Obama calls the philosophy of free market Capitalism “Social
Darwinism” (after the evolutionary
scientist Charles Darwin). Does this not
imply that his own Marxist ideology might be termed “Social Darrow-ism” (after
the anti-Darwinian Democrat politician Clarence Darrow)?
All of this reflects the fact that, in terms of intellectual
development, Obama is stuck at (b) the adolescent (a-priori, utopian) stage
represented by Marxism and state coercive control of society, and has not yet reached (c) the mature (empirical,
scientific) stage, represented by Social Evolution and free market (profit-risk)
experimentation with products and services competing for consumer demand.
There are multiple errors in
the Obama’s (immature and ignorant) attempt to besmirch his philosophical
opposition as “Social Darwinists.”
1.
Although “Social Darwinism” is viewed as the
application of a biological theory to sociology, its origin suggests that aspects
of it were borrowed from social science
(including economics, linguistics, etc.) and transplanted to
biology. Thus, it might have been called
“Biological Smith-ism” (after Adam
Smith’s spontaneous order, i.e., “the
invisible hand” of natural selection);
“It has often been
remarked that the theory of evolution, according to which life on earth evolves
without the guidance of a designer, is remarkably similar to the way a
free-enterprise economy develops, with each enterprise doing its best to
prosper, yet without the “benefit” of a centralized planner.”
(http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/adam-smiths-invisible-hand-and-charles-darwins-natural-selection )
(Cf. As
to Smith’s influence on Darwin, see Friedrich Hayek, “The Fatal Conceit”
(1988), p. 24; and App. A, p. 146)
2.
Charles Darwin himself was influenced by his
grandfather Erasmus Darwin, and the Scottish Enlightenment, esp. Adam Smith
(the founder of economics as a discipline).
a.
Darwin’s Mentors (Scottish Enlightenment, etc.) include:
Adam Smith, “The
Wealth of Nations”
Adam Smith, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”
Adam Ferguson, “An Essay on the History
of Civil Society”
Adam Ferguson, founder of sociology, believed that the growth
of a commercial society through the pursuit of individual self-interest could
promote a self-sustaining progress.
Thomas Malthus
Erasmus Darwin
3.
“Social Smith-ism” (including Capitalism) has
both aspects of spontaneous order
(i.e., “the invisible hand” of natural selection); competition
(rival entrepreneurs) and cooperation
(supply and demand), all of which are present in biological evolution.:
a.
Self–Interest and Laissez Faire
Competition:
Adam Smith: “Wealth of Nations”
b.
Empathy:
Adam Smith, “Theory of Moral Sentiments” (aspect of empathy
– e.g., a successful Entrepreneur must have empathy for the needs of the
consumer).
“Before Darwin, the supreme example of an
undesigned system was Adam Smith’s economy, spontaneously
self-ordered through the actions of individuals, rather than ordained by a
monarch or a parliament.” (Matt Ridley)
5 Social “Spencerism,”
--
The term “Darwinism” fails to
recognize the contributions of other evolutionists allied with Darwin, e.g.,
Herbert Spencer (whose theory of biological evolution actually preceded that of
Darwin and influenced Wallace), and Ernst Haeckel.
a.
It was Spencer who first used the term
evolution, using it with reference to the progress of life from lower to higher
forms.
In this sense, Spencer arrived at
the following definition:
“
Evolution
is an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which
the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite,
coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion
undergoes a parallel transformation." (Spencer, H., 1945, "
First Principles," [1862], Watts
& Co: London, Sixth edition, Revised, 1945, p.358).
Spencer applied this definition to all levels
of nature:
matter-energy, life, mind,
and society.
With respect to society,
the spontaneous interaction of unique individuals evolves into a coherent,
heterogeneous, (super-organic) whole.
b.
Nevertheless, Spencer’s view of progress was not
unilinear: “Like other kinds of
progress, social progress is not linear but divergent and re-divergent. Each differentiated product gives origin to a
new set of differentiated products. While
spreading over the earth mankind have found environments of various characters,
and in each case the social life fallen into, partly determined by the social
life previously led, has been partly determined by the influences of the new
environment; so that the multiplying groups have tended ever to acquire
differences, now major and now minor: there have arisen genera and species of
societies.”
c.
As
society develops, its parts assume increasingly separate functions. Broadly, there is the sustaining system (i.e., industries starting with agriculture,
advancing sequentially into manufacturing, commercial, transportation,
communication, etc.) and the regulating system (i.e., the
state and its subdivisions, with its governing bodies, whose function is
protection of society from aggression by other states and internal criminals,
as well as generally maintaining order).
The sustaining system is based on voluntary cooperation. The regulating system is based on compulsory
cooperation.
d.
As the sustaining system becomes more complex
and differentiated (diverse), it becomes more dependent upon its specialized
industrial parts. Such specialization in
turn leads to further advances and complexity. Where the industrial system
predominates, characterizing the “industrial form of society” , there
comes mitigations in coercive restraints and weakening of its structure. Such societies are characterized by increasing
self-determination of their institutional parts, with the non-coercive sectors (e,g,, clerical [“the church”], business,
philanthropic, educational, health, communication, transportation, etc.)
becoming increasingly autonomous and separated
from control by the coercive sector [the ”state”]. In addition there is
increasing decentralization and localization of power, functional separation
and control of national power, rule of law (i.e., general principles rather
than arbitrary, bureaucratic edict) as well as constitutional limitation of
political control over personal conduct.
e.
Conversely, states predominately involved in conflict
with other states or in suppressing internal revolt tend to become
predominately militant. This places
greater emphasis on control by the coercive sector, the resultant “militant form of society”
tends to make society more rigid and hierarchical in form, subordinating its
parts so as to slow down and even halt change.
f.
