A Preliminary Survey of the Legacies of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Richard Wagner

Examined in Light of Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos

Introduction

In Darwin, Marx, and Wagner: Critique of a Heritage, historian Jacques

Barzun argues that 20th century thought had succumbed to a domineering

“mechanical materialism” (Barzun, 1941:12-13) due to the influence of these

three men. Barzun believed that their systems were ultimately derivative

and incoherent, but yet “each man’s work stands as a sort of Scripture,

quotable for almost all purposes on an infinity of subjects” (Barzun,

1941:324). Barzun’s strident critique notwithstanding, it is difficult to argue

about the influence of Darwin, Marx, and Wagner on their respective fields

and on society in general.

In contemplating their legacies, a question arises about the type of

impact the ideas of Darwin, Marx, and Wagner had. Was it as extreme as

Barzun declared? If so, one could say that their systems drove a paradigm

shift, ala the process articulated by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn. Or,

if something less than this, perhaps philosopher of science Imre Lakatos’

separate but related concept of research programs might better describe the

type of change their ideas produced. The purpose of this paper is to examine

the legacies of Darwin, Marx, and Wagner in light of Kuhn’s paradigm shift

process and Lakatos’ research program model and seek to answer the

following question: Are the legacies of their work emblematic of a paradigm

shift, a research program, both, or neither?

1

To shed light on this enquiry, this paper is structured as follows. First, I

provide essential background on the fundamental elements, general

development, and impact of Darwinism, Marxism, and Wagnerism. Second, I

describe Thomas Kuhn’s and Imre Lakatos’ processes of scientific

development. Next, I use the background and processes to conduct a

qualitative analysis of the research question. I then supply a critique that

points out the paper’s limitations and conclude with suggestions for further

research and a short summary.

Background

This section provides the “data” to inform the subsequent analysis. For

each figure’s system I lay out the key components, sketch its overall

development, and assess the general impact on their fields and in society

over the ensuing decades.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: The Fundamental Elements and Impact

Although the idea of evolution was far from new at the time Darwin

published his theory, his synthesis was a novel one. Especially the way in

which he buttressed his “one long argument” with massive amounts of

observational evidence. Darwin rested his theory on four key concepts that

together comprised an integrated viewpoint on the development and variety

of life on earth. These concepts are (1) evolution as such, (2) common

descent, (3) gradualism, and (4) natural selection.

2

With regard to evolution as such, this concept is implicit in Darwin’s

theory. Even so, this assertion was not unique since several others before

Darwin had advanced ideas of evolution, including his grandfather Erasmus:

“Would it be too bold to imagine, that in the great length of time, since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind, would it be too bold to imagine, that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which THE GREAT FIRST CAUSE endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions, and associations; and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down those improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!” (Darwin, E., 2009:505).

The younger Darwin’s view about evolution as such stood in contrast to the

prevailing idea of the “Great Chain of Being,” a form of static creationism

wherein species were originally generated in their present form from the

simplest to the most complex (Lovejoy, 2001:59).

As a result of his investigations, including his early work as a geologist

and his journey on the HMS Beagle, Darwin came to believe that all life on

earth evolved from one common ancestor, “Therefore I should infer from

analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this

earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was

first breathed" (Darwin, 2006:303). Going forward in time, complex

organisms emerged from simpler ones. Similarly, common ancestry explains

likenesses between species.

Darwin applied the doctrine of gradualism to argue that evolution is a

slow process, taking place over great lengths of time and in innumerable

3

small steps. Evolution “…can never take a great and sudden leap” (Darwin,

2006:122) and advances “by the short and sure, through slow steps”

(Darwin, 2006:295). In this regard, he followed botanist Carolus Linnaeus

who said, “Natura non facit saltus” (Linnaeus, 2005:37), and adapted the

thinking of his mentor Charles Lyell who advocated for a theory gradual

geological change called uniformitarianism (Nelson, 77:142).

