The heated debates between Dawkins, Gould, Rose, and Lewontin are often framed as disagreements over methods, empirical findings, or interpretive preference. Viewed relationally, they are far more revealing: they expose the structural pressures and intolerances inherent in evolutionary explanation.
Four Construals, Four Cuts
Each participant enacted a distinct relational cut through the field of evolution:
-
Dawkins — Gene as Unit
-
Privileges a single level of selection.
-
Formalises fitness as a directional, if probabilistic, outcome.
-
Generates the perception of inevitability, and hence provokes resistance.
-
-
Gould — Variation as Resistance
-
Elevates contingency, heterogeneity, and historical unpredictability.
-
Resists determinism implicit in unitary gene-centred explanation.
-
Protects the relational field against collapse into inevitability.
-
-
Steven Rose — Multi-Level Relationality
-
Emphasises interactions across organism, population, and environment.
-
Resists reductionist simplification.
-
Ensures causation is distributed and contextual.
-
-
Lewontin — Structural and Ecological Context
-
Highlights organism–environment interplay and the emergent nature of adaptation.
-
Exposes the insufficiency of unitary explanatory levels.
-
Maintains relational complexity in the face of formal reduction.
-
Each cut is internally coherent, but each suppresses aspects of the relational field that the others foreground. The intensity of disagreement signals the structural intolerances at play, rather than mere personalities or empirical mistakes.
The Intolerances Revealed
Across these debates, several forms of intolerance manifest clearly:
-
Intolerance of unitary cuts: Gene-centred or single-level explanations are resisted when they marginalise other relational levels.
-
Intolerance of determinism: Contingency, variation, and historical unpredictability are defended against formal inevitability.
-
Intolerance of reduction: Distributed, multi-level causation cannot be compressed into a single explanatory scale without resistance.
-
Intolerance of suppression of relational field: Each formalisation or abstraction provokes pushback when it occludes interactions and possibilities that cannot be captured at that level.
These intolerances are not failures; they are the field of evolutionary explanation in action. They reveal how scientific reasoning, affect, and epistemic commitment intersect when relational possibilities are constrained.
Relational Reading of the Debate
Viewed relationally:
-
Dawkins’ formalism clarifies and constrains.
-
Gould’s contingency liberates and pluralises.
-
Rose and Lewontin distribute causation across levels, preserving relational richness.
The confrontation is a laboratory of relational cuts, showing how explanatory precision, methodological tractability, and conceptual comfort are balanced against the openness, complexity, and contingency of evolution.
Lessons for Evolutionary Thought
-
Explanatory cuts are unavoidable: Science must always foreground some relations and suppress others.
-
Resistance is intelligible: Opposition signals which relational dimensions are being occluded.
-
Plurality is disciplined: Multiple cuts can coexist, revealing different aspects of the same relational field.
-
Understanding emerges relationally: The field, not any single cut, constitutes evolutionary intelligibility.
Closing the Mini-Series
Dawkins, Gould, Rose, and Lewontin together illuminate how intolerance operates in evolutionary science — not as personal quarrel, but as structural pressure.
The intensity of these debates teaches a broader lesson: explanation is always perspectival, provisional, and relational. To read evolution fully is to attend to the cuts, to the constraints, and to the forms of resistance they provoke — to see the field, not just the units.
No comments:
Post a Comment