Other social and cultural evolutionists (e.g.,
Haeckel, Tylor) focused on “stages” of social development (e.g., savage,
barbarian, civilized). In contrast,
Spencer was more focused on social processes
(e.g., employing loose analogies of super-organic to organic systems) more than
on sequential social stages (except as to simple, compound societies, etc.) and
social forms influenced by environing conditions (industrial vs. militant). An approach today that is similar to
Spencer’s is that of the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek (whose discussion
of “spontaneous orders” reminds one of Spencer’s “spontaneous development”).
g.
“Social Spencerians” (process expositors of
spontaneous development and resultant spontaneous orders) include, inter alia,
John Fiske, , Robert MacIver,. Friedrich Hayek, and perhaps less directly Jane
Jacobs (expositor of the natural development of cities)
i.
John Fiske, “Outlines
of Cosmic Philosophy, Based on the
Doctrine of Evolution” (1923)
ii.
Robert MacIver, “On Community, Society and Power” (1970)
(see chapter 8 on “The Meaning of Social Evolution,” observing that
evolution means an opening-out or unfolding, the realization of a nature by an
internal process)
iii.
Friedrich Hayek, “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of
Socialism” (1988)
iv.
Cf. Jane Jacobs, “The Nature of Economies” (2000); cf. also, inter alia, her “Cities and the Wealth of Nations” (1984)
6.
Social
Darwinism, per se.:
Turning to that form of “Social Evolution” theory properly called “Social
Darwinism,” it is best exemplified by William Graham Sumner and Albert Galloway
Keller in their magnum opus, “The Science of Society.”
a.
Darwin’s great theoretical contribution to biological
evolutionary theory was that of “natural selection.” This principle is what Spencer characterized
as “survival of the fittest” (i.e., the fittest form to thrive and/or last in a
particular environment) It is this
process which is applied to society in Sumner and Keller’s work.
b.
Sumner and Keller’s application of natural
selection to sociology (and to cultural anthropology) begins with Sumner’s
discussion of the evolution of social mores in his book “Folkways.” Later, after Sumner’s death, his pupil and
co-author Albert Galloway Keller gathered Sumner’s notes and his own and
organized them into a four volume masterpiece titled “the Science of
Society.”
i.
“Adjustment of the mores to society’s existing
life conditions is the fact of observation to be explained. It is accounted for by the combined action of
variation
in the mores, selection among the mores, and transmission of the
mores.” (Science of Society, vol. I, p.
35.)
c.
Variation
involves individual initiative and difference; Selection implies competition for consumer preference, resulting in a place in the "division of labor." Transmission is incorporation over time into the life-style of the general public, i.e., tradition..
.
7.
Social Evolution: There are three aspects of human evolutionary science
(including Darwinian natural selection, etc.) which are erroneously grouped
together as “Social Darwinism”: a.
General (Genetic, Biochemical Individuality,
Spontaneous Interaction); b. Integrative
(Social Evolution, i.e., Sociology); c.
Differential (Subspecies and Cultural Evolution, i.e., Anthropology, Physical
and Cultural)
a.
General
Aspects
i.
The Genetic Aspect
Richard
Dawkins: “The Selfish Gene”
“Individuals are
not stable things, they are fleeting. Chromosomes too are shuffled into
oblivion, like hands of cards soon after they are dealt. But the cards
themselves survive the shuffling. The cards are the genes. The genes are not
destroyed by crossing-over, they merely change partners and march on. Of course
they march on. That is their business. They are the replicators and we are
their survival machines. When we have served our purpose we are cast aside. But
genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever.” (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene)
ii.
The Biochemical/Human Aspect -- Individual Basis of Spontaneous Evolution:
From the biochemical level to the human, no two individuals are exactly
alike (e.g., in DNA, fingerprints, internal organs and especially the most
complex organ of all, i.e., the brain) so as to be competent to determine or
regulate the future of other humans.
Hence all state control (and collectivist Marxist ideology) is
unscientific.
Roger J. Williams, “Biochemical Individuality,”
“Biochemical Individuality was
first published by Dr. Roger J. Williams in 1956. It has just been reissued
with a new introduction by Jeffrey S. Bland, Ph.D. Dr. Bland explains that Dr.
Williams was the first to recognize all
humans differ biochemically from others. He says that Dr. Williams was also
the first to recognize that ‘nutritional status can influence the expression of
genetic characteristics.’"
Roger J.
Williams, “You Are Extraordinary,”
“In sum,
according to Williams, the basic answer to the question ‘Why are you an
individual?’ is that your body in every
detail, including your entire nervous system and your brain (thinking
apparatus) is highly distinctive. You are not built like anyone else. You
owe some of your individuality to the fact that you have been influenced
uniquely by your environment, which is not like anyone else's. But from all
that may be known about basic inborn individuality … it seems clear that the
amount of individuality we would possess if we were all born with exactly the
same detailed equipment would be puny, indeed, compared with the individuality
we actually possess.” (Jeff Riggenbach,
“Roger J. Williams and the Science of Individuality”)
Roger J. Williams, “Free
and Unequal: The Biological Basis of Individual Liberty.”
“Environmental effects are not
discounted, but ‘Every newborn baby has a distinctive and complex pattern of
inborn mental capacities. Each item in this pattern is derived from his human
forebears, but the pattern with its interactions is unique’. This is the basic
assumption, but the volume deals not with the processes of heredity but with
attitudes toward the products of heredity. . . . [P] Finally, and this is the main thesis of the
book, freedom without differences is
meaningless. If we all had the same
capacities and interests, and all were equally adaptable, one dietary, one
curriculum, one environment and one culture would be the desideratum, with
neither the opportunity nor the desire to deviate from an established pattern.
From such premises the philosophy of communism flows naturally and more or less
inevitably. Almost all of us are in some measure infected by it; but it is
precisely because the premises are not sound that we need to save ourselves
from their insidious effects by promoting the kind of freedom that will permit each individual to develop according
to his own special capacities and realize the potentialities that are
peculiarly his in an environment that is conducive to the progress of our
western civilization. On such freedom will depend our future happiness and our
success in understanding each other and in comprehending and controlling the
environmental factors on which we are dependent.” (Review by C. H. DANFORTH, Stanford,
California)
iii.
