Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
…
11 pages
1 file
Evolutionary Psychology—the study of human cognition and behavior premised upon evolved adaptations resulting from the processes of natural and sexual selection—has emerged in recent years as a subfield of Psychology with aspirations to become a “metatheortical framework” from which questions in Psychology are best situated and pursued. An evolutionary perspective in Psychology focuses on hypothesized mental and behavioral traits/characteristics, in some notable cases gender specific, that have ostensibly evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, and continue to shape human behavior and mentality even in our modern physical and social environment that has taken us quite far from the environmental “conditions of possibility” under which we have evolved. Although Evolutionary Psychology has made some impressive inroads in considering such topics as, “problems of survival, long-term mating, sexuality, parenting, kinship, cooperation, aggression and warfare, conflict between the sexes, status, prestige, and dominance hierarchies” it is not without its increasingly concerned critics who contend that Evolutionary Psychology has in some important instances unjustifiably hypostasized modern environmental conditions as existing in our evolutionary pre-history, thereby deriving erroneous conclusions from a circular logic where the conclusion of gendered differences in mentality and behavior justifies the premises of research. The purpose of this course will be 1) to become familiar with and critically consider the fundamental premises and logic of Evolutionary Psychology as they are outlined in canonical sources, 2) to engage with emerging critiques of this field from recent scholarship in Cultural Studies as well as immanent critiques/alternative perspectives from within the field of Evolutionary Psychology itself, and 3) to imagine some possible paths forward that allow for creative visions on the relationship between necessity and contingency at the interstices of Nature and Culture.
During the past two decades, I have taught twenty-five courses that contain substantial evolutionary material. Those courses group into two distinct sets that have interlaced chronologically through the twenty years: (1) a graduate seminar in literary theory that I have taught fourteen times; and (2) eleven interdisciplinary seminars, eight for undergraduates, and three for graduate students. In this article, I describe all these courses and explain how the graduate seminar in literary theory has changed over time, as both evolutionary psychology and literary Darwinism have become more mature and sophisticated. Being committed to a biocultural perspective, I discuss the problem of advocacy, how to make sure that students understand that they are free to think out their own positions. I give examples of paper topics, describe the way students respond to evolutionary ideas, and sketch out an ideal curriculum centered on evolutionary theory as a comprehensive explanatory framework within which to synthesize research in the social sciences and the humanities.
Within contemporary philosophy of mind, to say that mind, self, and cognition are embodied is to claim that mental phenomena are constituted not only by what’s going on inside a person’s brain, but depend intimately on the person’s body beyond the brain and, more inclusively, the world in which the person is situated. The goal of this seminar is to understand the significance of this claim, and to articulate the nature of the suggested dependence relation. Acting as a dis-embodied foil for our discussion will be a narrowly circumscribed mechanistic approach to cognition which forms the core of classical cognitive science. According to this approach, thinking is a form of computation operating on symbolic representations that are physically realized solely inside the brain. Despite its commitment to physicalism, classical cognitive science epitomizes a broadly Cartesian vision of cognition as an inner, solitary, ratiocinative, detached, and general-purpose mechanism that is wedged between action and perception, and can be studied without regard to one’s body and environment. Over the past three decades, the once-dominant cognitivist paradigm has increasingly come under attack by a loosely-knit family of research programs emphasizing the embodied, embedded, extended, and/or enactive character of cognition (“4E-cognition”). Advocates of 4E-cognition span a large network of research communities (including philosophy, psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, robotics, sociology, anthropology, science studies, gender studies, and informatics), taking their cues from disparate sources such as Continental philosophy (esp. Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Wittgenstein), American Pragmatism (esp. James, Dewey, and Mead), pioneers in psychology (from Vygotsky to Gibson) and biology (from Uexküll to Varela). (At this point, one is tempted to cite Fodor’s quip that in intellectual history, everything happens twice: first as philosophy and then as cognitive science). Because of the sheer diversity of sources and evidence on which proponents of 4E-cognition have drawn, it is often difficult to determine whether they belong to one church or many. The main task in our seminar will thus be to compare and contrast the intellectual enterprises which are grouped together under the banner of 4E-cognition. In what ways do they depart from the Cartesian paradigm, and how exactly does each of them conceive of the role which embodiment and situatedness play for mind and cognition? How do they differ in their ontological commitments and methodological practices? Are there any unifying themes that go beyond a shared opposition to traditional “dis-embodied” approaches; and if so, what are they? What is the relationship between philosophical and scientific approaches to 4E-cognition more generally? Finally, how does all of this matter for our understanding of what kinds of beings we are?
Course designed and taught using a Mad Studies lens to 4th year undergraduate social work students.
Psychological Bulletin, 2003
Evolutionary psychology provides a cogent metatheory for psychological science. It has furnished compelling theories of major domains of human functioning, including mating, parenting, kinship, morality, cooperation, conflict, aggression, and aesthetics. It has produced hundreds of empirical discoveries missed entirely by prior psychologists. Developmental dynamics, properly conceived, can add to the theoretical foundation of evolutionary psychology. But it has not provided alternative theories capable of explaining the many detailed empirical discoveries made by evolutionary psychologists. Nor has it generated a comparable bounty of new empirical discoveries. By critical scientific standardstheoretical cogency, predictive accuracy, interdisciplinary consistency, and empirical harvest-modern evolutionary psychology fares well compared with alternatives.
