Pursuing praxis

[In need of serious revision and editing, but here are some newly formed and clarified thoughts on the subject.]

There is a funny parallel in Lamarckian and Darwinian theories of transmutation and the nature of human societies. Darwin borrowed from Malthus and Smith - economic and social commentators - in devising his mechanismtic theory to explain patterns of change in the natural world. Although ingenious and revolutionary, and the unabashed basis of modern evolutionary theory, Darwin’s gradualistic paradigm has given way to an hierarchical theory of evolution characterized by brief periods of relatively intense change, followed by periods of stasis. Now instead of being the expected pattern - even dogma, as used by some - gradualism requires special explanation as a departure from the frequency of non-change in the history of life. That is, although change in lineages over time is a well-established fact, how and how much those lineages change in any given interval of time has been thoroughly revised, and is still a work in progress.

Similarly, Lamarck, picking up the folk wisdom of his time in the theory of acquired characteristics, probably drew on the verity of such a process among humans. At each generation we acquire, through learning, the skills and knowledge of our fathers, and through them, their father’s. Some individuals are inquisitive and creative enough to generate, de novo, new contributions to our pool of acquired knowledge. Survival of this information depends chiefly on its use (and perceived usefulness). Useful traits are passed on to the next generation while ones that are disused are observed to quickly fade from perceived existence (though many reside as mummies in the books of our libraries and trunks of our attics).

Lamarckian evolution, derived from observations of human affairs, was then applied to the natural world and subsequently shown to be false. No heritable, physical equivalent of learning exists. Larmarck was widely villified, and Darwin raised up as the champion. However, the sword cuts both ways, and the Darwinian concept of evolution by means of competitive, differential survival of individuals leading to gradual change over time, has been augmented (but not replaced) with a punctuated model of change potentially applicable at every level. This casts an unecessary and old-fashioned tarnish on the whole of Darwin’s thought, and we deny the potential verity of competition and differential survival to any system.

The sad and tragic irony occurs when, forgetting the very human origins of these founders’ concepts, we swap the natural world for the human world, and extrapolate willy-nilly using the ecological versions of these ideas, instead of paying careful attention to context and definitions. Lamarck were ridiculed in textbooks, with giraffes querying "Why is my neck so long?", while Darwin’s demonstrably true concepts were abstracted from their domain in the natural world, and applied to the radically different context of human culture, society and morality. This resulted in the staggaring moral and intellectual transgressions of Social Darwinism, memorable not least because of Nazi Germany.

How do we conceptualize human cultural evolution in light of all other evolution, with "nature red in tooth and claw"? Darwinian evolution applied to human society failed. Lamarckian evolution applied to the natural world failed. But Darwin derived his ideas from economics, and Lamarck derived his ideas from folk wisdom - maxims of human society if ever there were. Lamarckianism says, "You keep what you use, and give what you have." Darwinism says, "May the best man win, and necessarily at the expense of those less fit." How do we resolve these radically different mechanisms of change with our understanding of human society - verily and ideally - and the patently obvious need for both moral and progressive aspects to human society?

By retaining our understanding of how culture functions - that is, that culture and knowledge are not heritable, but must be learned - we can identify the appropriate mechanism of change, acknowledging that different modes of interaction may necessitate different mechanisms. So although humans, in form and in spirit, undeniably arose by the same complement of natural forces that act on all other organisms, the defining characteristics of the human species are not governed by those forces. That is, our material constituents were formed by natural evolutionary mechanisms (although our understanding of those mechanisms is, as a matter of science, being constantly revised, to more or less a degree). However, as humans we are defined by our minds, as rational, volitional, self-conscious, cultural animals. The progeny of these traits are our thoughts and ideas, which are transmitted (replicated) by learning, subject to internal revision, and transmitted again, in a manner analogous to Lamarkian evolution.

As disembodied units of change, however, ideas can be subjected to the most ruthless forms of competition and extirmination without the redness of nature’s tooth and claw. To the world of ideas we can apply pure Darwinian evolution, where the reproductive success of particular ideas translates into material success for the person espousing them, where one human may be the repository of multiple unrelated lineages of thought, each which independently fail and succeed, live and die, in the context of the broader intellectual and social arena - the competitive marketplace.

Thus, the association of laissez-faire capitalism with social Darwinism is shown to be a misapplication - indeed a bastardization - of context. It is patently obvious that the major differences between people and nations are learned, not genetic. These differences are then a product of transmission and alteration similar to Lamarckian evolution. Any attempt to impose a Darwinian paradigm (of competition, differential reproduction, and fitness defined by number of offspring) onto our physical existence is illogical at best, for it denies the essential, intellectual aspect of our current existence. The evolution of our bodies gave rise to a new governing paradigm - the mind -  and to insist upon using in society the mechanisms that turned beasts into men, can only result in turning men into beasts.

To be logical is to recognize the nature of reality and to act accordingly. Because the nature of humans is conceptual, our primary method of change is learning. The generation, application, and revision of ideas is our basic means of survival. The best ideas are those that square best with reality, and result in all the benefits conceivable to the human mind and possible in this world. Thus, competition between ideas is the domain of Darwinian change over time, where organisms are swapped out on the chopping block with ideas, and many die a bloody death, but the strong and the vigorous survive and multiply. This is the defining feature of pure capitalism, the source of wealth, progress, prosperity and health the world over. Properly constrained to the intellectual environment of the competitive marketplace, unrestricted Darwinian evolution becomes the humanistic mechanism of change, with Lamarckian evolution of ideas providing the material basis of that marketplace.

As Darwin said, "When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply."