a preliminary survey of darwin marx and wagner in light of karl popper thomas kuhn and imre lakatos
TRANSCRIPT
A Preliminary Survey of the Legacies of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Richard Wagner
Examined in Light of Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos
Introduction
In Darwin, Marx, and Wagner: Critique of a Heritage, historian Jacques
Barzun argues that 20th century thought had succumbed to a domineering
“mechanical materialism” (Barzun, 1941:12-13) due to the influence of these
three men. Barzun believed that their systems were ultimately derivative
and incoherent, but yet “each man’s work stands as a sort of Scripture,
quotable for almost all purposes on an infinity of subjects” (Barzun,
1941:324). Barzun’s strident critique notwithstanding, it is difficult to argue
about the influence of Darwin, Marx, and Wagner on their respective fields
and on society in general.
In contemplating their legacies, a question arises about the type of
impact the ideas of Darwin, Marx, and Wagner had. Was it as extreme as
Barzun declared? If so, one could say that their systems drove a paradigm
shift, ala the process articulated by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn. Or,
if something less than this, perhaps philosopher of science Imre Lakatos’
separate but related concept of research programs might better describe the
type of change their ideas produced. The purpose of this paper is to examine
the legacies of Darwin, Marx, and Wagner in light of Kuhn’s paradigm shift
process and Lakatos’ research program model and seek to answer the
following question: Are the legacies of their work emblematic of a paradigm
shift, a research program, both, or neither?
1
To shed light on this enquiry, this paper is structured as follows. First, I
provide essential background on the fundamental elements, general
development, and impact of Darwinism, Marxism, and Wagnerism. Second, I
describe Thomas Kuhn’s and Imre Lakatos’ processes of scientific
development. Next, I use the background and processes to conduct a
qualitative analysis of the research question. I then supply a critique that
points out the paper’s limitations and conclude with suggestions for further
research and a short summary.
Background
This section provides the “data” to inform the subsequent analysis. For
each figure’s system I lay out the key components, sketch its overall
development, and assess the general impact on their fields and in society
over the ensuing decades.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: The Fundamental Elements and Impact
Although the idea of evolution was far from new at the time Darwin
published his theory, his synthesis was a novel one. Especially the way in
which he buttressed his “one long argument” with massive amounts of
observational evidence. Darwin rested his theory on four key concepts that
together comprised an integrated viewpoint on the development and variety
of life on earth. These concepts are (1) evolution as such, (2) common
descent, (3) gradualism, and (4) natural selection.
2
With regard to evolution as such, this concept is implicit in Darwin’s
theory. Even so, this assertion was not unique since several others before
Darwin had advanced ideas of evolution, including his grandfather Erasmus:
“Would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!” (Darwin, E., 2009:505).
The younger Darwin’s view about evolution as such stood in contrast to the
prevailing idea of the “Great Chain of Being,” a form of static creationism
wherein species were originally generated in their present form from the
simplest to the most complex (Lovejoy, 2001:59).
As a result of his investigations, including his early work as a geologist
and his journey on the HMS Beagle, Darwin came to believe that all life on
earth evolved from one common ancestor, “Therefore I should infer from
analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this
earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was
first breathed" (Darwin, 2006:303). Going forward in time, complex
organisms emerged from simpler ones. Similarly, common ancestry explains
likenesses between species.
Darwin applied the doctrine of gradualism to argue that evolution is a
slow process, taking place over great lengths of time and in innumerable
3
small steps. Evolution “…can never take a great and sudden leap” (Darwin,
2006:122) and advances “by the short and sure, through slow steps”
(Darwin, 2006:295). In this regard, he followed botanist Carolus Linnaeus
who said, “Natura non facit saltus” (Linnaeus, 2005:37), and adapted the
thinking of his mentor Charles Lyell who advocated for a theory gradual
geological change called uniformitarianism (Nelson, 77:142).
Natural selection is the heart of Darwin’s theory; it acts as the
“automatic mechanism” that drives evolution. Natural selection has four
main components: variation, inheritance, high rate of population growth, and
differential survival and reproduction. Variation means that individuals within
populations exhibit variation in appearance and behavior. Inheritance is the
process by which traits are passed from parent to offspring. A high rate of
species population growth tends to produce more progeny each year than
local resources can sustain. High population growth leads to a struggle to
survive and substantial mortality. The result is that individuals possessing
traits well suited to the struggle for existence will produce more offspring
than those less able to deal with the struggle. The traits that confer an
advantage to those individuals who leave more offspring are called
adaptations. Natural selection operates by comparative advantage, not an
absolute standard of design, “…as natural selection acts by competition for
resources, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the
degree of perfection of their associates” (Darwin, 2006:296).
