 |
0.00
(0 votes)
You must login to vote
|
|
|
What follows is a five-point plan for whomsoever wishes to apply it. Its essential purpose is to offer argumentative assistance to those people who find themselves faced with reductionist arguments of one or other kind, (such as so-called 'new genetics') and who feel that such arguments are somehow problematic, but are unsure as to what might be the flaws in such reductionist reasoning. Each summarised argument is intended as a starting point for anyone who wishes to explore these matters in more depth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The first obvious flaw in reductionist (i.e. determinist) reasoning is a logical one and it is this; If, for example, it is theoretically argued (theories remember, are intended to deliver a sense of understanding and explanation with regards to an aspect of reality, and this by way of supported and persuasive reasoning) that anger, or intelligence, or a predisposition to be poor or any other kind of visible human trait is genetically, or neurologically determined, then such a theory is obviously self-defeating. Why? If it is true, then there are no 'reasonable grounds' for believing it! Indeed, why argue in the first place? From this perspective, each time a so-called social scientist argues the case for genetically, or neurologically determined human qualities; and each time they place their so-called 'reasoned arguments' in newspapers, scientific journals and the like in an effort, one presumes, to persuade the respective reader(s), such theorists are spectacularly contradicting themselves from a logical point of view. Desmond Morris does just this with his 1960s book, 'The Naked Ape' which is intended to persuade readers that humankind is innately aggressive and competitive, so too do Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Renshon when they argue that the human brain is neurologically pre-disposed to biased patterns of aggressive behaviour, hence the phenomenon we term warfare. Of course never once does Desmond Morris think of applying his theories to his own family and friends. Similarly, never once does it dawn on Daniel Kahneman and Jonathan Renshon that if their theory is true, then their thinking must logically be biased too, and thus of no more value than yours or mine.
(2) Remaining with this theme of logic for a moment, all determinist theorists must explain why it is, that a purported biological or neurological constant, gives rise to so much variability. If we accept for example that an intelligence gene exists (leaving aside the myriad problems relating to one's efforts in defining and measuring such a phenomenon), then why is it that human intelligence, and however one wishes to define and measure it, varies so greatly across the species ? Surely the effects of such a gene would be wholly uniform would they not ? Similarly, if we accept that all humans are neurologically pre-disposed to biased patterns of thinking, one consequence of which is warfare, then why is there an international peace movement? These kinds of considerations about obvious variability apply of course, to any kind of determinist argument.
(3) It can be argued that human evolution is now socially determined, not biologically, or neurologically determined. Mankind's genetic pattern has basically remained unchanged since the Stone-Age. Neither have humans genetically branched off into one or other sub-species like other animals. Human beings are all essentially the same from a biological perspective. For sure, skin colour, hair form and so on are obvious, trivial differences but play no part in the success or otherwise of a given people's struggle for survival. I've not met anyone yet who suggests that ginger hair for example, causes a lower form of intelligence, creates angry youths or whatever. What changes in relation to human evolution is not our genetic constitution, but our social constitution. We human beings have no need to adapt our genes to the environment as all determinist theories imply. Instead, we adapt the natural and social environment to ourselves and have done, ever since our earliest fruit-eating ancestors descended from the trees. What does change rapidly, and history says as much, is our pattern of socio-economic organisation and with it, culture, ways of individual thinking, dominant social ideology and so on. These kinds of fundamental changes and transformations taking place throughout social history cannot possibly be attributed to genetic factors, for they happen too rapidly. Changes in the human gene pool over the past several thousand years are negligible in comparison to the numerous great social changes and transformations achieved by human activity.
(4) Another suggested weakness of determinist theories is their metaphysical nature. By metaphysical, I mean that the people who formulate such theories, mistakenly conceptualise their subject matter (people in this case), to a greater or lesser extent; (a) in abstraction from social reality and (b) as having fixed properties for all time (what is genetically or neurologically determined human behaviour if not fixed ?). But people exist in society, not in some analytical bubble and certainly do change with regards their emotions, their ideas, their particular psychological motives and so on. If someone is observed as being angry today, it doesn't necessarily follow that such a person has been angry all of his / her life. Thus, in the last analysis, such variable emotions and psychologies are best understood as socially, as opposed to genetically, or neurologically selected. As determined by some observable aspect of the physical and social environment. So when some young black people in Harlem are described as being in an angry state for example, we should not consider taking spinal tap samples in search of explanations for such behaviour, but instead pay the utmost attention to the kind of natural and social environment in which such people live out their lives. Above all, and given that capitalism as a system of human exploitation now embraces the globe albeit on an unequal and uneven basis, this means a consideration of the antagonistic class-based interests at work in the culture in question. To consider the emotions, or thoughts and activities of someone as both unchanging, and in abstraction from social reality when those in question are living in a society based on exploitative social relationships, is to be wholly non-scientific. It is also worth remembering that conformity (most, if not all determinist theorists have the desire to eventually bring their subjects into conformity with the dominant norms and values of the society in question) is precisely what is NOT required in a society based on exploitative relationships. Perhaps in this regard, the angry and disillusioned are the most sensible of all.
(5) A further problem with determinist theories is this; If we accept for one moment that anger, intelligence levels and the like are indeed genetically determined (and leaving aside the above noted issue of variability), we still have a right to ask the theorist advancing such an explanation as to what the survival value of such a genetic inheritence was, and is for the human species. What survival value is derived from a purported gene that functions to lower human intelligence ? What survival value is derived from a purported anger gene ? These are important questions, for we must not lose sight of the fact that 'selection' in the process of natural selection has shown itself to be the very opposite of 'chance'. As Charles Darwin clearly demonstrated, natural selection functions as a means of helping (as opposed to thwarting the efforts of) the living organism in question to 'better adapt' to its changing surroundings. Natural selection does not function, and never has functioned to my knowledge, as a means of assisting the creature(s) concerned to a speedier extinction. It is true that natural selection has sometimes resulted in a biological specialisation so acute in the sub-human animal world -think of the Irish Elk for instance with its great rack of antlers - that extinction occures partly as a consequence of such specialisation, and in conjunction with changes in the natural environment. For the most part however, specialisation functions to bring about gradual changes in the given creature's form, which, while having survival value generally, are irreversible, thus condemning the creature to a highly specialised mode of existence forever. A horse for instance, is a biological masterpiece when it comes to powerful running thanks to natural selection, but I've yet to see one climb a tree, or fell one for that matter. There is a more useful way to conceptualise humans and human nature of course, and that is to think of humans as wholly unspecialised creatures, who endlessly make and re-make not only their own history, but their social and natural environments, along with their very nature too.
Colin Baker BSc (Hons)
May, 2008
------
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
