Branching off of my last created post, I will be talking about the last selection framework that aims to navigate societal evolution.
The third and final selection framework defined by Turner and Abrutyn is Marxian Selection and is used as a way to support their theory of Spencerian Selection. Marxian selection identifies the opposition to production and is identified as the marginalized groups that face resource deprivation and therefore lead to negative emotions and possible ideology of revolution. This is the conflict process to the ever-growing organism of society and creates counter ideology from the status quo. Conflict can lead to violence and in the past has led to the downfall of governments and other governing groups in power. Conflict arises from resource deprivation by institutional systems and is recognized as needs being unmet, issues being unaddressed, and an overall sense of subordination or marginalization. Turner and Abrutyn argue that these institutional systems have been able to become more flexible than Marx had originally believed and have created change to their systems in reference to these systems.
Marx projected that institutional systems would not be able to change and that these systems would be too rigid and would not be able to resolve inequality. Considerable efforts have been made to address the systematic oppression that underpins our institutional systems. However, as we develop new theories of evolution, particularly those emphasizing social contexts, it becomes crucial to underscore the power structures that perpetuate the dominance of these institutional systems. The second criticism of the selection is the amount of biological theory to back up evolution. Overall, this is a very useful theory to understand how societies interact with each other but it refrains from getting at the relationship between society and the environment. Our society influences the environment, and one example is the waste generated by capitalistic production. This environmental impact disproportionately affects lower-income neighborhoods and this issue exists at the intersection of Sociology, Ecology, and Biology. The environmental injustice that is created reinforces existing social disparities as lower-income communities bear a higher risk of exposure to harmful wastewater, amplifying the likelihood of health issues. Resulting in healthcare costs that can further deepen the cycle of poverty, perpetuating systemic economic disadvantages, especially among marginalized groups.
The reason I choose to emphasize the biology in my second criticism was to highlight the how in removing biology from the evolutionary discussion we are ignoring a part of something we need to identify. The biology field has been called out on their flaw of having androcentric tendencies—a predominant focus on males and the neglect of understanding females. Other biologists that have criticized biology, assert that this bias relegates women to an afterthought, hindering comprehensive analysis and limiting the scope of scientific research (Gowaty 1992 and Hoquet 2010). In response, a researcher, Zuk, proposes the transformative role feminism could have on biology (2002). They advocate for an objective and unbiased approach that addresses inherent biases within the field. By encouraging researchers to look at and address inherent biases within the field, feminism pushes for a broader and more inclusive understanding of biological phenomena. The acknowledgment and correction of biases can lead to more comprehensive and accurate scientific knowledge.
True crossovers between the disciplines might be hard to navigate due to the number of scholarly arguments discussing evolutionary theory and feminism. Some argue for evolutionary psychology and feminist theory to merge while some argue that feminist theory altogether has already influenced biology enough and there is no need for further assimilation (Ah-King 2007). Despite the roughed-up conversations on how to move forward, there might be room for more advanced research in the future once researchers have learned how to bounce off of each other and pull in different perspectives for different projects that calls for them. Personally I hope to work on various projects and work with other scholars outside of my discipline to call upon new perspectives as we face new issues.
This project allows for the possibility of analyzing evolution in different stages which can possible help identify how to better account for issues such as global warming and other environmental justice issues as it exists at the cross section of society and environment.