4
Following the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin faced
immediate controversy, although the assistance of advocates such as
biologist Thomas Huxley and surgeon Joseph Hooker ensured the steady
spread and acceptance of evolution as a viable scientific theory. With the
advent of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930’s that integrated,
among other advances, Gregor Mendel’s genetic research, Darwin’s
contribution became firmly entrenched in the field of biology (Mayr, 1980:1-
5). Today, evolutionary thinking extends to many other academic disciplines
such as computer science, psychology, sociology, economics, linguistics, and
archeology. Along the way, politicians and policy makers used Darwin’s idea
for dubious, even nefarious, purposes such as population control and
eugenics (Bergman et al, 2014:43-46). Finally, no discussion of Darwin’s
impact is complete without recognizing the ongoing friction between died-in-
the-wool Darwinists and certain people of fundamentalist religious faith,
particularly in the United States. This friction has existed from Darwin’s time
up until today, and ultimately derives from incompatible philosophical
positions (scientism vs. common-sense realism) on the most efficacious way
to explain the origin and development of life (Ruse, 2005:264-266).
Marx’s Approach to Political Economy: The Fundamental Elements and Impact
Marx’s relied on historical materialism and his dialectical method to
underpin his approach to political economy. Using these constructs as an
intellectual “base”, he created his economic “superstructure”: the forces and
relations of production and the labor theory of value. Marx employed his
5
system to critique the existing capitalist economic structure of his time,
finding it inherently exploitative of workers and riven with contradictions. He
found that throughout history exploitation and contradictions gave rise to
class struggle. The end state, as Marx would have it, was proletariat
revolution. Eventually (for Marx preferably sooner), revolution would lead to
the replacement of the capitalist system with communism.
Marx’s derived his dialectical method from Hegel wherein history
proceeds according to a pattern of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The thesis is
the original state of affairs in a society. Over time, an antithesis develops to
challenge the existing situation. This is followed by resolution of the conflict
between the thesis and antithesis which in turn resolves into a new thesis.
The dialectical method was the means by which Marx analyzed the evolution
of political economy over time. He also applied the dialectical method to his
general theory of history, now known as historical materialism.
Marx viewed human history in terms of “modes of production” or the
ways in which societies are organized to use technology to interact with
nature. He asserted that societies are determined by the material conditions
that exist at any given time that dictate the relationships people have with
another to fulfill basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and security.
From Marx’s point of view, history is chiefly a function of these material
(economic) conditions. Marx summarized what he meant by this materialistic
aspect of his theory of history in the 1859 preface to Capital: A Contribution
to the Critique of Political Economy:
6
“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness” (Marx, 1990:175).
Marx also distinguished between the forces of production and the
relations of production. The “forces of production” are the types of
productive technology society uses whereas the “relations of production”
refers to the social organization of production, or who owns the productive
forces and how those forces are controlled. For instance, in a capitalist
society capitalists own and control the productive resources while workers
own only their labor and work for capitalists. It is capitalists who own the
product and sell it for a profit. Initially, the relationship between new forces
of production and new relations of production benefits society. As time goes
on, contradictions (thesis and antithesis) arise that drive social change.
As a result of his analysis of history, Marx believed that social change
results from the struggle between classes for dominance, “The history of all
hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx and Engels,
1988:55-56). According to this rubric, there are dominant and subservient
classes in any given historical period because class is determined by one’s
relationship to the means of production. In capitalist society, there are two
basic classes, capitalists, who own the means of production and workers who
7
own only their labor. The ultimate goal of communism is a classless society
wherein the means of production are owned by workers and all people enjoy
equal wealth and power, “From each according to his ability, to each
according to his need” (Marx, 2010:243).
Another key component of Marx’s political economy construct is his
labor theory of value. Marx extended the efforts of classical economists
Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus to demonstrate that the
value of goods should be calculated in terms of the amount of socially
necessary labor that went into their production. Subtracting from the
aggregate the quantity of commodities (measured in labor) that make up
wages, there remains a surplus value that capitalists receive as profits. Marx
viewed profit taking as exploitation, when workers receive less than the total
value of the goods produced (Marx, 2010: 199-200).
Marx also pointed out several structural conflicts built into capitalism
that contributed to the denigration of workers even as capitalists
accumulated wealth. As the organic composition of capital changes, workers
have less and less purchasing power which in turn means that profits will fall
over the long run (Marx, 1990:317-338). Also, in a capitalist system, workers
are alienated from their work because they do not participate in the end-to-
end production of goods, they do not have a say in how the work is done,
and they do not own the means by which their work is performed. Finally,
capitalism tends to destroy community and replace it with a base “cash
nexus.” Profit becomes the only motive and the individual exists as an
8
atomized entity in a mass society without emotional and social bonds (Marx
and Engels, 1988:5-6).
Marx believed that these endemic contradictions would lead to the
collapse of capitalism through the increasing polarization of the capitalist
and worker classes. Because the dominant class would not give up power
voluntarily, Marx supported active revolution to seize power if necessary.
Marx and Engels The Communist Manifesto, first published in 1872, best
expresses this sentiment.
