DOCSLIB.ORG

Marx on Man's Sociality by Nature: an Inexplicable Omission? Thomas O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marx on Man's Sociality by Nature: an Inexplicable Omission? Thomas O International Journal of Social Economics Marx on Man's Sociality by Nature: An Inexplicable Omission? Thomas O. Nitsch Article information: To cite this document: Thomas O. Nitsch, (1992),"Marx on Man's Sociality by Nature: An Inexplicable Omission?", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 19 Iss 7/8/9 pp. 108 - 120 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000000490 Downloaded on: 31 May 2016, At: 22:12 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 144 times since 2006* Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald- srm:438659 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) *Related content and download information correct at time of download. International Journal of Social Marx on Man's Economics Sociality by Nature: 19,7/8/9 An Inexplicable Omission? 108 Thomas 0. Nitsch Creighton University, Omaha, USA If man is social by nature, he will develop his true nature only in society, and the power of his nature must be measured not by the power of the separate individual but by the power of society (Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, 1845). The Critical Omission In the original and subsequent German editions of Das Kapital[1] Marx stipulated that, "man is by nature, if not, as Aristotle indicates, a political, at all events a social animal"; i.e. "der Mensch von Natur . ein gesellschaftliches Thier ist"[l]. Now, all the prominent English versions, variously based on those German exemplars, consistently omit that all-crucial "von Natur" specification in the postulate. These include what we might call: (1) the "conservative", "Western", Anglo-American editions (London, 1887 sqq.; Chicago: Kerr, 1906 = New York: Modern Library, undated); (2) the "official" ("party-line") versions from Moscow (Progress Publishers, 1954 sqq.) = London (Lawrence & Wishart, 1974) and New York (International Publishers, 1967); and, finally, (3) the most recent, "new-Marxist" edition — involving the closest approximation available to an entirely new translation and redaction — from Harmondsworth and London (Penguin Books and New Left Review, 1976 sqq.) [2]. Only the somewhat obscure and similarly independent rendering of the Pauls (London, Toronto, New York; 1930, 1974) is faithful to the German base in the present regard[3]. What are the implications of this omission? That is, if man is a social animal, is that not all that counts? What difference does it make if we specify "by nature" Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) or not? Might that not even be implied by "animal", hence the original "von Natur" stipulation essentially redundant? Is it not simply a matter of semantics? In the following analysis we attempt to show, first, that it makes all the difference in the world, and is not merely a matter of arbitrary choice of language. Secondly, we shall explore possible explanations of the omission, finding no really satisfactory ones to date. But, regardless of motive, and barring sheer accident coincidentally on the part of several separate translators/editors, there re- emerges the question of significance. Man's communal nature, the human being's An earlier version of this article, entitled "Marx on Man's Sociality: Von Natur or Not?" was presented at the 4th WCSE in Toronto, 13-15 August 1986. The present version, which incorporates International Journal of Social enhancements of an original (October 1985) draft by John Elliott and of that (August 1986) by Economics, Vol. 19 Nos. 7/8/9. 1992, pp. 103-120. © MCB John C. O'Brien, was prepared for the Festschrift in honour of John E. Elliott presented at the University Press. 0306-8293 6th WCSE in Omaha, NE (USA) 9-11 August 1991. sociality by and from birth, literally drips from every page of the ' 'early works'', Marx on Man's the 1844 Manuscripts especially; but, how did Marx feel about all that at the Sociality by end? Is the concern in Capital still that totally social revolution, the full-human Nature liberation of "der Mensch" to completely realize her/his sociality? Is that what the equations, formulae, and "laws" populating those three volumes — "Senior's 'Last Hour' " and "the transformation problem" included — are really all about? 