The Interactive Aspect: Spontaneous Evolution (e.g., balance of
nature; markets, networking; contracting)
“While an enzyme molecule or an eye might seem supremely improbable in
their complexity, they are not accidental, nor need we assume that they are the
designed handiwork of a Creator, asserts Oxford biologist Dawkins (The Selfish
Gene). This foremost neo-Darwinian exponent explains the dazzling array of
living things as the result of natural
selection: the slow, cumulative,
one-step-at-a-time, non-random survival
of chance variants. Both a frontal
assault on creationism and an enthralling tour of the natural world, this
beautifully illustrated study is based on a set of BBC lectures, imparting a
tone at once conversational and magisterial. Dawkins explores how ordered complexity arose by discussing spiders' web-building
techniques, the gradual evolution of elephant trunks and of wings (birds, he
concludes, evolved from two-legged dinosaurs, not from tree gliders) and the
symbiotic relationship between the 900 species of figs and their sole genetic
companions, the miniature wasps that pollinate specific fig species. Using
"computer biomorphs" (simulated creatures "bred" from a
common ancestor), Dawkins demonstrates how
varieties of the same plant or animal species can vary in shape because of
differences in just a few genes.” (Publisher’s Weekly review.)
Robert Ardrey: “The Social
Contract: A
Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary
Sources of Order and Disorder”
“The just
society, as I see it, is one in which sufficient
order protects members, whatever their diverse endowments, and sufficient disorder provides every
individual with full opportunity to develop his genetic endowment, whatever
that may be. It is this balance of order
and disorder, varying in rigor according to environmental hazard, that I
think of as the social contract. And
that it is a biological command will
become evident, I believe, as we inquire among the species.” (from first chapter.)
b.
Integrative Evolution,
i.
Sociology (and Sociobiology)
“Social Darwinism” in sociology today mainly takes the form of Sociobiology (E. O. Wilson, Konrad
Lorenz, Robert Ardrey, Garrett Hardin, et al), in which animal instincts common
to humans and lower animals (zoology) influences social behavior (sociology).
This includes the instincts of territoriality (i.e., property), exploration,
and competition, affecting the social order in the animal kingdom (e.g., the
herd instinct and crowd behavior). Thus,
the study of animal societies (and differences from insect societies) provides
enlightenment as to related human behavior.
This is “Social Darwinism” to an even greater extent than ever before.
“When this classic work was first
published in 1975, it created a new discipline and started a tumultuous round
in the age-old nature versus nurture
debate. Although voted by officers and fellows of the international Animal
Behavior Society the most important book on animal behavior of all time,
Sociobiology is probably more widely known as the object of bitter attacks by
social scientists and other scholars who opposed its claim that human social behavior, indeed human nature,
has a biological foundation. The controversy surrounding the publication of
the book reverberates to the present day.
“In the introduction to this Twenty-Fifth
Anniversary Edition, Edward O. Wilson shows how research in human genetics and
neuroscience has strengthened the case for a biological understanding of human nature. Human sociobiology, now
often called evolutionary psychology, has in the last quarter of a century
emerged as its own field of study, drawing on theory and data from both biology
and the social sciences.” (Amazon book
description.)
“On Human Nature is a 1979 Pulitzer
Prize-winning book,[1] published in 1978 by Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson. The
book tries to explain how different characteristics of humans and society can
be explained from the point of view of evolution. He explains how evolution has
left its traces on the characteristics
which are the specialty of human species like generosity, self-sacrifice,
worship and the use of sex for pleasure. The book is considered an effort to
complete the Darwinian revolution by bringing biological thought into social
sciences and humanities.[1] “ (Wikipedia
article on book).
Konrad
Lorenz: “On Aggression”
“This work has
had significant impact on the social and biological sciences and is now a
classic point of reference for investigations of behavioral patterns. Lorenz
presents his findings on the mechanism of
aggression and how animals control destructive drives in the interest of
the species.” (“Goodreads” summary of
book.)
According to
Lorenz, the three functions of aggression are 1) balancing the
distribution of the species, 2) selection of the strongest, and 3) defense of
the young. Male aggression associated
with territoriality appeals to the females seeking a secure location in which
to breed their young. (Summary by: Sebastian Molnar)
Garrett Hardin: “Nature and Man’s Fate”
“Nature and Man's Fate draws attention to the
important fact that progress in science is in large part a process of error and
detection of error. The book focuses on the inescapability of competition-driven selection - the
foundation of the modern evolutionary synthesis and of Hardin's analysis of
evolution and its implications for human beings.
“Essays
such as ‘In Praise of Waste,’ ‘Liberalism and the Spectre of Competition,’ and ‘Eugenics:
Is Man Part of Nature?’ carefully address numerous taboo subjects within the
framework of the impotence principles of evolutionary science; that is, the
psychological need, or wish, for the world to be unbounded is challenged by:
-the impotence of Lamarckian beliefs in the face of
Mendelian genetics;
-the impotence of Liberal beliefs in egalitarian results in the face of the
inescapableness of biological competition in a
world with limited resources and mates;
-the impotence of those who seek to eliminate all waste in the face of the
success of Darwinian selection
operating on genetic/cultural waste what is usually called variation (pp. 306-310).”
(from Carl Jay
Bajerna, “Garrett James Hardin: Ecologist, Educator, Ethicist
and Environmentalist
“Territorial behavior in animals, over
the past few decades, has attracted the attention of hundreds of competent
specialists who have recorded their observations and their reasoned conclusions
in obscure professional publications. The subject is very nearly as well known
to the student of animal behavior as is the relation of mother and infant to
the student of human behavior. Furthermore, many of the concerned scientists,
as we shall see, believe as do I that man
is a territorial species, and that the behavior so widely observed in
animal species is equally characteristic of our own. And yet -- it is
astonishing -- there exists in all the scientific literature but one book
devoted exclusively to the subject.”
(Author’s preface.)
