Is Greater Than » Chris Kortright http://isgreaterthan.net Literary-minded culture blog Thu, 15 Sep 2011 20:41:30 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc The Biology of Capitalism: Scarcity, Poverty and Population (Part 3) http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population-part-3/ http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population-part-3/#comments Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:57:14 +0000 Chris Kortright http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/27/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population-part-3/ Part 3: Neo-Malthusianism

In the first two parts of this serial, I have looked at the effect of Thomas Malthus’s theory of population on Darwinian theories of biological evolution and the ways in which Malthus was effected by private property battles during the rise of capitalism. In closing, I will look at the implications these various theories have on public health policies, environmentalism and international development as well as their relationship to the capitalist mode of production.

Malthusian theory found an ally in the early eugenics movement. Malthus argued the poor were not equal to the rich on a biological level (see Part Two): they had too many children, lacked moral restraint, foresight and self-discipline. At the end of the 19th century (the height of the eugenics movement was 1890s-1945), eugenics took hold of these ideas to platform their own agenda: the poor were a threat to social order because they were too numerous and, moreover, they caused a deterioration of national “racial stocks.” Through arguments about “managing” population, came notions that linked birth control to a more developed or modern self. The middle and upper classes used birth control unlike the workers and poor. Neo-Malthusians who were in favor of curbing fertility no longer believed that voluntary birth control was an option, and they argued for direct intervention.

Double helix
Creative Commons Licensecredit: ?mrhappy?

At first it was argued that birth control, including sterilization, should be imposed on groups of ill and disabled people who were seen as “polluting” the national gene pool. By the time the 20th century rolled around, social ills such as prostitution, vagrancy and petty crimes were seen as the result of “feeble-minded” genes propagated by the poor, and the only answer was population control. Inspired by Malthus and eugenics, policymakers argued that science had demonstrated that poverty was a result of physical and mental (as well as moral) weakness. But after WWII, the eugenics movement in most western countries lost steam due to the eugenic agenda of the (then defeated) Nazi movement, but Malthus would find new allies in the ecology movement some 20 years later.

In 1968, biologists revived Malthusian theory by publishing of a handful of influential academic and popular texts. One such book was Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich’s book Population Bomb (published by the Sierra Club), which predicted a devastating resource crash due to overpopulation and centered much of the blame for population growth on the global south and newly liberated post-colonies. Another eminent biologist, Paul A. Colinvaux, wrote in his 1978 book Why Big Fierce Animals Are Rare, “ecology’s first social law should be written:

]]> http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population-part-3/feed/ 4 The Biology of Capitalism: Scarcity, Poverty and Population (Part 2) http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population-part-2/ http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population-part-2/#comments Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:44:13 +0000 Chris Kortright http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/26/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population-part-2/ Part 2: Historically Situating Malthus

In Part One of this serial, I set the stage for the need to understand the biology of capitalism. Here, in Part Two, I will explore the foundational theories of Thomas Malthus, and I will situate them in their historical context. Then to conclude, in Part Three, I will offer a reading on the effects of his ideas in contemporary policy making that effects issues ranging from humanitarian aid to public policy as well as naturalized understandings of capitalism and its effects.

Enjoy Capitalism
Creative Commons License credit: ]]> http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population-part-2/feed/ 0 The Biology of Capitalism: Scarcity, Poverty and Population (Part 1) http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population/ http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population/#comments Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:05:59 +0000 Chris Kortright http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/21/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population/ Part 1: Biology and Capitalism

In the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote, “a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought …”. This is a fitting description of the struggle for survival in the present structures of political and economic alienation that most humans face confronting late (or neo-liberal) capitalism. I think this metaphor works better than the “nature, red in tooth and claw” evolutionary imagery (animal against animal) that has become the center of evolutionary and capitalist economic theory for over 200 years. We have been taught that capitalism is rooted in natural selection–by this I mean that the relations necessary for the functioning of capitalism are the same relations that are central in the evolutionary process.

DendritesMerge
Creative Commons LicenseDendrites merging credit: neurollero

Thus, I argue there is a biology of capitalism. In this three part serial I hope to explore the connection between biology and capitalism; the rise of this theoretical connection; and then the political and policy implications of this connection.

