Mike wrote:
>There are some real dangers is over interpreting analogous or homologous
>processes across levels of analysis and forms of matter. Various uses
>to which the "orthogenetic principle" has been put in psychology might
>provide useful cautions as well as positive examples (Joe Glick, as
>a student of Werner's would be well positioned to help here).
Mike, what a striking bouquet of thought-provokers in two sentences. Lots
to follow up on here. Thanks!
To pick one, a Google search of "orthogenesis" turned up this succinct
paragraph from a 1995 paper at http://members.aol.com/iscs/synres.html
entitled SYNERGY AND SELF-ORGANIZATION IN THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS
by Peter A. Corning, Ph.D., Institute for the Study of Complex Systems,
Palo Alto CA.
"Orthogenetic theories of evolution reached an apogee of sorts during the
19th century with the multi-volume, multi-disciplinary magnum effort of
Herbert Spencer, who was considered by many contemporaries to be the
preeminent thinker of his era. Spencer formulated an ambitious "Universal
Law of Evolution" that spanned physics, biology, psychology, sociology and
ethics. In effect, Spencer deduced society from energy by positing a cosmic
progression from energy to matter, to life, to mind, to society and,
finally, to complex civilization. "From the earliest traceable cosmical
changes down to the latest results of civilization," he wrote in "The
Development Hypothesis" (Spencer, 1892 [1852]), "we shall find that the
transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous is that in which
progress essentially consists." Among other things, Spencer maintained that
homogeneous systems are less stable than those that are more differentiated
and complex. (It is worth noting that, while Spencer viewed this
progression as "spontaneous" in origin, he also believed that it was
sustained by the fact that more complex forms are functionally
"advantageous.")" From section II. "THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY AS A
THEORETICAL CHALLENGE".
Note the order of levels of complexity in Spencer that the author cites -
energy, matter, life, mind, society, civilization. I suggest the order
here is fundamentally incorrect - more accurate would be energy/matter,
life, society, mind. Spencer's paradigm, also found in Mills and many
other empiricist thinkers, essentially posits society as a product of mind,
which in turn is a product of nature. Vygotsky and the cultural-historical
school views this differently; it views mind as a product of society, which
in turn is a product of nature. The title of the journal Mind, Culture,
Activity reflects this viewpoint if it is imagined as saying Mind (is a
product of) Culture (which is a product of) Activity. Spencer's conception
of orthogenesis is a very different conception from Vygotsky's school of
historical-genesis.
Best,
- Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PST