Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA12058 (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 15:05:11 +0100 Message-ID: <392A4933.460D4FC@mediaone.net> Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:02:43 +0100 From: chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: What is "useful"; what is "survival" References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31CEB1D2@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Vincent Campbell wrote:
> Very interesting that you should included Wilson alongside Weber, Durkheim
> and Marx.
Modern sociobiology was founded in the mid 1970s, but it only broke through the
enormous prejudices against it in the early 1990s, in part, I think, to the mass
publication of MRIs thinking brains which put an end forever to the notion that
thoughts are merely spiritual entities floating around in a grey cloud. He took
all the heat in the meantime because he was willing to put himself on the line
with his considerable intellectual integrity. I think he has to take major
credit for being the front man.
> I doubt anyone but other sociobiologists would put Wilson on a
> line of important theoreticians of the last 100 years or so.
I don't think that's any longer true in the US anyway. He has, after all, been
prophetic. (I'm not claiming he is always right - which would be miraculous -
but the general direction of his thought has been accepted.) And SB has arrived
sufficiently strongly here that the inevitable bastardized references to it in
common parlance are almost obligatory. So people beyond sociobiologists *do*
look to Wilson as at least a force to be reckoned with.
I should add that the tension between the hard sciences and the all other fields
has increased markedly since about the early eighties. The amazing excesses of
the humanities in my view comes mostly from the fact that private money to fund
the sciences has poured onto the campuses, leaving the humanities in a defensive
position. They have spent the last 20 years trying to prove that the hard
sciences are entirely arbitrary in an effort to recover their position. That was
the basis of a lot of vitriol against Wilson and SB.
> 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.
Yes, Europe finds the **name** of Marx more important. But when all sorts of
academics claim to be Marxists who clearly aren't - like Foucault - I think you
have to wonder how much Marx's actual theory and methodology has actually
survived. And, yes, you are right, academics in the US have been quite literally
scared out of mentioning any debt to Marx with the result that many have no idea
how much of their ideas comes from Marx. Then again, there are lots of
"Marxists" in the US who owe about as much to Marx as Foucault does.
> 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?'.
I have to wonder what version of Marx is taught in media studies. If it is
simply his notions of class lifted out of his broader method and theory, I would
have to wonder if it is more ideology than science that is being taught. (I'm
not saying that class doesn't play an important role). For example, a Marxist
approach to the media would involve a thoroughgoing understanding of how the
capitalist economy works and where the media fits in. A simplistic
profit-motivates-everything will not do. Any of the so-called Marxist sociology
coming out of Europe that I have seen doesn't even begin to understand the
necessity of this approach. So - I'm skeptical, but open to correction. There's
no way I could know everything happening in Europe.
Whatever the actual status of Wilson and sociobiology, though, the fact remains
that the notion of the means of production providing the essential context for
society is one of the most important theoretical trusses of sociobiology. After
all, the means of production is determined, if you will, by the ecology of a
society, and ecology is a crucial concept in SB.
>
>
> 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 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 - 15:05:42 BST