Biology, Culture and Environment: methodological and Epistemological Principles for an Integrative Social Theory
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2023
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Springer Science
Citations
Exportar
Citation
Moñivas, J.R. Biology, Culture and Environment: Methodological and Epistemological Principles for an Integrative Social Theory(2023). Integr. psych. behav. 57, 444–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-023-09751-6
Abstract
In this article I intend to argue that human beings have emerged from nature and remain rooted in it despite culture creating opportunities that go beyond the natural. For this reason, my interest is in showing that this cultural and psychological leap does not eliminate from human ontology the deeply rooted continuity with nature. Precisely because of this, social theory must be aware that with greater complexity, there is a need for the integration of more aetiological factors and a greater methodological and interdisciplinary breadth. Social theory cannot be constructed solely on the basis of empirical data from social analysis. The article is structured as follows: firstly, I discuss the historical origins of the emergence of the human self-perception of discontinuity. Secondly, I outline some of the ontological consequences of anthropological models based on discontinuity. Thirdly and fourthly, I outline what I consider to be the methodological and epistemological principles required for an integrative social theory. Finally, I attempt to establish an integrated typology that explains the complexity of human behaviour and identity.
Description
This paper is funded by the R&D Project ‘A proposal for the epistemological integration of sociology and biology from the analysis of human ambivalence (PR65/19-22435) (2020–2022)’ granted to the author by the Administration of the Community of Madrid and Complutense University of Madrid (Spain).
Referencias bibliográficas:
• Aguiar, F., Criado, H., & y Herreros, F. (2003). Sociología y elección racional. In Giner, S. (comp.). Teoría sociológica moderna. Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 269–291.
• Agustí, J., Bufill, E., & y Mosquera, M. (2012). El precio de la inteligencia. La evolución de la mente y sus consecuencias. Barcelona: Crítica.
• Barnard, A. (2002). The foraging Mode of Thought. Senri Ethnological Studies, 60, 5–24.
• Benton, T. (1991). Biology and Social Science: why the return of the repressed should be given a (cautious) welcome. Sociology, 25(1), 1–29.
• Blanco, C. (2018). La integración del conocimiento. Madrid: Ediciones Evohé.
• Blanco, C. (2020). Conciencia y mismidad. Madrid: Dykinson.
• Burns, J. M., & Serdlow, R. H. (2003). Right Orbitofrontal Tumor with Pedophilia Sympton and Constructional Apraxia sign. Archives of Neurology, 60(3), 437–440.
• Casadesús, R. (2019). La «Big History» como síntesis de la Cosmo-Bio-Antropoevolución: comienzo del universo y la emergencia de la vida. Pensamiento, 75(283), 29–54.
• Crick, F. (2003). La búsqueda científica del alma. Barcelona: Debate. Riddle. Dartnell, L. (2020). Orígenes. Cómo la historia de la tierra determina la historia de la humanidad. Barcelona: Debate.
• Davis, B. B. (1978). The moralistic fallacy. Nature, 272, 390.
• D’Arms, J., y, & Jacobson, D. (2000). The Moralistic Fallacy: On the “Appropriateness” of Emotions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 61(1), 65–90.
• Dunbar, R., Barret, L., & Lycett, J. (2011). Evolutionary psychology. Human behaviour, evolution and the mind. Oxford: Oneworld. Durkheim, E. (2016). Las reglas del método sociológico y otros escritos. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
• Dussel, E. (2001). Algunas reflexiones sobre la “falacia naturalista” (¿Pueden tener contenidos normativos implícitos cierto tipo de juicios empíricos?).
• Diánoia, XLVI(46), 65–80. Elias, N. (1994). Mi trayectoria intelectual. Barcelona: Península. Epstein, R. (1984). The Principle of Parsimony and some applications in psychology. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 5(2), 119–130.
• Gazzaniga, M. S. (2019). The consciousness instinct unraveling the mystery of how the Brain makes the mind. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kaufmann, J. C. (2001). Ego. Pour une sociologie de l’individu. Paris: Nathan.
• Kandel, E. R. (2019). La nueva biología de la mente. Qué nos dicen los trastornos cerebrales sobre nosotros mismos. Barcelona: Paidós.
• Lorenz, K. (1993). La ciencia natural del hombre: “el manuscrito de Rusia” (1944–1948): introducción al estudio comparado del comportamiento. Barcelona: Tusquets.
• Lucas Marín, A., & García Galera, C. (1999). Y Ruiz San Román. Sociología de la comunicación. Madrid: Trotta.
• Lumsden, C. J., & Wilson, E. O. (2005). Genes, Mind and Culture. The Coevolutionary Process. World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd, 2005.
• Lüscher, K. (2012). Menschen als ‘homines ambivalentes’. In D. Korczak (Ed.), Ambivalenzerfahrungen. Kröning: Asangen Verlag.
• Meloni, M. (2014). How biology became social, and what it means for social theory. The Sociological Review, 62, 593–614.
• Neubauer, S., Hublin, J. J., & Gunz, P. (2018). The evolution of modern human brain shape. Science Advances, 4, eaao5961.
• Petryszak, N. (1979). The Biosociology of the Social Self. The Sociological Quarterly, 20, 291–303. Pinker, S. (2002). La tabla rasa. La negación moderna de la naturaleza humana. Barcelona: Paidós.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2023). Antropología y Sociología. Prolegómenos antropológicos para la teoría social. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2022a). The halfway society: towards a definition of the features of human sociality. CENTRA Journal of Social Sciences, 1(1), 133–150.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2022b). Limits and possibilities of resilience as a psycho-sociological strategic game. An interdisciplinary approach. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 13 SP-3 (, 1–13.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2022c). Ageing brain and geopolitical leadership. A bio-psych-sociological approach to the fall of Sharif of Mecca Hussein ibn Ali, 1908–1924. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 47(1), 76–96.
• Romero Moñivas, J. (2018). Is the ambivalence a sign of the multiple-self nature of the human being? Interdisciplinary remarks. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 52, 523–545
• Safina, C. (2017). Mentes maravillosas. Lo que piensan y sienten los animales. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg.
• Sapolsky, R. (2018). Compórtate. La biología que hay detrás de nuestros mejores y peores comportamientos. Madrid: Capitán Swing.
• Serpell, J. (1996). In the company of animals. A study of Human-Animal Relationships. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press.
• Spinney, L. (2020). La conquista agrícola de Europa. Investigación y Ciencia, 528, 26–33.
• Stewart, H., & y Barnard, A. (2002). Introduction: self- and other-images of Hunter-Gatherers. Senri Ethnological Studies, 60, 1–3.
• Terradas, J. (2020). Los factores ecológicos en las epidemias. Investigación y Ciencia, 530, 52–59.
• Tinberger, N. (1979). El estudio del instinto. México: Siglo Veintiuno.
• Tomić, T. (2013). False dilemma: a systematic exposition. Argumentation, 27(4), 1–22.
• Turner, J. (2021). On human nature. The Biology and sociology of what made us human. New York: Routledge.
• Turner, J., & y Maryanski, A. (2016). On the Origin of Societies by Natural selection. London: Routledge.
• Vallés, J. M. (2019). y Martí i Puig, S. Ciencia política. Un manual, Barcelona: Ariel.
• Valsiner, J. (2007). Becoming Integrative in Science: re-building contemporary psychology through interdisciplinary and international collaboration. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 41, 1–5.
• Viejo Montesinos, J. L. (1996). El hombre como animal: el antropocentrismo en la zoología. Asceplio XLVIII, -2, 53–71.
• de Waal, F. (1999). Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial: consistency in our thinking about humans and other animals. Philosophical Topics, 27(1), 255–280.
• de Waal, F. (2016). ¿Tenemos suficiente inteligencia para entender la inteligencia de los animals?. Barcelona: Tusquets.
• Wilson, E. O. (2012). The Social Conquest of Earth. New York: Liveright.