Taking Evolution Seriously
Orion Lewis
Sven Steinmo
University of Colorado
August 14, 2006
Draft – not for citation
“What we lack is a dynamic theory, one that endogenizes the mechanisms of
transformation.”
-Margaret Levi, American Political Science Association,
Presidential Address, 2006.
The term evolution is used repeatedly across the subfields of political science.
Yet,
when political scientists use the term “evolution,” the reader is generally left wondering as to
the precise meaning of the phrase. Perhaps it is simply that the term is used rather casually–
i.e. to invoke the concept of change.
Alternatively, it could be that “evolution” is meant
metaphorically –suggesting a connected pattern of historical events. John Campbell, a
sociologist, is more precise in his definition. He describes “an evolutionary pattern” as
“characterized by the gradual accumulation of small, incremental changes over long periods
of time.” (Campbell, 2004: 5). In this case what is meant is simply that events follow one
another in a connected historical pattern. In this version of “evolution” the central idea is path
dependency in that events are in fact connected to each other over time. We believe that this
is what is most commonly meant when this term is invoked. Finally, it is also possible that
the term “evolution” is used intentionally. In this case, when scholars write “the evolution of
x or y” they actually mean to invoke evolutionary theory as an explanation for the patterns of
historical and institutional change which they wish to describe or analyze.
This analysis is divided into two main parts. In part I, we present the basic ideas in
evolutionary theory.
We show that evolutionary biologists agree on a number of Darwin’s
basic propositions which point to biological variation and environmental selection as the key
mechanism for change. Secondly, we highlight the fact that evolutionary biology relies on
somewhat different set of ontological and epistemological assumptions than are typically
found in political science. Ontologically, evolutionary biologists are much more attuned to
complexity and interaction, which diminishes the efficacy of reductionism. In this view, it is
impossible to reduce outcomes to their constituent parts because complex interactions create
emergent characteristics.
Indeed, this is a scientific framework that embraces diversity as the
2
Paper to be presented at the American Political Science Association’s annual meeting, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, August 30 – Sept. 3, 2006.
2
Convention