Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA11126 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 23 May 2000 14:11:46 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1D2@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: What is "useful"; what is "survival" Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:09:45 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Very interesting that you should included Wilson alongside Weber, Durkheim
and Marx. I doubt anyone but other sociobiologists would put Wilson on a
line of important theoreticians of the last 100 years or so.
Incidentally, I don't know where you get the idea from that many aspects of
the social sciences are ignorant of the importance of Marx. It certainly
doesn't apply to social science in Europe- perhaps in America McCarthyism's
long shadow keeps it hidden in the USA. In fact, amongst our less aware
students, we get complaints about the amount of Marxism that has to be dealt
with when exploring media sociology, with comments like 'the Soviet Union
doesn't exist anymore so why are we studying Marx?'.
Vincent
> ----------
> From: chuck
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 8:18 am
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival"
>
>
>
> Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2000, chuck wrote:
> >In short, the industrial revolution did not happen because people
> were suddenly
> >infected with some virus as some memists might claim. It was a
> necessary
> >response to a changing ecology. The competitive game is a constant
> in across all
> >human societies - that's how change is ultimately accomplished. But
> it's not the
> >competition itself, but the ecology that drives it.
> >
> >Unfortunately to give this a reality, it is necessary to have a
> good grasp of a
> >lot of historical data pertaining to economics, politics,
> psychology, population
> >studies, and history. There are simply no easy shortcuts on this
> one. But the
> >principle is still ecological, not simply a game of cultural
> catchup -- even
> >though people may conceptualize it that way in their daily lives.
>
> This seems wildly implausible to me, and I'm afraid I'm not willing
> to accept it
> on your say-so, even though you might be much better read in the
> relevant areas.
> I take is, as you're not giving any references, this is all your own
> work?
>
> There is a huge body of work out there on this theme, but it is scattered
> across many fields. I suggest that anyone interested in pursuing this
> start by reading the basic classical works of the last 100 years -
> Weber, Durkheim, Marx, and the sociobiologists like Edward Wilson and
> Pinker. Stripped of the ideological stuff, Marx is enormously useful
> because he is the first to fully understand the role of the means of
> production in human behavior. That has proved to be so useful that it is a
> standard conceptual tool in huge areas of the social sciences even though
> many are unaware of the source. Sociobiology builds on this.
>
> However, if you already find what I say "wildly implausible," it's quite
> possible you are already too wedded to parsing the world into fragmented
> pieces to seriously consider a broader context. Many people, professionals
> included, don't find a broader view based on what is essentially
> historical ecology so implausible. That includes Edward Wilson (you might
> try reading his latest book, Consilience, which explores exactly what I am
> talking about).
>
>
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 14:12:20 BST