Natural selection is the heart of Darwin’s theory; it acts as the

“automatic mechanism” that drives evolution. Natural selection has four

main components: variation, inheritance, high rate of population growth, and

differential survival and reproduction. Variation means that individuals within

populations exhibit variation in appearance and behavior. Inheritance is the

process by which traits are passed from parent to offspring. A high rate of

species population growth tends to produce more progeny each year than

local resources can sustain. High population growth leads to a struggle to

survive and substantial mortality. The result is that individuals possessing

traits well suited to the struggle for existence will produce more offspring

than those less able to deal with the struggle. The traits that confer an

advantage to those individuals who leave more offspring are called

adaptations. Natural selection operates by comparative advantage, not an

absolute standard of design, “…as natural selection acts by competition for

resources, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the

degree of perfection of their associates” (Darwin, 2006:296).

4

Following the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin faced

immediate controversy, although the assistance of advocates such as

biologist Thomas Huxley and surgeon Joseph Hooker ensured the steady

spread and acceptance of evolution as a viable scientific theory. With the

advent of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930’s that integrated,

among other advances, Gregor Mendel’s genetic research, Darwin’s

contribution became firmly entrenched in the field of biology (Mayr, 1980:1-

5). Today, evolutionary thinking extends to many other academic disciplines

such as computer science, psychology, sociology, economics, linguistics, and

archeology. Along the way, politicians and policy makers used Darwin’s idea

for dubious, even nefarious, purposes such as population control and

eugenics (Bergman et al, 2014:43-46). Finally, no discussion of Darwin’s

impact is complete without recognizing the ongoing friction between died-in-

the-wool Darwinists and certain people of fundamentalist religious faith,

particularly in the United States. This friction has existed from Darwin’s time

up until today, and ultimately derives from incompatible philosophical

positions (scientism vs. common-sense realism) on the most efficacious way

to explain the origin and development of life (Ruse, 2005:264-266).

Marx’s Approach to Political Economy: The Fundamental Elements and Impact

Marx’s relied on historical materialism and his dialectical method to

underpin his approach to political economy. Using these constructs as an

intellectual “base”, he created his economic “superstructure”: the forces and

relations of production and the labor theory of value. Marx employed his

5

system to critique the existing capitalist economic structure of his time,

finding it inherently exploitative of workers and riven with contradictions. He

found that throughout history exploitation and contradictions gave rise to

class struggle. The end state, as Marx would have it, was proletariat

revolution. Eventually (for Marx preferably sooner), revolution would lead to

the replacement of the capitalist system with communism.

Marx’s derived his dialectical method from Hegel wherein history

proceeds according to a pattern of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. The thesis is

the original state of affairs in a society. Over time, an antithesis develops to

challenge the existing situation. This is followed by resolution of the conflict

between the thesis and antithesis which in turn resolves into a new thesis.

The dialectical method was the means by which Marx analyzed the evolution

of political economy over time. He also applied the dialectical method to his

general theory of history, now known as historical materialism.

Marx viewed human history in terms of “modes of production” or the

ways in which societies are organized to use technology to interact with

nature. He asserted that societies are determined by the material conditions

that exist at any given time that dictate the relationships people have with

another to fulfill basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and security.

From Marx’s point of view, history is chiefly a function of these material

(economic) conditions. Marx summarized what he meant by this materialistic

aspect of his theory of history in the 1859 preface to Capital: A Contribution

to the Critique of Political Economy:

6

“In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness” (Marx, 1990:175).

Marx also distinguished between the forces of production and the

relations of production. The “forces of production” are the types of

productive technology society uses whereas the “relations of production”

refers to the social organization of production, or who owns the productive

forces and how those forces are controlled. For instance, in a capitalist

society capitalists own and control the productive resources while workers

own only their labor and work for capitalists. It is capitalists who own the

product and sell it for a profit. Initially, the relationship between new forces

of production and new relations of production benefits society. As time goes

on, contradictions (thesis and antithesis) arise that drive social change.