109 Context and Significance of the Omission: Human Solidarity, Social Divisions, and Class War The location of the passage in question is in the chapter on "Co-operation" ("Kooperation") of Volume I. There, Marx is trying to explain why "it is that a dozen persons working together, will, in their collective working-day of 144 hours, produce far more than 12 isolated men each working 12 hours, or than one man who works 12 days in succession". In this regard, he cites among other factors "a stimulation of the animal spirits" begotten by "mere social contact" which "heighten the efficiency of each individual workman". In the early works (e.g. On the jewish Question, 1843; Economic-philosophical Manuscript of 1844) Marx focused on the Feuerbachian figure of man as the Gattungswesen or "Species-being", the creature conscious of itself as a member of a species, conscious of the species as such[4]. Also, while that "communal Species-being" still appears at least on one occasion in the text of the Grundrisse of 1857-58, it is two other human-natural qualities with which Marx is concerned at the outset, namely sociability or gregariousness versus politicality(ness). Thus, while the social character of production, the most crucial of all human activities, and versus the "Robinsonadean" models of Smith and Ricardo, is the focus, Marx stresses that the human being is not merely a "sociable Animal" or "geselliges Thier", but a "zoon politikon,... an animal which can individuate itself only in society" [5]. In the passage cited in Kapital, that Aristotelian characterization had become apparently too restrictive for Marx's eventually-to-be-fully liberated, socialist Man of the Future. For, as he explained in the accompanying footnote, ' 'strictly, Downloaded by Seoul National University At 22:12 31 May 2016 (PT) Aristotle's definition is that man is by nature a town-citizen (Stadtbuerger). This", he continued, "is quite as characteristic of classical antiquity as Franklin's definition of man as by nature a tool-making animal (Instrumentmacher) is characteristic of Yankeedom". In other words, to Marx at the fullest development of his system, "man", human being, had become not merely sociable or gregarious, nor strictly political (Stadtbuergeliche or otherwise), but — in some superior or transcendent sense "soci(et)al", i.e. "gesellschaftliche" — by nature {"von Natur") as he ought to be. Marx, we might add, was certainly as emphatic about man's social nature as Hobbes was in his characterization of man's existence in the absence of a common power as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" [6]. We further note here that Marx was referring to all men, regardless of social class, etc. — much as Aristotle was with his "anthropos physei politikon zoon", and Adam Smith with his homo mercantilis, the emporikon zoon by nature [7]. When Marx International singled out one or more of the classes for special treatment or comparative Journal of Social purposes, this was always quite evident, as with Smith, e.g. when the latter Economics opposed the workers to the masters, "the great body of the people [or] working 19,7/8/9 poor" to "those of some rank and fortune", and the rich/property-owners to the poor and propertyless in various regards [8]. That Marx saw no fundamental conflict or antagonism between or among "men" as such — no Hobbesian helium omnium contra omnes — is very important to note. This is especially true for 110 those who posit the same social nature and solidarity of humankind, regardless of class or station, and hold that Marx's system virtually "creates" and "exploits" such divisions and finds violent, revolutionary struggle between them to be the only ultimate means of human liberation and transition (transcendence) to the highly humane, totally altruistic, and "almost Christian", classless society of the future — namely, the "higher phase" of communism[9]. Marx, need we add, recognizes the classes in a purely descriptive or positive fashion, as a salient phenomenon of socio-economic reality and classical political economy. He does not prescribe them or regard them as normative any more than Jesus did "the poor" when he stipulated their relative permanence (Matt. 26:6 and parallels). Alternatively, the classes are constitutional to capitalist (bourgeois, civil) society, which is in turn very unnatural, inhuman society, because of the antagonisms inherent in such divisions[10]. Marx, indeed, was a revolutionary. But his model was that of a genuinely social revolution. And, some of the most revealing insights into his concept of Man's social nature are to be found in his discussion of the social strife and process leading up to and involved in this social transformation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sensory and Cognitive Adaptations to Social Living in Insect Societies Tom Wenseleersa,1 and Jelle S
