r
---------------
--
-----------
~
-~
,i:
~
-II
-
FUNCTIONAL MATERIALISM: A
WORKING PAPER
DAVID R. FEENEY
HONORS THESIS
JEROME ULMAN - MENTOR
05/88
.,----_._._.
------------
~
•
•
l
,(\
\I
-<Yf)'-O
-rhc.'-->"J
LD
-)H 3"
• Z-'1
J
OUTLINE for
• 1= 't'l
•
FUNCTIONAL MATERIALISM: A WORKING PAPER
,
•
1) Introduction
to
Functional
Materialism
A) Dimensions of Functional Materialism
1) Selection By Consequences
2) Materialistic Ontology
3) Investigation of Functional Relations
4) Levels of Interrelated Selection
5) Commitment to Non-Reductionistic ("Conceptually
Telescoping") Units of Analysis
6) Functional Analysis ("Unification") of Scientific Behavior
and It's Products
2) An
Overview of the
Sciences;
Toward a
(f't: ;:;
Leye]s of Complexity of the
Science of Culture
A) Biology. "The Informative Gene"
1) "Selfish Genes" and Assertions of Genetic Consciousness
2) Sociobiology and Genetic Determinism
3) The Problem of "the Metaphor of Storage"
4) The Problem of Reductionism
A) Psychology- "The Struggle for Science"
1) Idealism:
a) Dualism and Cognitivism
2) Materialism: Two Orientations
a) Mechanistic Materialists: cognitivist, structuralist,
developmentalist, methodological behaviorist
b) Se1ectionists: Radical Behaviorists
1) The problem of Reductionism
Life
3) Anthropology and A Natural Science of Culture
A) Idealism:
I) Harris' psycholinguistics within his
Cultural Materialism as "cultural dualism"
B) Materialism: Two Orientations
I) Mechanistic Materialism: Harris' Cultural Materialism
2) Selectionism: Historical Materialism & Functional Materialism
Conclusion:
Science of Culture as New Frontier of Science
•I
II
--
~
-.
----II
•
ABSlRACf:
The methodological strategies and tactics of behavior analysis have met
with great success toward establishing a natural science of behavior within
modern psychology. The experimental analysis of behavior has established
a rigorous factual base on which a resulting technology of behavior is
founded. These technological successes, which shore up the conceptual and
philosophical position called Radical Behaviorism, are functionally related
to our insistence upon natural science research methods appropriate to our
field, namely, the complex interaction between organism and environment
under the causal mode of selection by consequences.
However, behavior does not occur in a vacuum, but in the material
context of regional, national, and international cultural practices.
In
response, several behavior analysts are calling for the same natural science
orientation with which to establish a natural science of culture.
It is widely agreed that cultural selection is not amenable to an
"analysis by extrapolation"
from the level of operant selection, just as
behavior analysts balk at attempts to analyze and explain behavior by
extrapolation from the level of natural selection. Concerned behavior
analysts have entered into an interdisciplinary collusion with
anthropologists whose methods are comparable to the natural science
methodology inherent in a science of behavior.
Jerome Ulman, in a timely attempt at clarification and synthesis, has
proposed a natural science framework within which a non-reductionistic
science of culture may be, in time, achieved. This conceptual analysis ,
called Functional Materialism , is a wide-ranging theoretical and ontological
position which, we feel, will be the milestone with which not only the rising
science of culture will be guided, but also the student of disciplines
concerned with sciences whose subject matter is amenable to selection by
consequences.
r
~
I
!j
I
I
I
I
-I
I
•
•
,-
1) An
Introductjon.
At this material point in history, a natural science of cultural
selection
is
recognized
analysis
and
by
without,
Since
my
involvement
year
and
a
half
advancements
as
many
a
with
ago,
toward
necessary
the
science
-
of
and
of
within
behavior
possible
discipline.
behavior
dialogue
culture
based
roughly
pertaining
upon
a
to
natural
science methodology have been increasing, and with good reason.
While
1986;
it
is
acknowledged
Skinner,1981)
that
a
within
behavior
science
of
analysis
culture
is
(Glenn,
eminently
possible, the form, scope, and methods of such a science are far
from
agreed upon.
Three
broad
positions
within
behavior
analysis
seem
to
be
appearing in relation to the question of a science of culture.
Some
treatise
behavior
Selection
analysts,
influenced
By Consequences
by
Skinner's
(Skinner,
1981)
landmark
agree
that
cultural selection is of a higher level of organizational complexity
than
operant
selection.
with
anthropologists
They
whose
seek
anthropological
tradition
research
whose
research
(Johnston & Pennypacker,
rate
uninterested
precise
is
in
measurement,
an
interdiscipinary
methodological
are complementary to our own.
I
I
and
science
debate
a
scientists,
of
obtaining
prediction,
strategies
Unfortunately, much of modern
the
methods
) or
research
collusion
are
prevalent,
can
be
frankly
functional
and
control
"social
termed
science"
vag an otic
idealistic;
relations
of
the
at any
vis-a.vis
variables
,, -
they
study.
recognized
Certain
as
notable .exceptions
"paradigms"
by
have
prevailed
behavior analysts
within
to
which
be
a
natural science of culture may develop. These will be discussed in
greater
detail
below.
These behavior analysts, guided for the most part by S e Ie c t jon
rightly
J!...LCQDseguences,
appropriate to the
reinforcement)
survival)
that
the
units
of analysis
level of operant selection (the contingency of
or the
would
realize
level
be
of natural
inappropriate
selection
for
an
(contingencies
analysis
of
of
cultural
selection.
I say "for the most part"
because there are behavior analysts
(see Rakos, 1987) who have proposed that the facts obtained by a
science
of
behavior
may
suffice
as
an
explanation
of
cultural
selection by simply applying an analysis of behavior "writ large".
This
"other
camp",
while
technology
interference
of
of a science
behavior
of persistent,
rendered
unforeseen
and
the
the
position of the applied behavior analyst in the field
the
illustrate
in
"pragmatic"
without the explicit findings
to
represented
literature,
finds
serve
well
theoretical
who,
may
less
practical,
of culture, often
less
effective
uncontrollable
by
cultural
variables.
In fact,
selection,
the
the majority of
such
above
as
previous attempts to explain cultural
sociobiology,
position in
that
(Wilson,
they attempt
cultural selection strictly by employing
levels of lesser complexity.
behavior
and
contingencies
individual.
cultural
culture
of
In
selection
is
case
of
is regarded
analogous
and
units of analysis
analyzed
of
are
to analyze
In the case of
survival
the
1978)
sociobiology,
strictly
in
genetic
material
much
applied
behavior
simply as
the operant
explain
used in
human
terms
the
to
of
of
the
analysis,
selection of
individual
repertoires
exhaustively
The
by
contingencies
scenario
individually
survival
or
of persons
of
.
together"
groups
the
contingencies
groups,
seemingly
of reinforcement
large
as
in
sole
of
of
controlled
alone.
organisms
function
of
reinforcement
"behaving
contingencies
seems
unlikely,
of
but
explanations of this type do have a precedented history.
Explanations of phenomena at the level of cultural selection (if
indeed
one
heirarchy
does
of
accept
the
organizational
basic
tenets
complexity
Consequences;
of
an
interrelated
of organisms
some
radical
as
pointed
out in Select jon
By
behaviorists
do
not) employing
units of analysis used to investigate lower levels
of complexity is broadly termed reductionism
Normally eschewed
by radical
behaviorists
the notion of "explaining away"
lower level
of complexity,
(be
who
would
balk at
behavior strictly in terms of a
it
the
level
of natural
selection,
such as construing behavior as functions of genetic control, or the
more irritating practice of reducing all events under selection by
consequences
or
to
rudimentary
"extrapolationism"
explain cultural
It
seems
culture"
is
selection,
clear
to
methods
phenomena
their
in
in
a
built
author
an
in
any
(and
to
just
reductionism
the
some radical
attempt
the
to
behaviorists.
"natural
will be constructed
right,
theoretical
upon
theme
that
appropriate
own
behavior in it's own right.
be
common
tact
natural-science
{Capra,1986})
even among
the
worthy of the
continue
a
physics
from
study
science
of
just those
of
cultural
as
radical
behaviorists
cultural)
struggle
to
analyze
That a science of culture must be built
evolutionary
and
non-reductionistic
would seem to be apparent to any radical
framework
behaviorist worthy of
the tact as well.
The
overall
point of this
introduction
is that
we,
as
radical
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
behaviorists,
should
have
the
conceptual
science of culture a necessity.
acknowledge
that
the
science of behavior
apparatus
to
declare
a
We should also have the ability to
dimensions
of
radical
behaviorism
as
a
cannot subsume the dimensions of a science
of culture.
