Michael Nuwer wrote:
I'm having a hard time seeing the comparison with comparative statics. The general idea, as I understand Gould, is that change in and between species does not take place in slow incremental steps. Rather there are periods of rapid change that are punctuated by periods of stability within and between species. Some might see David Gordon's Social Structures of Accumulation acting like this.
the neoclassical view of change also involves rapid change. The difference is that for Gould and for evolutionary theory in general, there is a process of going from equilibrium A to equilibrium B. In neoclassical theory, there's an instant jump.
The causes of mass extinctions, which lead to rapid change (Gould once claimed that the idea was influenced by the notion of revolutionary change he acquired from his Marxist father), may be caused by external forces like comets, but they can also be caused by earthly forces. Volcanism, leading to global warming, may have caused the Permian extinction event.
all of these are external to the evolutionary process, so that they are exogenous punctuators of the equilibrium, very akin to the exogenous shocks posited by neoclassicals.
And Lewontin, argues that it is a mistake to view biological evolution as somehow separate from the physical environment. The atmosphere being an interesting example.
It's good to bring in Lewontin's work, but it's different from Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The problem I've always had with punctuated equilibrium as a metaphor for social change is identifying the social entity that corresponds to the biological specie[s]. I can't think of any social taxonomy that makes this biological concept useful for understanding social change.
why not the human species? anyway, we can think of historical materialism in PE terms: to use the crude story, there is a fixed set of institutions (the relations of production) which are relatively static. The basics -- the core of the society, such as the capitalist mode of production -- might be seen as being in some sort of social equilibrium. So that core doesn't change unless under a lot of stress. Next, the development of the forces of production occurs. This stresses the relations of production, causing all sorts of conflict and crises. Some of the minor or superstructural institutions change, but not the core (the capitalist mode). There is only qualitative change. In some situations, the conflict between the forces and the relations is so intense that it disrupts the core to its core (as it were). This would cause a punctuated equilibrium. One issue that comes up is that for Marx, the result of the PE is indeterminate. The result of a revolution could be either success or counterrevolution. Of course, in evolutionary theory, PE only looks at matters after the fact. The other is that for Marx, the development of the forces of production isn't exogenous. (The story above is the old-fashioned one of the 2nd or 3rd International.) Capitalism has different "laws of motion" than other modes of production, so that there is a different kind of development of the forces of production for capitalism than for (say) feudalism. In one Marxian story, capitalism's forces develop in a way that depresses the rate of profit. -- Jim Devine / "The human being is in the most literal sense a political animal, not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society." -- Karl Marx.