At the time of his death, Marx had attracted few followers. Indeed, only
a handful of people attended his funeral (Wheen, 2000:382). Within twenty-
five years of Marx’s death, his ideas had spread throughout Europe and
begun to attract committed supporters. By the mid-1980’s, nearly one-third
of the world’s population lived under communism1, and more still under
some kind of socialist system. Within academia, Marxist thought penetrated
into fields as varied as economics, aesthetics, ethics, anthropology,
epistemology, psychology, philosophy of science, political philosophy, the
philosophy of history, literature, and the arts. Examples include Marxist
literary criticism, Marxist aesthetics, and Marxist anthropology. From a
political perspective, Marx’s thinking gave rise to different strains of
communism such as Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Luxemburgism,
libertarian Marxism, structuralist Marxism, historical Marxism,
phenomenological Marxism, analytical Marxism, and Hegelian Marxism. Not
1 http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Communism
9
least, the actual implementation of Marxism in its various incarnations had
profound effects on state political structures and the day-to-day lives of
millions. When viewed holistically over the past 150 years, we can see
clearly that Marx’s impact is not only intellectual, but also truly “material” for
the many millions who lived—and continue to live—under his shadow.
Wagner’s Approach to Opera: The Fundamental Elements and Impact
At the heart of Wagner’s approach to opera was his belief that myth,
when portrayed through a comprehensive artistic presentation of music,
drama, poetry, and philosophy could elevate, revitalize, and redeem human
civilization (Cicora, 1999:86). With his idea of Gesamtkunstwerk, Wagner
undertook to create the “art of the future” (Wagner, 1993:35, 52, 88), and in
so doing, he rewrote the rules for opera. Wagner sought to portray timeless
themes about the human condition that resulted in an event that was more
than simply an evening of entertainment. He wanted to gather people
together for a life-changing, quasi-religious experience rooted in emotion
and nature (Vazsonyi, 2010:170-176). In order to achieve his vision, Wagner
created new operatic forms, musical language, theatrical presentations, and
architectural innovations and integrated them to produce a first of its kind
spectacle that he called music-drama.
From an operatic standpoint, Wagner eschewed the long-standing
distinctions between recitative, aria, and ensemble in favor of making the
drama primary and the music ancillary. The elimination of these traditional
distinctions allowed Wagner to change the role of the singers from virtuosos
10
to bona fide characters who were carefully integrated into the performance.
Before Wagner, composers constructed operas from pre-existing formulas.
Wagner discarded this convention in order to create a more integrated work
of art. As Wagner states, “This opera form was never, of its very nature, a
form embracing the whole drama, but rather an arbitrary conglomerate of
separate smaller forms of song, whose fortuitous concatenation of arias,
duos, trios and so on, with choruses and so-called ensemble pieces, made
out of the actual edifice of opera” (Wagner, 1995:67).
Another innovation was Wagner’s extensive use of leitmotifs—short
musical phrases directly associated with a character, object, or idea—as
musical language (Burbidge and Sutton, 1979: 345-346). Leitmotifs became
an essential part of the drama’s text and served as audio signals for the
audience, a way to support action, and a means to express emotions through
the music. For Wagner, a leitmotif’s melody provided the literal meaning of
what was occurring in the drama while its harmony provided the emotional
sense. In addition, leitmotifs gave structural coherence as the drama
unfolded and themes were introduced. In this way, they connected
characters, emotions, and ideas into an organic whole.
With regard to the music itself, Wagner relied much more on tonic
chords and chromaticism rather than dominant chords. This technique
allowed him more compositional freedom to express emotions through the
musical subtext. For example, in Tristan und Isolde Wagner used
chromaticism as a motif, to express the “the infinite longing of romantic love
11
and the yearning for its appeasement in death” (Burbidge and Stutton 237).
Chromaticism was not a new idea in opera, but previous to Wagner,
composers used it to get from one tonal setting to another. Wagner
employed tonal or chromatic key modulation as tools to enhance the drama
occurring on stage and heighten the audience’s engagement (Millington,
2001:253-258).
In addition to his operatic form and musical language, Wagner also
focused on creating stage realism to bring the audience closer to the drama
(Carnegy, 2006:40). When presented the opportunity to build a customized a
theater in Bayreuth, Wagner implemented many innovations to fulfill his
vision of music-drama. Among these advancements, he placed the orchestra
down and under the stage using a double proscenia so that, “The spectral
music sounding from the ‘mystic gulf,’ like vapors rising from the holy womb
of Gaia beneath the Pythia’s tripod, inspires him [the spectator] with that
clairvoyance in which the scenic picture melts into the truest effigy of life
itself” (Wagner quoted in Smith, 2007:31-32). As a practical matter, the
physical performance of the orchestral became less distracting, allowing the
instrumental music to integrate more effectively with the vocal music,
drama, and visual effects on stage. Wagner said that the conductor “should
be hidden from him [the spectator] with almost as much care as the ropes,
pulley, struts and boards of the sets, the sight of which from the wings is well
known to destroy all illusion” (Wagner, quoted in Carnegy, 2006:70). Wagner
was also the first to darken the auditorium during the performance, shut the
12
doors during the performance, use the steam curtain (created by a row of
jets along the line of stage floodlights), and insist that applause was reserved
for the end of an act.
