演化思維與社會理論：以Steven Pinker與Jared Diamond的暴力論述為例

社會分析 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (18) ◽  
pp. 101-126
Author(s):  
酆景文 酆景文 ◽  
萬毓澤 萬毓澤
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Traditional Society ◽  
Generalized Darwinism

<p>Steven Pinker和Jared Diamond先後提出「現代社會較傳統社會和平」的觀點，並大量使用（演化）生物學與認知科學概念來建構理論，引發社會學、人類學界的許多批評。部分爭議來自於他們將一般被視為生物學範疇的演化思維運用於解釋人類社會。然而，近年來的許多研究已告訴我們：以變異、遺傳（複製）、選擇等抽象原則構成的「一般化達爾文主義」等理論架構，已能應用於生物現象「之外」的人文社會現象。據此，本文藉助「一般化達爾文主義」的架構，細緻地勾勒Pinker和Diamond如何將演化思維應用在暴力理論，並處理人文社會學界對他們的批評。此外，本文也嘗試提出演化思維可能如何啟發社會科學界對暴力與現代性等議題的思考。</p> <p>&nbsp;</p><p>Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond successively advanced the thesis that modern society is more peaceful than traditional society. They employed extensive arguments from evolutionary biology and cognitive science to develop their theories, which have received criticism from sociologists and anthropologists alike. Some believe that employing evolutionary theory to explain human society is highly controversial. Nevertheless, &ldquo;generalized Darwinism,&rdquo; a framework characterized by three abstract principles variation, inheritance, and selection has been applied to other disciplines. Thus, on the basis of a framework of generalized Darwinism, this study illustrates how Pinker and Diamond construct theories of violence through evolutionary thinking and how they are criticized by sociologists and anthropologists. Additionally, in this paper, evolutionary thinking is highlighted as an inspiration for reconsidering violence, modernity, and their interrelation.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

scholarly journals Evolutionary biology today and the call for an extended synthesis

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 20160145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas J. Futuyma
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Epigenetic Inheritance ◽  
Reaction Norm ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Extended Synthesis ◽  
Proximate Causation

Evolutionary theory has been extended almost continually since the evolutionary synthesis (ES), but except for the much greater importance afforded genetic drift, the principal tenets of the ES have been strongly supported. Adaptations are attributable to the sorting of genetic variation by natural selection, which remains the only known cause of increase in fitness. Mutations are not adaptively directed, but as principal authors of the ES recognized, the material (structural) bases of biochemistry and development affect the variety of phenotypic variations that arise by mutation and recombination. Against this historical background, I analyse major propositions in the movement for an ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’. ‘Niche construction' is a new label for a wide variety of well-known phenomena, many of which have been extensively studied, but (as with every topic in evolutionary biology) some aspects may have been understudied. There is no reason to consider it a neglected ‘process’ of evolution. The proposition that phenotypic plasticity may engender new adaptive phenotypes that are later genetically assimilated or accommodated is theoretically plausible; it may be most likely when the new phenotype is not truly novel, but is instead a slight extension of a reaction norm already shaped by natural selection in similar environments. However, evolution in new environments often compensates for maladaptive plastic phenotypic responses. The union of population genetic theory with mechanistic understanding of developmental processes enables more complete understanding by joining ultimate and proximate causation; but the latter does not replace or invalidate the former. Newly discovered molecular phenomena have been easily accommodated in the past by elaborating orthodox evolutionary theory, and it appears that the same holds today for phenomena such as epigenetic inheritance. In several of these areas, empirical evidence is needed to evaluate enthusiastic speculation. Evolutionary theory will continue to be extended, but there is no sign that it requires emendation.

scholarly journals Evolutionary theory of bacterial quorum sensing: when is a signal not a signal?

2007 ◽  
Vol 362 (1483) ◽  
pp. 1241-1249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen P Diggle ◽  
Andy Gardner ◽  
Stuart A West ◽  
Ashleigh S Griffin
Keyword(s):  
Quorum Sensing ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Bacterial Cells ◽  
Evolutionary Perspective ◽  
Population Response ◽  
Future Action ◽  
Bacterial Quorum Sensing ◽  
Bacterial Quorum

The term quorum sensing (QS) is used to describe the communication between bacterial cells, whereby a coordinated population response is controlled by diffusible molecules produced by individuals. QS has not only been described between cells of the same species (intraspecies), but also between species (interspecies) and between bacteria and higher organisms (inter-kingdom). The fact that QS-based communication appears to be widespread among microbes is strange, considering that explaining both cooperation and communication are two of the greatest problems in evolutionary biology. From an evolutionary perspective, intraspecies signalling can be explained using models such as kin selection, but when communication is described between species, it is more difficult to explain. It is probable that in many cases this involves QS molecules being used as ‘cues’ by other species as a guide to future action or as manipulating molecules whereby one species will ‘coerce’ a response from another. In these cases, the usage of QS molecules cannot be described as signalling. This review seeks to integrate the evolutionary literature on animal signalling with the microbiological literature on QS, and asks whether QS within bacteria is true signalling or whether these molecules are also used as cues or for the coercion of other cells.

