On Wed, 5 Jul 1995, Ronald Deibert wrote:
....
> I am not so sure that reproduction of social institutions can
> be *wholly* characterized as Larmarkian insofar as contingency
> or chance also plays a role in the evolution of memes, ideas, the
> prevailing mentalites collectives, and so forth.
Lamark's theory of biological evolution was teleological (L1),
Darwins was not (D1). Also, in Lamrk's theory, change in the phenome is
passed on (L2) (i.e., animals stretching their necks to reach higher
leaves leads to giraffes), while in Darwinian theories of biological
evolution, it is only changes in the genome that are passed on (D2), with
phenome characteristics only affecting (through natural selection, sexual
selection, etc.) the proportion of the next generation descended from a
genome.
There is no necessary connection between D1 and D2, or between L1
and L2. Since a Lamarkian theory in the L1 & L2 sense falls into
teleological fallacies, it is only of serious interest as a topic on the
history of thought; references to the 'Lamarkian' character of social
evolution almost always refer to the possibility of passing on aquired
characteristics, and not to Lamark's complete theory with its
teleological Ladder of Life.
The salient comparison is between a pseudo Darwinian theory of
social evolution that does not recognize transmission of aquired
characteristics and a kind of vaguely Lamarkian theory that recognizes
transmission of aquired characteristics. Either provide scope for
contingency and chance in such a theory, either is compatible with
non-teleological reasoning regarding social change. While non-
reproduction of aquired characteristics has substantial supporting
evidence in biology (which surprised many as the evidence was collected),
I doubt that it is appropriate to social evolution.
But *even if* it is accepted that institutions and/or societies
evolve in some sense of reproduction with variation (whether reproduction
is genetic or inrinsic is an auxilliary issue here, not a primary issue),
that does not imply that world-system are evolving entities. Rather than
continue talking in generalities, I am going to try to pinpoint a
particular transition in TLC and try to get feedback on whether that
particular episode represents system reproduction or system regeneration.
Virtually,
Bruce McFarling, Knoxville
brmcf@utkux1.utk.edu