0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
An important side to the debate, June 2, 2007
This review is from: Lifelines: Life Beyond the Gene, rev. ed. (Paperback)
Steven Rose has regularly attacked sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, insisting on what he sees as their genetic determinism being a resurrection of eugenics and the road that led to the Holocaust. In 'Lifelines' Rose attempts to present an alternative biology rather than merely being anti- 'ultra-Darwinism'. He does continue to attack the gene's-eye view, mainly the works of Richard Dawkins, while trying himself to present a more holistic biology mixed with Marxism - a developmental dialectic through which the organism constructs itself and its own future.
Rose believes he has a solution to the problem of free-will ie once we take the view that it is in the nature of living systems to be radically indeterminate and organisms are constructing themselves then free-will exists within this process itself. He talks of these processes as 'homeodynamics' and 'autopoiesis'. He argues that Dawkins' view has the problem of needing an immaterial force to rebel against the rule of the genes. Myself, I don't see much difference between the plasticity of Dawkins and Rose.
Rose is first and foremost very anti taking the gene's-eye view. For him it is a reflection of mechanical, industrial capitalism, Hobbesian politics and Adam Smith's economics. He wants this view to be overturned in favor of one which sees the genes as part of a 'harmonious dialectic' and 'cellular symphony'.
Rose does offer some interesting biology concerning brain cells and embryogenesis. He does not deny the competition that goes on, along with cooperation, both within these processes in the body and between organisms and groups of organisms. He also makes important points about epistemology and how our culture affects our thinking. But he also seems to be being deliberately obtuse at times, such as when he talks about the 'dilution' of the original DNA as cells divide and asks what actually is being preserved and transmitted. Rose lacks any appreciation of the information-carrying DNA that survives through time while the bodies that carry it all die - an important appreciation Dawkins has brought to so many of us.
Reading Rose one would think that it is only since Darwin that men have been hating and killing each other. The fact that it is important that we act against racism etc does not mean we have to label any sociobiology/evolutionary psychology works as dangerously eugenic. Rose clearly wants to shoot the messenger. The difference between Rose and Dawkins is not as great as Rose thinks. It is mainly about focus and emphasis and in this respect the focus and emphasis of Rose is an important part of the whole but not something that can succeed in blotting out the gene's-eye view.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No