What
seems
to
be
interdisciplinary
produce
a
alliances
technology
has
a
is
not
anthropology,
which
science
cultural
in the world.
provided
juncture
with
toward
of
this
with
framework
cultural context
behavior
at
collusion
natural-science
methodological
needed
of
selection
to
only
an
but
a
guide
culture
our
which
applicable
to
can
any
While the experimental analysis of
behavior
analysts
with
a
solid
empirical
base on which to ground their technology and ensuing conceptual
positions
regarding
the
behavior
of the
individual
organism,
we
have yet to meet the challenge of analyzing the material cultural
contexts that hermetically envelops all of us, as scientists and as
individuals.
Without such a framework for continuing analysis,
scientists
cannot
hope
variables
which
control
to
investigate
the
culture
and
control
of which
those
they
powerful
have
become
such an integral part.
I
believe
that
Functional
Materialism
is
just
that
comprehensive framework.
,
I
*
!
I
I
I
I
Functional
position
materialism
resulting
natural-science
control
of
conceptual
from
research
consequences,
and
is
a
conceptual
a
careful
strategies
in
order
methodological
synthesis
involvingt
to
and
of
events
ascertain
dimensions
philosophical
sucessful
under
the
toward
the
necessary
a
natural
,
~
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-~
science
of cultural selection.
!
j
Far
from
.natural
an
esoteric
piatform
science
necessary
and
philosophy,
generic
whose
requirements
functional
materialism
dimensions
for
includes
establishing
not
a
the
only
a
firm empirical base on which to build a science of culture, but
also
a
comprehensive
dealing
strive
with
events
statement
under
the
of
what
control
any
of
research
method
consequences
should
for.
In short, functional materialism is at once an analysis of those
methods
most
successful
in
wresting
knowledge
from
the
levels
of natural and operant selection, and a fertile application of that
analysis
toward
evaluation
of
necessary to establish a natural
That
science
a
multidiscplinary
of cultural
multidisciplinary
to
multidisciplinary
collusion
science of culture.
research
selection
approach
the
is
the
strategy
highlighted
study
of
is
by
necessary
for
a
the
for
a
selection
in
operant
the current literature of behavior analysis.
As Epstein (JAB A vol. 10, no. 1, p.128) states:
,
,
is
" A true science of behavior must be
multidisciplinary
. • . because behavior is
a complex subject matter that requires the
joint efforts of individuals in many
specialties,
both
to
advance
our
understanding and to
devise
effective
treatment. . . it is not folly to think
t hat
individuals of different specialties can be
brought together to build a new science;
it
is folly to
think that the handful of
scientists who now study
beha vior in
almost a dozen different disciplines can
advance our understanding significantly."
calls
r-----
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
While Epstein speaks not of a new science of cultural selection
his remarks are timely.
but of an expanded science of behavior,
Considering
the
phenomena
markedly
increased
to
comparable
multidisciplinary
approach
complexity
seem
cultural
phenomena,
operant
would
of-
be
to
a
a
foregone
conclusion.
However,
my
multidisciplinary
operant
own
remarks
research
selection
as
asserting
approach to
well)
the
need
for
a
selection
(and
to
construed
as
an
cultural
should
not
be
affirmation of a separation of behavior analysis into a
"praxics"
events
cultural
profit
Any discipline which studie.s those
or "behaviorology".
under
control
selection)
from
consequences
of
deals
proper
with
complex
multidisciplinary
already applied (i.e. fields such as
To
the
functional
ineffectiveness"
behavior
to
relieved
by
the
a
op.cit.)
surrounding
proposed
rigorous
examination
variables
of which
the
research
operant,
which
and
would
strategies,
if
not
ecology within biology).
in
culture
"agony
will
the
not
cleavage,
eventual
impotence
the
applying
disciplinary
and
(natural,
phenomena
materialist,
(Epstein,
proposed
of
our
our
technology
be
but
control
of
of
of
appreciably
only
those
applied
by
the
cultural
science
is
a
function.
While
selection
a
multdisciplinary research
is certainly necessary,
science
of
myriad
of
culture
existing
assumptions,
many
research
present-day
uneventful
to
in
their
be
it would
simply
sciences
strategy
strategies
"joint
a
of
be
consequent
disciplines
of
attempt
analyze
selection
and
to cultural
enough
effort"
selection.
and
to
not
relating
The
for
the
between
the
ontological
techniques
of
have
proven
control
relevant
variables
toward
benificient,
practical
applications.
Many of these "sciences" are frankly uninterested in the contol
of
their
subject
obtaining
matter
functional
and
Complex
often
remain
structures
experimental
(much
control
modern
relations
within
idealistic
(and
intact
extended
and
unknown
or
so
"methodological idealism"
is
to
their
necessary
which
science
mostly
or
in
matter.
theoretical
divorce
from
and
the
a
natural
to
it is generally the case that
variables
unknowable
subject
control
feedback
to
their
of
If control is acknowledged,
is
anthropology)
solipsistic)
lieu
in
testing
validation/disconfirmation
science.
of
the
exist
in
dimensions
(" minds").
case
with
While
comtemporary
social science at the level of operant and cultural selection, it is
by
no
means
limited
concerning
genetic
sciences
selection,
of
to
these
levels,
"conciousness"
while
as
recent
attests.
proposing
a
Many
materialism
hides
many
attempted
materialistic
neglects or refutes the causal mode of selection
as relevant to their subject matter.
speculation
ontology,
by consequences
This sort of "billiard ball"
methodological
problems
while
attempting a patina of "hard science".
Many of the disciplines of psychology and anthropology which
espouse a materialistic ontology
do so within the "paradigm" of
classical
mode
mechanics,
a
causal
which
is
awkward
essentially unfit to be used to investigate organisms.
and
In fact, it
has also proven to be of a limited value to scientists who study
the abiotic world of physics, with the rise of quantum mechanics
to
exp lain
within the
Radical
the
essentially
"counterintuitive" ,
illogical
phenomena
physical universe, such as the dual nature of light.
behaviorism
"quantum
could
mechanics"
be
of
construed
the
life
as
an
sciences
application
of
·selection
by
r
l
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
l
~
consequences-to the
comparable
to
evolutionary
revolutionary
application.
The fact
toward
that a
a
science
methodology
is
consequences
has
both
the
considered
relation
by
The
of
culture
is
"cheating
the
insistence
the
evidence";
proven so successful as a
sciences of biology
and
behavior
functional
to this essentially
necessary dimension of functional
not
materialism
on
selectionist
selection
research
that
it
by
strategy in
seems
highly
improbable that the collectivities of organisms will escape it.
fact,
it
the
selectionist
scientist
the
insistence
materialism
toward
necessary
for
of
that
alliegence
natural
the
functional
will,
hopefully,
with
those
science
of
materialist
guide
the
and
a
on
a
behavior
anthropological
culture
In
aspects
consequent
technology.
There is more to be considered than multidisciplinary collusion
in
our
initial
practical
that is
attempts
advantage
functional
disciplines
with
in
categorizing
the
to
which
order
I
of
the
to
a
science
synthesis
materialism
pertaining
cooperate
toward
of
guidelines
have
,
are
be in direct functional
materialism
J
J
biology,
materialists to
science
I
behavior of organisms.
practical successes of the science of behavior, limited as they are
J
i
level of the
is
the
with
The
generic
much
and
behavioral
proceed
to
positions
offer
life-science
prescriptive
assessment
the
cultures.
of
of culture.
a
evaluation
scientist
is
expressed
by
of it's
of
compelled
non-reductionistic,
terms
great
methodology
content
dimensions
in
A
of
of
to
natural
functional
analyzing
various
the
and
disciplines
already involved with the study of cultures. (or the study of any
phenomenon under the control of
of
functional
cultures
materialism
which,
united
allow
with
consequences)
us
to
extant
seek
The dimensions
out
sciences
of
that
study
biology
of
and
behavior,
may
give
us a
comprehensive
account of the
variables
that effect and control all spheres of the selection of organisms.
That
the
task
contemporary
another
of
classification
anthropology
foregone
is
a
and
large
critical
one
evaluation
would
seem
to
of
be
conclusion.
To paraphrase
Skinner in About
Behayjorjsm,
how much of
what has been said, pertaining to culture, is worth saving?