We are taught about this connection when we read biology and economic textbooks; watch the Discovery Channel, the Animal Channel, Nova or CNN, Fox News, listen to NPR, or go to natural history museums. This connection, offered as a lesson in biology, can be found in the teaching of biologists such as Richard Hawkins, E. O. Wilson, Paul Ehrlich and Garrett Hardin (whom I will address in more detail in part 3); the theories about hunter/gatherer subsistence strategies argued by archeologists like Lewis Binford; and in the arguments of gendered differences in mate selection, reproductive strategies and genetic fitness ingrained the theories of evolutionary psychology propagated by Steven Pinker and Robert Wright. This biology of capitalism got its staying power and strength by the powerhouse writings of Charles Darwin, but its roots are in the philosophy of 19th century British cleric and economist Thomas Malthus. To understand issues ranging from contemporary capitalist practices to large-scale humanitarian aid, it is important to revisit and discuss the works of Malthus.

But wait!

Before your eye begins to wander across the webpage, preparing to click onto a different article, I ask for your patience. What follows is not an exploration of the philosophical wanderings of some obscure 19th century personality. It is an investigation of the ways in which biological theory and economics have collided each informing the other in very tangible ways, which affects our lives today some 200 years after the fact.
The interweaving of biological and capitalist theory has a long history, and this interweaving is more than just metaphor-it has very real material effects. The result of these interweavings has been a set of ideas that naturalize capitalism, so as to justify exploitation and eliminate the ability to think beyond capitalism. But these ideas do more than just naturalize capitalism, they are a justification for poverty; they propagate the myth that overpopulation is the central cause of issues in the global south; they justify arguments against AIDS and famine relief in Africa; they justify forced sterilization and propagate funding that pays poor women (exclusively) to become sterile; they justify and legitimize the portion of the Sierra Club that argued for anti-immigration policy, against poverty relief and against issues of environmental justice; and they rationalize the recent controversy over Professor Watson’s statement on Africa. The combined effect of these incidents has had a devastating effect on billions of lives.
So, let’s go back to the biology.

charlesdarwin-796012.jpgDarwin based his theory of natural selection on Malthus’s theory that population growth will always outstrip food supply and lead to the overt (bloody) battles leading to disappearing resources. This view of population (and biology) mirrored the view on the emerging industrial capitalist cities that Malthus saw-mass migration from the countryside lead to polluted and crowded cities as a result of such acts as the enclosures (which I will discuss in part 2.) Darwin moved from this imagery and maintained a view of ecology centered on a world stuffed full of competing species-so balanced and crowded that a new species could only gain entry into the world by literally replacing-destroying-a former inhabitant.

Both Darwin and Alfred Wallace independently developed the theory of natural selection-each credited theoretical foundation and inspiration from Malthus. Both theories were based on their experiences with natural history in the tropics. It was in the tropics that they evoked Malthus’s crowed slums of the industrial city and articulated it ecologically-the biological density of the islands offered this same competition of body against body. Darwin acknowledged in Origin of Species that both forms of struggle mentioned in the opening (the plant in the desert and the animal versus animal) existed, but due to the influence of Malthus, he chose to emphasize the competition between species after his field experiences in the tropics. Indeed today if you ask someone to explain evolutionary theory they are likely to say it about competition between species for survival.

If one of the most influential theories of our time and the founding of our present understanding of biology is based on the work of this 19th century economist, what was his theory?

In Part Two, I will investigate Malthus’ theories while historically situating his ideas about carrying capacity and population in relation to the rise of capitalism. Then, in Part Three (appearing Thursday the 27th), I will explore the direct effects his theory has had on ideas of genetics, ecology, humanitarian aid and public policy.

The Biology of Capitalism: Part 2
The Biology of Capitalism: Part 3 (Goes live Thursday, March 27)

]]> http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/03/the-biology-of-capitalism-scarcity-poverty-and-population/feed/ 2 Progressive Imperatives http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/02/progressive-imperatives/ http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/02/progressive-imperatives/#comments Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:48:07 +0000 Chris Kortright http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/02/20/progressive-imperatives/ Change has been one of the key mantras of this coming election, and genetics has become a hot button issue over the past few years in electoral politics in general. We see genetics emerge in debates about stem cells and the future of certain forms scientific research in this country under the pressure of religious fundamentalists (see this White House Statement and New York Times Op-Ed).

Stem CellsThe Senate has passed three different bills concerning stem cell research. The Senate passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, making it legal for the Federal government to spend Federal money on embryonic stem cell research that uses embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. President Bush vetoed this bill.

