The following is from the book: "Cooperation and Conflict in General
Evolutionary Processes" (John L. Casti and Anders Karlqvist, eds.) Wiley
(1995) ISBN 0-471-59487-3
The article is NOT by Rosen although he has a good one in there, rather,
it is by N. Katheryn Hayles entitled "Narratives of Evolution and
Evolution of Narratives". pp 113-132.
Let me simply extract some of the tidbits with the hope of getting folk
to read more.
She makes the point that evolution is both a science and a narrative.
She refers to certain "Grand narratives" in our history, among them the
"narrative of progress" which has importance in evolutionary biology
(and these discussions). She points out that these narratives change
over time .....the narratives evolve. "Putting the matter this way
makes clear that evolutionary narratives are inevitably caught in a
reflexive loop."
She then goes on to review some of Dawkins' books...pointing out how the
narrative in the "Blind Watchmaker" changes after criticisms recived to
the "Selfish Gene".
My own rereading of the first book caused me a lot of wonder. The same
portions cause Hayles to comment. Our reasons for balking differ
somewhat, but focus on Dawkins literary ploy of using the gene as an
actor in the narrative..only to cover himself when it gets too blatant.
as a literary device to make his point and then backing off with
disclaimers in order to remain "scientific". In other words, in order
to make his argument, Dawkins adopts a stance totally in line with
Rosen, only to make sport of it AFTER he gets what he needs from it.
Hayles goes on to compare later writings of Dawkins in the context of
computer modeling and a-life. Her point is that as he sees a drama
unfold in the computer models, Dawkins is forced to modulate the
narrative he relied on so strongly in the earlier books and reverses his
stance on many issues. Most of these issues are those we have been
wrestling with here....reflexivity vs autonomy.......cultural vs
biological.....others. It would seem that if we are going to refer to
Dawkins and his position on these matters we will be forced to also note
whether we mean early Dawkins or recent Dawkins?
Respectfully,
Don Mikulecky