One indication of Wagner’s influence is that there are no such -isms as
“Bachism” or “Mozartism” but there is Wagnerism. Just as Darwinism and
Marxism denote a distinct frame of reference with which to view the world,
so too does Wagner’s body of work extend beyond the purely musical to the
philosophical and ideological. Even during Wagner’s lifetime, groups of
enthusiasts—“Wagnerites”—gathered to partake of, analyze, and advance
not only his art, but his ideas about art (Sutton, 2002:1-5). Wagner’s
synthesis of myth, music, and drama appealed deeply to the Volkish
sentiments extant in Germanic culture of the late nineteenth century which
in turn found darker purchase in Nazi Germany. According to May:
“…his influence was so profound that it extended well beyond music to leading figure in other disciplines. To give just a brief sampling: Baudelaire and the later symbolists, Thomas Mann, Marcel Proust, George Bernard Shaw, innumerable theater and film directors…Think of the success of composers such as John Williams, or James Horner, and Howard Shore with their tightly integrated themes and prismatically arrayed orchestrations for films of epic Wagnerian ambition. Think too of how resonant those very films have been in the larger culture, responding to a shared need for myth and psychology to rely on in our “disenchanted” postmodern world” (May, 2004:10).
Wagner’s impact on other fields, such as cinema, is clearly seen as
composers adopted Wagner’s concept of leitmotifs to integrate the musical
score with the onscreen drama. Their use “leads directly to cinema music
where the sole function of the leitmotif is to announce heroes or situations so
13
as to allow the audience to orient itself more easily" (Adorno, 2009:36). In
fact, some regard Wagner as a kind of “proto-film composer” due to the
epically expansive nature of his music-dramas, “If Wagnerhadlivedinthis
century hewouldhavebeentheNo.1filmcomposer” (Film critic Max Steiner
quoted in Burlingame, 2010). Wagnerian approaches abound in modern
cinematic soundtracks including those composed by John Williams (e.g. Star
Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark), James Horner (e.g. Titanic, Avatar), and Hans
Zimmer (e.g. Crimson Tide, The Dark Knight). Some examples of Wagner’s
music in film include the funeral music from Gotterdammerung in
“Excalibur,” the bridal chorus from Lohengrin used in “Beetlejuice,” “Father
of the Bride,” and “Spiderman 2.” Perhaps one of the most famous instances
of Wagner in film is the “Ride of the Valkyries” in “Apocalypse Now.”
Wagner's influence on literature has been no less significant. As
Raymond Furness states:
“His protean abundance meant that he could inspire the use of the literary motif in many a novel employing interior monologue; the yearnings of the mythmakers increasingly took his music dramas as a fecund source; the Symbolists saw him as a mystic hierophant; the Decadents found many a frisson in his work” (Furness, 1992: 396).
Among authors influenced by Wagner, philosopher and poet Bryan Magee
lists D. H. Lawrence, Aubrey Beardsley, Romain Rolland, Gérard de Nerval,
Rainer Maria Rilke, Thomas Mann, and Marcel Proust (Magee, 1988, 53).
Wagner features in the works of James Joyce (e.g. Ulysses and Finnegan’s
Wake) and T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, which contains lines from Tristan und
Isolde and Gotterdammerung.
14
Without a doubt, the ideas of these three men has had a tremendous
impact on all manner of human endeavor including philosophy, science, art,
politics, and economics. Over the ensuing 150 years since their thinking first
emerged on the scene, countless millions have been affected, whether
directly or indirectly, or for good or for ill. Let’s now turn to two illustrious
philosophers of science to learn more about their theories of scientific
development and how their models might be used to frame the impact of
Darwin, Marx, and Wagner.
Thomas Kuhn’s “Paradigm Shift”
Thomas Kuhn was an American physicist, historian, and philosopher of
science best known for his book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (1962). In this book, Kuhn introduced the concept of the
paradigm shift to describe how scientific development occurs. Webster’s
dictionary defines a paradigm as a theory or a group of ideas about how
something should be done, made, or thought about. From a scientific
perspective, a paradigm is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns,
including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what
constitutes legitimate contributions to a scientific field, or according to Kuhn,
“universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide
model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners” (Kuhn,
1996:10). Kuhn cites Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus or Newton’s Principia as
instigators of paradigms shifts because they were "sufficiently
unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from
15
competing modes of scientific activity…[and] sufficiently open-ended to
leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to
resolve." (Kuhn, 1996:10).
Kuhn described a six-step process (Figure 1), popularly known as the
“Kuhn Cycle” through which paradigm shifts emerge. These steps include
prescience, normal science, model drift, model crisis, model revolution, and
paradigm change.
Figure 1. The Kuhn Cycle
All new scientific endeavors begin in prescience, where researchers
have identified a problem, but do not yet have the wherewithal to solve it,
there is no prevailing school of thought, and there are disparate and
competing theories. In addition, there will be almost as many theories are
there are workers in the field.
Out of prescience emerges normal science. In this step, major progress
on central problems becomes possible. Normal science means that a
research community exists who share a common intellectual framework (a 16
paradigm) and work to solve puzzles impinging on the paradigm (Kuhn,
1996:35-42). Puzzles are generated by anomalies between what the
paradigm predicts and what is shown through experimentation. Normal
science is characterized by articulating the paradigm, precisely evaluating
key paradigmatic facts, and testing those new points where the paradigm is
open to empirical evaluation (Kuhn, 1996:25-28). Anomalies are resolved by
updating the framework with incremental changes based on new knowledge.
Normal science forms the vast bulk of scientific activity.
The model drift step occurs as the paradigm is mined for new
knowledge, and the research community digs so deep that it discovers new
questions that the paradigm cannot answer (Kuhn, 1996:52). As these
anomalies appear, the explanatory power of the model weakens. Anomalies
that are resistant to solution under the existing paradigm serve to inhibit
further progress and undermine support for it. Kuhn cites the discovery of
oxygen (vice phlogiston), x-rays (exposed screen not expected to glow) and
the Leyden jar (to “store” electricity in water) as examples of anomalies that
challenged the normal science of the day (Kuhn, 1996:54-61).
As unsolved anomalies accumulate and the paradigm is unable to
account for them the model crisis step ensues. Model crisis means that the
paradigm is ineffective in solving the field’s current problems, doubts arise
regarding core assumptions, and members of the research community begin
to question the paradigm itself. At this point, the field is characterized by "a
proliferation of compelling articulations, the willingness to try anything, the
17
expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate
over fundamentals" (Kuhn, 1962:91).
Out of the struggle to construct a more capable intellectual framework,
new candidates emerge to supplant the old paradigm. This is the model
revolution step. The old paradigm co-exists with the new, emerging one. The
old paradigm is well established, and has many supporters despite many
anomalies while the new one is untested, perhaps incorporates new concepts
and new research techniques, and has few followers. The new paradigm is
“incommensurate” because it is irreconcilable with the previous one (Kuhn,
1962:148-150, 198-204). Each community uses its own assumptions to judge
the other’s paradigm, often talking past each other. Often, supporters of the
old paradigm are viewed as resistant to change and supporters of the new
are painted as scientifically irresponsible. For example this kind of contention
occurred between Darwin’s supporters and those who opposed his theory.
Even today, contention exists between proponents of evolution and those
who advocate creationism.
The paradigm change step begins once the new paradigm is agreed on
by a group of influential supporters. Here the field transitions from the old to
the new paradigm which becomes the dominant view in the field. This is the
“paradigm shift” of modern parlance. Kuhn’s classic example of a paradigm
shift is the change that occurred in physics after Newton published Principia
Mathematica and Opticks (Kuhn, 1996:12). Over time, the new paradigm
sufficiently replaces the old and becomes the field’s new normal science. The
18
Kuhn Cycle begins again as the quest for new knowledge about the world
continues.
Imre Lakatos’ “Research Program”
In response to Kuhn’s notion of paradigmatic progress in science, Imre
Lakatos, a philosopher of mathematics and science, put forth the idea that
science moves forward via “research programs” (Lakatos, 1978:47-48). A
research program is a sequence of advancements within a domain of inquiry
wherein each successor theory marks an improvement over its predecessor.
The move from one theory to its successor within a research program is
called a "problem shift." Problem shifts may be "progressive" in two ways:
theoretically or empirically. Theoretically progressive problem shifts enable
researchers to predict more than a predecessor theory. A problem shift is
empirically progressive if in addition to predicting new observable evidence,
actual observation confirms this new prediction. In order for a research
program as a whole to be progressive, each problem shift must be at least
theoretically progressive, and at least intermittently empirically progressive
(Lakatos, 1978:48-49). In other words, in a progressive program, a move
from an old theory to a new one must enable researchers to predict more,
and at least sometimes these predictions must be confirmed. If not the
research program is said to be "degenerating" (Lakatos, 1978:34). Scientists
should stay with a progressive research program and abandon a
degenerating program.
19
Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its
“hard core” which contains its basic assumptions and its “protective belt,” a
surrounding defensive set of hypotheses. The protective belt serves to
deflect propositions that refute core assumptions. In designing new theories
to replace old, researchers adhere to a constellation of beliefs which Lakatos
calls a “heuristic” (Lakatos, 1978:47-52). Heuristics can be positive or
negative. Negative heuristics are claims that must be adhered to as a part of
the research program and serve to cordon off the "hard core" which cannot
change from one theory to the next. Revising these beliefs is off limits.
Positive heuristics take into account the hard core while also suggesting how
the basic assumptions can be revised. Positive heuristics help to reshape
these assumptions in light of evidence that could refute the hard core.
As a research program progresses, scientists will attempt to refute or
falsify the accepted theory. When refuting evidence is encountered, the
scientist does not consider the program as defunct. Rather, s/he will alter the
assumptions of the protective belt using positive heuristics such that the
"hard core is retained. As long as such moves enable scientists to predict
more new phenomena (i.e. it is theoretically progressive), and at least some
of those predictions get confirmed by observation (i.e., it is from time to time
empirically progressive), the research program remains viable. When
modifications to the theory only protect the hard core from refutation, but do
not predict new phenomena or none of the new predictions get confirmed by
20
observation, then the program is degenerating and the program should be
abandoned. Figure 2 depicts visually the research program model.
Figure 2. Research Program Model.