Then they passed a bill making it illegal to create, grow, and abort fetuses for research purposes. The last bill would encourage research that would isolate stem cells without the destruction of human embryos. Congressman Ron Paul introduced the Cures Can Be Found Act, with 10 cosponsors. With an income tax credit, the bill favors research upon nonembryonic stem cells obtained from placentas, umbilical cord blood, amniotic fluid, humans after birth, or unborn human offspring who died of natural causes.

Bush vetoed another bill, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, that would have amended the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research.

Aids VirusI have a close friend who spent many years researching the genetic structure of both HIV1 and HIV2. As the primary elections began, he looked at me in a mix of fear and self-loathing as he stated, “I never thought I would say this, but I want to vote for Al Gore. I want someone who understands science to be running the country. I mean you can pass a law telling me I can’t research on stem cells and you don’t even fucking believe in evolution? We live in an anti-science religious state, man!” I nodded in agreement with the “anti-science religious state,” but couldn’t go as far as ever thinking I would vote for Al Gore.

Genetics does also hold gigantic implications for the progressive politics as well. The right does not hold a monopoly on a specific genetic-politics. We see this in debates over Genetically Modified crops, pharmaceutical research, health care and insurance coverage (specifically people getting denied health care for genetic reasons.) And we have started to see a reemergence of genetic inscription of race, which is apparent with GenSpec marketing race specific vitamins. Genetics are everywhere in politics today, but I want to think about a different way that genetics is being used politically. This form of a genetic-politics determines how we can do politics, what changes are possible and how we behave as human beings.

leviathan.jpgBack when I was 17, I worked at a gigantic national chain video store. One day while smoking a cigarette on break with one of my managers, he looked over at me and said, “I don’t understand how you can work in the service sector and still have radical politics. People are just assholes. We see it everyday. People treat us like shit because it is human nature to be greedy and mean.” 16 years later I still have my politics and I remember that conversation like it was yesterday. There is an inherently sinister notion of defeatism in this sentiment. I recognize that this Hobbesian notion of human nature is not new, but more recently these ideas of “human nature” have become understood in genetic terms.

Human behavior and human potential is being explained and understood as genetic, which of course makes sense to us on may levels. Most people in US have some faith in science (even if the present leadership doesn’t). Secondly, and more important, the behavior that is usually described genetically is so naturalized to us, as Americans, that we just believe it is “nature.” What becomes geneticized is the economic, political and gender inequalities that are inherent in the present late capitalist, liberal democratic and patriarchal system. This is scary because these inequalities become inherently human and determine our behavior making change not up to us but up to natural selection (as if it had a design), but as the advocates (both academic and popular) argue it is precisely these behaviors of exploitation that have created us as homo sapiens sapiens (i.e. human.)

The argument goes: Social relations and human behavior is the product of self-interested competition between individuals. The genes of these individuals calculate their interests in the logic of cost-benefit analysis; its goal is the proliferation of genetic endowments through natural selection. As I said above, there is a faith in science. Even many of the scientist and individuals who oppose Intelligent Design have a design of their own. In this logic, natural section has a plan and genes are rational actors that think like stockbrokers.

Many evolutionary biologists and social scientist have fought long and hard against these conceptions of evolution and genetics (see Susan McKinnon and Steven J. Gould’s critiques of evolutionary psychology as well as Marshall Sahlins’ critique of sociobiology), but the image works so well that we, as Americans, believe that the logics of hierarchy and capital exploitation can be explained biologically…absolutely in nature. So social change can only go so far until the unnaturalness of progressive politics fall apart.

To go further into these genetic theories, it is believed that people are driven to maximize their own reproductive success. They invest first and foremost in their own genetic children and do not want to waste resources on children and people who are not genetically connected to them. Any other forms of social relations and solidarity are seen as fundamentally unnatural, or more precisely impossible. This behavior can only be explained through a self-interested form of sharing called reciprocal altruism, which means people only show solidarity if there is a material benefit to them.

Within this logic, politics becomes a matter of choosing the candidate for the maximization of benefit that I will receive from the next government. If we go back to the story of my friend, we can see that only certain political moves become thinkable; in this case voting for Al Gore becomes an act of depoliticizing politics, but it is the only act that seems natural. This theory of science has devastating effects on the possibility of thinking and practices other ways of social and economic organizing. It restructures how we understand and practice community, family, gender and the production and distribution of necessities … and yes, it destroys any notion of significant social and political change.

]]> http://isgreaterthan.net/2008/02/progressive-imperatives/feed/ 1