Constructivism vs Evolutionism

[luiz]

The austrian thinker(he had interest in many areas of knownledge) von Hayek divided all lines of thought in two basic lines: Constructivism and Evolucionism.
While inside both groups there are people who disagree with each other, they all share some basic beliefs.

Here's a brief explanation on the two groups:

Constructivists believe that science can be used to understand all particular facts, and thus those facts can be manipulated and their behaviour can be predicted. Constructivists believe that by using reason one can shape society, since all mecanisms of social behaviour will eventually be discovered. They also believe that human institutions succeed because they are the product of rational decisions. They also believe that all humans act according to some perpetual and rational principles.
Among Constructivist thinkers, Hayek placed Hobbes, Comte, Marx, Lenin and many others.

Evolutionists believe that human institutions exist because of tradition and culture, and not rational decisions. They also believe that human behaviour evolves through time, and are affected by the institutions of where the man lives. Evolucionists belive that mankind will never understand all mecanisms of nature or society, and thus society cannot be shapen. They believe that the greatest flaw of Constructivism is the iddilic illusion, the illusion that some mind may understand all principles of society and therefore know how to "fix" it or re-create it(like Marx thought he could).
Today the name "Evolutionist" is linked to Darwinism, but Evolucionist theory is older then Darwinism. What Darwin did was to apply Evolutionist theorys in biology.
Among the Evolutionist thinkers, Hayek placed Adam Smith, Hume, Burke, Popper and himself.

So I'd like to ask the posters with which group you identify yourselfs more, and why.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

From the descriptions, I would say that, despite my great fondness for Hobbes, I would fall under the Evolutionist category, although I think many aspects of "tradition and culture" are based on what was at the time a semi-rational decision.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
tradition and culture" are based on what was at the time a semi-rational decision.

That is true, and Hayek did not deny it.
Evolutionists believe that reason has a big role in society development, but is not "everything".

 

[carlosMM]

Evolutionist.

clearly.

I admire ideals, and if there is any chance to reach a state closer to 'ideal' than what we have - fine! But believing you can actually reach 'ideal' will depress you in the long run - as you must fail!

 

[wlievens]

When reading (about) works of science, I often discover these so-called dichotomies in a versatile array of domains: continuous/discrete, top-down/bottom-up, vertical/horizontal, intra/extra, feno/geno, nature/nurture, empiriscism/nativism, micro/macro... Especially the last is interesting in a very broad way, as it is an important aspect of evolution and even politics (individual person versus larger society). We often complain about people or ideas being vulgarised into narrow "boxed" categories, but in fact most meta-science is about a binary division in ideologies.

I have found that a lot of these dichotomies (I love that word!) are in fact somewhat equivalent when applied to a certain domain or range of domains.

However, I can't quite make that up, here... and I also can't place myself in one of these two categories... I believe in evolution as a mechanism driving not only biology, but also language, learning, and thought. That places me on the side of Piaget in the Great Debate on Language (Chomsky vs Piaget, for those interested), who believes that there is no "Mentalese" that we use for language conceptualisation.

On the other side, I believe that under every human action, even those of pure emotion, lies some ration; I believe that since we are huge biological computers, all is rational in nature. It's just so complicated, that it sometimes *appears* chaotic.

I love this sort of meta-pseudo-science (or is it pseudo-meta-science?)

 

[wlievens]

Is this the same Hayek that is the Libertarian Icon, or is that another?

 

[sebanaj]

I think he's wrong about placing Marx on the list.

It's about the synthesys of both where the correct should be. Both separated are insufficient.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by wlievens
Is this the same Hayek that is the Libertarian Icon, or is that another?

I didn't know he is a Libertarian Icon, but yes that's him(he supported classic liberalism).

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by sebanaj
I think he's wrong about placing Marx on the list.

What?!?
Marx was the ultimate constructivist!

 

[wlievens]

sebanaj: as is the usual with these kinds of dichotomies.

 

[sebanaj]

" They also believe that human institutions succeed because they are the product of rational decisions. They also believe that all humans act according to some perpetual and rational principles."

No, a man, particularly, don't know when changes are being made, doesn't decide when the forces of production are changing. The decisions of who? The social things out of men, that are there before his birth, and model them. It's hard to explain. Have you read Emile Durkheim or Wright Mills?
I've read Correspondence from Marx to Annenkov, when Marx comment on a Proudhon book, and what Marx says there seem to be different than this definition of Constructivism.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by sebanaj

No, a man, particularly, don't know when changes are being made, doesn't decide when the forces of production are changing. The decisions of who? The social things out of men, that are there before his birth, and model them. It's hard to explain. Have you read Emile Durkheim or Wright Mills?
I've read Correspondence from Marx to Annenkov, when Marx comment on a Proudhon book, and what Marx says there seem to be different than this definition of Constructivism.

I don't think it goes against Marx's beliefs.
He believed that man acted according to perpetual patterns, and proof of this is that he believed that communism was bound to happen, once the working class understood the mecanisms of capitalism(this means that he thought he could predict the action of the working classes of all over the world)
Marx also strongly believe that he could use reason to create a functional society.

 

[cgannon64]

I think I've been leaning towards the Evolutionist viewpoint lately.

The other day it occured to me that everyone is a tool, but no one is really using us. Some exert more power than others, but in the end we cannot shape society.

I made a thread about this a while ago, comparing the human race to a gigantic monster where each cell acts independently, with no mind to organize it.

 

[Vancouver 2010]

1/2 Constructivist, 1/2 Evolutionist.

I wonder if I people would start calling that Vancouver2010ist?

 

[Archer 007]

I dont think either view is compleated correct. Too many variables to make such vague statements.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by cgannon64
The other day it occured to me that everyone is a tool, but no one is really using us. Some exert more power than others, but in the end we cannot shape society.

you just don't see the puppet master is all.

the evolutionary way is how we progress, but it can be influenced and directed.

 

[Dr. Yoshi]

Considering all the crazy things people do everyday I'm leaning more towards the Evolutionist side.

It's very hard to explain something like the Tickle-Me-Elmo madness in the mid-90s using scientific proof.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally posted by luiz


What?!?
Marx was the ultimate constructivist!

well, from what I have read of his writings, he wasn't.

He DESCRIBED a process that he found inevitable, he EXTENDED that into the future and predicted an UNAVOIDABLE result and consequences.

Lenin, OTOH, believed that this Marxian radiant future could be achieved faster by actively working towards it (wrong, buddy, harharhar).

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by carlosMM


well, from what I have read of his writings, he wasn't.

He DESCRIBED a process that he found inevitable, he EXTENDED that into the future and predicted an UNAVOIDABLE result and consequences.

That's correct. But take a closer look at the definition of Constructivism:

Constructivists believe that science can be used to understand all particular facts, and thus those facts can be manipulated and their behaviour can be predicted.

Marx believed that by using reason he could understand all mecanisms of society, discover a perpetual pattern of human behaviour and then predict the final stage of human evolution. That's pretty constructivist.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Originally posted by luiz


That's correct. But take a closer look at the definition of Constructivism:

Constructivists believe that science can be used to understand all particular facts, and thus those facts can be manipulated and their behaviour can be predicted.

Marx believed that by using reason he could understand all mecanisms of society, discover a perpetual pattern of human behaviour and then predict the final stage of human evolution. That's pretty constructivist.

Yes but he also stated that Capitalism is a natural step in the evolution toward Communism. so he is some what evolutionist.