“A territory is an area of space, whether
of water or earth or air, which an animal or group of animals defends as an
exclusive preserve. The word is also used to describe the inward compulsion in animate beings to possess and defend such a
space. A territorial species of
animals, therefore, is one in which all males, and sometimes females too, bear
an inherent drive to gain and defend
an exclusive property. “ (Chapter I,
opening paragraph)
Strangely enough the opponents of
Socio-biology (e.g., Marxist sociologists) themselves serve as confirmation of
its accuracy, insofar as they obviously resent the socio-biologist invasion of
what they regard as their own intellectual “territory.,” As an undergraduate student at San Francisco
State, I had an international relations professor who on ideological grounds dogmatically
denied the existence of a territorial instinct.
Yet just outside the building in which he spoke, there was a tree in
which a bird had built a nest. As people
would enter the building they would pass underneath the nest and the bird would
swoop down menacingly just above the “trespassers’” heads.
ii.
Social Psychology (LeBon, McDougall, Trotter, et
al.)
Gustave Le Bon, “The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind” (1895)
“As a
crowd gathers together and coalesces there is a `magnetic influence given out
by the crowd or from some other cause of which we are ignorant’ that transmutes
every individual’s behavior until it becomes governed by the ’group mind'. This
model treats 'The Crowd' as a unit in its composition and robs every individual
member of their opinions, values and beliefs. As he says in one of his more
pithy statements, `An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other
grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will’.
“Le Bon
detailed three key processes that create ‘The Crowd’: anonymity, contagion and
suggestibility.
Anonymity
provides an individual a feeling of invincibility and the sense loss of
responsibility. With the loss of autonomy an individual becomes primitive,
unreasoning, and emotional. This lack of self-restraint allows individuals to
‘yield to instincts’ and to accept the instinctual drives of their 'racial
unconscious'. For Le Bon this means that
the crowd inverts Darwin’s law of evolution and becomes atavistic or
regressive, proving Ernst Haeckel's embryological theory: `ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’.
Contagion
refers to the spread in the crowd of particular behaviors (e.g. rioter's
smashing windows) where individuals sacrifice their personal interest for the
collective interest.
Suggestibility
is the mechanism through which the contagion is achieved. As the crowd
coalesces into a singular mind suggestions made by strong voices in the crowd
create a space for the ‘racial unconscious’
to come to the forefront and guide its behavior. At this stage ‘The Crowd’
becomes homogeneous and malleable to suggestions from its strongest members.
"`The
leaders we speak of,’ says Le Bon, `are usually men of action rather than of
words. They are not gifted with keen foresight... They are especially recruited
from the ranks of those morbidly nervous excitable half-deranged persons who
are bordering on madness. [two classes of leader, the energetic whose will is
intermittent, and the rarer group whose will is enduring] the world belongs to
the crowd leader who possesses a persistent will-force.’" (Wikipedia
article on Le Bon.)
William McDougall, “An Introduction to Social
Psychology” (1908)
“William
McDougall (June 22, 1871 – November 28, 1938) was a
British-born,
American psychologist who
pioneered work in human
instinctual behavior and the development of
social psychology.
McDougall believed human behavior to be based on three faculties—intellect,
emotion, and will—which were under instinctual control.”
(from New World Enclyclopedia article on
McDougall.)
“McDougall's
interests and sympathies were broad. He was interested in eugenics,
but departed from neo-Darwinian orthodoxy in maintaining the possibility of the inheritance
of acquired characteristics, as suggested by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck; he carried out many experiments designed to demonstrate
this process. Opposing behaviourism, he argued that behaviour was generally
goal-oriented and purposive, an approach he called hormic psychology
(from Greek ὁρμή hormḗ "impulse").
“However,
in the theory of motivation, he defended the idea that individuals are motivated by a significant number of inherited instincts,
whose action they may not consciously understand, so they might not always
understand their own goals. His ideas on instinct strongly influenced Konrad Lorenz[citation needed], though Lorenz did not always acknowledge this[citation needed].” (from Wikipedia
article on McDougall)
William Trotter: “The Instincts of the Herd in War and
Peace” (1916)
“Trotter's basic argument is that being a social species marks us
collectively and especially individually with strong psychological
characteristics. We respond instinctively and readily to group suggestions and
are thus easily trained to suppress the
most basic instincts (survival, sex) in the service of the group. Parallels
can easily be drawn to other social species, including wolves, dogs, and bees,
who are enthusiastic servants of their group as well as recipients of group
communication and training, even while other species such as cats, are much
less social and lack many of these instincts.
“Indeed what we regard as morals are the implanted instinctive or trained
promptings of group service, which necessarily conflict with selfish instincts,
and thus set up the mental conflicts that are the bread and butter of
psychotherapy. "Normal" people are fully adapted to this regime,
submerging their selves into the larger group and thus are ready to go off to
war and other group activities. Trotter is rather biting in his analysis of war
(WWI was to come as he presciently wrote in 1908, and was underway as he wrote
in 1915). He also identifies religion as the natural consequence of this social
instinct, which progressively hypostasizes the imaginary emblem and enforcer of
the social order, until it is both all-powerful and psychologically
internalized
“.
. .
“Trotter indulges
in long mid-war and post-war analyses of German instincts and character,
contrasting the militaristic wolf-like follower/leader system of the German
nation with the more advanced bee-like, collegial, bottom-up integration of
countries like Britain, which is virtually allergic to strong leaders and
external aggression. This section would
be comically jingoistic were it not that his analysis became realized to an
unimaginable degree in the "Führer prinzip" fifteen years
later.” (Amazon review by B. Braun)
8.
Differential Evolution:
A,
Sexual Differentiation and Selection
Ann Moir (Geneticist and
Neuropsychologist) and David Jessel: “Brain Sex”
Why
can't a woman be more like a man? What is this thing called "feminine
intuition"? Why are men better at reading maps, and women at other
people's characters? The answers lie in the basic biological differences
between the male and female brain, which make it impossible for the sexes to
share equal emotional or intellectual qualities. Moir and Jessel explain how the embryonic brain is shaped as either male
or female at about six weeks, when the male fetus begins producing hormones that organize its brain's
neural networks into a male pattern;
in their absence, the brain will be female. Structural
and organizational differences between male and female brains, cause men to
be more aggressive and competitive and better at skills that require spatial ability
and mathematical reasoning. On the other
hand, these differences make women more sensitive to nuances of expression and
gesture, more adept at judging character. Thus, it can be said that women are more “people-oriented”
than men, who tend to be more interested in “things.”