The
Djmensjons
1) SelectioD
By
of Functional
Materialism
Consequences
For an emerging science of culture to be integral with behavior
analysis and
biological science,
methodological
from
the
Far
from
strategies
evolutionary
being
consequences
is
it's basic assumptions and overt
must
approach
framework
a
of
disciplinary
viewed
as
a
cultural
selection
vital
starting
It is a
anthropological
by
firmly
It
selectionist
in
their
is the crucial
functional
view
of the
selection
point
in
by
the
necessity that those
behavior
analysts
phenomenon
they
be
study.
notion of selectionism that separates the
materialist
anthropological
consulted
consequences.
afterthought,
construction of a science of culture.
positions
by
phenomena
conception
investigations)
(Glenn, 1987, Malagodi,
from
of
culture
other
(and
ensuing
behavior
analysts
) who favor Marvin Harris' treatment of
the same phenomena, referred to as cultural materialism.
An
implicit
thesis
within
materialist thought has
the
presentation
of
functional
been the assertion of the integral nature
of historical materialism, or the
Marxist science of history,
the
analysis.
overall
within
our
tenets
of
capitalist
behavior
culture
things connected with it,
are
taught
While
to
many
disdain
with
persons.
Marxism
or
(we certainly aren't routinely rewarded
•
r
for
such
investigation)
materialists
who
are
the
indeed
assertions
those
historical
toward
explaining
material framework,
•
Unfortunately, those
but in a
materialist
of
tend
cultural phenomena not only in a
selectionist framework as well.
anthropologists
materialist
who
are
both
historical
materialist
and
selectionist are few, as are those psychologists who are explicitly
materialist
and
we
However,
"historical"
history"
as
recorded
more
that
have
history,
is
construed
the
revealed
by
materialism
as
cultural
suffices
problems
which
behaviorists
radical
with
basically
non-selectionist
analagous
to
the
of
familiar,
methodological
materialist
is
there
are
applied
to
to
certain
materialism,
stems
of
much
reasons
which
treatment
in
selectionist
for
cultural
materialism
non-selectionist
functional
that
Harris'
cultures
to
materialism,
say
expressed
research)
amenable
to
are
of
(where
governing
relations,
historical
Harris'
It
"laws
development
and
methodological
The
not
historical
integral
is
later.
characteristic
"good"
governed
as
expansive,
given
that
statements of generic functional
methodology than
be
feel
materialism
but
laws,
selectionist.
from
of
a
cultures,
human
behavior
behaviorism.
insistence
on
selection
by
consequences as the "paradigm of choice"
for
the biotic sciences
allows
life
science
a
comprehensive
evaluation of any
who
deals
with a subject matter under the control of consequences, not only
as a
. to
proscriptive measure in dealing
evaluate
although
positions
biology
is
espoused
almost
by
universally
with anthropology,
the
biological
selectionist.
but also
community,
r
~
I
~
2) Materjalistjc
Perhaps
it
is
Ontology
needless
•
to
functional
materialism
I
I
I
ontological
basis
~
variables is explicitly negated
I
for
say,
is
the
scientific
(dualism)
or
terms.
investigation
the
the
world.
dimension
of
a ' materialist
of
confrontable
or
The toleration of
idealism
by the functional
of non-material
within
any
materialist in no
content
as
extant
by both classical mechanics in it's
abiotic
consequences as applied
on
unadulterated
Assumptions
of
integral
insistence
in
level of selection is rejected
uncertain
an
investigation
potentially confrontable objects
quasi·idealism
but
world,
and
by
selection
by
to biotic organisms.
Obviously, at this stage in the science of behavior, idealism is
J
~
explicitly
as
a
rejected
waste
materialism
as
both
an
untenable
of methodological
time.
seem
only
to
be
the
theoretical
Classical
extant
position
and
causal
and
selectionist
modes,
and
~
selection is gaining more and more ground in explaining what was
J
seems
~
originally
explained
another
culture
appeal
foregone
should
idealistic
by
exploit
to
essentially
conclusion
these
that
causal
mystic
a
forces.
natural
modes
to
the
It
science
of
exclusion
of
accounts.
However, it is important to note that the abiotic and biotic
world
are
not
quantitatively
functional
A
social
nature
scientific
up It
and
interrelated
"webs"
possibly
of
classify
that
spheres,
whole
but
consisting
a
qualitatively
of
extremely
and
complex
between the two.
more
cultures
Not e boo k s
separate
fertile
science
as
strategy
and
variables
the
many
the
is
to
verbal
affecting
world.
intrinsic
explore
behavior
the
Skinner
conflicts
the
way
has
of
essentially
produced
cultures
remarked
science
by
.. carve
in
could
his
be
r
resolved with an analysis of the verbal behavior of the
scientist,
which is admittedly a cultural phenomena to be addressed
science
of
culture.(see
discussion of
Hackenberg,
1985
for
an
by a
enlightening
the verbal behavior of cultures and it's effect upon
science). The
biotic and abiotic
vacuums but
worlds
do not exist in separate
are delineated by natural fracture lines which may
seem, at first or even second glance, as running counter to logic.
While
selectionism and
research
as
to
in
the
biotic
whether
materialism are necessary for
sciences,
some
current
an
interesting
debates
at
question
the
level
adequate
is
raised
of subatomic
physics (debates that tend to assert that the localized causality of
Newtonian
science
fails
because
of
an
inferred" conscious
content" on the part of individual particles-see Fritjof Capra's
Tao of Physjcs)
resorting
cases,
to
could be resolved by exploring the possibility of
selection
thus
~
sparing
by
consequences
materialism
to
from
explain
reduction
these
to
abiotic
"subatomic
idealism"
At
any
rate,
the
conflicts
that
have
mechanics should be able to be resolved
cultural
and
selective
variables
at
arisen
in
subatomic
by exploring either the
work
on
the
scientist,
or
possibly the assertion that certain areas of the abiotic world are
also
amenable
explanatory
to
A natural
the
methods
of
science
search
dependent
for
variables.
is
by
consequences.
No
idealistic
framework need be resorted to in either case.
3) Inyestjgation
in
control
not
Functional
of culture
functional
The
complete
Relations
would
relations
insistence
without
be
intrinsically
between
upon
utilizing
interested
independent
appropriate
these
methods
and
research
toward
r
prediction
~ontrol
and
of
the
phenomena
under
investigation,
namely cultural selection.
No adequate technology can stem from
just
but
proper
assumptions,
cultures,
past
relations
between
cultures
and
present,
gross
only
from
and
the
own
careful
observance
environmental
effects upon it's
the
situations
of
and
development, and
study
of
functional
culture,
of the
of
relations
of cultures upon cultures.
The
problems
relatively
slow
posed
rate
by
of
the
largeness
change,
may
of cultures,
present
and
problems
their
for
the
cultural scientist, similar to the problems dealt with by biologists
and
behavior
As
noted
analysts.
by
Ulman,
(1987,
in
press)
the
gross
nature
of
classes of cultural phenomena, literally s II [[OU n d in 1,! the observer
of that culture, presents a
the
problem that is directly analagous to
problem of private events in a
natural science
of behavior.
The problem is not essentialy that the events we wish to observe
are private, but
at the other end of the spectrum. The events we
wish to observe are public, but they are much larger than public
events;
they
are
"megapublic"
events
which,
like
private
events,
do not avail to easy examination or observation.
As private events can be felt only by that person inside their
own
skin,
behavior.
observed
observe
own)
they
provide
a
problem
for
a
natural
science
of
Some classes of cultural events or trends are not easily
because
the
no
one
megapublic
without resorting
disseminate
both
person
events
to
verbal
in
any
of any
technological
behavior
and
culture
culture
may
(including
prostheses
the
directly
with
products
their
which
of
to
verbal
behavior, such as print, electronic and video media.
Unaided
verbal
behavior
(word-of-mouth)
dissemination of cultural facts,
may
suffice
for
the
as it did before the invention of
~
..
..
-II
II
II
II
•
-•
•
-..
II
!
the
above
prostheses,
but
this
awkward
observation would be as useful to
of culture
as
whiskey
would
and
slow
method
of
a contemporary, global science
be
to
the
contemporary
science of
anesthesiology.
It
is
interesting
problems.
note
Individuals
come to know
their
to
social
the
observe
essential
their
similarity
own
private
of
these
events,
but
and control these events mostly as a function of
and
verbal
communities.
Individuals
observe
events inside of their own culture and possibly of other cultures,
but mostly we have been able to extend our
knowledge of our
own culture and others through verbal behavior, mediated as it is
through
It
technological
is,
of
course,
self-control in
individual(s)
prostheses.
much
individuals
easier
than
the ability to
for
for
the
community
communities
to
to
instill
extend
to an
been done, and technological prostheses have played a
in
it,
hence
century.
the
term
However,
"information",
disseminate
but
"Information
it
is
cultures
relevant
verbal
Age"
applied
not
an
"age"
which
use
technological
behavior and
it's
by
megapublic
assessment.