SOME PROBLEMS OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE FAMILY OF THE MODERN SOCIETY

2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 28-33
Author(s):  
Daurenbek Kusainov ◽  
◽  
Ainur Sadyrova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Protection ◽  
Family Formation ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Social Institution ◽  
Middle Level ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Individual Subject ◽  
The Family ◽  
Sociology Of The Family ◽  
The Individual

Marriage and the family are important institutions of human society. As we know, they include different private institutions: the institute of kinship, the institute of motherhood and fatherhood, the institute of property, the institute of social protection of childhood and guardianship, and others. The process of family formation is the process of assimilation of social norms, roles and standards that regulate courtship, the choice of a marriage partner, family stabilization, sexual behavior, relations with the parents of spouses.The sociology of the family in a narrow sense, as part of general sociology, as a theory of the “middle level”; considers a special sphere of life and culture of families. The sociology of the family deals with a group, and not with an individual subject of life activity. A group of people connected by family and kinship relations forms that part of the social reality that is studied by the sociology of the family, where the family lifestyle is at the forefront. The sociology of the family considers the individual as a member of the family, integral part of the society. The sociology of the family correlates with the sociology of the individual; it studies personality, first of all, through the prism of socio-cultural intra-family ties, family identity of the individual. In any societythe family has a dual character. On the one hand, it is a social institution, on the other-a small group that has its own laws of functioning and development.

New Developments in Evolutionary Innovation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Gino Cattani ◽  
Mariano Mastrogiorgio
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Significant Influence ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Economic Change ◽  
Evolutionary Process ◽  
Punctuated Equilibrium ◽  
Darwinian Evolution ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Evolutionary Innovation ◽  
Equilibrium Speciation

The publication of ‘An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change’ by Nelson and Winter has had a major impact on economics and related fields such as innovation and strategy. All of these fields have developed owing to recent re-examinations and extensions of evolutionary theory. A paradigm that underlies several studies in this tradition is the concept of neo-Darwinian evolution—the idea that the unit of the evolutionary process (e.g. a technological artefact) is subject to a dynamic of variation, selection, and retention leading to adaptation to a predefined function. This book refers to the frameworks of punctuated equilibrium, speciation, and exaptation, which, despite their significant influence in evolutionary biology, have been reflected only partially in evolutionary approaches to economics, innovation, and strategy. This chapter introduces the book’s aim to fill this gap, and outlines the approaches and perspectives of each of the chapters.

New Frontiers

2021 ◽  
pp. 7-27
Author(s):  
Gino Cattani ◽  
Mariano Mastrogiorgio
Keyword(s):  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Significant Influence ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Innovation Process ◽  
Punctuated Equilibrium ◽  
Darwinian Evolution ◽  
Profound Impact ◽  
Equilibrium Speciation

Evolutionary thinking has grown significantly and has had a profound impact on various fields such as economics, strategy, and technological innovation. An important paradigm that underlies the evolutionary theory of innovation is neo-Darwinian evolution. According to this paradigm, evolution is gradualist and is based on the mechanisms of variation, selection, and retention. Starting from the 1970s, new theoretical advancements in evolutionary biology have recognized the central role of punctuated equilibrium, speciation, and exaptation in evolution and of Woesian dynamics. However, despite their significant influence in evolutionary biology, these advancements have been reflected only partially in evolutionary approaches to economics, strategy, and technological innovation. This chapter reviews these advancements and explores their key implications for innovation, such as the role of serendipity and unpre-stateability leading to disequilibrium in economics systems, and the importance of adopting an option-based logic during the innovation process.

