not selfish gene theory!

Rakesh Bhandari bhandari at phoenix.princeton.edu
Mon Nov 29 06:41:44 PST 1999


My main point was that sociobiology has not always been put at the service of the ruling class. Noted myself that M-S's ideas here were highly speculative, so was not expressing agreement with them as much as trying to nuance our discussion.

Second, left communists have always been concerned about the power of nationalist myths to undermine the proletariat working in its own class interests. Turns out be M-S's concern as well: "The members of a social class have common interests, and not unexpectedly develop myth and ritual to strengthen their struggle to realize those interests: 'The people's flag is deepest red, it's shrouded oft our martyred dead.' Curiously, the cohesion of these groups has weakeend during the second half of this century, although the inequalities in wealth on which they are based remain. The likely reason is that today's myth makers, television and tabloid press, are not controlled by poorer groups within society." The Origins of Life, p. 148


>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."

Yeah, Yoshie, that's how it sounds to me too.

Further, an organicist & functionalist
>understanding of "myth, ritual, & group loyalty" certainly helps to gloss
>over class struggles, doesn't it?

And that's the exact problem with which we must struggle. Sociobiology may provide no help, but some have tried. That was my point.

Yours, Rakesh



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list