Like
the
events
radical
and
the
last
manipulates
prostheses to
products.
their
behaviorist
large part
to
which
The functional materialist does not despair over
posed
It has
predict and control cultures.
the problems
observation
treatment
of
and
private
events, we need not declare the observation of megapublic events
a
methodological
phenomenon
impossibility,
which
technological
may,
prostheses,
be
but
with
made
as
the
a
potentially
utilization
observable
of
proper
observable.
Just as blood circulation was once a private event, which has
since
been
neither
made
treat
public
megapublic
by
technological
events
as
prosthetics,
inaccessible
to
we
analysis
need
nor
r
•II
explain them away with a popular explanatory fiction.
As private
events
from
will
eventually· yield
to
a
rigorous
analysis
the
;
il
II
il
II
II
i
I.
I.
•,.
I.
•II
i.
I
'I.I
•
,
i
neurophysiologist,
so
too
will
megapublic
events
yield
to
the
technological prostheses of a science of culture.
It is actually the case that mega public events should be easier
to
assail
radio,
with conventional technology of media
telephone,
telegraph,
print)
sciences of behavior and biology.
than
(satellites,
private
events
video,
in
the
All that is needed is the control
of these means of observation toward concise data with which to
construct functional
relations which is, of course,
problematic in
the context of our current culture.
While the above assumes that the
culture will
come from
contemporarily
studies
with
or
cultures,
jus.t
as
behavior
analysis.
analysis of cultures
historically
humans
in
main data of a science of
precisely
groups
laboratory
may
"in the field"
controlled
accentuate
experimentation
However,
I
am
not
the
is
well
both
laboratory
science
of
the
basis
of
versed
in
the
experimental analysis of behavior (yet!) and know nothing of the
parameters
of
such
experimentation.
However,
such
a
seems plausible, and should not be abandoned a priori.
the
current
controlled
Walden Two experimental
field
experiments,
as
I
communities
think
is
the
strategy
In fact ,
may
stated
serve as
goal
of
Communidad Los Horcones.
I
would
assume,
however,
that
a
natural
science
of culture
must derive its' data primerily from the phenomena it deals with
the material global cultural context as revealed both by historical
and current data.
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4)
Qf
Leyels
In Select jon
Interrelated
SelectioD
Consequences,
By
Skinner
characterizes
the
organizational complexity of organismic functions as a criteria for
delineating
that
levels
these
viewpoint
of selection.
levels
is
were
crucial
not
to
Skinner
separate,
the
stressed
but
functional
in
that
article
interrelated.
This
material
view
of
the
development of a science of cultures in that it must exploit the
conceptual
clarity
inherent
in
the
selectionist view of the
world as consisting of integrated levels of selection.
biotic
Not only will
this view lead the cultural scientist toward exhaustive account of
his phenomena including the standpoints of biology and
but
it can
help
extrapolationism
scientists
which
in
any
comes
biotic
from
discipline
neglecting
other levels of selection.
Certainly,
the
being
selection
could
interrelated
communication
attempts
at
through
throughout
progressive
those
in
all
to
the
avoid
avail
of
sciences
interdisciplinary
leading
areas,
the
evidence
view of biotic
sciences,
research
behavior,
to
cooperative
including
cultural
selection.
It
and
also goes to say that while
cultural
selection
interrelatedness
considerable
study
of
. culture)
example
reminds
overlap
those
and
are
us
the levels of natural, operant,
exhaustive,
of two
things;
insistence
that
on
there
their
may
be
as
the
the
content
areas
(such
biological
variables
which
affect
behavior
there
be
that
of such
cultures interacing
a
between
the
may
subset
is
the
subsets
within
particular
each
selective
with other cultures, within the
of cultural selection itself.
level.
process
and
An
of
broader arena
r
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
5} Commitment
Each
Noo-RedyctjoDjstjc
science at each
interest
arena
to
in
it
it's
own
deals
with.
exclusionary
level of cultural
unit of analysis
As
was
application of the
complexity
explain
to
complexity
is
functional
materialism
research
of analysis
at
the
at
for
strict
one
higher
a
vested
the
and
level
level
of
of
It is a general precept of
reductionism
strategy for
has a
suited
above,
phenomena
the
that
selection
mentioned
unit
of Analysjs
particularly
reductionism
termed
unproductive
Units
a
is
an
unneccesary
natural science
and
,
!
f
of selection,
be it biology, behavior, or culture.
Few, if any,
effectively
biologists would accept that biology could be as
explained
by
a
reduction
of
complex
cellular
organic activity to the level of chemisty or physics.
of the
basic
behavior
tenets
cannot
be
of behavior
analysis
reduced
variables
to
within the skin of the organism, be
appeal
to
mental
(such
as
reducing
genetic material
The
agents
and
the
behavioral
is
they
man")
to
materialist
wishes
to
explanations of culture with the same fervor.
(Ulman,
. unit
to
1987
of
the
lie
causes
of
intrinsically
(such as an
or
mechanistic
neurophysiology
or
simpliciter ).
functional
commitment
the
idealistic
"inner
events
As well, one
that
that
and
non-reductionistic,
in
press)
or
of
reductionist
What is needed is a
"conceptually
units of analysis
contingency
eschew
akin
reinforcement
to
telescoping"
the
functional
within
behavior
analysis.
In a major theoretical breakthrough, Sigrid Glenn has proposed
a
unit
of analysis,
the
metacontingency
extends the contingency of reinforcement
of reinforcement,
to a
which
cultural level and
i
I
r
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
-I
I
I
I
-~
I
should
allow
a
functional
analysis
of cultures
As proposed in the article Metacontingencies
Analysts
and
elaborated
upon
in
the
Practices
(Glenn, 1987),
proceed
while
in
Walden
Two
1986)
and
processes.
positing no new behavioral
(Behavio~
to
Social
article
Action
yerbal
Journal,
Behayior
and
Cyltural
the metacontingency of reinforcement is
functionally
defined as such;
". . .the metacontingency is the unit of
analysis describing the functional relation
between a class of operants having its own
immediate, unique consequence, plus a long
term consequence common to all of the
operants in the metacontingency".
Ulman proposes the use of this new unit of analysis to begin
the analysis
of institutions, classes, and
a functional
materialist viewpoint.
With
this
building
a
new
unit
science
of
of analysis,
culture
ultimately
we ·may
along
the
now
cultures
from
proceed
with
lines
listed
necessary
above, by being able to take into account the long-term, cultural
consequences
In
that
her
further
reinforcement
relates
"the
the
and
cultural
between
focus
of
between
behavior
analytic
that
view
(relating
consistent
principle
'infrastructural
1986,
rule
governed
and
paper
with
to
is
selection
1987),
of
Glenn
operants as
and
cultural
Cultural Practices, 1987)
the
verbal
the
metacontingency
(Glenn
behavioral
same
is
selection.
the
and
Behayior
practices-df)
of
on
selection
of verbal
(Glenn, yerbal
Another
cultural
expositions
importance
link
selection".
characterize
key
assertion
behavior
Cultural
that
and
"the
cultural
Materialist
determinism "'.
The Cultual Materialist view of which Glenn speaks is the view
held by Marvin Harris as mentioned above.
materialist holds essentially a
While the functional
cultural materialist viewpoint, it is
I
:1
:1
i
l
il
II
not the Cultural Materialism espoused by Harris, for reasons to be
discussed
Also,
while functional
I
materialism is
in complete agreement as
to the importance of verbal operant behavior in the analysis of
cultures,
we
we
neither assert
wis h
to
"infrastructural determinism",
become
methodological· psycho linguistic
Cultural
jl
below.
Materialism
be
(for
embroiled
problems
the
remainder,
in
th e
by
Harris'
Harris'
Cultural
while
"cultural
will
materialism"
will stand for the generic stance of treating cultural
II
to
in
Materialism
phenomena in a
referred
presented
nor do
capitals,
materialistic manner).
Non·reductionistic
units
of
analysis
for
each
level
of
I
,~
I
'I
II
•I
-~
~
evolutionary
the
complexity
functional
are
a
materialist
asserts
reduction
of
a
qualitatively
selection
to
a
lower
problematic
events
is
tempting,
either
behavioral
and
level
consequences.
since
events
concrete
of
is
complexity
cultural
their
strategy
necessary
quantitatively
Reducing
or
research
cultural
events
are
products.
to
avoid
higher
and
which
level
the
of
the
ensuing
to
operant
events
"cashed
out"
However,
functional materialist agrees with Glenn when she states:
. . .we might consider cultural processes as
red ucible to behavioral processes.