    COMMENTARY COMMENTARY Sensory and cognitive adaptations to social living in insect societies Tom Wenseleersa,1 and Jelle S. van Zwedena A key question in evolutionary biology is to explain the solitarily or form small annual colonies, depending upon causes and consequences of the so-called “major their environment (9). And one species, Lasioglossum transitions in evolution,” which resulted in the pro- marginatum, is even known to form large perennial euso- gressive evolution of cells, organisms, and animal so- cial colonies of over 400 workers (9). By comparing data cieties (1–3). Several studies, for example, have now from over 30 Halictine bees with contrasting levels of aimed to determine which suite of adaptive changes sociality, Wittwer et al. (7) now show that, as expected, occurred following the evolution of sociality in insects social sweat bee species invest more in sensorial machin- (4). In this context, a long-standing hypothesis is that ery linked to chemical communication, as measured by the evolution of the spectacular sociality seen in in- the density of their antennal sensillae, compared with sects, such as ants, bees, or wasps, should have gone species that secondarily reverted back to a solitary life- hand in hand with the evolution of more complex style. In fact, the same pattern even held for the socially chemical communication systems, to allow them to polymorphic species L. albipes if different populations coordinate their complex social behavior (5). Indeed, with contrasting levels of sociality were compared (Fig. whereas solitary insects are known to use pheromone 1, Inset). This finding suggests that the increased reliance signals mainly in the context of mate attraction and on chemical communication that comes with a social species-recognition, social insects use chemical sig- lifestyle indeed selects for fast, matching adaptations in nals in a wide variety of contexts: to communicate their sensory systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Following the Trail of Ants: an Examination of the Work of E.O
    Sacred Heart University DigitalCommons@SHU Writing Across the Curriculum Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) 2012 Following The rT ail Of Ants: An Examination Of The orW k Of E.O. Wilson Samantha Kee Sacred Heart University Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/wac_prize Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Entomology Commons, Other Genetics and Genomics Commons, Philosophy of Science Commons, Religion Commons, and the Theory, Knowledge and Science Commons Recommended Citation Kee, Samantha, "Following The rT ail Of Ants: An Examination Of The orkW Of E.O. Wilson" (2012). Writing Across the Curriculum. 2. http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/wac_prize/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) at DigitalCommons@SHU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Writing Across the Curriculum by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@SHU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Samantha Kee RS 299-Writing With Public Purpose Dr. Brian Stiltner March 2, 2012 Following the trail of ants An examination of the work of E.O. Wilson Edward Osborne Wilson was a born naturalist, in every sense of the word. As a child growing up in Alabama, he collected and studied species of snakes, flies, and the insect that became the basis of his life’s work, ants. He made a goal to record every species of ant that could be found in Alabama—a childhood project that would eventually lead to his first scientific publication. By age 13, Wilson discovered a red, non-native ant in a local town in Alabama, and by the time he entered the University of Alabama, the fire ant had become a significant threat to the state’s agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Methods Offer Powerful Insights Into Social Evolution in Bees Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton
    Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton To cite this version: Sarah Kocher, Robert Paxton. Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees. Apidologie, Springer Verlag, 2014, 45 (3), pp.289-305. 10.1007/s13592-014-0268-3. hal- 01234748 HAL Id: hal-01234748 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01234748 Submitted on 27 Nov 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Apidologie (2014) 45:289–305 Review article * INRA, DIB and Springer-Verlag France, 2014 DOI: 10.1007/s13592-014-0268-3 Comparative methods offer powerful insights into social evolution in bees 1 2 Sarah D. KOCHER , Robert J. PAXTON 1Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA 2Institute for Biology, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany Received 9 September 2013 – Revised 8 December 2013 – Accepted 2 January 2014 Abstract – Bees are excellent models for studying the evolution of sociality. While most species are solitary, many form social groups. The most complex form of social behavior, eusociality, has arisen independently four times within the bees.