This article outlines the major threads of controversy around the emerging subject of evolutionary psychology in the U.K. mass media during the 1990s. Much of this controversy centered on the role of evolution in shaping human gender roles and sexualities, contributing to the subject's mass appeal. This case is used to illustrate the argument that in theorizing about evolution and humans, "human nature" and "human origins" both provide a flexible resource for making arguments about how people do and should relate to one another and that such theorizing is therefore reflective of how power is held (and contested) in society. In the case of popular evolutionary psychology, shifts in the U.K. political landscape during the 1990s combined with changes in gender and sexual politics to create a situation where evolutionary theorizing about humans became more acceptable than it had been in the past. This was particularly true in left-liberal media, where a newfound compatibility between certain aspects of Darwinism and feminism created a very different space for debating gender, sexuality, and the role of human nature in today's society
We created the first large survey of those involved in the evolutionary approach to human research regarding their perceptions on the state of this approach. Our objective was to assess scholars' perceptions of academic standing, career issues, challenges facing evolutionary scholars, and to gauge the academic strength and productivity of human evolutionary researchers. We did not attempt to gauge the theoretical progress of the approach as a science or its relative representation objectively, though we did collect participants' perceptions of scientific progress and challenges. We compiled a recruitment database of e-mails based on presenters at three iterations of three prominent evolutionary conferences (2008)(2009)(2010) and sent personalized invitations to participate in an on-line survey. Participants (N = 297) gave detailed information on their perceptions, challenges, hopes, and expectations for the future. Overall, participants were optimistic in their views that evolutionary research would become more accepted and prominent, although they tended to believe that growth and advancement of the field would be a gradual process. Participants' strongest concerns and recommendations for those taking an evolutionary approach to human research focused on maintaining theoretical rigor, increasing methodological sophistication, utilizing interdisciplinary approaches with convergent data from multiple methodologies, and testing competing evolutionary hypotheses against each other. Several specifically cited concerns regarding misunderstandings resulting from simplistic accounts of sex differences in mating, whether by researchers or media covering this research. Participants were very positive about the theoretical strengths of the evolutionary approach, yet they were more wary regarding the general lack of knowledge about evolution and resistance based on ideological grounds.
This paper explores the phenomena of public scientific debates, where scientific controversies are argued out in public fora such as the mass media, using the case of popular evolutionary psychology in the UK of the 1990s. An earlier quantitative analysis of the UK press coverage of the subject (Cassidy, 2005) suggested that academics associated with evolutionary psychology had been unusually active in the media at that time, particularly in association with the publication of popular science books on the subject. Previous research by Turner, by Gieryn, and by Bucchi has established the relationship between such appeals to the public domain and the establishment of scientific legitimacy and academic disciplinary boundaries. Following this work, I argue here that popular science has, in this case, provided a creative space for scientists, outside of the constraints of ordinary academic discourse, allowing them to reach across scientific boundaries in order to claim expertise in the study of human beings.
There is a growing body of evidence in the cognitive sciences (including philosophy, neuropsychology, and linguistics) that suggest there can be no thought without a brain in a body in an environment. Increasingly, the locus of human personhood is to be found not in the (disembodied) soul or mind but rather in the matter of human everydayness. The ramifications of these trends are far reaching, affecting the identity of the human being him/herself, the ontology of the divine, and the interaction there between. What implications for theology does the mind–body problem present? What might it mean to think theologically about these issues? What kinds of theological tools might we employ in exploring mind–body holism? This course will examine questions and issues such as these first by locating the mind–body problem within trajectories of Western philosophical thought and modern cognitive science, and second by exploring how theological notions of the incarnation provide a rich and robust space in which to engage—even embrace—mind–body holism. These historical, scientific, philosophical, and theological insights will finally be brought to bear on a number of contemporary social challenges posed by the mind–body problem.
Due to violence’s cross-cultural and trans-historical importance in human societies and its contemporary significance as a locus of social fears, it has unsurprisingly been a key topic in research on the influence of innate biological factors on human psychology and behaviour. At the same time, especially since the 1980s, historians of crime have been focusing ever more attention on the topic of small-scale, ‘everyday’ violence, taking into account both its quantitative social history (e.g., analysing homicide and assault rates) and qualitative cultural history (e.g., reconstructing attitudes toward violence). There are many points at which these two strands of inquiry – natural science and socio-cultural history – might usefully contribute to a unified analysis. However, there have so far been few efforts to consider what a natural science perspective on violence (in particular that offered by ‘evolutionary psychology’ would actually mean for historical understanding of a topic such as violence. The work that has been done in this direction has been promising, but has also revealed certain difficulties in integrating approaches. Finally, some historians have sought to position history (particularly cultural history) as a site of resistance to ‘biological’ analyses of behaviour. In this paper, I will discuss some key interdisciplinary efforts made so far and argue that there are useful ways that evolutionary psychology can assist our understanding of violence within historical time frames.
Hogar, Metrópolis, Corte. Negociaciones culturales de la sociabilidad en la España del Siglo de Oro. Marlen Bidwell-Steiner and Teresa Hiergeist (eds.). Biblioteca Áurea Hispánica. Americana Vervuert., 2024
Prof. Dr. Talât Tekin Hatıra Kitabı II, 2017
Climate, 2024
Journal of Chemical Education, 1981
«Сестра отчаянья», 2024
Migration Letters, 2020
Annales historiques de la Révolution française, 2012
Derecho de la comunicación, selección de casos prácticos. Obra adaptada al Grado en Derecho , 2019
Dosieres Ecosociales, FUHEM, 2024
IQRA`: Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan dan Informasi (e-Journal), 2018
Heritage, 2020
International journal for the semiotics of law, 2024
Journal of Mining and Environment, 2012