualitative transformation" (Carneiro 1981:216). Leslie White is usually given credit for developing and refining the concept of general cultural evolution and was heavily influenced by Marxian economic theory as well as Darwinian evolutionary theory. To White, "culture evolves as the amount of energy harnessed per captia per year is increased, or as the efficiency of the instrumental means of putting the energy to work is increased" (Bohannan and Glazer 1988:340). Energy capture is accomplished through the technological aspect of culture so that a modification in technology could, in turn, lead to a greater amount of energy capture or a more efficient method of energy capture thus changing culture. In other words, "we find that progress and development are effected by the improvement of the mechanical means with which energy is harnessed and put to work as well as by increasing the amounts of energy employed" (Bohannan and Glazer 1988:344). Another premise that White adopts is that the technological system plays a primary role or is the primary determining factor within the cultural system. White's materialist approach is evident in the following quote: "man as an animal species, and consequently culture as a whole, is dependent upon the material, mechnaical means of adjustment to the natural environment" (Bohannan and Glazer 1988). Juliand Steward developed the principal of cultural ecology which holds that the environment is an additional, contributing factor in the shaping of cultures. Steward termed his approach multilinear evolution, and defined it as "a methodology concerned with regularity in social change, the goal of which is to develop cultural laws empirically" (Bohannan and Glazer 1988:321). In essence, Steward proposed that, methodologically, one must look for "parallel developments in limited aspects of the cultures of specifically identified societies" (Hoebel1958:90). Once parallels in development are identified, one must then look for similiar causal explanations. Steward also developed the idea of culture types that have "cross-cultural validity and show the following characteristics: (1) they are made up of selected cultural elements rather than cultures as wholes; (2) these cultural elements must be selected in relationship to a problem and to a frame of reference; and (3) the cultural elements that are selected must have the same functional relationships in every culture fitting the type" (Bohannan and Glazer 1988:321). Points of Reaction Materialism, in anthropology, is methodologically and theoretically opposed to Idealism. Included in the latter are culture and personality or psychological anthropology, structuralism, ethnoscience, and symbolic anthropology. The many advocates of this idealistic approach "share an interest in psychological phenomena, and they tend to view culture in mental and symbolic terms" (Langness 1974:84). "Materialists, on the other hand, tend to define culture strictly in terms of overt, observable behavior patterns, and they share the belief that technoenvironmental factors are primary and causal" (Langness 1974:84). The contemporaneous development of these two major points of view allowed for scholarly debate on which approach was the most appropriate in the study of culture. LeadingFigures Karl Marx Frederick Engels Leslie White (1900-1975) Julian Steward (1902-1972) Marvin Harris (1927- ) Marvin Harris attended Columbia University where he received his B.A. in 1949 and his Ph.D. in 1953. From 1951 to 1981, he taught at Columbia Unversity leaving, in 1981, to teach at the University of Florida. He has conducted field work in Brazil and Africa and written books like Town and Country in Brazil (1956) and Patterns of Race in the Americas (1964). Key Works Bloch, Maurice 1975 Marxist Analyses and Social Anthropology. London, Malaby Press. Godelier, Maurice 1977 Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Harris, Marvin 1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory. New York, Crowell. Harris, Marvin 1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York, Random House. Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engles 1848 Manifesto of the Communist Party. New York, Washington Square Press. Nonini, Donald M. 1985 Varieties of Materialism. Dialectical Anthropology 9:7-63. Ross, Eric, ed. 1980 Beyond the Myths of Culture: Essays in Cultural Materialism. New York, Academic Press. Sahlins, Marshall D. and Elman R. Service 1988 Evolution and Culture. The University of Michigan Press. Steward, Julian 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 120. Steward, Julian 1955 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. Steward, Julian 1968 The Concept and Method of Cultural Ecology. In Evolution and Ecology: Essays on Social Transformation, edited by Jane C. Steward and Robert F. Murphy. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. White, Leslie 1949 The Science of Culture. New York, Grove Press. White, Leslie 1959 The Evolution of Culture. New York, McGraw-Hill. Principal Concepts Mode of Production: "a specific, historically constituted combination of resources, technology, and social and economic relationships, creating use or exchange value" (Winthrop 1991:189). This concept was initially defined and refined by Marx and Engels. For these economists, a "mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather, it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing thier life, a definite mode of life on their part" (Winthrop 1991:190). With respect to specific, historical, precapitalist socities, the mode of production manifests as a combination or interplay between individuals, their material enviroment, and their mode of labor. A similar definition proposed by Maurice Godelier, an anthropologist, states that the mode of production is "a combination -- which is capable of reproducing itself -- of production forces and specific social relations of production which determine the structure and form of the process of production and the circulation of material goods within a historically determined society" (Winthrop 1991:190). In addition, a particular society is not restricted to one particular mode of production; that is to say, "any given society at a particular historical juncture may involve multiple modes of production in a specified articulation" (Winthrop 1991:190). Winthrop notes that this particular concept (i.e., as defined above), though discussed often, is not consistently applied. Particularly with respect to