As a result of his analysis of history, Marx believed that social change

results from the struggle between classes for dominance, “The history of all

hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx and Engels,

1988:55-56). According to this rubric, there are dominant and subservient

classes in any given historical period because class is determined by one’s

relationship to the means of production. In capitalist society, there are two

basic classes, capitalists, who own the means of production and workers who

7

own only their labor. The ultimate goal of communism is a classless society

wherein the means of production are owned by workers and all people enjoy

equal wealth and power, “From each according to his ability, to each

according to his need” (Marx, 2010:243).

Another key component of Marx’s political economy construct is his

labor theory of value. Marx extended the efforts of classical economists

Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Thomas Malthus to demonstrate that the

value of goods should be calculated in terms of the amount of socially

necessary labor that went into their production. Subtracting from the

aggregate the quantity of commodities (measured in labor) that make up

wages, there remains a surplus value that capitalists receive as profits. Marx

viewed profit taking as exploitation, when workers receive less than the total

value of the goods produced (Marx, 2010: 199-200).

Marx also pointed out several structural conflicts built into capitalism

that contributed to the denigration of workers even as capitalists

accumulated wealth. As the organic composition of capital changes, workers

have less and less purchasing power which in turn means that profits will fall

over the long run (Marx, 1990:317-338). Also, in a capitalist system, workers

are alienated from their work because they do not participate in the end-to-

end production of goods, they do not have a say in how the work is done,

and they do not own the means by which their work is performed. Finally,

capitalism tends to destroy community and replace it with a base “cash

nexus.” Profit becomes the only motive and the individual exists as an

8

atomized entity in a mass society without emotional and social bonds (Marx

and Engels, 1988:5-6).

Marx believed that these endemic contradictions would lead to the

collapse of capitalism through the increasing polarization of the capitalist

and worker classes. Because the dominant class would not give up power

voluntarily, Marx supported active revolution to seize power if necessary.

Marx and Engels The Communist Manifesto, first published in 1872, best

expresses this sentiment.

At the time of his death, Marx had attracted few followers. Indeed, only

a handful of people attended his funeral (Wheen, 2000:382). Within twenty-

five years of Marx’s death, his ideas had spread throughout Europe and

begun to attract committed supporters. By the mid-1980’s, nearly one-third

of the world’s population lived under communism1, and more still under

some kind of socialist system. Within academia, Marxist thought penetrated

into fields as varied as economics, aesthetics, ethics, anthropology,

epistemology, psychology, philosophy of science, political philosophy, the

philosophy of history, literature, and the arts. Examples include Marxist

literary criticism, Marxist aesthetics, and Marxist anthropology. From a

political perspective, Marx’s thinking gave rise to different strains of

communism such as Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Luxemburgism,

libertarian Marxism, structuralist Marxism, historical Marxism,

phenomenological Marxism, analytical Marxism, and Hegelian Marxism. Not

1 http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Communism

9

least, the actual implementation of Marxism in its various incarnations had

profound effects on state political structures and the day-to-day lives of

millions. When viewed holistically over the past 150 years, we can see

clearly that Marx’s impact is not only intellectual, but also truly “material” for

the many millions who lived—and continue to live—under his shadow.

Wagner’s Approach to Opera: The Fundamental Elements and Impact

At the heart of Wagner’s approach to opera was his belief that myth,

when portrayed through a comprehensive artistic presentation of music,

drama, poetry, and philosophy could elevate, revitalize, and redeem human

civilization (Cicora, 1999:86). With his idea of Gesamtkunstwerk, Wagner

undertook to create the “art of the future” (Wagner, 1993:35, 52, 88), and in

so doing, he rewrote the rules for opera. Wagner sought to portray timeless

themes about the human condition that resulted in an event that was more

than simply an evening of entertainment. He wanted to gather people

together for a life-changing, quasi-religious experience rooted in emotion

and nature (Vazsonyi, 2010:170-176). In order to achieve his vision, Wagner

created new operatic forms, musical language, theatrical presentations, and

architectural innovations and integrated them to produce a first of its kind

spectacle that he called music-drama.