Analysis
Having presented the fundamental elements and impact of Darwinism,
Marxism, and Wagnerism, I now describe the method by which I will analyze
them in light of Kuhn’s paradigm shift and Lakatos’ research program. The
method is as follows:
- For each topic, qualitatively evaluate each in light of the Kuhnian and
Lakatosian framework at three phases in time: initial promulgation, mid-term
development, and current status.
- Assess the components of each topic as to whether or not it “fits” into
a particular step of the Kuhn Cycle or a research program.
21
- Use the results to gauge whether or not the topics conform to the
Kuhn Cycle, a research program, both, or none.
I will use a straightforward two by two matrix to annotate fit as illustrated
below (Figure 3). See Appendix 1 for the complete set of matrices.
Evolution as Such
CommonDescent
Gradualism Natural Selection
Totality of Theory
Pre-science X X X X X
Normal science
Model drift
Model crisis
Model revolution
Paradigm shift
Figure 3. Matrix for Darwinism in Light of Kuhn—Initial Promulgation Phase.
For each phase of a particular systems’ development, I use the background
data to make an assessment of where each element of Darwin’s, Marx’s, and
Wagner’s systems fit in the Kuhn Cycle and the research program model.
The results of this assessment then inform my discussion of how to
categorize the impact of each.
It is important to make clear that both Kuhn and Lakatos formulated
their concepts to evaluate progress in the hard sciences, such as physics and
chemistry. Of the three topics under scrutiny in this paper, only Darwin’s
theory is best characterized as a classically scientific endeavor, albeit as an
applied science. Although Marxism is purported to be scientific in
22
construction and application, it is not science as understood in terms of
Kuhn’s and Lakatos’ concepts. Finally, as an artistic endeavor, Wagnerism
falls the farthest afield. Given the original intent of Kuhn and Lakatos,
Darwinism, Marxism, and Wagnerism do not strictly qualify to be evaluated
using the Kuhn Cycle or as a research program. Nonetheless, we can apply
Kuhn and Lakatos in a wider sense as general processes of change rather
than in their stricter scientifically oriented meanings. This approach allows
for a broader analytical perspective and—most importantly—the potential for
interesting insights into the type of change wrought by these three
constructs.
Discussion
Darwin’s evolutionary paradigm comes the closest to conforming to
the steps of the Kuhn cycle. Given the state of science at the time Darwin
published his ideas, which was more observational than it was experimental,
all of the fundamental elements that made up Darwin’s theory, as well as his
theory as a whole, can be neatly classified as prescience. For example, even
though Darwin (along with biologist Alfred Wallace) was the first to describe
the mechanism of natural selection and provide analogical and observational
evidence, his assertions were met with great skepticism from a variety of
quarters. It would take many years of follow-on work, including the
integration of Mendelian genetics with Darwin’s theory, before biologists
accepted natural selection as a scientific reality. The modern evolutionary
synthesis that occurred in the 1930’s further solidified Darwinism as normal
23
science. As far as the rest of the steps in the Kuhn Cycle, a case can be
made that Darwinism is at least in a state of model drift due to lingering
questions that the theory cannot answer and because of scientific avenues
(e.g. punctuated, epigenetics, and evolutionary development) that could help
provide answers for them (Pigliucci and Muller, 2010:12-15). Some biologists
would say that Darwinism is a failed project that should be abandoned, and
thus in a state of model crisis (Craig, 2010:117-123).
When viewed through the lens of a research program, Darwin’s theory
aligns more cleanly. The fundamental elements of the theory: evolution as
such, common descent, gradualism, and natural selection form the hard core
of the program. Over time, the research program has been advanced (e.g.
the integration of Mendelian genetics, the modern evolutionary synthesis,
computational biology) and defended (e.g. against intelligent design
advocates). As the field deals with alternative explanations for evolution (e.g.
multilevel selection), a problem shift could occur, wherein previously
accepted assumptions could be abandoned (e.g. selection on the basis of
individuals only replaced by multi-level selection). Whether or not such a
problem shift materializes, the evolutionary research program as a whole
appears “fit” to continue.
With regard to Darwinism itself being a paradigm shift within science, I
believe the analysis shows that overall it is not. Rather, it is the outcome of
normal scientific discovery and development more akin to a research
program, albeit with one exception. Darwin’s mechanism of natural
24
selection, when combined with gradualism, removed the need an external
agent (i.e. God) to direct the evolutionary process. This outcome served to
place biology on firmly naturalistic, rather than theistic, ground. The
incommensurate move from “theistic science” to “materialist science”
revolutionized the study of biology and ensconced it safely within the
confines of science qua science—a paradigm shift.
To be sure, Marx formulated an original paradigm for political
economy. As to whether his paradigm resulted in a paradigm shift, the
results of the analysis demonstrate that it was not. At least initially, Marx’s
ideas were more akin to prescience and were not widely known. As others
consolidated his writings, various strains of Marxist thinking emerged. Many
used their own interpretations of Marx to foment change or even revolution,
as occurred in Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. To its adherents, Marxism
became “normal science,” but to assert that it was dominant across the
board in politics and academia, for example, is an overstretch. Marxism has
always had ample competition in the marketplace of ideas, not the least of
which is capitalism. In addition, since the fall of the Soviet Union, Marxism
has fallen on hard times, or in Kuhnian terms “model crisis.” Whether or not
Marxism will undergo an internal paradigm shift of its own remains to be
seen.
