Evolutionary Biology
Evolutionary biology, when approached objectively, from the universal standpoint of the proletariat, is among the most valuable of the natural sciences. However, in the hands of the bourgeoisie, evolutionary biology is often deformed into a body of pseudoscientific theories with overtly racist undertones. For example, some psychologists explain today’s human behavior based on their own imaginary model of what a primordial human community may have looked like, and how the “evolutionary success” of certain individuals engendered certain behavioral patterns. Theories like these are completely flawed in a number of ways, and they also lend credence to the most reactionary of political projects, including — in the history of Social Darwinism, for example — sterilization campaigns, eugenics, and the Holocaust. First of all, these types of theories assume automatically that behavioral “traits” are heritable and passed through the genome, an entirely erroneous assumption. Secondly, they fail to account for human history, and the fact that mankind has transformed the world around him, thereby transforming himself. The cave man, therefore, has little in common with modern man, save for the primitive ability to engage in labor. Finally, these types of bourgeois pseudoscientific theories assume behaviors to be biological characteristics, a notion which leads directly to the most sinister types of racism.
Kevin MacDonald: Tenured professor of psychology at California State University, who reduces Jewishness to a Darwinian evolutionary strategy, who claims that Western Civilization’s successes stem from the biological characteristics of white Europeans, and who writes for a blatantly White Supremacist website called The Occidental Observer
The bourgeois pseudoscientific interpretations of evolutionary biology fail before the truly scientific proletarian interpretations of Darwinism because the bourgeois theories make the mistake of forgetting that a human organism does not only exist, but it also does things. The bourgeois vantage point makes this mistake because, it is true, the bourgeois himself actually does nothing other than merely exist, for, unlike the proletarian, he knows nothing of actual work. Work is the most important activity that distinguishes mere passive existence from active, embodied being. Therefore, the truly scientific interpretations of evolutionary biology must emphasize that the character of a given species is determined not only by the physical characteristics of its body, but also by what it does with and in that body. A human body is qualitatively no different from any other animal body, and therefore the difference between the two lies in what the human does with his body: Unlike the animal, the human actively transforms the mode of production of human material life. Bourgeois pseudoscientific evolutionary biology, therefore, can only explain the form and shape of the human being, but it can’t explain phenomena such as the division of labor and society without reverting to the old deterministic models which lend themselves to racism, eugenics, and fascistic chauvinism.
Andrew
June 27, 2012
I want to be certain I understand this correctly. Keep in mind, I’m not arguing, just clarifying.
“However, in the hands of the bourgeoisie, evolutionary biology is often deformed into a body of pseudoscientific theories with overtly racist undertones”
Evolutionary biology unless expressed from a communist point of view is incorrect, laced with opinionated emotion and carries heavy tracks of racism.
For which this statement uses the following claim as supporting evidence;
“some psychologists explain today’s human behavior based on their own imaginary model of what a primordial human community may have looked like, and how the “evolutionary success” of certain individuals engendered certain behavioral patterns.”
Which asserts the possibility of a hereditary link in behaviors between parents and offspring.
Which you assert is; “an entirely erroneous assumption.”
Because; “these types of theories assume automatically that behavioral “traits” are heritable and passed through the genome” and “they fail to account for human history, and the fact that mankind has transformed the world around him, thereby transforming himself.”
The first of which is understandable given that it is an expressed theory, and in any expressed theory you have to make base assumptions to prove or disprove. This we call establishing a thesis, or working theory.
The second of which contradicts entirely what you just said. If man has, as you say, transformed the world around him, then, by simple logical conclusion, he must have transformed from something. So what did he transform from? I would assume, since we are discussing his more animistic past, you are talking about his transformation from primitive man to modern man and his loss of behavioral transference common among other species.
As the basis for this assumption of mine, I present this statement;
“The cave man, therefore, has little in common with modern man, save for the primitive ability to engage in labor.” Which also serves as contradiction to your point, ability is knowledge and experience, if primitive man had the ability to engage in labor and modern man has the ability to engage in labor, is it not then possible this is a hereditary trait, like our ability to use our muscles from birth, the inborn knowledge to breath and the instinctual knowledge to cry when hungry? I’m not saying it is, I’m only admit to the possibility that it might be, possible.
I can see the point your trying to make, and the overt tie in that communist thinking is the only way to think, but outside the communist community this argument won’t go very far, it’s easy to pick apart and and the bias is clear. I would start from a more neutral stance and assert with evidence only, rather than emotional appeals. No one wants to be racist, and most racists don’t even think their racist, so the argument will work on anyone who doesn’t read between the lines. For everyone else though, it just sounds…bias.
selectingstones
July 2, 2012
Andrew: You raise some valid points here, although there’s a lot of mutual misunderstanding going on. We thought that the questions you raise are valuable enough to merit a whole new Selecting Stones article explaining exactly what dialectical thinking is, where we’re coming from, and by extension how this relates back to a dialectical-materialist interpretation of topics like evolutionary biology and racism. Hopefully it can answer the points you’ve brought up, while at the same time serving as a useful primer on basic dialectics, which would be a worthwhile addition to our website no matter what. Be on the lookout for that, although it might take a little time. We do have day jobs over here. I think Bruno is going to write it.