Mike wrote:
>Steve-- In other contexts, the law of uneven development is called
>heterochrony or am I jumping over the wrong fence? So its a general
>law of development, and not restricted to the political-economic sphere.
snip>
>mike
Intriguing question, Mike. thank you. Here is a stab.
Generally, my answer is no, the law of uneven development is not the same
as heterochrony. There is a kind of fence between the two.
George Novack is careful to characterize the laws of uneven development and
combined development as belonging to the realm of sociology, of
history. He saw these laws as examples of historical materialism. He,
like Vygotsky, would point to the philosophical concepts of dialectical
materialism to formulate universal laws of development. In this view, the
law of uneven and combined development would be an instance of the method
of historical materialism, which in turn is an application to
sociology/history of dialectical materialism, which formulates overall
generalizations about reality.
With this in mind, perhaps the principles underlying the concept of uneven
and combined development could be roughly applied to the unique biological
process of heterochrony. Heterochrony refers to the way individual
organisms develop from genetic instructions by way of the specific timing
and sequencing of growth events. Genes carry this timing information,
which is largely responsible for creating paws and not hands, and wings and
not arms, and chimpanzee hands and not hominid hands. (Note, by the way,
that environmental issues surrounding an embryo also influence this timing
process, so heterochrony is not just genetically driven. This is one of
Richard Lewontin's many key points).
The analogy of unevenness and the explosiveness that comes from the
combination of uneven processes might be useful in explaining
heterochrony. Likewise, there may be ways of likening the complex
interactions of social systems from different levels of development to the
complex timing events involved in creating the organs of an
organism. Perhaps the principle of heterochrony could be used to
illustrate some process in history, just as the law of uneven and combined
development could be used to illustrate the timing processes of organic
development. Such illustrations and analogies may well be possible and useful.
However, suggesting an identity between the two concepts may be going too
far. Why? Because they belong to different levels of complexity,
qualitatively different levels of reality. Each principle or law is
carefully constructed to model central features of its respective
domain. The laws and tendencies of genetic development - belonging to the
domain we study as biology - are not identical to the laws and tendencies
of social development - the domain we study as sociology, history (and
several other fractured disciplines!). Consequently, the principle of
heterochrony is not identical with the law of uneven and combined
development, because the respective domains they apply to are not identical.
The fence between these domains can be illustrated by asking which domain
presupposes which. The domain of the biological - the biological that
involves sexual reproduction, at least - presupposes a genetic instruction
system, including instructions for timing and sequencing of growth events,
heterochrony. But it does not presuppose advanced social systems, such as
found in human societies. On the other hand, human social systems
presuppose the biological, which in turn presupposes genes and
heterochrony. The social can then be seen as an emergent result of the
biological - and in turn has much downward causal influence on this "lower"
level.
All this said, I am interested in seeing how far the law or principle of
uneven and combined development can be applied. Perhaps it is viable
enough to essentially explain less complex developmental systems, such as
embryonic development and heterochrony. But in my opinion the converse
does not follow - explanatory principles of less complex systems should not
be expected to essentially explain more complex processes.
As for this second passage in your post, I am in need of help in
understanding it. Would you help me?
>Its synchronic twin is heterogeneity or context specificity, in your
>case, england/germany.
<
Thanks much,
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PST