How Scandalous <Emphasis Type="Italic">Is</Emphasis> Knowledge of Evolutionary Psychology?

Biological science is deepening our understanding of life at a brisk rate, but interdisciplinary discourse is not keeping pace. This essay offers an account of themes from evolutionary biology that can enrich appreciation of the complexities of human behavior. Because this topic touches fields with different and more traditional perspectives, frictions and misunderstandings exist, and I have employed examples from a single source in order to clarify the science. In her critique of evolutionary psychology published in her book Scandalous Knowledge, the social theorist Barbara Herrnstein Smith has set forth views that are not in harmony with either evolutionary biology or cognitive neuroscience. She asserts that specialized features of mental processing postulated by evolutionary psychologists are without empirical justification; further, she dismisses the concept as embracing “non-physical mental organs.” There exist, however, numerous examples of how brains process information in specific, functional ways, frequently characteristic of the species. Furthermore, the charge of “non-physical mental organs” is not only wrong; it reveals a failure to recognize that biology has two complementary modes of explanation. One is historical and addresses cause in terms of the historical course of evolution and the process of natural selection. The other is proximate and includes many levels of analysis from molecular to social. Because brains have evolutionary histories, the ‘function’ of a particular aspect of mental processing can have a hypothetical explanation in terms of adaptive advantage that is independent of any knowledge of the underlying neural circuitry. A computational model of the brain and representational processing of sensory information, however, are both compatible with observed properties of neurons in the retina and visual cortex as well as with evolutionary processes. Finally, study of the mental processes of non-human primates provides insight into the evolution of our own minds.

Economic rights and government in developing countries: Cross-national evidence on growth and development

Most analysts assume that economic rights (especially to property and to contracts) help foster economic development, but the relationship is rarely studied empirically. Using three recently developed indexes of economic freedom, this article explores this issue for the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. It finds that developing countries that score better in protecting economic rights also tend to grow, faster and to score higher in human development. In addition, economic rights are associated with democratic government and with higher levels of average national income. Arthur A. Goldsmith is professor of management at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. During the 1998 academic year he is a Visiting Scholar at the Harvard Institute for International Development. Professor Goldsmith has published widely on global economic and management issues, and has consulted for several international development agencies. His most recent articles have appeared inInternational Review of Administrative Sciences, World Development, Journal of Development Studies, andDevelopment and Change. Professor Goldsmith's latest bookBusiness, Government, Society: The Global Political Economy was published in 1996.     

The management of institutional innovation: Lessons from transferring the land grant model to India

The US and India collaborated on a successful institution building programme in the 1950s and 1960s to develop capacity for agricultural education, research and extension. This paper analyses that process for lessons that might bear on efforts to build similar institutions in other countries. India was an especially favourable environment due to the sophistication of its scientific base, the openness of its leaders to institutional innovation, the presence of public sector enterpreneurs to mobilize support for reform, and a food crisis that made it urgent to find new technology. The US did not fund institutional changes that had little demand in India, but it did influence Indian preferences over the long run by creating several mechanisms to exchange information about the American land grant system. These exchange mechanisms enhanced India's capacity for agricultural science and, less often noticed, contributed to the political support essential to new institutions.     

Is There Any Backbone in This Fish? Interpretive Communities,Social Criticism,and Transgressive Legal Practice

This article examines the social conditions of lawyers'moral agency, through the focus of the work of Stanley Fish. A central concept in Fish's work, and one relevant to understanding the nature of Professional groups, is that of interpretive communities. This notion is examined to reveal its sociological as well as philosophical assumptions, and their implications for legal practice. The article takes issue with Fish's stance on the value of theory for practice and challenges the notion of discreteness of interpretive communities inherent in Fish's position. It argues that the resources for criticism within Professional groups are more numerous and powerful than Fish allows. Taking two cases studies, it attempts to demonstrate the transgressive nature of some legal practices. In the final section, redefining the law school's community and interdisciplinary scholarship are suggested as devices for escaping Fish's "net." A critical hermeneutics of legal practice is argued for.