Reconciling Marx and Darwin1

This is the second volume of essays published to honor Richard Lewontin. The essays are concerned with the history, philosophy, and politics of biology. Like the earlier volume, they demonstrate the uniquely stimulating effect Lewontin has had on young scientists and philosophers. In addition to his own contribution in showing how genetic and molecular approaches can be combined in the study of evolution, it is clear that he has been the greatest teacher of biology in his generation. It is right that he should be honored. In this review I shall concentrate mainly on the philosophical issues raised, although I learned much from the essays concerned with the history of biology and the application of biology to agriculture, medicine, and warfare. I was fascinated by the interview with Lewontin himself, and surprised to discover how much I did not know about an old friend. A theme which arises repeatedly in these essays is the conflict between ‘‘neo-Darwinism’’—the interpretation of Darwin’s ideas in terms of population genetics—and Marxist philosophy. This is hardly a surprise: Lewontin himself throughout his life has struggled to resolve this conflict. As it happens, I have done so too, albeit with a somewhat different outcome. Both Marx and Darwin were concerned to explain change, but the theories they proposed have some deep differences, which appear to lead to very different conclusions about the causative role of genes and of environment in development, and on the value of ‘‘reduction’’ in science. A fundamental of Marx’s theory of history is contained in his thesis that ‘‘man’s being determines his consciousness.’’ This seems to deny the possibility that humans may have evolved psychological characteristics that influence how they behave, and which may not easily be molded culturally. If this review were to appear in a different journal, I might spend the next two pages arguing that the manifest failure of Marxism when adopted as a guide to organizing society arose because this possibility was ignored. But the alternative view, that man’s genes determine his consciousness, has been used to justify the enslavement of blacks, the confinement of women to a reproductive role, and the poverty of the laboring class. In a brief but fascinating essay, Ruth Hubbard describes how four groups which have suffered from social exclusion— American blacks, women, gays and lesbians, and the handicapped—have struggled with the genes versus environment issue in trying to develop a political identity, or self-image, to aid in the struggle to improve their social position.