Steven
Goldberg, “The Inevitability of
Patriarchy”
“The
institutions Goldberg examines are patriarchy,
male dominance and male attainment.[3]
The hypothetical psychophysiological phenomenon he proposes to explain them, he
denotes by the expression differentiation of dominance tendency.[4][5]
He explains this refers to dominance behaviour being more easily elicited from
men on average than from women on average. In other words, he
theorises a biologically mediated difference in preferences.
“Goldberg
next provides expert witnesses from several disciplines regarding correlations
between behaviour and the hormone testosterone, which are known to be causative in several cases,
including dominance preference. He concludes with the hypothesis that
testosterone is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the development of the institutions he examined.[6]
In other words, without testosterone, the institutions would not develop—it
must be part (but not all) of an explanation for their universality.
“Finally,
Goldberg proposes that if patriarchy is indeed biologically based, it will
prove to be inevitable; unless a society is willing to intervene biologically
on the male physiology.” (Wikipedia article on book.)
[Note: Wikipedia observes elsewhere that “Female-biased
dominance occurs rarely in mammals.’ (See Wikipedia article on “Dominance
Hierarchy,” at note 43, citing the three exceptions to male dominance: hyenas, lemurs and the bonobo.)]
John
Gray, “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus”
“The book
states that most of common relationship problems between men and women are a
result of fundamental psychological
differences between the genders, which the author exemplifies by means of
its eponymous
metaphor: that men and women are from distinct planets – men from Mars and women from Venus –- and that each
gender is acclimated to its own planet's society and customs, but not to those
of the other. One example is men's complaint that if they offer solutions
to problems that women bring up in conversation, the women are not necessarily
interested in solving those problems, but want mainly to talk about them. The
book asserts that each gender can be understood in terms of distinct ways they
respond to stress and stressful situations.” (Wikipedia article on book)
B. Subspecies Differentiation and
Selection
1.
Types
of Differentiation
i.
Vertical Differentiation (Haeckel, Tylor)
Savage, Barbarian, Civilized (and their subdivisions)
Average Intelligence Levels, Instincts, Talents, Abilities, etc.
ii.
Horizontal Differentiation (Darlington, Coon,
Huntington, Taylor)
Regional Habitat, Climate Zone, Race, Kith, Culture
2. Physical Anthropology and Related Disciplines
(Human Genetics, Ethnic Geography) :
Subspecies
Darwinism (misnamed “Social Darwinism”) is best exemplified by Ernst Mayr
(zoology); Ellsworth Huntington (geographer), C. D. Darlington
(geneticist), and Carleton S. Coon (physical anthropologist).
Ernst Mayr: “Animal
Species and Evolution”
“This is
certainly the most important contribution to the study of evolution since The
new systematics and Huxley's Evolution-the modern synthesis appeared
more than 20 years ago. Its central theme is the species concept as the key to the understanding of the
evolutionary process. The decisive species criterion is the non-interbreeding of natural populations
rather than the sterility of individuals. Mayr shows that species are not
arbitrary, but objective entities, isolated
reproductively from other species either spatially
or by isolating mechanisms. Species
may evolve through either internal
transformation of a single species or division of one species into two if a
peripheral population becomes isolated from the main body of the species in a
distinctive environment. Evolution is facilitated
by the fact that wild species are not genetically uniform populations, but are
characterized by a high degree of overt or concealed variability.” (C.A.B. Review
by H. Epstein.)
C.D. (Cyril Dean) Darlington: “The Evolution of Genetic Systems”
C.D. (Cyril Dean) Darlington: “The Evolution of Man and Society”
“The key
to Darlington’s theory of evolution, first set out in his influential study The
Evolution of Genetic Systems (1939),
was his notion of a “breeding system”. For Darlington it is the breeding
system as a whole, rather than the individual bearers of genes, that selection
operates on to produce evolution. By this Darlington meant not only the
chromosome structure of an organism, but its whole approach to breeding:
It is .. not by acting directly on a
single change in a gene or chromosome or on a single cell or a single
individual that selection is constructive. … It is by acting
indirectly on combinations of changes of many kinds through their effects which
are of many kinds. … A large part of [evolutionary] effects concern the genetic
system whose properties have nothing to do with the survival of the individual
but only of its posterity. All adaptation of the genetic system is
therefore pre-adaptation. It has no relation to any existing
environment. Its relations are internal to the species and often …
extremely unstable and subject of their own evolutionary laws. … In the
evolution of the genetic system all the primary types of variation interact and
the genetic system itself reacts on the external form of the individual. (pages
225, 236-7)
“In the
case of man, this “genetic system” is complex, including stratification into
races (breeding groups) and castes (ranked breeding groups with hereditary
occupations). These breeding groups pursue varying strategies for
inbreeding and outbreeding, depending on their circumstances, because there is
a continual evolutionary tension between adaptation and variation.
Inbreeding is a successful strategy for a group whose environment remains
relatively static for some time, and inbred groups can achieve high levels of
fertility, tending to eliminate internal genetic variation and thereby adapt to
their environment. Outbreeding is suited to groups whose environment
changes, because it produces increased variation. However, an inbred
group that switches too rapidly to outbreeding reduces its fertility, whereas
an outbred group that switches to inbreeding risks the combination of harmful
recessive genes. Genes select their environment, which in turn selects
them.
“ . . .