    [Show full text]
  • KARL MARX Peter Harrington London Peter Harrington London
    KARL MARX Peter Harrington london Peter Harrington london mayfair chelsea Peter Harrington Peter Harrington 43 dover street 100 FulHam road london w1s 4FF london sw3 6Hs uk 020 3763 3220 uk 020 7591 0220 eu 00 44 20 3763 3220 eu 00 44 20 7591 0220 usa 011 44 20 3763 3220 www.peterharrington.co.uk usa 011 44 20 7591 0220 Peter Harrington london KARL MARX remarkable First editions, Presentation coPies, and autograPH researcH notes ian smitH, senior sPecialist in economics, Politics and PHilosoPHy [email protected] Marx: then and now We present a remarkable assembly of first editions and presentation copies of the works of “The history of the twentieth Karl Marx (1818–1883), including groundbreaking books composed in collaboration with century is Marx’s legacy. Stalin, Mao, Che, Castro … have all Friedrich Engels (1820–1895), early articles and announcements written for the journals presented themselves as his heirs. Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher and Der Vorbote, and scathing critical responses to the views of Whether he would recognise his contemporaries Bauer, Proudhon, and Vogt. them as such is quite another matter … Nevertheless, within one Among this selection of highlights are inscribed copies of Das Kapital (Capital) and hundred years of his death half Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei (Communist Manifesto), the latter being the only copy of the the world’s population was ruled Manifesto inscribed by Marx known to scholarship; an autograph manuscript leaf from his by governments that professed Marxism to be their guiding faith. years spent researching his theory of capital at the British Museum; a first edition of the His ideas have transformed the study account of the First International’s 1866 Geneva congress which published Marx’s eleven of economics, history, geography, “instructions”; and translations of his works into Russian, Italian, Spanish, and English, sociology and literature.” which begin to show the impact that his revolutionary ideas had both before and shortly (Francis Wheen, Karl Marx, 1999) after his death.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction:Thinking Through Sociality
    Thinking through Sociality THINKING THROUGH SOCIALITY An Anthropological Interrogation of Key Concepts Edited by _ Vered Amit Published in 2015 by Berghahn Books www.berghahnbooks.com © 2015 Vered Amit All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Amit, Vered, 1955- Thinking through sociality : an anthropological interrogation of key concepts / edited by Vered Amit. pages cm Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-78238-585-1 (hardback) -- ISBN 978-1-78238-586-8 (ebook) 1. Ethnology. 2. Social interaction. 3. Anthropology. I. Title. GN325.A44 2015 302--dc23 2014033522 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78238-585-1 (hardback) ISBN 978-1-78238-586-8 (ebook) Contents Acknowledgements vi _ Introduction Thinking through Sociality: The Importance of 1 Mid-level Concepts Vered Amit with Sally Anderson, Virginia Caputo, John Postill, Deborah Reed-Danahay and Gabriela Vargas-Cetina 1 Disjuncture: The Creativity of, and Breaks in, Everyday 21 Associations and Routines Vered Amit 2 Fields: Dynamic Configurations of Practices, Games and 47 Socialities John Postill 3 Social Space: Distance, Proximity
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Cooperation Cooperation Vs
    Cooperation Main points for today Cooperation • Sociality, cooperation, mutualism, altruism - definitions • Kin selection – Hamilton’s rule, how to calculate r Why is it surprising and • Group selection – the price equation, green beards, and assortment how does it evolve • Classic examples – alarm calls, helpers at the nest, social insects, predator inspection, food sharing Definitions ‘Social behavior’ is NOT cooperative behavior Cooperation: Displaying a behavior that benefits another Group living vs. cooperation individual. (If both benefit that's mutualism.) Sociality-no- Altruism: cooperation Displaying a behavior that benefits another and individual at a cost to oneself. cooperation- Sociality/social behavior: no-sociality Living in a group/behavior in interactions with conspecifics I define ‘sociality’ as living with other individuals of the same species at least semi-permanently. Why individuals do not sacrifice themselves The evolutionary mystery for the good of the group How can altruism evolve? • If the recipient of the cooperative/altruistic act benefits, it is going to leave more offspring . • The actor however is not going to leave more offspring, or even fewer offspring – fewer altruists in the next generation . If such behavior is heritable, and it goes on over many generations, it will ultimately die out. 1 The evolutionary mystery Evolution of altruism Altruism: 5 possible Group selection explanations The Price equation : shows how variance partitioned among individuals and groups leads to selection • Group selection
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing of Science Is Most Likely Among Male Scientists Jorg J