Russian Darwinism

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Vucinich
Keyword(s):  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
50Th Anniversary ◽  
Evolutionary Synthesis ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Scientific Philosophy ◽  
Scientific Materialism ◽  
Inheritance Of Acquired Characteristics

The Russian scientific community welcomed Darwin’s evolutionary theory and made it a basis of research in a wide range of biological sciences. Russian evolutionary studies in embryology, paleontology, microbiology and pathology attracted international attention. The vast scope of Darwin’s popularity in Russia was dramatically manifested in 1909, on the occasion of the national celebration of the 100th anniversary of the birth of the great English scientist and the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species. All universities, naturalist societies, and many newspapers and popular journals took part in the celebration, which produced a hundred praiseful publications on Darwinian themes. University philosophers, steeped in metaphysical idealism and spiritualism, linked Darwinism to what they called ‘modern scientific materialism’ and rejected it wholly. They were strongly predisposed to welcome modern revivals of metaphysical vitalism. Freelance philosophers, usually associated with heterodox ideological movements and influenced by Auguste Comte’s positivism or various modern neopositivist and Neo-Kantian currents, credited Darwinism with making science a major topic of modern philosophy. A new discipline, known as ‘scientific philosophy’, rapidly developing in the West, made its first appearance in Russia. In the Soviet Union, Darwin’s evolutionary theory followed a course of cataclysmic ruptures. During the 1920s, Soviet scientists made significant contributions to the study of the role of the genetic environment in biological evolution and helped set the stage for an evolutionary synthesis of Darwinism and genetics. The Stalinist era (1929–53) marked a drastic departure from the prevalent currents in evolutionary biology. It was dominated by the rise of Lysenkoism, a pseudo-science identified as ‘creative Darwinism’, and was guided by a diluted version of the Lamarckian idea of evolution as a product of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Lysenkoism rejected the Darwinian conception of natural selection, downgraded the role of physico-chemical analysis in biology, and paid no attention to molecular biology. In 1948 Lysenkoism was officially recognized as the Marxist theory of evolution. Under Lysenko’s influence, genetics was proclaimed a ‘bourgeois science’ and was made illegal. The downfall of Lysenkoism in 1964 brought the re-establishment of genetics, a full-scale return to true Darwinism, and a re-intensified interest in ‘evolutionary synthesis’.

Spencer, Herbert (1820–1903)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim S. Gray
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Human Society ◽  
Herbert Spencer ◽  
The World ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Late Nineteenth

Herbert Spencer is chiefly remembered for his classical liberalism and his evolutionary theory. His fame was considerable during the mid- to late-nineteenth century, especially in the USA, which he visited in 1882 to be lionized by New York society as the prophetic philosopher of capitalism. In Britain, however, Spencer’s reputation suffered two fatal blows towards the end of his life. First, collectivist legislation was introduced to protect citizens from the ravages of the industrial revolution, and Spencer’s spirited defence of economic laissez-faire became discredited. Second, his evolutionary theory, which was based largely on the Lamarckian principle of the inheritance of organic modifications produced by use and disuse, was superseded by Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Nearly a century after his death, however, there is renewed interest in his ideas, partly because the world has become more sympathetic to market philosophies, and partly because the application of evolutionary principles to human society has become fashionable once more.

Supernatural agents may have provided adaptive social information

2004 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 732-733 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse M. Bering ◽  
Todd K. Shackelford
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Social Information ◽  
Adaptive Function ◽  
Communicative Intent ◽  
Target Article

Atran & Norenzayan's (A&N's) target article effectively combines the insights of evolutionary biology and interdisciplinary cognitive science, neither of which alone yields sufficient explanatory power to help us fully understand the complexities of supernatural belief. Although the authors' ideas echo those of other researchers, they are perhaps the most squarely grounded in neo-Darwinian terms to date. Nevertheless, A&N overlook the possibility that the tendency to infer supernatural agents' communicative intent behind natural events served an ancestrally adaptive function.

The Evolution of Evolutionary Theory

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bateson
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
200Th Anniversary ◽  
The Social ◽  
Philosophy And Religion

Charles Darwin has had an extraordinary impact on many aspects of human affairs apart from revolutionizing biology. On the 200th anniversary of his birth, the Cambridge Darwin Festival in July 2009 celebrated these contributions to the humanities, philosophy and religion and the approach to medicine, economics and the social sciences. He is a man to revere. It is no discredit to him that the science of evolutionary biology should continue to evolve. In this article I shall consider some of the ways in which this has happened since his day.

Th. Dobzhansky and the development of evolutionary biology in the USSR

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 346-371
Author(s):  
Mikhail B. Konashev
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Synthetic Theory ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of

Th. Dobzhansky played a special role in the reception and development of the “synthetic theory of evolution,” as well as in the establishment of scientific connections between Soviet and U.S. evolutionists, and first and foremost, geneticists. These connections greatly influenced the development of Soviet genetics, of evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology as a whole, and in particular the restoration of Soviet genetics in the late 1960s. A discussion of Dobzhansky’s correspondence and collaboration with colleagues in his native country, moreover, allows for an improved understanding of the complex and dramatic history of Soviet genetics and evolutionary theory. It also provides novel insights into the interactions between scientists and authorities in the Soviet Union (USSR).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document