From an operatic standpoint, Wagner eschewed the long-standing

distinctions between recitative, aria, and ensemble in favor of making the

drama primary and the music ancillary. The elimination of these traditional

distinctions allowed Wagner to change the role of the singers from virtuosos

10

to bona fide characters who were carefully integrated into the performance.

Before Wagner, composers constructed operas from pre-existing formulas.

Wagner discarded this convention in order to create a more integrated work

of art. As Wagner states, “This opera form was never, of its very nature, a

form embracing the whole drama, but rather an arbitrary conglomerate of

separate smaller forms of song, whose fortuitous concatenation of arias,

duos, trios and so on, with choruses and so-called ensemble pieces, made

out of the actual edifice of opera” (Wagner, 1995:67).

Another innovation was Wagner’s extensive use of leitmotifs—short

musical phrases directly associated with a character, object, or idea—as

musical language (Burbidge and Sutton, 1979: 345-346). Leitmotifs became

an essential part of the drama’s text and served as audio signals for the

audience, a way to support action, and a means to express emotions through

the music. For Wagner, a leitmotif’s melody provided the literal meaning of

what was occurring in the drama while its harmony provided the emotional

sense. In addition, leitmotifs gave structural coherence as the drama

unfolded and themes were introduced. In this way, they connected

characters, emotions, and ideas into an organic whole.

With regard to the music itself, Wagner relied much more on tonic

chords and chromaticism rather than dominant chords. This technique

allowed him more compositional freedom to express emotions through the

musical subtext. For example, in Tristan und Isolde Wagner used

chromaticism as a motif, to express the “the infinite longing of romantic love

11

and the yearning for its appeasement in death” (Burbidge and Stutton 237).

Chromaticism was not a new idea in opera, but previous to Wagner,

composers used it to get from one tonal setting to another. Wagner

employed tonal or chromatic key modulation as tools to enhance the drama

occurring on stage and heighten the audience’s engagement (Millington,

2001:253-258).

In addition to his operatic form and musical language, Wagner also

focused on creating stage realism to bring the audience closer to the drama

(Carnegy, 2006:40). When presented the opportunity to build a customized a

theater in Bayreuth, Wagner implemented many innovations to fulfill his

vision of music-drama. Among these advancements, he placed the orchestra

down and under the stage using a double proscenia so that, “The spectral

music sounding from the ‘mystic gulf,’ like vapors rising from the holy womb

of Gaia beneath the Pythia’s tripod, inspires him [the spectator] with that

clairvoyance in which the scenic picture melts into the truest effigy of life

itself” (Wagner quoted in Smith, 2007:31-32). As a practical matter, the

physical performance of the orchestral became less distracting, allowing the

instrumental music to integrate more effectively with the vocal music,

drama, and visual effects on stage. Wagner said that the conductor “should

be hidden from him [the spectator] with almost as much care as the ropes,

pulley, struts and boards of the sets, the sight of which from the wings is well

known to destroy all illusion” (Wagner, quoted in Carnegy, 2006:70). Wagner

was also the first to darken the auditorium during the performance, shut the

12

doors during the performance, use the steam curtain (created by a row of

jets along the line of stage floodlights), and insist that applause was reserved

for the end of an act.

