Preview

Siberian Journal of Philosophy

Advanced search

The metaphor of the gene in the conceptions of cultural evolution

https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2025-23-1-52-63

Abstract

An integral feature of any theorizing about cultural phenomena is the desire to identify discrete segments of cultural products. One of the most famous examples of antiquity is the conception of Plato’s ideas. Today, many approaches in the humanities have focused around this cognitive trend, including semiotics, the history of concepts, discursive research, etc. This indicates the fundamental nature of questions about the essence, properties, relationships, and volume of these elementary units. In particular, the need to define the subject and the elementary level of evolutionary development is of fundamental importance for the development of an evolutionary epistemological theory, which in the second half of the 20th century was considered by most supporters of the theory of evolution to be a “gene”, which also turns out to be a quantity, a measure of variability. The debate about what exactly should be considered the analogy of a gene in the development of culture and science has only intensified over the past decades. This article focuses on the analysis of the historical development of the main problems that arise during attempts to conceptualize genetic and cultural evolution. Special attention is paid to the contradictory relations within the coevolution of nature and culture.

About the Author

A. M. Zharov
Russian Society for the History and Philosophy of Science
Russian Federation

Alexander M. Zharov – researcher



References

1. Alexander R. Darwinism and Human Affairs. L.: Pitman, 1980.

2. Aunger R. (Ed.) Darwinizing Culture: The Status of Memetics as a Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

3. Aunger R. The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think and Communicate. N. Y.: Free Press, 2002.

4. Brown A. The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man. L.: Simon & Schuster, 1999.

5. Blackmore S. The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

6. Boyer P. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. N. Y.: Basic Books, 2001.

7. Dawkins R. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

8. Dennett D. Freedom Evolves. L.: Penguin Press, 2004.

9. Fodor J. Deconstructing Dennett’s Darwin // Mind and Language. 1996. Vol. 11. Iss. 3. P. 247–262.

10. Gould S. Darwinian Fundamentalism // New York Review of Books. 1997. Vol. 44. No. 10. P. 34–37.

11. Lumsden C., Wilson E.O. Genes, Minds and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.

12. Malik K. Man, Beast, and Zombie: What Science Can and Cannot Tell Us About Human Nature. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2002.

13. Matisov S.K. Two approaches to the problem of the limit of understanding reality in the context of the anthropological study of religion (M. Douglas and K. Geertz) // Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. 2006. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 173–195 (in Russian).

14. Maynard Smith J. Genes, Memes and Minds // New York Review of Books. 1995. Vol. 42. P. 46–48.

15. Rose H., Rose S. Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. N. Y.: Harmony Books, 2000.

16. Wilson E.O. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975.

17. Wilson E.O. On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.


Review

For citations:


Zharov A.M. The metaphor of the gene in the conceptions of cultural evolution. Siberian Journal of Philosophy. 2025;23(1):52-63. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2025-23-1-52-63

Views: 15


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2541-7517 (Print)