As
behavior analysts, though, we sould be wary
of such logic.
We have long resisted the
attempts of others to consider behavioral
processes as nothing more than organismic
processes simply because behavioral events
are comprised of the activities of organisms.
If we accept as a working hypothesis that
cultural and behavioral evolution represent
different
levels
of
analysis,
we
may
consider cultures as having their own
contingencies of selection. (Glenn, 1986)
as
the
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6) Functional Analysis of Scientific Behavior and It's Products
Another
implicit
dimension
of functional
materialism
is
the
necessity of a functional analysis of the essentially socially based
behavior of the scientist, including
a
consequent
behavior
functional
(technology)
Aside
from
analysis
and
it's
providing
a
special verbal
of
the
products
ensuing social
rigorous
behavior, and
of
scientific
ramifications.
account
of
the
cultural
influences on the behavior of the scientist , a science of culture
must investigate the controlling cultural relations
such
behavior, and
applications
Any
of
real
cultural relations
which
which control
maintain
the
use
and
technology.
allieviation
technology toward
of our
"impotence"
in
benificient ends is hampered
of controlling cultural relations
using
behavior
by our ignorance
which surround the
research and
development of the science of behavior.
While
and
radical
political
behaviorists
variables
in
acknowledge
the
development
the
effects
of
science
application of effective technology (See Malagodi,
and
Pennypacker,
the
benefits
of
of
social
and
and Johnston
1980), it is no longer enough to assume
effective
technology
will
the
eventually
that
persuade
a
culture to adopt and use that technology, or use it for appropriate
ends.
While it may have been the case that in previous ages,
. revolutionary
persecution
scientific
until
discoveries
benificient
argument can be made that the
was
proportional
to
the
were
technologies
met
with
arose,
sustained
a
plausible
acceptance of those discoveries
usefulness
of
the
technologies
controlling institutions within the culture of the
time.
to
the
Through
history,
examples
abound
wherein
to use within cultures to fulfill
scientific
discoveries
are
put
punitive and socially questionable
ends, most notably the nuclear proliferation of the last 40 years
When
their
scientists
behavior
assert
that
(technology)
the
control
should
rest
of the
with
products
themselves,
of
they
point up the need for an analysis of the material cultural context
in which this (and other) productive behavior occurs, namely, in
a cultural context where the products of productive behavior are
often expropriated from
those who produce them for the benefit,
not of the culture as a whole, but to serve the interest of certain
controlling institutions or classes within the culture.
It
is
interesting
technology"
to
rationale
note
has
that
been
the
"cultural
mainly
seen
in
acceptance
via
terms
the
of
abiotic sciences and of the technology of evolutionary biology.
It is also interesting to note that the sciences of the abiotic
world
such as physics and chemistry develop
no real
underlying
assumptions or explicit rationale which could be said to threaten
the
assumptions
used
to
justify
current
controlling
cultural
practices.
While evolutionary biology does challenge
assumptions
upon
really
no
have
institutions
human
which
practical
because
behavior
evolutionary
controlling
negetive
biology
is
practices
biology
explicitly the
are
ramifications
evolutionary
per se.
more
based,
upon
does
not
they
controlling
deal
with
At any rate, while the technology of
exploited
to
the
utmost
(very
possibly
overexploited, hence the rise of "bioethics" in relation to patented
life
forms,
pay,etc.)
genetic
the
reengineering,
assumptions
evolution
motherhood
for
positions
of
conceptual
evolutionary
biology
contested
inclusion in school curricula
for
(of
and
surrogate
itself)
in
are
still
legally
lieu of not giving
~
•
•
•
•
•
-,.--
equal time to "creation science".
I
The
assumptions
science
of
and
behavior
conceptual
are
much
positions
more
of an
evolutionary
threatening
to
those
controlling institutions by virtue of the negation of the idealistic
and
prescientific
notions
continued
controlling
their
upon
which
practices
those
institutions
regarding
human
justify
behavior.
Little of the philosopy of radical behaviorism can be construed in
such
a
way
as
to
benefit
these
current
but control over basic research and
controlling
applied
science
analagous
neither
the
technology
positions are
By
to
that
of
of
evolutionary
behavior
is
by these
Our position seems
institutions is possible, and in fact the norm.
directly
institutions,
biology,
analysis
nor
except
it's
that
conceptual
widely prevalent within our culture.
virtue of our intrinsically threatening position,
we can
be assured that if our technology is ever widely employed, it will
be
employed
conceptual
culture,
at
the cost of a
underpinnings.
but
for
the
divorce
Not
good
from
necessarily
of
the
it's theoretical and
for
the
controlling
good
of our
institutions
and
classes within our culture, who can use the applied technology for
their
own
philosphical
benefit
while
positions
(which
extrapolationary-interpretive
Skinner's
Walden
eschewing
form
Two, Beyond
loIS,lie. a.1Jii,e.lo.c...t oLJnLL-_....
B'-Jy~....lC...JoLo.l.ln~s,lie..lOgL.luLleli.lnLLclo..li.ej2,s
ILl'
controlling
This
see
a
real
been
related
Freedom
its e If)
to
and
wh ich
conceptual
mostly
cultures
Dignity.
threaten
and
of
an
such
as
and
it's
even
own
practices ..
is the
backbone of the functional
correct,
selection come to
the
have
the
cultural
effective
pass.
forces
and
exhaustive
Without such a
which
materialist fervor
support
science
to
of
cultural
comprhensive
study of
or
scientific
suppress
r
~
endeavor,
,
survival by virtue of the
..
the
culture which
science
of
behavior
may
not
be
destructive long-term
surrounds that science.
selected
for
practices of the
•
While it is still a guess if a science of cultural selection will
propose
an
effective
control
could
effective
programme
technology,
to
it
control
is
a
those
surety
cultural
vast arenas of operant behavior would
hardly
be
tolerated
by
and classes of our culture.
essentially
render
revolutionary.
the
that
current
variables
come to
controlling
an
which
pass, it
institutions
Such an effective programme would
the
cultural
engineer
as
a
We certainly cannot expect such a
be our saving grace.
if such
rad ical
technology to
To paraphrase Harris, the accomplishment of
a natural science of cultural selection will be a struggle, indeed.
2) A
Functional
Complexity
of the
Materialist
IJfe
Sciences;
Overview
Attempts
to
of
the
Explain
Levels
of
Selection
of
Cultures
A) BIOLOGY - "The Informative Gene"
Evolutionary
biology
is
the
applied science of selection today.
and
the
most
successful
better schema is to characterize
successful
of
the
and
widely
While the science of behavior
rising science of culture can be construed
sciences, a
and
most
sciences
of
as
biological
biology as
selection.
the
first
While
the
general subject matter of biology, behavior and cultures are
the
same
(organisms), what is studied and
each
are
different owing to
their
the methods employed by
respective
level
of complexity.
-.'
,
Behaviorists
do
contingencies
of
science
not
certainly
in
has won a
part
to
pain
justification
and
to
consequences
suffering
continued
as
have
study
achieved
a
a
causal
great share of cultural respect,
it's
the culture which supports it.
allieviate
rarely
selection.
Biology, however,
owing
neither
and
reinforcement,
of cultural
.biologists
cells,
study
technological
effectiveness
upon
The power of modern biology to
has
no
doubt
research
mode
with
given
utilizing
which
to
an
empirical
selection
obtain
by
functional
relations.
One crucial area where
a functional
relations
biology has
not consistently asserted
materialist stance is in respect for genetics and the
of genetic
content
cultural phenomena.
of the
individual
to
behavioral
and
Two proposals in differing areas of genetic
theory can be termed
reductionistic, one of them idealistic. One
concerns
the
possibility
of
concerns
the
control
individuals
of
genetic
consciousness,
and
cultures
the
by
other
genetic
content.
1) "Selfish Genes"
Genetic
material
and Genetic Consciousness
has
been
construed
in
recent
biological
literature as having an awareness or sense of self, proposed as a
sort
of motive
force
to
explain
, or
behavioral and cultural phenomena.
G e De
I
I
I
I
characterizes
behavioral
analogize,
human
Richard Dawkins' The
Selfish
and
at
least
cultural
phenomena
as
. functions of a self·aware genetic material upon which other cells
amalgamate
eventually
and
to
a
survive
through
natural
behaving
organism
whose
selection,
behavior
is
yielding
said
to
facilitate the workings of a "survival machine" in which the gene
"resides".