One indication of Wagner’s influence is that there are no such -isms as

“Bachism” or “Mozartism” but there is Wagnerism. Just as Darwinism and

Marxism denote a distinct frame of reference with which to view the world,

so too does Wagner’s body of work extend beyond the purely musical to the

philosophical and ideological. Even during Wagner’s lifetime, groups of

enthusiasts—“Wagnerites”—gathered to partake of, analyze, and advance

not only his art, but his ideas about art (Sutton, 2002:1-5). Wagner’s

synthesis of myth, music, and drama appealed deeply to the Volkish

sentiments extant in Germanic culture of the late nineteenth century which

in turn found darker purchase in Nazi Germany. According to May:

“…his influence was so profound that it extended well beyond music to leading figure in other disciplines. To give just a brief sampling: Baudelaire and the later symbolists, Thomas Mann, Marcel Proust, George Bernard Shaw, innumerable theater and film directors…Think of the success of composers such as John Williams, or James Horner, and Howard Shore with their tightly integrated themes and prismatically arrayed orchestrations for films of epic Wagnerian ambition. Think too of how resonant those very films have been in the larger culture, responding to a shared need for myth and psychology to rely on in our “disenchanted” postmodern world” (May, 2004:10).

Wagner’s impact on other fields, such as cinema, is clearly seen as

composers adopted Wagner’s concept of leitmotifs to integrate the musical

score with the onscreen drama. Their use “leads directly to cinema music

where the sole function of the leitmotif is to announce heroes or situations so

13

as to allow the audience to orient itself more easily" (Adorno, 2009:36). In

fact, some regard Wagner as a kind of “proto-film composer” due to the

epically expansive nature of his music-dramas, “If Wagnerhadlivedinthis

century hewouldhavebeentheNo.1filmcomposer” (Film critic Max Steiner

quoted in Burlingame, 2010). Wagnerian approaches abound in modern

cinematic soundtracks including those composed by John Williams (e.g. Star

Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark), James Horner (e.g. Titanic, Avatar), and Hans

Zimmer (e.g. Crimson Tide, The Dark Knight). Some examples of Wagner’s

music in film include the funeral music from Gotterdammerung in

“Excalibur,” the bridal chorus from Lohengrin used in “Beetlejuice,” “Father

of the Bride,” and “Spiderman 2.” Perhaps one of the most famous instances

of Wagner in film is the “Ride of the Valkyries” in “Apocalypse Now.”

Wagner's influence on literature has been no less significant. As

Raymond Furness states:

“His protean abundance meant that he could inspire the use of the literary motif in many a novel employing interior monologue; the yearnings of the mythmakers increasingly took his music dramas as a fecund source; the Symbolists saw him as a mystic hierophant; the Decadents found many a frisson in his work” (Furness, 1992: 396).

Among authors influenced by Wagner, philosopher and poet Bryan Magee

lists D. H. Lawrence, Aubrey Beardsley, Romain Rolland, Gérard de Nerval,

Rainer Maria Rilke, Thomas Mann, and Marcel Proust (Magee, 1988, 53).

Wagner features in the works of James Joyce (e.g. Ulysses and Finnegan’s

Wake) and T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, which contains lines from Tristan und

Isolde and Gotterdammerung.

14

Without a doubt, the ideas of these three men has had a tremendous

impact on all manner of human endeavor including philosophy, science, art,

politics, and economics. Over the ensuing 150 years since their thinking first

emerged on the scene, countless millions have been affected, whether

directly or indirectly, or for good or for ill. Let’s now turn to two illustrious

philosophers of science to learn more about their theories of scientific

development and how their models might be used to frame the impact of

Darwin, Marx, and Wagner.

Thomas Kuhn’s “Paradigm Shift”

Thomas Kuhn was an American physicist, historian, and philosopher of

science best known for his book The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions (1962). In this book, Kuhn introduced the concept of the

paradigm shift to describe how scientific development occurs. Webster’s

dictionary defines a paradigm as a theory or a group of ideas about how

something should be done, made, or thought about. From a scientific

perspective, a paradigm is a distinct set of concepts or thought patterns,

including theories, research methods, postulates, and standards for what

constitutes legitimate contributions to a scientific field, or according to Kuhn,

“universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide

model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners” (Kuhn,

1996:10). Kuhn cites Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus or Newton’s Principia as

instigators of paradigms shifts because they were "sufficiently

unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from

15

competing modes of scientific activity…[and] sufficiently open-ended to

leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to

resolve." (Kuhn, 1996:10).

