Evolutionary Theory and the Social Sciences Increasingly a Mutual Exchange. Culture is Part of Human Biology. Why the Superorganic Concept Serves the Human Sciences Badly

2001 ◽  
pp. 145-178 ◽  

Is human nature something that the natural and social sciences aim to describe, or is it a pernicious fiction? What role, if any, does ‘human nature’ play in directing and informing scientific work? Can we talk about human nature without invoking—either implicitly or explicitly—a contrast with human culture? It might be tempting to think that the respectability of ‘human nature’ is an issue that divides natural and social scientists along disciplinary boundaries, but the truth is more complex. The contributors to this collection take very different stances with regard to the idea of human nature. They come from the fields of psychology, the philosophy of science, social and biological anthropology, evolutionary theory, and the study of animal cognition. Some of them are ‘human nature’ enthusiasts, some are sceptics, and some say that human nature is a concept with many faces, each of which plays a role in its own investigative niche. Some want to eliminate the notion altogether, some think it unproblematic, others want to retain it with reforming modifications. Some say that human nature is a target for investigation that the human sciences cannot do without, others argue that the term does far more harm than good. The diverse perspectives articulated in this book help to explain why we disagree about human nature, and what, if anything, might resolve that disagreement.


Author(s):  
Arthur P. Bochner ◽  
Andrew F. Herrmann

Narrative inquiry provides an opportunity to humanize the human sciences, placing people, meaning, and personal identity at the center of research, inviting the development of reflexive, relational, dialogic, and interpretive methodologies, and drawing attention to the need to focus not only on the actual but also on the possible and the good. In this chapter, we focus on the intellectual, existential, empirical, and pragmatic development of the turn toward narrative. We trace the rise of narrative inquiry as it evolved in the aftermath of the crisis of representation in the social sciences. The chapter synthesizes the changing methodological orientations of qualitative researchers associated with narrative inquiry as well as their ethical commitments. In the second half of the chapter, our focus shifts to the divergent standpoints of small-story and big-story researchers; the differences between narrative analysis and narratives under analysis; and narrative practices that seek to help people form better relationships, overcome oppressive canonical identities, amplify or reclaim moral agency, and cope better with contingencies and difficulties experienced over the life course. We anticipate that narrative inquiry will continue to situate itself within an intermediate zone between art and science, healing and research, self and others, subjectivity and objectivity, and theories and stories.


1984 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
P. C. Haarhoff

The first technological revolution, in the fourth millennium BC, was followed by immense social progress. The second revolution, which is now taking place, could lead to an even greater development in the human sciences, by setting men free from their daily struggle for existence while simultaneously exacting high social standards. Natural law - the “marriage between the ways of heaven and the ways of earth” of the Chinese - represents a route to such progress. In natural science and technology, natural law demands that conclusions be based on observation rather than speculation. The social sciences would do well to follow this example.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-119
Author(s):  
C.S.A (Kris) van Koppen

Klintman, Mikael. 2017. Human Sciences and Human Interests: Integrating the Social, Economic, and Evolutionary Sciences. London: Routledge.Jetzkowitz, Jens. 2019. Co-evolution of Nature and Society: Foundations for Interdisciplinary Sustainability Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.


2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bateson

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.


Social Forces ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 582
Author(s):  
Sally Cook Lopreato ◽  
Unesco

In the natural world, some agents (investors) employ strategies that provide resources, services, or information while others (exploiters) achieve gain through these efforts. Such behavior coexists and is observable in many species at many levels: from bacteria which depend on the existence of biofilms to synthesize constituent proteins; to cancerous cells which employ angiogenesis in tumors; to parents who forego vaccinating their children yet benefit from herd immunity; to countries’ actions in the handling of greenhouse gases. To analyze such behavior, two independent research traditions have developed in parallel—one couched in evolutionary theory championed by behavioral ecologists, the other in the social sciences advocated by economists. This book looks for commonalities in understanding and approach, in an effort to spur research into this widespread phenomenon.


2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Shola Orloff

I contend that we should remake conceptions of power and politics, taking off from the project of remaking “modernity.” Here, I perform a similar move for “power and politics,” core concepts for history and the human sciences, building on the foundational work of the 1970s and 1980s and bringing in key elements of institutionalist and culturalist critiques. The theories of the early days of social science history were usually materialist, and the character of state policies and political structures was understood to reflect the “balance of class forces,” interests to flow from class position, and power to work in a juridical vein, as “power over.” By the 1980s these common understandings were widely criticized. There were new emphases on the multiplicity of identities and structures of inequality, new questions about the adequacy of materialist accounts of politics. Dissatisfactions were also stimulated by “real-world” developments. However, we see a parting of the ways when it came to addressing these new political conditions and analytic challenges. Moves to “bring the state and other political institutions back in” have been focused on politics, while the scholars taking the various cultural turns have focused on power. The conceptualizations of power and politics have been sundered along with the scholarly communities deploying them. I address both communities and argue for new ways of understanding power and politics emerging from renewed encounters between institutionalist and culturalist analyses. Such encounters and the conceptual work that they will produce can help us reforge a productive alliance between history and the social sciences.


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Solberg Söilen

This article gathers arguments for why the social sciences should be based inevolutionary theory by showing the shortcomings of the current paradigm based on the study of physics. Two examples are used, the study of intelligence studies and geoeconomics. After a presentation of the geoeconomics literature and an explanation of what the organic view of the social sciences is, we follow the study of economics as it developed after the Second World War to see where it went wrong and why.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document