While the author gives a broad disclaimer about using
•
~'
his
thesis
to
interpret
interpretation,
which
is
characterizing
the
construed
as
motive
being
force
again
himself
cultural
for
be
a
human
in
cultural
called
a
"meme"
the author
why
Genes
change.
giving rise
which
realizing
in
to
an
altruism
intrinsically
disclaims as
cultural
are
having
phenomenon
is
so
but
un prevalent
in
behavior.
This
author
analysis
and
help
engages
gene
cultural
real control over behavioral and
may
by
a
he
"selfish", thus
invariant selfis.hness,
any
culture,
as
an
as
functional
essentially
materialist
mechanistic
interpretation
culture which calls on idealism to
consequences.
genetics,
it
is
While
not
Dawkins
strictly
disagrees
explain
claims
this
of behavior
events controlled
only
reductionism.
with
an
However,
analogy
th
to
author
dismisses organisms as simply survival machines
built around the
intrinsic
This
relies
controlling
on the
variables
of their
neglect of selection at
culture,
essentially
should
reject
a
in
materialist rejects
genetic
genes.
the levels of behavior and
determinism
explaining
behavior
explaining
biological
in
explanation
which
the
behaviorist
and
the
functional
functions.
Assertions of genetic consciousness may have their roots in a
precedented
explanation
contingencies
within
the
genetic
of
to
level.
"encode"
behavior
reinforcement
mind
"metaphor
extended
of
of
(or
brain)
storage"
explain
Genes
information
which
in
are
which,
1981)
to
when
of
has
to
stored
memories.
This
of genes
informational,
passed
or
by
be
effectively
functions
be
controlled
said
form
general
said
being
were
the
(Skinner,
even the
as
been
at
that
the
genes
"transmitted" ,
will
"instruct" cells in how to develop.
However, in both levels, the "information"
"stored",
whether
it
is
genetic
or
mental
that is said to be
information,
is
an
------------------------------------------~~--~--
I
I
I
, -
unobserved
differing
inference
levels,
terminology"
often
functions
to
shor.ed
used. to
express.
up
explain
which
These
with
complex
our
culture
inferences,
idealistic
functions
has
when
metaphors
or
at
these
no
"new
challenged,
appeals
are
to
the
mechanical nature of the subject matter.
2) Socjobjology
Sociobiology, as espoused by E.O. Wilson, is a classic example
of reductionism.
The
humans
to
are
makeup,
said
with
behavior
be
and
rigorously
behavior
changing
gross
cultural
determined
in
terms
by
of
patterns
our
the
of
genetic
rate
of
development of our bodies through time.
While
refuses
to acknowledge
selection
credit
sociobiology
to
is
the
thoroughgoing
need
effects
those
levels
other
units
of
for
it's
materialism,
levels of selection,
directly.
analysis
in
Thusly,
beyond
the
it
it
or that
cannot
give
contingencies
of
survival of genetic material of the individual.
This
and
orientation
shares
with
Dawkins
the assumption of almost complete
contingencies
of reinforcement
or
genetic
determinism
intrinsic control.
metacontingencies,
Without
operant
and
cultural phenomena must be explained wholly in terms of genetic
control,
and
our
technology
toward
behavioral
change becomes a long-range plan of eugenics.
conceived,
the
intrinsic
control
stored
within
behavior modification or cultural control a
within the lifespan of the subject or culture.
and
cultural
Once a child is
the
genes
makes
practical impossibility
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B) Psycbology - The
As
I
I
I
I
I
I
radical
science
introspective,
philosophical
underlying causes"
Science
behaviorists
psychological
is
actually
know,
the
orientations
of human actions
the
history
history
of
concerning
giving up
of
essentially
"motives
more and
or
more
ground to a latecoming scientific analysis of the subject matter at
hand - the behavior of organisms.
While the scope of this paper precludes an indepth analysis
of the history of psychology, it is not hard to see the history of
psychology as a struggle for a science of behavior as opposed to a
precedented
and
methodologically
intrinsic causes of behavior.
construed
as
vestiges
inept
science
of
mental
or
These precedented strategies can be
of idealism
or
of mechanistic
materialism
applied to the level of behavioral selection.
I
I
I
most
Struggle for
1) IdeaHsm:
Dualistic
Dualism and CQgnjtiyism
explanations
of
human
behavior
resort to explanations of at least some of the
in terms of dimensions unknown
said
to
entities
be
spirits,
share
the
common loci
in
some
body,
though
agent
may
minds,
manifest,
be
a
whole
consciousnesses,
psychoanalysis,
and
which
schemes
is
These are
All
inside
of
the
more
than
to
explain
said
these
human
one
inner
sudden,
The inner agent may be said
of interacting
conflict
etc.
of inhabitance
dualistic
comprised
relevant variables
to physical science.
. contradictory patterns of behavior.
to
definitionally
between
parts,
the
such
interaction
as
Freuds'
of
these
parts is the underlying (internal) cause of behavioral problems.
Cognitivism
is
generally
dualism
which
makes
great
use
of
rr---- ---------the
------
metaphors
(generally
of
storage
expressed
previously
as
memories
which
are
consulted
(remembered)
by
Experiences
mentioned.
contingencies)
stored
1
within
are
the
the - organism
converted
into
organism,
then
are
in
with
the
dealing
I
t
environment.
amenable
Cognitivism seems to be the conceptual stance most
to
material
ontology,
where
dualism
or
mental
agents
can be replaced with the mechanistic metaphors of storage given
below.
Both dualism and
idealistic cognitivism share the fact
the complex internal processes they use
to
inferred from the behavior they observe.
sorts of psychology neglect selection,
ontology, and a
Some
Mechanistic
contemporar:y
espouse
a
materialistic
espouse
a
mechanistic
consequences,
observed
that
comprehended
Those
simply
leaving
a) Mechanjstic
while
radical
that
do,
neglects
"physicalizing"
variables
behaviorism
however,
selection
by
the
variables
either
explained
(such as computer analogues) or by
variables
(private
events)
cannot
be
science.
Materjalists
Structuralism,
cognitivism,
which
unobserved
unobseved
by
SeJectionist
ontology.
materialism
material
relations.
besides
either in mechanistic terms,
asserting
levels of selection,
psychologies
thereby
while
and
behavior are
Needless to say, these
commitment to functional
2) Materialism;
explain
that
de ve lopmen talism,
all
asserting
a
and
materialistic
materialistic
ontology,
are
unaware of or refute selection by consequences.
Structuralism
assigns
behavior
structure of the organism under study.
generally said to
to
be
a
function
of
the
While those functions are
be governed by mental and therefore idealistic
\
structures
inside
the
of
lines
the
the
a
"structural
computer-analog
materialism"
materialism
of
along
cognitivism
is
While a structural materialism would be a step in the
possible.
,.
theoretically
rigorous
subsume
analysis
of
the
structure
the
various
of
would
analysis
materialistic
functional
direction,
right
organism,
the
organism
contingencies
at
in
it's
work
upon
organisms at differing levels of selection.
Developmentalism such as
simply
While
structuralism
with
time
may
be
said
developmentalism
is
possible
mental
materialist
Piaget's is, to
entities
as
the
to
paraphrase
Skinner,
independent
develop
and
with
seems
variable.
the
akin
body,
to
the
Behavior is said to change
thesis of sociobiology discussed above.
as the body goes through a maturation process which, I presume,
could be construed as being governed genetically.
Developmentalism
behavioral
and
not
cultural
only
level,
selection
neglects
but
functional
at
relations
the
simply
The
a function of time.
cannot be compiled with behavior being
person wishing to gain control over operant or cultural selection
is
at
a
loss
independent
functional
in
develop
variable
relations
Cognitive
fictions
to
can
never
materialism
favor
of
an
effective
never
be
technology,
manipulated
since
and
the
hence
ascertained.
ushers
mechanistic
out
idealistic
fictions,
most
explanatory
commonly
the
analogy of the brain as a computer which stores "data" which are
retrieved and
ejected when
the organism responds.
While this is a materialistic ontology,
little case can be made
for conceiving the brain as a thinking machine.
behaviorist
variability
standpoint,
or
contol
Iitte. is
of
behavior
gained
to
in
private
From the radical
ascribing
events,
intrinsic
even
workings of the much-heralded brain. While the functions
the
of the
--
-
--------
brain and it's involvement in relation to behavior are admittedly
complex,
from
this
is
a
question
selectionist
a
for
the
neurophysiologist
standpoint,
such
as
a
working
pot en tial
•
neurobehaviorist.
behavior
are
analogues,
of
Those
private
be hay j 0 r
but
in
to
events
be
functional
that
explained
relations
correspond
not
between
in
and
to
overt
mechanistic
within
levels
contingencies.