Kuhn described a six-step process (Figure 1), popularly known as the

“Kuhn Cycle” through which paradigm shifts emerge. These steps include

prescience, normal science, model drift, model crisis, model revolution, and

paradigm change.

Figure 1. The Kuhn Cycle

All new scientific endeavors begin in prescience, where researchers

have identified a problem, but do not yet have the wherewithal to solve it,

there is no prevailing school of thought, and there are disparate and

competing theories. In addition, there will be almost as many theories are

there are workers in the field.

Out of prescience emerges normal science. In this step, major progress

on central problems becomes possible. Normal science means that a

research community exists who share a common intellectual framework (a 16

paradigm) and work to solve puzzles impinging on the paradigm (Kuhn,

1996:35-42). Puzzles are generated by anomalies between what the

paradigm predicts and what is shown through experimentation. Normal

science is characterized by articulating the paradigm, precisely evaluating

key paradigmatic facts, and testing those new points where the paradigm is

open to empirical evaluation (Kuhn, 1996:25-28). Anomalies are resolved by

updating the framework with incremental changes based on new knowledge.

Normal science forms the vast bulk of scientific activity.

The model drift step occurs as the paradigm is mined for new

knowledge, and the research community digs so deep that it discovers new

questions that the paradigm cannot answer (Kuhn, 1996:52). As these

anomalies appear, the explanatory power of the model weakens. Anomalies

that are resistant to solution under the existing paradigm serve to inhibit

further progress and undermine support for it. Kuhn cites the discovery of

oxygen (vice phlogiston), x-rays (exposed screen not expected to glow) and

the Leyden jar (to “store” electricity in water) as examples of anomalies that

challenged the normal science of the day (Kuhn, 1996:54-61).

As unsolved anomalies accumulate and the paradigm is unable to

account for them the model crisis step ensues. Model crisis means that the

paradigm is ineffective in solving the field’s current problems, doubts arise

regarding core assumptions, and members of the research community begin

to question the paradigm itself. At this point, the field is characterized by "a

proliferation of compelling articulations, the willingness to try anything, the

17

expression of explicit discontent, the recourse to philosophy and to debate

over fundamentals" (Kuhn, 1962:91).

Out of the struggle to construct a more capable intellectual framework,

new candidates emerge to supplant the old paradigm. This is the model

revolution step. The old paradigm co-exists with the new, emerging one. The

old paradigm is well established, and has many supporters despite many

anomalies while the new one is untested, perhaps incorporates new concepts

and new research techniques, and has few followers. The new paradigm is

“incommensurate” because it is irreconcilable with the previous one (Kuhn,

1962:148-150, 198-204). Each community uses its own assumptions to judge

the other’s paradigm, often talking past each other. Often, supporters of the

old paradigm are viewed as resistant to change and supporters of the new

are painted as scientifically irresponsible. For example this kind of contention

occurred between Darwin’s supporters and those who opposed his theory.

Even today, contention exists between proponents of evolution and those

who advocate creationism.

The paradigm change step begins once the new paradigm is agreed on

by a group of influential supporters. Here the field transitions from the old to

the new paradigm which becomes the dominant view in the field. This is the

“paradigm shift” of modern parlance. Kuhn’s classic example of a paradigm

shift is the change that occurred in physics after Newton published Principia

Mathematica and Opticks (Kuhn, 1996:12). Over time, the new paradigm

sufficiently replaces the old and becomes the field’s new normal science. The

18

Kuhn Cycle begins again as the quest for new knowledge about the world

continues.