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists Jorg J. M. Massen1, Lisa Bauer1, Benjamin Spurny1, Thomas Bugnyar1 & Mariska E. Kret2,3 Humans are considered to be highly prosocial, especially in comparison to other species. However, Received: 28 April 2017 most tests of prosociality are conducted in highly artifcial settings among anonymous participants. To Accepted: 25 September 2017 gain a better understanding of how human hyper-cooperation may have evolved, we tested humans’ Published: xx xx xxxx willingness to share in one of the most competitive felds of our current society: academia. Researchers were generally prosocial with 80% sharing a PDF of one of their latest papers, and almost 60% willing to send us their data. Intriguingly, prosociality was most prominent from male to male, and less likely among all other sex-combinations. This pattern suggests the presence of male-exclusive networks in science, and may be based on an evolutionary history promoting strong male bonds. Prosociality has been proposed as a hallmark of humanity1, and studies on prosociality in our closest living relatives have long corroborated the idea that such behavior is uniquely human (e.g.2,3 but see4). A major draw- back is that experimental methods for studying prosociality difer dramatically, particularly between human and non-human studies, and that many experiments lack ecological relevance5. For example, in humans most of these tests are computerized cooperation tasks or public goods games performed in peer groups of college students who anonymously make decisions about an interaction partner they do not know and will never need to interact with in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Adaptation to Mammalian Sociality Via Sexually Selected Traits
    Rapid Adaptation to Mammalian Sociality via Sexually Selected Traits The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Nelson, Adam C., Kevin E. Colson, Steve Harmon, and Wayne K. Potts. 2013. Rapid adaptation to mammalian sociality via sexually selected traits. BMC Evolutionary Biology 13:81. Published Version doi:10.1186/1471-2148-13-81 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10465989 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA 1 1 Rapid adaptation to mammalian sociality via sexually selected traits 2 3 Adam C. Nelson1,2,*, Kevin E. Colson2, Steve Harmon3, Wayne K Potts1 4 5 1University of Utah, Department of Biology, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 6 2 Current address: Harvard University, Molecular and Cellular Biology, Cambridge, MA 7 02138 8 2University of Alaska Fairbanks, Institute of Arctic Biology, 902 N. Koyukuk Dr., PO Box 9 757000, Fairbanks, AK 99775 10 3Oklahoma State College of Osteopathic Medicine, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK 74107 11 *Corresponding author 12 13 Adam Nelson: [email protected] 14 Kevin E. Colson: [email protected] 15 Steve Harmon: [email protected] 16 Wayne K Potts: [email protected] 17 18 Keywords: social selection, sexual selection, mate choice, chemical communication, 19 tradeoffs 20 2 21 Abstract 22 Background 23 Laboratory studies show that the sexual selection via mate choice and intrasexual 24 competition can profoundly affect the development and fitness of offspring.
    [Show full text]
  • Karl Marx's Changing Picture of the End of Capitalism
    Journal of the British Academy, 6, 187–206. DOI https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/006.187 Posted 30 July 2018. © The British Academy 2018 Karl Marx’s changing picture of the end of capitalism Master-Mind Lecture read 21 November 2017 GARETH STEDMAN JONES Fellow of the Academy Abstract: This essay examines three successive attempts Marx made to theorise his conception of the ‘value form’ or the capitalist mode of production. The first in the 1840s ascribed the destruction of an original human sociability to the institution of private property and looked forward to its destruction and transcendence in the coming revolution. This vision was shattered by the disenchanting failure of the 1848 revolutions. The second attempt, belonging to the 1850s and outlined in the Grundrisse, attempted to chart the rise, global triumph, and the ultimate destruction of what Marx called the ‘value form’. Its model of global triumph and final disintegration was inspired by Hegel’s Logic. But the global economic crisis of 1857–8 did not lead to the return of revolution. Marx’s disturbed reaction to this failure was seen in his paranoia about the failure of his Critique of Political Economy (1859). Marx’s third attempt to formulate his critique in Das Kapital in 1867 was much more successful. It was accompanied by a new conception of revolution as a transi­ tional process rather than an event and was stimulated by his participation in the International Working Men’s Association and the accompanying growth of cooper­ atives, trade unions, and a political reform movement culminating in the Reform Bill of 1867.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture Coevolution and the Nature of Human Sociality − Gene
    Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 14, 2011 Gene−culture coevolution and the nature of human sociality Herbert Gintis Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2011 366, 878-888 doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0310 References This article cites 64 articles, 15 of which can be accessed free http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1566/878.full.html#ref-list-1 Article cited in: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1566/878.full.html#related-urls Rapid response Respond to this article http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/letters/submit/royptb;366/1566/878 Subject collections Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections behaviour (1807 articles) cognition (452 articles) ecology (2145 articles) evolution (2433 articles) Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top Email alerting service right-hand corner of the article or click here To subscribe to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B go to: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions This journal is © 2011 The Royal Society Downloaded from rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org on February 14, 2011 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2011) 366, 878–888 doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0310 Review Gene–culture coevolution and the nature of human sociality Herbert Gintis1,2,* 1Santa Fe Institute, 1399 Hyde Park Road, Santa Fe, NM 87501, USA 2Central European University, Nador u. 9, 1051 Budapest, Hungary Human characteristics are the product of gene–culture coevolution, which is an evolutionary dynamic involving the interaction of genes and culture over long time periods. Gene–culture coevolution is a special case of niche construction.