cultural evolution and cultural materialism, the application of the concept differs from the above definitions in two ways: (1) "most evolutionary studies assume that a social form can be characterized by its technology, that is, that technological processes determine economic relations" and (2) "such studies treat each society in terms of a single mode of production" (Winthrop 1991:191). Law of Cultural Development: "culture advances as the amount of energy harnessed per captia per year increases, or as the efficiency or economy of the means of controlling enery is increased, or both" (White 1959:56). Culturology: the field of science which studies and interprets the distinct order of phenomena termed culture (White 1959:28). This term was developed by Leslie White because he believed that cultures should be explained, not in terms of pyschology, biology, physiology, etc., but in terms of culturology (i.e., the study of culture). During this time in anthropology, the notion of society was being developed and becoming a key focus of study. White believed that the primary focus of study in anthropology should be culture and not society. In addition, explanations for cultural development and change should come from anthropology and methodological approach should be scientific. General Cultural Evolution: "the successive emergence of new levels of all-round development" (Sahlins and Service 1988:28). To White and others, general evolution is based on the amount of energy capture and deals with "C"ulture, per se. Again, quoting White, "culture advances as the proportion of nonhuman energy to human energy increases" (1959:47). In addition, this concept is characterized by the progression from lower to higher orders of organization. In other words, changes in the complexity and organization of cultural forms is a result of changes in the amount of engergy capture. When general evolution is discussed, culture is viewed as a closed system. "That is, culture is taken out of particular and historic contexts" (Sahlins and Service 1959:46). Specific Cultural Evolution: the historical sequence of particular cultures and their lines of development. Unlike general cultural evolution, specific evolution is based on the efficiency of energy capture with respect to specific cultures. That is to say, a particular culture in a given envirnoment maybe less complex, both technologically and socially, in the general evolutionary scheme; however, this particular culture may, at the same time, be the best adapted (i.e., most efficient at harnessing energy) to their environment. This concept is analogous to biological evoultion, in that, specific evolution can be viewed as historical, phylogentic lines of descent (Sahlins and Service 1959:16). General evolution, on the other hand, can be viewed as ordered complexity of living organisims. Law of Cultural Growth: "culture develops as the efficiency or economy of the means of controlling energy increases, other factors remaining constant" (White 1959:55). Culture Core: "the constellation of features which are most closely related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements" (Winthrop 1991:47). This concept was developed by Juliand Steward in his 1955 publication "Theory of Culture Change." Methodologies The method of Cultural Ecology "has three aspects: (1)the analysis of the methods of production in the environment must be analyzed, and (2)the pattern of human behavior that is part of these methods must be analyzed in order to (3) understand the relationship of production techniques to the other elements of the culture" (Bohannan and Glazer 1988:322). Accomplishments Criticisms Comments Sources Bohannan, Paul and Mark Glazer, editors 1988 High Points in Anthropology. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Carneiro, Robert L. 1981 Leslie White. In Totems and Teachers, edited by Sydel Silverman. Columbia University Press, New York. Harris, Marvin 1968 The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. Harris, Marvin 1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. Vintage Books, New York. Hoebel, E. Adamson 1958 Anthropology: The Study of Man. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Langness, L. L. 1974 The Study of Culture. Chandler and Sharp Publishers, New York. Levinson, David and Melvin Ember, eds. 1996 Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. Henry Holt and Company, New York. Sahlins, Marshall D. and Elman R. Service 1988 Evolution and Culture. University of Michigan Press. Silverman, Sydel, ed. 1981 Totems and Teachers: Perspectives on the History of Anthropology. Columbia University Press, New York. White, Leslie 1959 The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome. McGraw-Hill, New York. Winthrop, Robert H. 1991 Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. Greenwood Press, New York. More on the anthropological school of thought that has delved into Carling's hypothesis at length. Note White's energy capture thesis which is based on an interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Charles Brown Neoevolutionism Leslie White began working with evolutionary theories in the 1930's. At the time, unilineal evolution was unpopular with anthropologists because generalizations were made based on little evidence. Also, unilineal evolution seemed to encourage racist ideas by equating evolution with progress. However, it was being observed that cultures did change, or evolve. White began studying evolution to attempt to understand why evolution in cultures occurs. Neoevolutionism is characterized by this attempt to find a mechanism for cultural change, which is typically environmental adaptations. White also believed that evolution is a unilineal process. However, he eliminated the use of racial terms and ranking of cultures. He also came up with a mechanism for evolution. He felt that cultures evolved as a result of their ability to capture and use more energy. His equation describing this is C=E � T. C stands for culture, E stands for energy and T stands for technology. White thought of societies as sociocultural systems and studied sociocultural change on a global scale, so his theories are called general evolution. Julian Steward felt that White was too broad in his theories. Steward instead focused on how individual cultures evolved and how environment affects culture. Because Steward emphasized the role environment plays, he became the first proponent of cultural ecology, and his ideas influenced later cultural materialists. He felt that similar environmental challenges resulted in similar cultural outcomes. He tested this theory by studying the evolution of the earliest agricultural societies. Steward felt that while it is true that all cultures evolve, they don't all necesarily evolve in the same way. He called his approach multilinear evolution, as opposed to Tyler and Morgan's unlineal evolution, and what he called White's universal evolution. Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service formed an evolutionary theory that unified White's and Steward's approaches to evolution. They defined two forms of evolution, specific evolution and general evolution. Specific evolution refers to specific societies and relates to Steward's approach. General evolution encapsulates White approach and refers to a general prograss of human society, in which higher forms, which capture more energy, arise from and surpass lower forms. Cultural evolution >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Printable version | Pages that link here 12.2.196.17 Log in | Help http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Cultural_evolution Cultural evolution refers to a set of theories that have been promoted and criticized by anthropologists (see anthropology and cultural anthropology). Today anthropologists distinguish between "unilinear cultural evolution" and "multinear cultural evolution". The notion of unilinear cultural evolution has its origins in the Enlightenment notion of progress, and was developed in the mid-late 1800s by such people as Sir [E. B. Tylor]? in England and [Lewis Henry Morgan]? in the United States (Morgan would later have a significant influence on Karl Marx and [Friedrich Engels]?). Their analysis of cross-cultural data was based on three assumptions: Contemporary societies may be classified and ranked as more "primitive" or more "civilized"; There are a determinate number of stages between "primitive" and "civilized"; All societies progress through these stages in the same sequence. Note that although this theory (like Herbert Spencer's theory of social evolution) benefited from the growing acceptance of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, its principles contradicted Darwinian theory. These 19th century ethnologists used these principles primarily to explain differences in religious beliefs and kinship terminologies among various societies. By the early 1900s, as cultural anthropology shifted to ethnography and more rigorous empirical methods, most anthropologists rejected the theory of unilineal cultural evolution. At first, they argued that the third premise was speculative. As they studied different religious and kinship systems more closely, they argued that evolutionary theory systematically misrepresented ethnographic data. More importantly, they soon came to reject the first premise, the distinction between "primitive" and "civilized" (or "modern"), pointing out that so-called primitive contemporary societies have just as much history, and were just as evolved, as so-called civilized societies. By the 1950s cultural anthropologists such as Leslie White and Julian Steward sought to revive an evolutionary model on a more scientific basis. White rejected the opposition between "primitive" and "modern" societies but did argue that societies could be distinguished based on the amount of energy they harnessed, and that increased energy allowed for greater social differentiation. Steward rejected the 19th century notion of progress, and instead called attention to the Darwinian notion of "adaptation", and argued that all societies had to adapt to their environment in some way. He argued that different adaptations could be studied through the examination of the specific resources a society exploited, the technology the society relied on to exploit these resources, and the organization of human labor. He argued that different environments and technologies would require different kinds of adaptations, and that as the resource base or technology changed, so too would a culture. In other words, cultures do not change according to some inner logic, but rather in terms of a changing relationship with a changing environment. Cultures would therefore not pass through the same stages in the same order as they changed--rather, they would change in varying ways and directions. He called his theory "multilineal evolution". The anthropologists Marshall Sahlins and Elman Service wrote a book, Evolution and Culture, in which they attempted to synthesize White's and Steward's approaches. Other anthropologists, building on or responding to work by White and Steward, developed theories of cultural ecology and ecological anthropology. The most prominent examples are Peter Vayda and Roy Rappaport. (See also Marvin Harris's Cultural Materialism.) Today most anthropologists continue to reject 19th century notions of progress and the three original assumptions of unilineal evolution. Following Steward, they take seriously the relationship between a culture and its environment in attempts to explain different aspects of a culture. But most cultural anthropologists now argue that one must consider the whole social environment, which includes political and economic relations among cultures. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/17/02 10:13AM >>> On September 12, Alan Carling presented a paper at the Marxism Conference 2001 of the Political Studies Association in which he presented a synopsis of a new, yet to be published book, in which he develops and defends his selectionist version of historical materialism, and relates his theorizing concerning historical materialism and Darwinism with the work of various bourgeois thinkers who have been attempting to relate Darwinism to the human sciences including the sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists, Karl Popper with his evolutionary epistemology, the social evolutionism of F.A. Hayek, and memetics as proposed by folk like Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore, and Daniel Dennett. Carling discusses and critiques these folks' work and attempts to make a case as to why his own selectionist historical materialism represents a superior approach to the problems that these other people have been attempting to deal with. Carling's paper can be found online at http://www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/marxism/carling.htm Jim Farmelant _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