Imre Lakatos’ “Research Program”

In response to Kuhn’s notion of paradigmatic progress in science, Imre

Lakatos, a philosopher of mathematics and science, put forth the idea that

science moves forward via “research programs” (Lakatos, 1978:47-48). A

research program is a sequence of advancements within a domain of inquiry

wherein each successor theory marks an improvement over its predecessor.

The move from one theory to its successor within a research program is

called a "problem shift." Problem shifts may be "progressive" in two ways:

theoretically or empirically. Theoretically progressive problem shifts enable

researchers to predict more than a predecessor theory. A problem shift is

empirically progressive if in addition to predicting new observable evidence,

actual observation confirms this new prediction. In order for a research

program as a whole to be progressive, each problem shift must be at least

theoretically progressive, and at least intermittently empirically progressive

(Lakatos, 1978:48-49). In other words, in a progressive program, a move

from an old theory to a new one must enable researchers to predict more,

and at least sometimes these predictions must be confirmed. If not the

research program is said to be "degenerating" (Lakatos, 1978:34). Scientists

should stay with a progressive research program and abandon a

degenerating program.

19

Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its

“hard core” which contains its basic assumptions and its “protective belt,” a

surrounding defensive set of hypotheses. The protective belt serves to

deflect propositions that refute core assumptions. In designing new theories

to replace old, researchers adhere to a constellation of beliefs which Lakatos

calls a “heuristic” (Lakatos, 1978:47-52). Heuristics can be positive or

negative. Negative heuristics are claims that must be adhered to as a part of

the research program and serve to cordon off the "hard core" which cannot

change from one theory to the next. Revising these beliefs is off limits.

Positive heuristics take into account the hard core while also suggesting how

the basic assumptions can be revised. Positive heuristics help to reshape

these assumptions in light of evidence that could refute the hard core.

As a research program progresses, scientists will attempt to refute or

falsify the accepted theory. When refuting evidence is encountered, the

scientist does not consider the program as defunct. Rather, s/he will alter the

assumptions of the protective belt using positive heuristics such that the

"hard core is retained. As long as such moves enable scientists to predict

more new phenomena (i.e. it is theoretically progressive), and at least some

of those predictions get confirmed by observation (i.e., it is from time to time

empirically progressive), the research program remains viable. When

modifications to the theory only protect the hard core from refutation, but do

not predict new phenomena or none of the new predictions get confirmed by

20

observation, then the program is degenerating and the program should be

abandoned. Figure 2 depicts visually the research program model.

Figure 2. Research Program Model.

Analysis

Having presented the fundamental elements and impact of Darwinism,

Marxism, and Wagnerism, I now describe the method by which I will analyze

them in light of Kuhn’s paradigm shift and Lakatos’ research program. The

method is as follows:

- For each topic, qualitatively evaluate each in light of the Kuhnian and

Lakatosian framework at three phases in time: initial promulgation, mid-term

development, and current status.

- Assess the components of each topic as to whether or not it “fits” into

a particular step of the Kuhn Cycle or a research program.

21

- Use the results to gauge whether or not the topics conform to the

Kuhn Cycle, a research program, both, or none.

I will use a straightforward two by two matrix to annotate fit as illustrated

below (Figure 3). See Appendix 1 for the complete set of matrices.

Evolution as Such

CommonDescent

Gradualism Natural Selection

Totality of Theory

Pre-science X X X X X

Normal science

Model drift

Model crisis

Model revolution

Paradigm shift

Figure 3. Matrix for Darwinism in Light of Kuhn—Initial Promulgation Phase.

For each phase of a particular systems’ development, I use the background

data to make an assessment of where each element of Darwin’s, Marx’s, and

Wagner’s systems fit in the Kuhn Cycle and the research program model.

The results of this assessment then inform my discussion of how to

categorize the impact of each.