The
Evolution of Man and Society (
1969), [is] a provocative universal history of
man from a genetic perspective. This was history that took heredity
seriously, perhaps the only substantial history ever successfully attempted
from that perspective;
“
Darlington
was perhaps the last major hereditarian to escape serious public controversy,
though the academic reaction to his major work,
The Evolution of Man and
Society (
1969), followed by
The Little Universe of Man (
1977), showed that he was already out of step
politically with many of his colleagues. Soon Arthur Jensen, Richard
Herrnstein, John Baker and (posthumously) Cyril Burt would be drawn into a
political firefight over the role of genes in human nature.”
(Gavan Tredoux, reviewing Oren Harman’s
biography of Darlington.)
Carleton S.
Coon: “Origin of Races”
“Coon
first modified Franz Weidenreich's Polycentric (or multiregional) theory of the origin of races. The Weidenreich Theory
states that human races have evolved
independently in the Old World from Homo erectus
to Homo sapiens sapiens, while at the same time there was gene flow between the various populations. Coon held a similar
belief that modern humans, Homo sapiens, arose separately in five different
places from Homo erectus, "as each subspecies, living in its own territory,
passed a critical threshold from a more brutal to a more sapient
state", but unlike Weidenreich stressed gene flow far less.[15][16]
“Coon's
modified form of the Weidenreich Theory is sometimes referred to as the Candelabra Hypothesis. A
misunderstanding however has led some to believe that Coon supported parallel
evolution or polygenism; this is not true since Coon's evolution model still allows
for gene-flow, although he did not
stress it.[17]
“In his
1962 book, The Origin of Races, Coon theorized
that some races reached the Homo
sapiens stage in evolution before others, resulting in the higher
degree of civilization among some races.[18]
He had continued his theory of five races. He considered both what he called
the Mongoloid race and the Caucasoid race had individuals who had adapted to crowding through evolution of
the endocrine system, which made them more successful in the modern world of
civilization. This can be found on pages 108-109 of The Origin of Races. In his
book Coon contrasted a picture of an Indigenous Australian with one of a Chinese professor. His caption "The
Alpha and the Omega" was used to demonstrate his research that brain size was positively correlated with
intelligence.” (from Wikipedia
article on Carleton S. Coon.)
Ellsworth
Huntington: “Mainsprings of Civilization”
“This was a very
influential book in my thinking. It looks at heredity, geography and climate as
major factors in the rise of various civilizations. It was originally published
in 1945. (Tom’s review in “Good Reads”)
“Huntington
divides the "mainsprings" into:
“1. Physical inheritance: The selective,
Darwinian process. Huntington's focus, which is unique among the
sociobiologists I have read, is more on the effects
of migration than anything else, and he places great emphasis on how
Puritans, Icelanders, and other migrant groups were winnowed by their journeys.
This is partly a function of the importance, in his mind, of physical energy to the creation of civilization. But it is struggle, either in Jews facing persecution, Junkers taming the
slavic east, or Arab tribesmen robbing each other of cattle, that in his mind
makes kiths strong.
“2. Environment: Huntington's reputation, which although perhaps appropriate to
earlier phases of his career now seems undeserved, is as a climactic
determinist. Diet is also considered, but the
main factors are seasons, temperatures, and storms. He claims, for
instance, that mental activity is best
produced in a fairly stormy environment with fairly strong seasonal variation.
The influence of different temperatures
on physical energy, and on religious creeds, is another worthwhile
discussion. The climatic cycles and the "ozone" hypothesis are not
very convincing.
“His understanding of race is far
ahead, in my view, of both the racists and anti-racists of our contemporary
scene. His understanding of climate's
influence on history, claims David Hackett Fischer, is quite unjustly
neglected. `We are confronted by
possibilities which may be of the first importance, but so slight is our
knowledge that most historians have never even thought of them, and many
dismiss them as not worth pursuing.’"
(Fred R.’s review in “Good Reads”)
Thomas Griffith
Taylor: “Environment, Race, and
Migration”
‘`Taylor links skin pigment to temperature and collects extensive data
from the period on geology, topology, meteorology, and anthropology. Taylor saw
geography in a synthesizing role
between explanations of the physical world and the diffusion and evolution of the human species.
"`The
fittest tribes evolve and survive in the most stimulating regions; i.e.,
where living is not so hard as to stunt mental development, and not so easy as
to encourage sloth and loss of initiative. The least fit are ultimately crowded out into the deserts, the tropical
jungles, or the rugged mountains.’ pg. 6
“In
regards to anthropology, Taylor looks at records of hair texture and size, nose
size, ear size, cephalic indices, skin color, and height. He links sexual attraction amongst different
races to evolved and diverged cultural preferences for beauty. Taylor comes up
with the theory of the `tri-peninsular
world’, in which the world is divided into three peninsulas descending
south from a common point in the Arctic (Americas, Europe and Africa, Asia and
Australia). In these peninsulas, Taylor
finds climate and race similarities. In regards to racial variation within
smaller regions, Taylor offers this passage about Europe's races:
"`The
Eur-African peninsula is now considered. Here the racial types have been fairly
well investigated. We know that the term "European" has no value as
an ethnological distinction. Thus the Savoyard of eastern France is akin to the
wild tribes of the Pamirs, but not to the primitive peoples of the Dordogne
only two hundred miles to the west. The Corsican is much more nearly allied to
the Cornishman than to the Italian peoples of the adjacent Alps. In Wales, we
are told, there are small groups still essentially allied to Neanderthal
man.’ pg. 9
“The most suitable parts of the world for
habitation are, according to Taylor, in Europe, Western Siberia, the
Americas, and Eastern China. These are the places that, if not already
overcrowded, are where the world's masses must one day move into. Places least adaptable to European styles of
agriculture and settlement are considered by Taylor `useless’. In the final
section of the book Taylor lays out the possibilities of future expansion of
the white race, which he sees as the only race which will expand. Though he
voices that no Europeans would wish to extinguish or force native people from
their lands, `these primitive people are doomed to extinction...’ Whites would
eventually settle all `useful lands.’"
(Wikipedia article on Taylor)
h. Cultural Anthropology
There
are also Darwinian evolutionists in cultural anthropology.
