a
The Motive-Force of Material Change: Dialectics or Selectionism
Maria da Luz Alexandrino
University of Southern California
Joseph B. Morrow
California State University, Sacramento
This paper does not question the notion of materialism. All is
matter. Words about non-matter do not represent or name nature.
They merely reify or name other words.
This paper does not suggest that matter is necessarily
mechanical or unchanging. On the contrary, nature is in constant
change and new things develop from old things.
What this paper would like to discuss is the mechanism by which
nature changes. We would argue that an understanding of this
mechanism is crucial to those who would themselves attempt to
change the world that nature and society has put in front of us.
We wholeheartedly endorse Engels’ dictum that freedom is not the
escape from necessity but the understanding of natural laws and
making those laws work toward definite ends.
We believe that Engels and Marx were wrong in their conclusion
that the Hegelian theory of dialectics represents the motive force
for change. Instead, we believe that a closer examination of nature
argues for a process called selectioniam as the motive force for
change and development. We would argue that changes that occur arenot the outcome of opposing tendencies or contradictions. It is
instead a process whereby a natural event occurs and produces or is
followed by consequences, and it is these consequences that
determine change and new development
We believe this is a crucial difference. Probably in all
scientific fields and certainly in ours, behavioral psychology and
public administration, the laws of dialectics: the unity and
contradiction of opposites, the negation of the negation, and
qualitative changes as a result of an undetermined number of
quantitative changes, do not resemble the processes we observe
unfolding. They contradict the empirical data.
To engineer change from the dialectical standpoint an attempt
must be made to provide an opposite or contradiction for that part
of nature one would change. The contradiction or opposite, and even
the concept of quality, are often obscure in any objective sense.
Perhaps it is easy in retrospect to label things as opposites or as
a quality change in a post hoc analysis, but we would suggest that
the terms "opposite" and "quality" do not lend themselves very well
to empirical studies or prescriptive action.
On the other hand nature has provided us with abundant examples
of how consequences select development.
A contemporary of Marx was Charles Darwin (1809-1882). He too
was interested in the mechanism of change. Darwin's goal was
nothing short of understanding the origin of species. Rejecting the
mechanism of God, Darwin sought in an inductive endeavor to observe
what nature said to him about the question.3
In 1859 he published what he believed was the answer to the
origin of species. Species developed via the mechanism he called
“natural selection": organisms have descendants that vary somewhat
from themselves. Those that are best suited to live in the
environment into which they are born are more likely to survive and
have descendants who resemble them. This is called ‘survival of the
fittest". That is, those who best "fit" the requirements of their
specific environment are more likely to survive.
For example, insects that more closely resemble their background
“fit” better, i.e., they are less likely to be seen and eaten by
predators and hence survive and have descendants who resemble them.
Those descendants will vary in physical characteristics and some
will likely resemble their backgrounds even more than their
predecessors. Thus the consequences of more closely resembling
their background was a greater likelihood of survival and hence,
such structures are “selected naturally".
Selection by consequences serves as the causal mode or motive
force for the development of species and biological structures.
Darwin reasoned that this natural "selectionism" was the mechanism
for the development of all physical characteristics of species.
A dialectical explanation of the development of species leaves
much to be desired when compared with a selectionist one.
To discuss next the role of selectionism in the development of
individual behavior, it is necessary to assert the notion of
continuity of species. This is not the place to argue this point
Lígia Márcia Martins - Angelo Antonio Abrantes - Marilda Gonçalves Dias Facci - Periodização Histórico-Cultural Do Desenvolvimento Psíquico - Do Nascimento À Velhice. Único-Autores Associados (2016)