Like Darwinism, Marxism seems to align more closely with the research
program model. The hard core of Marx’s fundamental ideas remain intact,
and numerous extensions and variations have developed over the years.
25
Those who advocate for Marxism are indeed vigorous in its defense, even if
they do not always agree on the particulars (e.g. Joseph Stalin and Leon
Trotksy, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung). Also, over the decades, a large
community of researchers and practitioners has advanced Marxist thought,
maintaining its “protective belt.” Finally, when considering whether or not a
problem shift has occurred within Marxism, one can point to the collapse of
the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact and the subsequent adoption of
market-oriented economies, similar adoptions in other formerly communist
countries such as Albania and Ethopia, and the integration of market-
oriented policies in China and Vietnam. The question is whether this problem
shift is degenerative in nature. If so, according to the Lakatos model,
Marxism should be abandoned.
In a similar vein as Darwin and Marx, Wagner synthesized a new
operatic paradigm. From the outset, his innovations polarized the musical
community, some of whom enthusiastically embraced it (e.g. composers
Gustav Mahler, Anton Bruckner, and Hugo Wolf), while others reacted
against it (e.g. composers Felix Mendelssohn, Johannes Brahms, and Claude
Debussy). In short order, Wagner’s Gesamptkunstwerk approach gained a
large coterie of followers (Wagnerites). To be sure, Wagner’s invention of
music drama has had a tremendous influence on music and other artistic
domains. Over time, his ideas found their way into the literary, artistic, and
cinematic arenas. That said, it is difficult to align Wagnerism with the Kuhn
Cycle, primarily because of the artistic nature of his ideas. Also, although
26
Wagner does loom large, particularly in the musical arena, there are many
other operatic and musical alternatives both for musicians and audiences.
Therefore, I think it is incorrect to say that Wagner’s music-drama paradigm
fomented a broad-based paradigm shift in music.
At best, Wagner’s music drama invention resembles a research
program. The hard core of his ideas remain intact, due in no small part to the
emphasis placed on them at the Bayreuth Festspielhaus. With regard to
protective belt, Wagner still has supporters who study (and defend) his work,
but it is fair to say that this community is specialized and not pervasively
influential. From the standpoint of positive development, the fundamental
elements of his approach have been adopted and extended within music as
well as in other areas. When it comes to the notion of a “problem shift”
within Wagnerism, because Wagner set the bar so high with his invention of
music drama, especially in Der Ring des Niebelungen, it remains the
singular, epic, and unsurpassed embodiment of “the art of the future.”
Therefore, I do not think that a Lakatosian-like problem shift will ever occur
when it comes to the hard core of Wagner’s Gesamptkunstewerk construct.
Critique
There are several ways to improve this paper. First, because it is a
preliminary survey, the background data, the analytical lens, and the
analysis itself lacks depth. It is difficult to distill the essence of three
intellectually substantial theories and two sophisticated epistemological
models in a short paper. Numerous books and articles have been written on
27
each of these topics, so I am quite sure that I have left something out, either
due to space restrictions, or more accurately, due to my ignorance. As a
result, the veracity of my findings is vulnerable to more sophisticated,
learned appraisals. Next, the analytical models I used were designed to
describe scientific progress rather than social or artistic development. Of the
three figures, only Darwin’s theory reasonably fit into Kuhn’s and Lakatos’
models, but still imperfectly. As such, I generalized the models in order to
carry the analysis through. For instance, I glossed over Kuhn’s notion of
incommensurability (the mutual exclusive relationship of old paradigms to
new) and how Lakatos’ model incorporated Karl Popper’s falsification criteria.
This begs the question as to whether these models were appropriate to use
at all. For example, Kuhn’s paradigm shift concept has great intuitive appeal.
Behind this appeal lies a sophisticated theory of scientific development that
few ever explore, much less understand. What is apparent to me is that
Kuhn’s ideas have been misappropriated and applied willy-nilly across many
fields such as business, sociology, and politics. It’s one thing to popularize an
appealing academic construct, it’s quite another to throw out its entire
logical apparatus in the process. Although not my intent, applying Kuhn or
even Lakatos in this way evacuates their theories of their original meaning
and results in something akin to intellectual caricature. Finally, despite the
fact that I attempted to conduct a reasonable qualitative analysis, the limited
background, the model selection, the analysis itself, and the findings are the
product of an imperfect research design and over-generalized data. In
28
addition, the analytical models were distorted from their original purpose. It
follows, then, that the results of this survey are necessarily imperfect. In
sum, the challenges of applying the Kuhn Cycle and research program model
to applied science and non-scientific fields, while somewhat interesting, is
not the most compelling way to describe the impact of Darwinism, Marxism,
and Wagnerism on human history.
Conclusion
As to whether this paper answered the original research question, the
answer is at best equivocal, as might be expected from a preliminary survey.
