An Evolutionary Theory of the State and the Market

2019 ◽  
pp. 87-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
William M. Dugger
2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gralf-Peter Calliess ◽  
Peer Zumbansen

1995 ◽  
Vol 349 (1328) ◽  
pp. 215-218 ◽  

Dawkin’s theory of the selfish gene has achieved an hegemony quite out of proportion to its intellectual finesse. Its popularity among not just sociobiologists, but biologists proper, provides yet another illustration of the susceptibility of scientific rationalism to the social and political ideologies of the day, to which scientists, being only too human, are heir. A singular achievement of nineteenth century biology, through such writers as Darwin and Huxley, was the construction of an objectifying language for the description of biological phenomena. Transposed into evolutionary theory, this language carefully deanthropomorphizes the processes of mutation, competition and survival, which were defined as central to the state of being of the natural world. Implications of motivation and intention were excluded from the meaning of these terms, as improper for the species and operations involved.


2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 491-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bart Du Laing

The various contributions to this theme issue are likely to have at least two (non-trivial) things in common. First, they aim to contribute to a research project on “Legal certainty for globalized exchange processes” and to the latter's attempts to explain the observed transformation “towards the transnationalization of commercial law, which is understood as a combination of the internationalization and privatization of the responsibility of the state for the production of the normative good of legal certainty for global commerce”. Secondly, they aim to fulfill this task by making use of “evolutionary theory” or, as it was again expressed in the original conference announcement, by dealing with “a theoretical perspective that gives some substance to the meaning of the term “evolution” with regard to law, social organization, and the state”. Since, as I will try to explain shortly, my own particular take on this – it would appear – relatively small set of commonalities involves more specifically the use of contemporary evolutionary approaches to human behavior. I must admit to having been surprised that no one else seemed to have much use for these approaches in their respective takes on the problems that united us in the conference from which this contribution stems. After all, what better use to make of a theory originating from biology than to elucidate the biological underpinnings of our behavior and its underlying psychological mechanisms as they relate to law and legally relevant phenomena? Perhaps some of the reasons for these at first sight, striking differences in opinion on which “evolutionary theory” to make use of, or what meaning to impinge upon the term “evolution” will become clearer in the pages that follow, offering ways in which eventually to combine them. Or perhaps the two things we had in common when we started out will be all there is left to look at in the end.


1971 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Ruse

A common complaint of biologists is that their subject receives poor treatment from philosophers—it gets but a fraction of the attention accorded to physics and chemistry, and what little it does receive, is usually of the type where ‘All swans are white’ is taken to be a paradigmatic example of the state of biological thinking. It cannot be denied that this complaint is, to a great extent, justified; however, there are some notable breaches in the wall of ignorance and silence, amongst which must be numbered The Ascent of Life by T.A. Goudge. In this book, starting from what is obviously a very wide knowledge of biology, Goudge attempts a careful and thorough analysis of one of the major achievements of biological thought, evolutionary theory. The conclusions that Goudge draws are many; nevertheless, one can discern running through them a common theme, namely that whilst evolutionary theory is indeed a legitimate branch of science, to assume that it is a science of the same nature as physics and chemistry would be a grave error. Goudge argues that, despite certain similarities to other branches of science, the essential aims, methods and results of evolutionary theory are peculiar unto itself.


1974 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Grant

The state equation of creep deformation is generalized, and evolutionary internal state variables are introduced. These concepts are then used to rationalize several creep theories currently in use. Finally, a simple recovery model of creep deformation is proposed within the framework of the general evolutionary theory. The model exhibits several important characteristics of creep in metals and also illustrates some important features of the theory.


Author(s):  
G. Clinton Godart

In early twentieth century Japan, socialists and anarchists appropriated evolutionary theory and reoriented evolutionary theory to the Left. They promoted ideas of materialism with a critique of the ideology of the kokutai and State Shintō, thus triggering clashes between evolutionary theory and the ideology of the state. This development was balanced by the emergence of new visions of evolutionary utopianism, with Buddhist and Christian variants. New theories of evolution were introduced, such as those of Kropotkin and Bergson, and theories of vitalism emerged as a new form of resisting materialism. Utopianists, such as Kita Ikki, Kagawa Toyohiko, and Nichiren Buddhists, used evolutionary theory to predict extreme optimistic visions of the future. Both the left and utopianists deployed evolutionary theory to produce visions of modernization and progress that were very different from the vision of modernization produced by the state or by the religious ideology of the kokutai.


2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 477-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan M. Smits

This contribution aims to apply some insights from evolutionary theory to transnational commercial law and to the harmonisation of private law in the European Union. By doing so, it hopes to provide a fresh perspective to the theoretical underpinning of the development of both transnational commercial law and European private law. For transnational commercial law, it has already been well explained that the transformation of the role of the State led to new forms of governance. If there was previously a State monopoly on providing legal certainty and enforcement mechanisms, today the goods of legal certainty and enforcement are often provided by others rather than the State institutions, in particular in cross-border transactions. In European private law, an organic development – in which the role of the national States is also rather limited – is the most likely way to create a successful unified law. Both developments raise many questions. This contribution only aims at providing a framework to deal with one of these questions: how to explain (or even predict) the evolution of law beyond the State (of which transnational commercial law and European private law are important examples)? If legal development can no longer be explained by positivist or natural law thinking, can evolutionary theory fill the gap?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document