[extropy-chat] CFP: Darwin's Theory of Social Evolution

[Technotranscendence]

From: Roger Koppl koppl at FDU.EDU
To: HAYEK-L at MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005 3:23 PM
Subject: [HAYEK-L:] CALL FOR PAPERS AND COMMENTS


CALL FOR PAPERS AND COMMENTS

An upcoming volume of Advances in Austrian Economics will be devoted to
the theme "Darwin's Theory of Social Evolution."  In _The Descent of Man
and Selection in Relation to Sex_ (1871) and _The Expressions of
Emotions in Man and Animals_ (1872) Darwin goes beyond his theory of
biological evolution to develop a theory of social evolution.  Thus,
Darwin proposed a theory of evolution with two branches: a theory of
biological evolution and a theory of social evolution. Usually, Darwin's
theory of social evolution is overlooked and the focus is put only on
his theory of biological evolution. The purpose of this special issue of
Advances in Austrian Economics is to present and analyze Darwin's theory
of social evolution, which is generally neglected, and to discuss the
many questions it raises.

A first dimension of the problem relates to the differences (if any)
between the two theories. Do they differ and if so, how?  Of related
interest is the question of whether Darwin's theory includes or requires
a naturalistic theory of morality.

Second, if there are two theories, then perhaps Darwin's theory of
social evolution should be labeled 'social Darwinism,' to be
differentiated from what usually goes under that name.  Standard social
Darwinism, that is the application of Darwin's theory of biological
evolution to human societies, is perhaps better labeled 'social
Spencerism.'  The criticisms addressed to Darwinism by social scientists
might better be directed to social Spencerism.  Hence some of the
questions to deal with concern the links and differences between genuine
social Darwinism, standard social Darwinism, and social Spencerism. This
is all the more difficult because Darwin himself acknowledged his
connections with social Darwinism. How should we evaluate this
acknowledgement?

Third, if true social Darwinism is different from its standard
definition, one should try to understand why and how social Spencerism
came to be called social Darwinism: do 19th and 20th century social
Darwinists refer to Darwin or to Spencer? Do they ground their analysis
on Darwin's theory of social evolution or on Spencer's?  When and why
did Spencer replace Darwin as a social evolutionist?

Finally, one important aspect of the problem relates to the links that
could be put forward between Darwin's theory of social evolution and
other theories of social evolution, including that of Hayek, which have
always been presented as Lamarckian and not Darwinian.

Several important scholars in biology, philosophy, and the social
sciences have already agreed to contribute to this volume.  We are
especially interested in attracting further contributions from scholars
working within the tradition of the Austrian school of economics.
Persons interested in contributing papers or comments should contact
Alain Marciano (alain.marciano at univ-reims.fr) or Roger Koppl
(koppl at fdu.edu) before February 1, 2006.