Re: Re: gould dies at 60

[ScottH9999@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 5/21/02 9:04:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> Stephen Gould's is a great loss.  He seems to have been an exceptional
>  person in many ways.  He certainly has enriched my understanding of
>  economic processes, especially with his theory of the punctuated
>  equilibrium.
>  --
>  Michael Perelman
>  Economics Department
>  California State University
>  Chico, CA 95929



This comment puzzles me!

Gould was indeed a national treasure in many ways. Overall he played a
tremendously positive role in bringing the sometimes subtle ideas of modern
evolutionary theory to a broader public. And he must certainly be honored for
his leading role in combatting the creationists of the religious right.

But it is also true that Gould himself had some weaknesses. Especially in
recent years he seemed to lean toward compromising with religion, or
accomodating science to religion. This was sad to see.

He was famous for bringing every topic under the sun into his long series of
columns in "Natural History". On the one hand this showed the breadth of his
knowledge and erudition. On the other hand, it sometimes meant that he talked
about things in an authoritative way that he really hadn't thought through
himself.

One example that used to annoy me greatly was his occasional naive comments
about ethics and morality, such as putting forward the Golden Rule as the
essence of the matter. Although he was brought up in a Marxist family he
failed to grasp the very basic Marxist point of view that both political
ideas--and ALSO morality--are at bottom a matter of ideologized class
interests.

The theory of punctuated equilibria in evolution, which was the joint product
of Gould and Niles Eldridge, is indeed important, and is certainly quite
true. Sometimes people do present it in too absolute a way, however, when
they say or imply that there is NO gradual change and ONLY sudden
punctuations. (Dialectically, the two interpenetrate.)

An interesting thing about this theory of "punk-e", however, and one which
Gould himself sometimes acknowledged, is that it is really only the
application of a long-established more general principle of Marxist
dialectics to the field of evolution. That is, Marxists going back to Marx
and Engels themselves, have traditionally held that major change takes place
through qualitative leaps. (Thus water after it is heated up gradually,
suddenly begins to boil. And even when you look at gradual change itself on a
close enough scale you will see that it is ALSO made up of numerous small
dialectical leaps--such as when water molecules suddenly acquire a surge in
energy by contact with the tea kettle or other hotter water molecules. This
however does not mean that there IS no such thing as gradual change--only
that it changes our understanding of what gradual change really amounts to in
the final analysis.)

(For further discussion of this aspect of the dialectics of change, see the
last couple sections of chapter 31 of my book on the mass line at:
http://members.aol.com/TheMassLine/MLch31.htm )

Since it was Marxist philosophy that very likely gave rise to the original
germ of the idea behind the theory of punctuated equilibria in the first
place, I find it somewhat ironic that Michael should say that this theory
should have in turn influenced him and others in the area of political
economy. The question in my mind is why didn't Marxist philosophy have a more
DIRECT influence here?

I don't want to go too far with this, because for one thing Michael just made
an off-hand comment here, and for another thing I have not even read much of
Michael's books (although I am working on one of them, "Marx's Crises
Theory"). I do not fully understand his thought processes and where he is
coming from, let alone those of all the other contributors to this mail
group. And I know I have much to learn from all of you.

But Marx was first a philosopher, and I am certain that his philosophical
outlook infused and and helped form his economic theories--as well as his
method of presentation of those theories. I doubt if people can deeply
understand Marx's political economy unless they also have a pretty good grasp
of his philosophical standpoint and method. (Lenin and others have also
emphasized this point.) And I suspect that many radical economists are pretty
weak when it comes to understanding and utilizing Marxist dialectics.

Just some thoughts...

--Scott Harrison