    [Show full text]
  • Die Burgkellerbibliothek Oder Progreßbibliothek Der
    Die „Burgkeller-“ oder „Progreßbibliothek“ der Burschenschaft Arminia auf dem Burgkeller-Jena im Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Bestd. DB 9: Deutsche Burschenschaft Gesellschaft für burschenschaftliche Geschichtsforschung e. V. Archiv und Bücherei zusammengestellt und bearbeitet von Peter Kaupp und Harald Lönnecker Frankfurt am Main 2002 Dateiabruf unter: www.burschenschaft.de Die „Burgkeller-“ oder „Progreßbibliothek“ der Burschenschaft Arminia auf dem Burgkeller-Jena im Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Bestd. DB 9: Deutsche Burschenschaft Gesellschaft für burschenschaftliche Geschichtsforschung e. V. Archiv und Bücherei zusammengestellt und bearbeitet von Peter Kaupp und Harald Lönnecker Die „Burgkellerbibliothek“ oder „Progreßbibliothek“ der Burschenschaft Arminia auf dem Burgkeller-Jena entstand in den dreißiger, vierziger und fünfziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts und wurde bis etwa 1930 fortlaufend ergänzt. Die Bibliothek ist die einzig erhaltene einer Burschenschaft aus der Zeit des Vormärz. Die Bibliothek befand sich bis in die 1930er Jahre im „Burgkeller“, einer Gastwirtschaft, in der die Burschenschaft tagte und die sie später kaufte. Während sich ein Großteil des Bestandes seit etwa 1870 durch die Bombardierung Jenas 1945 nicht erhalten hat, wurde der älteste Teil durch die Abgabe an Archiv und Bücherei gerettet. Erleichtert wurde die Trennung dadurch, daß die Bibliothek im numerus currens geordnet war. Dies wurde beibehalten. Die nachstehenden beiden Auflistungen wurden im Juni und Juli 2002 anhand des numerischen Zettelkatologs (zwei Kästen: DBz 1–500 und DBz 501–981), den der Leiter des Archivs und der Bücherei, Dr. Harald Lönnecker, erarbeitete und mir leihweise überließ, erstellt. Die Abschrift erfolgte ohne Format-Angaben. Trotz einiger Sorgfalt sind Fehler nicht ganz auszuschließen. Die Auflistung ist in zwei Teile gegliedert: A. Bestand der Progreßbibliothek der Burschenschaft Arminia auf dem Burgkeller- Jena in numerischer Folge; B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Human Ultra-Sociality
    The Evolution of Human Ultra-sociality Peter J. Richerson Division of Environmental Studies University of California, Davis Davis, California 95616 [email protected] Robert Boyd Department of Anthropology University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California 90024 [email protected] Version 2.01 June, 1997. In press: I. Eibl-Eibisfeldt and F. Salter, eds. Ideology, Warfare, and Indoctrinability. Please do not cite without authors’ permission. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Human sociality in comparative perspective E.O. Wilson (1975) described humans as one of the four pinnacles of social evolution. The other pinnacles are the colonial invertebrates, the social insects, and the non-human mammals. Wilson separated human sociality from that of the rest of the mammals because, with the exception of the social insect like Naked Mole Rats, only humans have generated societies of a grade of complexity that approaches that of the social insects and colonial invertebrates. In the last few millennia, human societies have even begun to exceed, in numbers of individuals and degree of complexity, the societies of ants, termites, and corals. Human social complexity is based on quite different principles than the ultra-sociality of any other species. In all other known cases, the constituent individuals of societies are either genetically identical, as in the colonial invertebrates, or closely related, as in the social insects and non-human mammals. In the prototypical social insect colony, elaborate societies are built around a single reproductive queen, who suppresses the reproduction of workers in the colony. The offspring of the queen are siblings that share many genes in common, and they make up the work force of the colony.
    [Show full text]