Search results

Because belief in a supernatural agent with extraordinary power is rooted in psychology, Veblen's instinct psychology was the essential basis for his evolutionary economics of religion. The innate behavioral traits that Veblen called instincts in human nature are now recognized in evolutionary psychology as domain-specific mechanism that evolved as adaptations to enable human survival and reproduction. The authors aim to explain how the modern evolutionary psychology of religion provides a modern psychological basis for Veblen's evolutionary economics of religion.

First, the authors review how Veblen's theory of an evolved human nature of instincts was applied to explain the origins of religion in primitive societies and remained a resilient force despite evolutionary erosion of institutional religion as science advanced. Second, the authors note how evolutionary psychology explains the origins of religion in terms of the functioning of domain-specific psychological mechanisms that evolved as adaptations for purposes other than religion.

The similarities between Veblen's instinct psychology and the explanation of religion as by-products of domain-specific psychological mechanisms are sufficient to allow the conclusion that the evolutionary psychology of religion provides a modern psychological basis for Veblen's evolutionary economics of religion.

An evolutionary economics of religion has a great social value if it provides credible explanations of both the origins of religious belief and innate tendency for religious belief to continue even as science refutes elements of religious doctrines. With a modern psychological basis, Veblen's evolutionary economics of religion accomplishes that purpose.

Discusses the correspondence and use of each other′s ideas of Loeb and Veblen which are seen to be significant both in understanding the evolution of their own thought and as commentary on the times.

John E. Elliott has been a professor of economics at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles since 1956 when he graduated from Harvard University with a doctorate in economics. In that position at USC, John has distinguished himself not only as a scholar and prolific writer but also as an outstanding teacher. He has received every teaching honour which USC has within its power to bestow. Moreover, John has distinguished himself for his contribution to the well‐being of the faculty and to the advancement of its efforts to preserve and extend the concept of academic freedom. John E. Elliott was born in the year 1931 and the essays which comprise this Festschriftare written in celebration of his sixtieth birthday. The numerous awards he has received for the high quality of his teaching, for his creativity and innovation in the dissemination of knowledge, his record of books published, articles contributed to scholarly journals and book reviews are to be found in his curriculum vitae printed at the end of this work.

John E. Elliott has been a professor of economics at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles since 1956 when he graduated from Harvard University with a doctorate in economics. In that position at USC, John has distinguished himself not only as a scholar and prolific writer but also as an outstanding teacher. He has received every teaching honour which USC has within its power to bestow. Moreover, John has distinguished himself for his contribution to the wellbeing of the faculty and to the advancement of its efforts to preserve and extend the concept of academic freedom. John E. Elliott was born in the year 1931 and the essays which comprise this Festschrift are written in celebration of his sixtieth birthday. The numerous awards he has received for the high quality of his teaching, for his creativity and innovation in the dissemination of knowledge, his record of books published, articles contributed to scholarly journals, and book reviews, are to be found in his curriculum vitae printed at the end of this work.

Contemporary sociologists implicitly assume or explicitly state that classical social theorists shared the Enlightenment’s optimistic vision that society would become more rational, free, ethical, and just overtime. I reexamine the primary works that laid the foundation for sociology and resituate them in their neo-Romantic origins.

Close readings of formative texts are provided to revisit modernist critiques of social progress in turn of the century sociology. The works of Ferdinand Tönnies, Thorstein Veblen, Emile Durkheim, Georg Simmel, and Max Weber exemplify this tradition.

Insights from social theory written during and around the neo-Romantic period mirrored the Zeitgeist, a time fascinated with irrationality, moral decay, unconsciousness, decadence, degeneration, cynicism, historical decline, and pessimism. However, classical sociology’s pessimism should not be interpreted as anti-modern. Rather, it contributed to the Enlightenment’s maturation.

Contemporary sociologists should recover the spirit of classical sociology’s gloomy extension of the modern project and bring societal processes to consciousness through human reason, untainted by the fable of progress. Without rational grounds for optimism, the most honest and sincere way to preserve the hope for alternatives and emancipation is through the continuation and advancement of the pessimistic tradition. To formulate new disillusioned theories of society, sociology ought to draw from its ignored tragic legacy.

Rather than accept accounts of classical sociologists as believers in progress, the tradition reveals a world of increasing disenchantment, atomization, anomie, alienation, confusion, quarrel, rationalization devoid of value, and unhappiness. Providing society thoughtful, systematic accounts of its own estrangement advances the project of modernity.

Many writers have addressed the similarities and differences between the analytical approaches of Marx and Veblen. The crucial concerns in these interpretations centre on Darwinian evolution and the analysis of capitalism. By focusing on the analysis of capitalism, most Marxists have found considerable compatibility between Veblen′s writings and those of Marx. Many institutionalists, on the other hand, have tended to stress the Darwinian content of both Veblen and Marx and have found Marx′s analysis decidedly inferior to Veblen′s. It is argued that it was Engels rather than Marx who attempted to incorporate Darwin into Marxism. As a consequence, Engels is compared with Veblen and the attempts of both writers to develop a Darwinian content to their analytical approaches are found to lead to a common bond, namely the stress on procreation.

Significant differences exist in the racial composition of America’s student and teacher populations. This reality is compounded by the racial re-segregation patterns affecting many schools and systems in the USA. These trends make it increasingly less likely that educators encounter racial diversity during their experiences as K-12 students and more likely that they encounter racial diversity as educators. This paper aims to present the results of a study designed to explore the consequences of this reality on those educators’ abilities to successfully reach their students?

The present study used a quantitative exploratory design. Data were analyzed to determine if educators’ experiences as K-12 students affected their present self-efficacy for teaching in diverse classrooms, their self-efficacy for using culturally responsive techniques, and their confidence in the merits of deploying these approaches in classrooms.

Data from the present study suggest that educators whose school experiences included significant interactions in racially diverse settings are significantly more likely to possess a higher level of self-efficacy than those who do not.

This study illuminates an unexplored consequence of school resegregation and lends support for efforts to diversify the teaching force and resist school resegregation.

This paper discusses the influence of human sociality on choice behavior, through association with social networks and the influence of these networks on constraints, perceptions, preferences, and decision-making processes. The paper discusses ways to incorporate these factors into choice models, while retaining the aspects of the theory of individual rationality that are predictive. Finally, the paper outlines an econometric method for solving the “reflection problem” of determining whether social affiliations follow preferences, or preferences follow social affiliations, by distinguishing opportunity-based and preference-based motivations for association with social networks.

In much of philosophy and social theory since classical antiquity, human belief and reason have been placed in the driving seat of individual action. In particular, social theory has often taken it for granted, or even by definition, that action is motivated by reasons based on beliefs. In contrast, a minority has criticized the adoption of this ‘folk psychology’ that explains human action wholly in such ‘mind first’ terms. Critics point out that such explanations are a mere gloss on a much more complex neurophysiological reality. These dualistic and ‘mind-first’ explanations of human behavior are unable to explain adequately such phenomena as sleep, memory, learning, mental illness, or the effects of chemicals or drugs on our perceptions or actions (Bunge, 1980; Churchland, 1984, 1989; Churchland, 1986; Rosenberg, 1995, 1998; Kilpinen, 2000).