Methodological
materialist
behaviorism
ontology
conceptually
modes.
and
mated
explicitly
by
with
materially
Watson's
is
an
functional
crippled
by
methodological
Skinner
because
example
of
of
analysis
mechanistic
behaviorism
it's
a
can
be
explanatory
was
impracticable,
how
rejected
mechanistic
view of behaviorand it's impotence in regards to private events.
Essentially,
the
mechanization
of
Watson's schema could not account for
observers could not directly observe.
of
the
day,
methodological
science of behavior could
leaving
those
organism
within
those events which
two
Like the logical positivism
behaviorism
not deal
phenomenon
the
simply
with such
intact.
The
link
asserted
that
phenomenon,
from
a
while
stimulus
to
response was no longer said to be mediated yet the status of the
mental
events
weren't
questioned,
just
considered
an
inactive
link.
At
this
Skinner
to
landmark
point,
try
to
research
the
successes
expand
that
on
of
behaviorism
Watson's
founded
the
prompted
research.
second
It
natural
was
science
B.F.
his
of
selection.
b) Behayjoral
Radical
selection
Selectjonjsts
behaviorism
by
is
consequences
the
and
revolutionary
material
application
ontology
of
toward
c
establishing
•
functional
. environmental events .
relations
be ha vioral
between
and
Again, the scope of this paper proclude a
long discussion of the successes, practical and conceptual, of the
but it is not presumptious to
experimental analysis of behavior,
term
the
experimental,
behavior as the only
theoretical
and
applied
analysis
of
rigorous science of behavior existing today.
Just as the application of selectionism to the field of biology
was
correlated
with
an
explosion
of
research,
explanatory
elegance and technological progress,such has been the case with
radical
behaviorism,
psychology.
split
While
between
at
I
least
relative
cannot lend
behaviorism
and
my
to
other
support
psychology
at
stripes
to a
this
of
disciplinary
time,
I
must
agree that radical behaviorism is the only discipline at this level
that would be at least conceptually justified in doing so.
Just as
were
the
dimensions
and
methods
of evolutionary
biology
the wellspring for the science of operant selection, just so
are
the
dimensions
and
methods
of
wellspring for the science of culture.
radical
behaviorism
the
However, we do not want to
fall into the precedented trap of ignoring selection on the cultural
level as a phenomenon in it's own right with it's own necessary
units of analysis.
While I think it is proven that the selection of cultures must
be a
multidisciplinary endeavor, we must evaluate
with
which
would
we cooperate by the same standards
evaluate
interdisciplinary
I
see
a
materialist
will
guide
any
science
collusion
with
critical
need
analysis
of the
us
in
science of culture.
our
for
of
selection.
the
allegiances
which
employment
disciplines
of
considered.
toward
with
In
anthropology
a
the disciplines
which
we
the
necessary
is
developing,
a
functional
That
analysis
functioning
natural
C) Anthropology aDd A Natural Science of Culture
Much contemporary anthropology, like much of the science at
the
level
of
operant
materialist.
rampant
Like
with
explanations,
selection,
psychology,
assertions
of
little
no
or
cannot
the
be
termed
majority
idealistic
of
motive
attempt
at
functional
anthropology
is
forces,
mechanistic
achieving
functional
relations, and only mere lip service to cultural selection.
My
exposure
filtered
through
to
my
anthropology
has
exposure
radical
the
functional
materialistic
will
deal
that
with
relevant
recent
to
Cultural
Marx
and
expressed
selectionist
and
with
literature.
Materialism,
and
viewpoints
I've
behavior
These
historical
in
for
the
most
part,
and
from
behaviorism,
part of anthropology
an allegience
behavioral
to
been,
been
exposed
which
has
analysis
two
as
contemporary
as
I
been called
discussed
viewpoints
materialism
to.
are
in
Harris'
proposed
literature
as
by
both
materialist.
1) Idealjsm
a
In
termed
a
behavior
1987)
sense,
Harris'
cultural
Cultural
dualism.
in
an
individual
which
has
caused
Materialism
Harris
context
problems
may
chooses
as
in
to
actually
treat
verbal
psycholinguistic
translation
(Glenn,
between
Harris
conception of culture and our conception of verbal behavior.
most
important
behavior
verbal
of
ramifications
the
behavior
methodological
individual
in
his
of
are
cultural
behaviorism's
Harris's
the
view
of
methodological
analysis,
treatment
of
a
the
The
verbal
problems
problem
private
be
akin
events
in
of
to
a
..
..
natural
2)
science .
Mechanistic
The
Materjaljsm
problems
individual
in
of
viewing
psycholinguistic
the
verbal
terms
further
behavior
complicates
analysis of verbal behavior and cultural events.
declines to analyse verbal
behavior and
precisely because he
verbal
function
of (or
intentions,
sees
intimately
wills,
related
hypotheses,
behavior
becomes
which I
have
an
to)
etc".
effect upon
Harris'
cultures
"apparently..
cognitive
function
Harris would
the
Basically, Harris
as
processes,
(Glenn,1986)
unanalyzable
no doubt that
it's
behavior
of
of
a
ideas,
Thus,
verbal
private
events,
consider unanalyzable
as well.
While
causal
Cultural Materialism pays
mode
mechanistic.
in
Analagous
methodological
social
which
Harris
to
behaviorism,
functions
related
the
lip
construes
treatment
Cultural
to
service to
verbal
selection, the
his
organisms
of private
is
events
by
Materialism
considers
the
behavior
(construed
as
functions of private events) as essentially unanalyzable as
well.
This is not unrelated to Harris assertion of what Glenn calls
infrastructural
determinism.
conception of verbal
that
the
three
superstructure)
behavior involved
n
argues
that
behavior is consistent with
parts
are
Glenn
of
society
dominated
(infrastructure,
by
production and
the
the
Harris'
assertion
structure,
essentially
reproduction
behavioristic
and
non-verbal
practices.
It is not surprising to see behaviorists rally to support Harris
in
our
search
for
analagous
anthropological
methodologies.
However, I think it is a mistake to bend our rules too much to fit
a mechanistic theory of cultures.
'.I
I
,
While
behavior,
behaviorists
we
should
openly
also
criticize
reject
his
Harris'
emphasis
view
on
II
determinism
II
I
non-verbal
behaviors
practices.
However, it seems obvious that verbal
I
II
II
II
II
related
the
it,
involved
important
(see
to
Ulman,
in
role
production
in
1985 for
production
infrastructure
an
practices)
analysis
and
other
events
effecting
To
in
these
the
structure
and
functional
materialist,
this
operants
to
the
and
long-lasting
of verbal
behavior
The
never
changing
or
to
be
nonsense.
material
cultural
effects
upon
relations
of
contingencies
productive
production,
certainly
and
verbal
can
reproductive
wreak
practices;
this is the backbone of the functional materialist insistence that a
be
another
vestige
of
a
and
employed.
mechanical,
interpretation of cultural selection which
2)Selectionism;
I
I
both
While overall behavior patterns within a culture will tend toward
of both individual and cultural phenomena.
I-
of
seems
I
I
,
behavior plays
practices.
'I
II
'I
reproduction
practices
superstructure
cultural technology can be achieved
,
are
reproduction.
·1
:'i 1
II
of society
and
everyday
conforming
~
infrastructural
"determinism" of the infrastructure would have to depend on the
I
'I
characterizes
incredibly
production
verbal
well.
Harris
As
an
as
of
Historjcal
It
seems to
non-selectionist
permeates
Harris'
views
Materialism
Throughout the course of this paper I have assumed a degree
of
knowledge
behaviorism.
working
exposed
the
reader's
part
concerning
radical
It may also be the case that the reader may have a
grasp
materialism.
been
on
of
the
most
popular
I can guarantee that few
to
the
proper
tenets
of
if any readers
contingencies
to
conclude
historical
will
that
have
the
basic
assumptions
behaviorism
and
and
methodological
historical
materialism
strategies
are
of
radical
eminently
amenable
for integration toward a science of culture.
Of the three orientations toward the arising science of culture
discussed
in
materialists,
analysts
this
and
are
paper
(reductionists,
functional
aware
of
materialists
the
),
integral
behavioral·cultural
few
if
any
nature
of
materialism with respect to radical behaviorism.
few
if
any
historical
exposed
to
the
analysis
toward
materialist
possibility
a
of
science
justification, growth,
and
of
integration
culture
direction
historical
Concomi tan t1y,
anthropologists
an
behavior
which
have
with
could
to revolutionary
been
behavior
give
new
struggles.
