Bubbles in a back eddy: A commentary on “The origin, diagnostic attributes and practical application of coevolutionary theory”

Abstract

Winder, McIntosh, and Jeffrey (2005) thread acritique of bDevelopment BetrayedQ through an unu-sual reading of the history of evolutionary thought.Some of their commentary is interesting; frequently itis colorfully portrayed. For example, Winder et al.write that bIn emphasising the pervasiveness of co-evolution in socio-natural dynamics, Norgaard isdecanting the old wine of complex system theoryinto co-evolutionary skins. But there is even olderwine in those skins; the Darwin–Huxley synthesis,and we are reluctant to see it poured into the sandto accommodate the later vintage.Q These are grandwords a little harshly delivered from the perspectiveof a historian of science.Let me ascend to their rhetorical heights and reflecton the history of evolutionary thought from on high aswell. Winder et al. focus on a supposed bDarwin–HuxleyQsynthesis,aparticularjoiningofthought.Loo-kingatthehistoryofbiology,Iseealargebraidedriver,like the big rivers I have known carving broad valleysas they come out of the mountains of Alaska. Streamsofthoughtintheriverjoin,theirwatersforevermixing,yet the river keeps dividing while new rivers join in aswell. I see the currents of evolutionary thinking todayswelling with turbulence as they mix with new knowl-edgeindevelopmentalbiology.Andfromthisperspec-tive, the critique of Winder et al. on bDevelopmentBetrayedQ looks like bubbles in a back eddy.Winder et al. note bNorgaard has found in biologya set of ideas that are dgood to think withT and usedthem to communicate important ideas about connect-edness and complexity.Q I like this constructive char-acterization of my work. It conveys the pragmatism ofmy effort quite well. And how can I argue againstpraise like bthe pioneering work of Richard Norgaard(1984, 1994)...undoubtedly represents an importantformative contribution to both the current state and thefuture trajectory of co-evolutionary theory as appliedto socio-natural scienceQ?The problem is that Winder et al. rally little evi-dence to support the argument that bDevelopmentBetrayedQ represents a significant joining of currentsitself. Does it really demarcate an important conflu-ence in the river of thought, a joining of significantstreams that now have a momentum of their own.Might the work of C.J. Lumsden and E.O. Wilson(1981), Peter Corning (1983),orWilliam Durham(1991), for example, better demarcate the joining ofcurrents? Indeed, looking more closely, I see that theproblem is that we are multiple communities of scho-