not selfish gene theory!

Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Thu Dec 2 09:02:33 PST 1999


Must admit that, aside from maybe the genetic part, this sounds like me. The "myth and ritual" of loyalty to the whole human species would be both a "myth" and a rational, a universal human value or purpose, species-being, in Marx's phrase. Workers of the WHOLE world unite, proletarian INTERNATIONALISM.

Communality or sociality ( "group loyality" is a poor way to say it) is the main differentiatia specifica of humans. That's why we are communist/socialists. And a worldwide commune is the ultimate expression of it.

As to the similarity to British anthropological structural-functionalism, the differentiation fro that is that this configuration of theory and practice would be in communism, after the class struggle is won, i.e. in a classless society. World communism is the state of society wherein this "myth" , but actually a truly rational consciousness, prevails.

CB


>>> Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> 11/29/99 04:04AM >>>
Rakesh:
>He begins by suggesting that it is possible to offer an evolutionary
>explanation for a universal human characteristic--the ability to be
>socialized by myth. The basic idea here may be no less convincing: that
>those human groups that could instill group loyalty into their members
>would be more sucessful and hence individuals in the group would transmit
>more of the genes that made group loyalty possible. More specifically, if
>cooperation is induced by myth and ritual, not by reason or selfish gene
>algebra, the innate capacity to be influenced by ritual may have evolved by
>natural selection. This leads John Maynard Smith to argue for the creation
>of myths that extend loyalty to the human species as a whole. Highly
>speculative indeed, but not necessarily bourgeois apologetics and
>transposed vulgar economics.

On the strength of your summary here, I'd say John Maynard Smith's motive is an old-fashioned humanist one, so it's not quite Hobbesian in the individualistic sense, but his theory sounds like, "add genes & evolution to Donna Haraway and stir." Anyhow, substituting society as an integrated organism (that succeeds or fails) for atomized individuals (who succeed or fail) has been an old bourgeois ideological tool. Adding genes & evolution to it doesn't change this fact. Further, an organicist & functionalist understanding of "myth, ritual, & group loyalty" certainly helps to gloss over class struggles, doesn't it? Where's your left communism when we need it???

Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list