To come to a more definite conclusion, a motivated researcher (1) could
widen and deepen the background to ensure major concepts, events, and
opinions are covered, (2) refine the analytical method to assure better
qualitative reliability and validity, and (3) generate more credible findings.
Also, researchers could restructure the analytical approach, effectively
abandoning Kuhn and Lakatos in favor of a more appropriate qualitative or
historical research framework.
Despite this paper’s shortcomings, the preliminary survey shows that
the work, development, and impact of Darwin, Marx, and Wagner aligns
more closely with a research program than a paradigm shift, but only at a
superficial level. The one partial exception was the paradigm shift that
followed after Darwin set the course to separate biology from theistic
influences and ground the field empirically as a bona fide scientific endeavor.
Marx’s synthesis incorporated extensions and modifications of previous
29
thought (Smith, Ricardo, Hegel) in the manner of a research program. He
combined them all in a novel way and produced a seemingly airtight
rationale for class-based social revolution. As his ideas spread, they were
attacked and defended. Many people were indoctrinated to the various
strains of his thought that developed over time, and millions of individual
paradigms were shifted, but Marxism never came to dominate the field of
political economy. Wagner’s invention of Gsamptkunstwerk changed the idea
of what opera could be, and his contribution is a true inflection point in the
history of music. In addition, his influence extends well beyond the musical
arena. Although Wagner’s approach remains an important musical genre, it
fails to rise to the level of a paradigm shift. To be sure, all three men had
monumental intellects and were outstanding synthesizers. Each of their
contributions was a new paradigm constructed in the form of a theory or
invention, but none resulted in a wholesale paradigm shift. Instead they
developed more akin to a scientific research program. Therefore I do not
recommend the use of the term paradigm shift when referring to the impact
of Darwin’s, Marx’s, or Wagner’s systems. In addition, although each system
aligns better with Lakatos’ work in a general way, only Darwin’s theory of
evolution, since it is a science, best fits under the rubric of a research
program.
30
Bibliography
Adorno, Theodor. In Search of Wagner. London: Verso, 2009.
Barzun, Jacques. Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1958.
Burbidge, Peter, and Richard Sutton. The Wagner Companion. London: Faber and Faber, 1979.
Burlingame, John. "Underscoring Richard Wagner's influence on film music." Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] 17 June 2010.
Carnegy, Patrick. Wagner and the Art of the Theatre. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.
Cicora, Mary A. Wagner's Ring and German Drama: Comparative Studies in Mythology and History in Drama. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1999.
Cooke, Deryck. The Language of Music. Oxford University Press: New York, 1959.
Crai, Lindsay. “The so-called extended synthesis and population genetics.” Biological Theory 5.2 (2010): 117-123. Web.
Dahlhaus, Carl. Richard Wagner's Music Dramas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006.
Darwin, Erasmus. Zoonomia: Or, the Laws of Organic Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Furness, Raymond. “Wagner’s Impact on Literature,” in The Wagner Compendium: A Guide to Wagner’s Life and Music, ed. Barry Millington, London, 1992, 396.
Gutman, Robert W. Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1968.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
31
Lakatos, Imre. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
Lee, M O. Wagner: The Terrible Man and His Truthful Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.
Linnaeus, Carl , and Stephen Freer. Linnaeus' Philosophia Botanica. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Lovejoy, Arthur O. A. O. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2001.
Magee, Bryan. Aspects of Wagner. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Marx, Karl, Ben Fowkes, and David Fernbach. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. London: Penguin Books in association with New Left Review, 1990.
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Frederic L. Bender. The Communist Manifesto: Annotated Text. New York: W.W. Norton, 1988.
Marx, Karl. Essential Writings of Karl Marx: Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Communist Manifesto, Wage Labor and Capital, Critique of the Gotha Program. St Petersburg, Fla: Red and Black Publishers, 2010.
Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and C J. Arthur. The German Ideology. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1974.
May, Thomas. Decoding Wagner: An Invitation to His World of Music Drama. Pompton Plains, NJ: Amadeus Press, 2004.
Mayr, Ernst, and William B. Provine. The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Millington, Barry. The Wagner Compendium: A Guide to Wagner's Life and Music. London: Thames & Hudson, 2001
Nelson, Richard W. Darwin, Then and Now: The Most Amazing Story in the History of Science. iUniverse Inc, 2009.
Pigliucci, Massimo, and Gerd Mu ̈ller. Evolution, the Extended Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010.
Ruse, Michael. The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2005.
32
Smith, Matthew Wilson. The Total Work of Art: From Bayreuth to Cyberspace. New York and London: Routledge, 2007.
Sutton, Emma. Aubrey Beardsley and British Wagnerism in the 1890s. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Vazsonyi, Nicholas. Richard Wagner: Self-promotion and the Making of a Brand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Wagner, Richard. “The Art-Work of the Future" and Other Works. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993.
Wagner, Richard, and William A. Ellis. Opera and Drama. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995.
Wheeler, Mark R, and William A. Nericcio. 150 Years of Evolution: Darwin's Impact on Contemporary Thought & Culture. San Diego: San Diego State University Press, 2011.
Wheen, Francis. Karl Marx: A Life. New York: Norton, 2000.
33
Appendix 1Assessment Matrices
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42