It is as if two persons were using similar tactics, in relation
to respective levels of selection, on two
different
hemispheres of
a world made too small for mutual ignorance.
While I have hardly had ample time for thorough research of
historical
materialism,
even
a
cursory
investigation
leads
one
to
assert that the Marxian science of cultures is a paradigm that is
plausible
toward
First,
a
investigating
research
The
of
classificatory
functional
functional
growing
the
as
a
material
those
scheme
relations
materialist
number
selection
into
best
a
of
historical
causal
course
espouse
a
used
by
between
mode
and
with
the
terminology
and
the
stating
(material
of society is much
by
do
of cultures.
variables
proposed
are
to
materialism
independent
understandable
which
materialism,
historical
and various forms
materialists
development
rigorous
production relations)
than
science.
Harris.
more
(such
as "emie" , "etic', "permaclone", etc.)
In
fact,
Cornforth
modern
openly
historical
acknowledge
materialists
selection
by
such
as
consequences
Maurice
and
it's
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ability to further
functional
plus
operational,
along
with
explain
That
science of culture,
analysis
Another
an
a
a
the
and
for
functionally
functionally
and
is
is
that
it
mechanism
elegant
of society
mechanism
defines
materialism
definable
comprehensive
selection
with dedication
to
non-reductionism.
historical
development
along
class
postulates
of
theoretical
throughout
•
selection,
structure
written
struggle,
to
history.
which
Ulman
as:
". • .agonistic behavior (countercontrolling
cultural practices) occurring among
people
organized by metacontingencies
into conflicting institutions which have
been
selected by antagonistic relations
of
production existing within a
particular
social environment".
By
the
utilizing
basic
critical
Glenn's
dimensions
analysis
utilizing
it's
of
metacontingency
of functional
historical
accumulated
of reinforcement
materialism,
materialism
facts
toward
we
in
a
may
an
begin
effort
natural
along
a
toward
science
of
culture.
It
bears
mentioning
that
not historical materialism.
functional
materialism
thus
far
is
Like other anthropological disciplines,
some or most of the authors who represent historical materialism
favor
a
science
sort
of
philosophical-idealist
of cultures,
. existential
Still
culture,
principles
knowledge
possibly
present
including
their
down
anything
put
of
a
their
personal,
of culture.
others
laid
rejecting
interpretation
in
research
own,
the
is
that
to
classic
be
assumes
deduced
historical
any
science
from
materialist
of the founders of Marxism and of Marx himself.
of
universal
writings
This generally
r
!
~
II
•
•
•
•
•
--,.
,.---.
•
•,.
engenders adherence to "Party dicta"
the
conceptual
facts
until
structure
the
persuasive
deductive
potentially
structure
is
correl'tive
defended
empirical
only
on
the
(or punitive) consequences of an appeal to authority.
Many
Marxist
quantification,
acknowledge
stands
from
of a certain time, divorcing
a
theorists,
natural
a
science
selective
adhered
and
cultural
causation
mechanistic-determinist
to
of
view
the
concept
evolution,
cultures.
of set
of
fail
In
it's
"stages"
to
place
which
are
said to be inherent in the process of history or "inside" of things
themselves (an "internal contradiction").
of
cultures
selection
as
are
disavowed.
science
the
hastily
force
culture
abandoning
technology
dismissed
any
as
search
of cultural
main
anything
point
for
as
history,
other
trivial,
or
levels
of
completely
functional
is
that
the
between
behavior
ultimately
biology) acknowledged
of
cultures.
offered
as
a
up
any
intellectual
relations
functional
science
as
or
a
research,
practicable
and
with
source,
suggests
research method
the
is
which
may
in the
anthropology
materialism
panacea
nearby
materialism
necessary for
Historical
disciplinary
picking
than
most fertile
collusion
science
more
change.
historical materialism as
after
in
Marxists of the structuralist school often reject their
of
My
dominant
Committed to a view
get
(and
start of a
certainly
the
on
not
behaviorist,
with
culture
science.
The very heart of functional
evolutionary
prescriptive
sciences of selection.
the
functional
content
That
materialist
materialism is it's experimental,
toward
process
encounters
will
critical
not
evaluation
simply
historical
cease
materialism,
of
when
but
will be applied to an assessment of what that attempted science
of culture has to offer.
I
•I
;;
I
I
I
-II
:1
II
"II
--
It is
is
our main contention that a historical materialism which
selectionist,
and
a
functional,
collusion
with
and
this
thoroughly
branch
materialist
does
of anthropological
exist,
science
will
bear the most fruit in terms of the achievement of a benificient
science of culture that will work for the culture, and all of the
culture
that
supports
non·adversarial
and
opposition
sustains
to
a
it.
This
projected
is
collusion
offered
with
in
Harris'
Cultural Materialism, which has been found to be problematic.
Which of these
views will dominate the radical behaviorist's
digression
into
functional
materialists are in the minority.
which
the
of the
science
anthropological
science
is
anthropological frameworks
of culture,
but
if that
unknown
at
this
Only time
will
will
contribute
science
can
then
time;
most
be
tell
to
called
functional materialist, then our efforts will not have been in vain.
In conclusion, it seems apparent that a science of culture, of
equal potency to the sciences of biology and
same
conceptual
and
technological
behavior, holds the
revolutions
within
it's
scope.
Space exploration and the predicted conquest of the solar system
is
often
characterized
functional
as
materialist
exploration
could
"the
final
disagrees.
theoretically
frontier
of man",
Space
proceed,
but
technology
while
the
and
sociocultural
problems of man's inhumanity to man continue to plague our one
planet.
To paraphrase Jerry Ulman, never has there been such a gulf
between what is, and what could be.
What could be, it terms of a
science of culture, is a technology of culture which could develop
and establish a superior world culture by design, using the most
advanced
forms
of positive
ultimate survival and
control
of human
behavior
reinforcement of the entire culture.
for
the
r
Once
developed,
withhold
it's
however,
technology
from
a
science
a
of
suffering
culture
could
not
The
gulf
world.
between this amalgam of feuding nations called the World and a
planned
means
culture
of
a .literal fight
will. hold
production
from
whence
for
science
the
and
control
society
of the
springs,
and us or our children must cross it if our world is to survive.
In a
proud
personal note, I
and
determined
would like to say that I
to
be
a
part,
development of a science of culture.
milestone and
more of a
however
am at once
small,
of
the
This paper will be less of a
catalyst to continued study toward
the
real final frontier of science.
to
Truly, we have met the enemy, and he is us.
What remains
be
that
seen
is
whether
our
species
can
realize
ultimately our greatest comrade as well.
D.R.FEENEY
we
are
REFERENCES:
Articles:
Glenn, Sigrid. Rules and Rule Governed Behavior in Two Kinds of
Cultural Contingencies. Paper delivered at Northern
California Assoc. for Behavior Analysis
March, 1986
Glenn, Sigrid. Verbal Behavior and Cultural Practices. Center for
Behavioral Studies. PO Box 13438, University of North
Texas, Denton, Texas 76203.
Glenn, Sigrid
Metacontingencies in Walden Two. Behavior Analysis
and Social Action Journal, 5, 2-8. 1986
Skinner, B.F.
Selection By Consequences. Science, 213,
1981
Ulman, J.
Just Say No to Commodity Fetishism: A Functional
Materialist Reply to Rakos. (in press, 1987)
Ulman, J.
A Critique of "Skinnerism: Materialism Minus
the Dialectic." Behaviorists for Social Action Journal, I,
(2), 1-8.
Ulman, J.
The Promotive: A Verbal Operant Related to Production.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 3, 18-20.
501-504.
Books:
Cornforth, M. Historical Materialism.
Harris, M.
International Pub. Co. 1954.
Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of
Culture. New York, Random House Pub. 1979.
Johnston, J and Pennypacker, P. Strategies and Tactics of Human
Behavioral Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Pub.
Hillsdale, N. J. 1979.
Mandel, E.
Marxist Economic Theory.
1979.
London, Ink Links Press.
r
Marx, K and Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto.
New York. 184811977.
Pathfinder Press,
Skinner, B.F.
Science and Human Behavior. The Free Press, New York.
1953.
Skinner, B.F.
About Behaviorism. Alfrd A. Knopf, New York.
Skinner, B.F.
Beyond Freedom and Dignity.
1971.
Skinner, B. F. Verbal Behavior. Prentice-Hall
1957.
Skinner, B. F.
1974.
Alfred A. Knopf New York.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Notebooks. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Villaincourt, Pauline. When Marxists Do Research. Greenwood Press,
Westport, Connecticut. 1986.