From: cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Subject: Relative "fixity" of biology
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 17:59:16 -0500 (CDT)


Eventually, I hope this hodgepodge of topics can be subdivided enough so some
of us can find out where we really disagree and where we agree.

    I assume that (say) 50,000 years ago the protein needs of members of homo
sapiens were the same as they are now; that human metabolism (of which I know
nothing except that others, Lisa for example, do know something) then was the
same as human metabolism now. That the gestation period for human fetuses was 9
months then as it is nine months now. In other words, I assume that for all
practical purposes human biology has remained absolutely the same for 100,000
+/- years. I assume that the "biology" of weeping or blushing then was the same
as now, and that probably onions could have triggered the former, work in the
sun the latter, then as now, while the *social* triggers might have been quite
different then.

    I assume that for millennia, perhaps thousands of millenia, to come, that
biological substance of humans will be the same, and that any social order that
has ever existed or ever will exist will be determined
(limited/constrained/pressured) by that biological nature. No society that
requires a life span of (say) 1000 years will ever exist. No society that
prohibits sexual relations will reproduce itself. On and on. I do not at all
claim that biology is not (in this sense) relevant to history; it is the
absolutely necessary precondition (and continuing condition) of history.

    [For possible later development, on what we might mean by the word
"history." I do not think humanity *has* a history; I think humanity *is* its
history. I would even individualize this: I do not "have" a history; I *am* my
history (this is one of thes reasons doctrines of immortality seem so absurd:
who or what would be immortal? Me today; me 10 days ago?)]

    I go much further than most "western marxists" do in insisting on the
importance of biology: that is of the reality which the intellectual
discipline of biology strives to understand ever more thoroughly. I also
(personally) find the biology and anthropology which Lisa and others study
utterly fascinating. I just, however, believe that the *understanding* of human
social relationships is as sharply divided (and as everlastingly close to) from
biology as the understanding of biology is divided from the understanding of
chemistry. (For another day, I have no strong opinion as to whether analogical
arguments can be made between biology and history: I am skeptical.)

    Also, the arguments I have made in this thread do not really bear on the
topic Howie Chodos raised--of the difference "individuals" make in history. We
need some more precise terminology here, which I don't think is available. So
we will have to stumble along with the term "individual" with the understanding
that it keeps slipping as we use it.

    The suggestion that "I *am* my history" also twists arguments about
environment and how it "influences" one. The flow of serotonin in my neurons is
both me and my "environment"; so at the very least contrasting of "environment"
and "individual" is a messy business.


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------