Edward Burnett
Tylor, “Primitive Culture.”
Edward Burnett
Tylor, “Anthropology”
Tylor saw
culture as universal. In his view, all societies were essentially alike and
capable of being ranked by their different levels of cultural
advancement. As he explains in a later essay:
the
institutions of man are as distinctly stratified
as the earth on which he lives. They succeed each other in series substantially
uniform over the globe, independent of what seem the comparatively superficial differences of race and language, but
shaped by similar human nature acting
through successively changed conditions in savage,
barbaric, and civilized life. (“On a Method”
269)
Marshall
D. Sahlins & Elman R. Service (editors):
“Evolution and Culture”
“
Marshall Sahlins,
co-editor with Elman Service of
Evolution and Culture (1960), divided
the evolution of societies into 'general' and 'specific'.
[18] General
evolution is the tendency of cultural and social systems to increase in
complexity,
organization and
adaptiveness
to environment.
[18] However, as the various cultures are
not isolated, there is interaction and a
diffusion
of their qualities (like technological
inventions).
[18] This leads cultures to develop in
different ways (
specific evolution), as various elements are introduced to them in
different combinations and at different stages of evolution.
[18]” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution
)
Elman R. Service, “A Century of Controversy: Ethnological Issues from 1860 to 1960”
‘Elman
Service defined four classifications of the stages
of social evolution which are also the four
levels of political organizations: band, tribe, chiefdom, and state.
‘He also
developed the "managerial
benefits" theory that states that chiefdom-like society developed
because it was apparently beneficial, because of the centralized leadership.
The leader provides benefits to the followers, which, over time, become more
complex, benefiting the whole chiefdom society. This keeps the leader in power,
and allows the bureaucratic organization to grow.
“He also
had an integration theory. He
believed that early civilizations were not stratified based on property. They
were only stratified based on unequal
political power, not because of unequal access to resources. He believed
there were no true class conflicts, but
only power struggles between the political elite in early civilizations.
The integration part of this theory was that monuments were created through
volunteering, not the leaders forcing it upon the populace.” (Wikipedia article on Service.)
2.
The Spiritual
Implications of Evolution:
John Fiske, “The Destiny of Man,,viewed in the light of his origin
” (1886)
“Mr. Fiske, as is
well known, is the leading American exponent of the evolution philosophy of
Herbert Spencer. , , , The aim of Mr. Fiske in
his latest works is to reassert truths with which the theory of evolution
seemed at first to be irreconcilable.
The main propositions of The Destiny of Man are
(i) that the supreme law in natural
development is that of teleology; (2)
that man is the end and final outcome
of the whole evolution process. Upon these premises Mr. Fiske
constructs a plea for the immortality
of the soul. In his last book he unfolds and defends a doctrine of theism,
claiming it to be the logical outcome of the evolution philosophy.” (The New
Princeton Review, Volume 1, p. 296)
I. Man's Place in Nature as affected by the Copernican
Theory.
II. As affected by
Darwinism.
III. On the Earth
there will never be a Higher Creature than Man.
IV. The Origin of
Infancy.
V. The Dawning of
Consciousness.
VI. Lengthening of
Infancy and Concomitant Increase of Brain-Surface.
VII. Change in the
Direction of the Working of Natural Selection.
VIII. Growing
Predominance of the Psychical Life.
IX. The Origins of
Society and of Morality.
X. Improvableness
of Man.
XI. Universal
Warfare of Primeval Men.
XII. First checked
by the Beginnings of Industrial Civilisation.
XIII. Methods of
Political Development, and Elimination of Warfare.
XIV. End of the
Working of Natural Selection upon Man. Throwing off
the
Brute-Inheritance.
XV. The Message of
Christianity.
XVI. The Question
as to a Future Life.
Samuel
Alexander, “Space, Time and Deity’ (1920)
”The concept or idea of mind,
the highest emergent known to us, being at our level, extends all the way down
to pure dimensionality or Space-Time.
In other words, time is the `mind’ of motion,
materialising is the `mind’ of matter,
living the `mind’ of life. Motion
through pure time (or life astronomical, mind ideational) emerges as matter
`materialising’ (geological time, life geological, mind existential), and this
emerges as life `living’ (biological time, life biological, mind experiential),
which in turn give us mind `minding’ (historical time, life historical, mind
cognitional). But there is also an extension possible upwards of mind to what
we call Deity.” (Wikipedia article on “Emergent
Evolution,” section under Samuel
Alexander.)
“The
universe for Alexander is essentially in process, with
Time as its ongoing aspect, and the ongoing process consists in the
formation of
changing complexes of
motions. These complexes become ordered in repeatable ways displaying what
he calls
"qualities." There
is a
hierarchy of kinds of organized
patterns of motions,
in which each level
depends on the subvening level, but also displays qualities not shown at the
subvening level nor predictable from it… On this there sometimes supervenes
a further level with the quality called
"life";
and certain subtle syntheses which carry life are the foundation for a further
level with a new quality.
"mind."
This is the highest level known to us, but not necessarily the highest possible
level. The universe has a forward thrust, called its "nisus" (broadly
to be identified with the Time aspect) in virtue of which further levels are to
be expected..”
(
^
Emmet, Dorothy.
"Whitehead and Alexander” quoted in
Wikipedia article on emergent evolution)
C. Lloyd Morgan, “Emergent
Evolution”
“Abstract: The
theme of Lloyd Morgan’s text, as the title suggests, is emergent evolution.
According to the author, emergent
evolution works upwards from matter, through life, to consciousness which
attains in humankind its highest reflective or supra-reflective level.
Ultimately, the author posits: If we may acknowledge on the one hand a
physical world underlying the phenomenal appearances with which we are
acquainted by sense, and, on the other hand, an immaterial Source of all
changes therein; if, in other words, we may acknowledge physical events as
ultimately involved and God on whom all evolutionary process ultimately
depends, then we may, with Kant, but on different grounds, accept both
causation and Causality without shadow of contradiction. But unless we also intuitively
enjoy God’s activity within us, feeling that we are in a measure one with him
in substance, we can have no immediate knowledge of causality or of God as
the source of our own existence and emergent evolution.”
|
“Smuts in retirement wrote Holism and Evolution
(1926, 3d ed. 1936), in which he developed the view that evolution is a sequence of ever more comprehensive integrations,
“ (Infoplease, per The
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed.)
