Skip to main content
Published Online:

This article presents the fundamental paradigmatic principles of evolutionary psychology, which are then subjected to criticism. It is argued that evolutionary psychology suffers from both a number of unfounded empirical presuppositions and from conceptual confusion. Evolutionary psychology invokes Darwin as a background figure, but the relationship between the two is rather problematic. Although critical of evolutionary psychology, the article argues that psychology could favorably maintain a form of Darwinian thinking, albeit one that is more dynamic and transactional than evolutionary psychology’s modular thinking. We need to conceive of organism and environment as much more closely interwoven than in evolutionary psychology, and to think of human development as one continuous, transactional process that cannot be factored out into separate “biological” (brain, genes) and “cultural” strands.

References

  • Bennett, M. R. , Hacker, P. M. S. (2003). Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar

  • Biesta, G. , Burbules, N. C. (2003). Pragmatism and Educational Research. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Google Scholar

  • Brinkmann, S. (2006). Damasio on mind and emotions: A Conceptual critique. Nordic Psychology, 58, 366–380. LinkGoogle Scholar

  • Brinkmann, S. (2011a). Psychology as a Moral Science: Perspectives on Normativity. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brinkmann, S. (2011b). Dewey’s neglected psychology: Rediscovering his transactional approach. Theory & Psychology, 21(3), 198–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brinkmann, S. , Tanggaard, L. (2010). Toward an epistemology of the hand. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29(3), 243–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Burke, T. (1994). Dewey’s New Logic: A Reply to Russell. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar

  • Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind. Boston: Pearson. Google Scholar

  • Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action and Cognitive Extension. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Clark, A. , Chalmers, D. (1998). The Extended Mind. Analysis, 58, 7–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Confer, J. C. , Easton, J. A. , Fleischman, D. S. , Goetz, C. D. , Lewis, D. M. G. , Perilloux, C. , Buss, D. M. (2010). Evolutionary psychology: Controversies, questions, prospects, and limitations. American Psychologist, 65, 110–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cosmides, L. , Tooby, J. (1997). Web document visited September 16, 2010: www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html. Google Scholar

  • Cosmides, L. , Tooby, J. (2005). Conceptual foundations of evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss, (Eds.). The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. (pp. 5–67). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Google Scholar

  • Costall, A. (2004). From Darwin to Watson (and cognitivism) and back again: The principle of animal-environment mutuality. Behavior and Philosophy, 32: 179–195. Google Scholar

  • Coulter, J. , Sharrock, W. (2007). Brain, Mind, and Human Behavior in Contemporary Cognitive Science: Critical Assessments of the Philosophy of Psychology. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press. Google Scholar

  • Derksen, M. (2010). Realism, relativism, and evolutionary psychology. Theory & Psychology, 20(4), 467–487. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and Nature. Chicago: Open Court. Google Scholar

  • Dewey, J. (1929). The Quest for Certainty. (This edition published 1960). New York: Capricorn Books. Google Scholar

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt & Co. Google Scholar

  • Dewey, J. , Bentley, A. (1949). Knowing and the known. (This edition published 1960). Boston: Beacon Press. Google Scholar

  • Dreyfus, H. (1979). What Computers Still Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. (2nd revised edition). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar

  • Gardner, H. (1987). The Mind’s New Science (2nd edition). New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar

  • Garrison, J. (2001). An introduction to Dewey’s theory of functional “trans-action”: An alternative paradigm for activity theory. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 8, 275–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. (First published 1979) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar

  • Gould, S. J. (1980). Sociobiology and the Theory of Natural Selection. In G. W. Barlow, and J. Silverberg, (Eds.). Sociobiology: Beyond Nature/Nurture? (pp. 257–269). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar

  • Hamilton, R. (2008). The Darwinian cage. Theory, Culture & Society, 25, 105–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heft, H. (2001). Ecological Psychology in Context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy of William James’s Radical Empiricism. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, M. (2007). The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ingold, T. (1998). The evolution of society. In A. C. Fabian, (Ed.). Evolution: Society, Science and the Universe. (pp. 79–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ingold, T. (2000). Evolving skills. In H. Rose, S. Rose, (Eds.). Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. (pp. 225–246). London: Jonathan Cape. Google Scholar

  • Ingold, T. (2004). Beyond biology and culture: The meaning of evolution in a relational world. Social Anthropology, 12(2), 209–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ingold, T. (2011). Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2000). Why babies’ brains are not Swiss army knives. In H. Rose, S. Rose, (Eds.). Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. (pp. 144–156). London: Jonathan Cape. Google Scholar

  • Manicas, P. T. (2002). John Dewey and American psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32, 267–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Menand, L. (2002). The Metaphysical Club. London: Flamingo. Google Scholar

  • Nagel, T. (1997). The Last Word. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

  • Pinker, S. (1997). How the Mind Works. New York: Norton. Google Scholar

  • Robbins, P. , Aydede, M. (Eds.) (2009). The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

  • Rose, H. , Rose, S. (2000). Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. London: Jonathan Cape. Google Scholar

  • Rose, H. (2000). Colonising the social sciences?. In H. Rose, S. Rose, (Eds.). Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. (pp. 106–128). London: Jonathan Cape. Google Scholar

  • Rose, N. (2007). The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rose, S. (2000). Escaping evolutionary psychology. In H. Rose, S. Rose, (Eds.). Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. (pp. 247–264). London: Jonathan Cape. Google Scholar

  • Smith, B. H. (2000). Sewing up the mind: The claims of evolutionary psychology. In H. Rose, S. Rose, (Eds.). Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology. (pp. 129–143). London: Jonathan Cape. Google Scholar

  • Still, A. , Good, J. (1992). Mutualism in the human sciences: Towards the implementation of a theory. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22, 105–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Still, A. , Good, J. (1998). The ontology of mutualism. Ecological Psychology, 10, 39–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weinert, F. (2009). Copernicus, Darwin & Freud: Revolutions in the History and Philosophy of Science. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar

  • Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar

  • Withagen, R. , van Wermeskerken, M. (2010). The role of affordances in the evolutionary process reconsidered: A niche construction perspective. Theory & Psychology, 20(4): 489–510. CrossrefGoogle Scholar