“The core
principle of Smuts’ holism is that all things in the universe, from the
level of the atom right up to human intellect, society and Values, has a strong
tendency to form wholes. These wholes, while not containing anything
specifically more than their parts, are nevertheless fundamentally more
than merely the sum of those parts.
“This work
draws strongly on the theory of evolution, primarily as stated by Darwin but
also considering later additions. Another very influential factor is Einstein’s
theory of relativity, in relation to which Einstein himself said that Smuts was
`one of only eleven men in the world’ who fully understood it. Einstein also
studied this book, and found it very influential.” (“Person, wandering”
website.)
“As
Holism in its individuating activity
evolves and sets free smaller wholes, these wholes are themselves in
ever-increasing measure set free from
external determination and acquire an ever
greater measure of self-determination and freedom in their activities and
development. Holism not only means the development of the universe on holistic
lines, the realisation of ever more perfect wholes, and the assimilation,
transformation and absorption of non-holistic material or relations. It means
also the ever-widening reign of Freedom,
the realisation of the Ideal of Freedom in the gradual breaking down of all external fetters, and the gradually increasing inward self-determination of
the universe through the progressive evolution of ever higher holistic entities
in the universe.” (Smuts, Holism, p. 308)
Wholes are not mere artificial constructions of thought; they actually exist; they point to something real in the universe, and Holism is a real operative factor, a vera causa. There is behind Evolution no mere vague creative impulse or Elan vital, but some-thing quite
definite and specific in its operation, and thus productive of the real concrete character of cosmic Evolution. [P] The idea of wholes and wholeness should therefore not be confined to the biological domain ; it covers both inorganic substances and mental structures as well as the highest manifestations of the human spirit. (Smuts, Holism, p. 86.)
Le Comte du Nouy, “Human Destiny” (1947)
Written by a famous evolutionary
biologist, this book takes a telefinalist
view of evolution. It depicts the evolution of mankind as proceeding thru three roughly
chronological stages: physical, intellectual and spiritual,
ultimately arriving at oneness with God.
Written from his Christian
perspective, but in the terms of the physical world, Du Nouy casts a net wide
enough for both science and spirituality. He treats the rift between religion
and science that has simmered since Copernicus, as being non-contradictory. Such terms as “science vs religion,” “evolution
vs creation,” “fact vs faith” are not
necessarily mutually exclusionary and all exist together if you can open your
mind wide enough to get past the doctrine and dogma of an opposition between religion
and science. (An amalgamation of Amazon
reviews)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Philosophical Evolution
John Fiske, “The
Destiny of Man” (1886)
Henri L. Bergson, “Creative Evolution”
C. Lloyd Morgan, “Life, Mind and Spirit”
Samuel Alexander, “Space, Time, and Deity”
Pierre Lecomte DuNouy, “Human Destiny”
J. C. (Jan Christiian) Smuts. “Holism and Evolution”
Herbert Spencer, “Synthetic Philosophy” (multi-volume
work)
John Fiske, “Cosmic Philosophy”
E. O. Wilson “Consilience”
Biochemical Basis for Evolution (i.e. individuality and
spontaneous interaction)
Roger J. Williams, “Biochemical Individuality,”
Roger J. Williams, “You Are Extraordinary,”
Roger J. Williams, “Free
and Unequal: The Biological Basis of Individual Liberty.”
Darwin’s Mentors (Scottish Enlightenment, etc.)
Adam Smith, “The
Wealth of Nations”
Adam Smith, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”
Adam Ferguson, founder of sociology, who Like his friends He
believed that the growth of a commercial society through the pursuit of
individual self-interest could promote a self-sustaining progress. He believed that the growth of a commercial
society through the pursuit of individual self-interest could promote a
self-sustaining progress.
Thomas Malthus
Erasmus Darwin
Social Evolution
Herbert Spencer, “Principles of Sociology”
[Cf. Robert Carneiro, “The Evolution of Society – Selections from
Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Sociology”]
Herbert Spencer, “Social Statics”
Ernst Haeckel, “The Riddle of the Universe”
Ernst Haeckel, “The Wonders of Life”
Walter Bagehot: “Physics
and Politics”
William Graham Sumner: “Folkways.”
Albert Galloway Keller: “Societal
Evolution.”
Albert Galloway Keller: “Man’s
Rough Road.”
Sumner and Keller: “Science
of Society” (four volumes)
Social Spencerism
John Fiske, “Outlines of Cosmic
Philosophy, Based on the Doctrine of Evolution” (1923)
Robert MacIver, “On
Community, Society and Power”
(1970)j
Friedrich Hayek, “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism” (1988)
Jane Jacobs, “The Nature of Economies” (2000); cf. also, inter alia,
Jane Jacobs, “Cities and the Wealth of Nations” (1984)
Sociobiology
E. O. Wilson: “Sociobiology”
Konrad Lorenz: “On
Aggression”
Richard Dawkins: “The
Selfish Gene”
Robert Ardrey: “The Social
Contract: A Personal
Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder”
Differential Evolution:
Ernst Mayr: “Animal
Species and Evolution”
C. D. (Cyril Dean) Darlington: “The Evolution of Man and Society”
Carleton S. Coon: “Origin
of Races”
Ellsworth Huntington: “Mainsprings
of Civilization”
Cultural Evolution:
William
Graham Sumner, “Folkways”
Edward Burnett Tylor, “Primitive Culture.”
Edward
Burnett Tylor, “Anthropology”
Marshall
D. Sahlins & Elman R. Service (editors):
“Evolution and Culture”
Elman
R. Service, “A Century of
Controversy: Ethnological Issues from
1860 to 1960”