It is important to make clear that both Kuhn and Lakatos formulated

their concepts to evaluate progress in the hard sciences, such as physics and

chemistry. Of the three topics under scrutiny in this paper, only Darwin’s

theory is best characterized as a classically scientific endeavor, albeit as an

applied science. Although Marxism is purported to be scientific in

22

construction and application, it is not science as understood in terms of

Kuhn’s and Lakatos’ concepts. Finally, as an artistic endeavor, Wagnerism

falls the farthest afield. Given the original intent of Kuhn and Lakatos,

Darwinism, Marxism, and Wagnerism do not strictly qualify to be evaluated

using the Kuhn Cycle or as a research program. Nonetheless, we can apply

Kuhn and Lakatos in a wider sense as general processes of change rather

than in their stricter scientifically oriented meanings. This approach allows

for a broader analytical perspective and—most importantly—the potential for

interesting insights into the type of change wrought by these three

constructs.

Discussion

Darwin’s evolutionary paradigm comes the closest to conforming to

the steps of the Kuhn cycle. Given the state of science at the time Darwin

published his ideas, which was more observational than it was experimental,

all of the fundamental elements that made up Darwin’s theory, as well as his

theory as a whole, can be neatly classified as prescience. For example, even

though Darwin (along with biologist Alfred Wallace) was the first to describe

the mechanism of natural selection and provide analogical and observational

evidence, his assertions were met with great skepticism from a variety of

quarters. It would take many years of follow-on work, including the

integration of Mendelian genetics with Darwin’s theory, before biologists

accepted natural selection as a scientific reality. The modern evolutionary

synthesis that occurred in the 1930’s further solidified Darwinism as normal

23

science. As far as the rest of the steps in the Kuhn Cycle, a case can be

made that Darwinism is at least in a state of model drift due to lingering

questions that the theory cannot answer and because of scientific avenues

(e.g. punctuated, epigenetics, and evolutionary development) that could help

provide answers for them (Pigliucci and Muller, 2010:12-15). Some biologists

would say that Darwinism is a failed project that should be abandoned, and

thus in a state of model crisis (Craig, 2010:117-123).

When viewed through the lens of a research program, Darwin’s theory

aligns more cleanly. The fundamental elements of the theory: evolution as

such, common descent, gradualism, and natural selection form the hard core

of the program. Over time, the research program has been advanced (e.g.

the integration of Mendelian genetics, the modern evolutionary synthesis,

computational biology) and defended (e.g. against intelligent design

advocates). As the field deals with alternative explanations for evolution (e.g.

multilevel selection), a problem shift could occur, wherein previously

accepted assumptions could be abandoned (e.g. selection on the basis of

individuals only replaced by multi-level selection). Whether or not such a

problem shift materializes, the evolutionary research program as a whole

appears “fit” to continue.

With regard to Darwinism itself being a paradigm shift within science, I

believe the analysis shows that overall it is not. Rather, it is the outcome of

normal scientific discovery and development more akin to a research

program, albeit with one exception. Darwin’s mechanism of natural

24

selection, when combined with gradualism, removed the need an external

agent (i.e. God) to direct the evolutionary process. This outcome served to

place biology on firmly naturalistic, rather than theistic, ground. The

incommensurate move from “theistic science” to “materialist science”

revolutionized the study of biology and ensconced it safely within the

confines of science qua science—a paradigm shift.

To be sure, Marx formulated an original paradigm for political

economy. As to whether his paradigm resulted in a paradigm shift, the

results of the analysis demonstrate that it was not. At least initially, Marx’s

ideas were more akin to prescience and were not widely known. As others

consolidated his writings, various strains of Marxist thinking emerged. Many

used their own interpretations of Marx to foment change or even revolution,

as occurred in Russia, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. To its adherents, Marxism

became “normal science,” but to assert that it was dominant across the

board in politics and academia, for example, is an overstretch. Marxism has

always had ample competition in the marketplace of ideas, not the least of

which is capitalism. In addition, since the fall of the Soviet Union, Marxism

has fallen on hard times, or in Kuhnian terms “model crisis.” Whether or not

Marxism will undergo an internal paradigm shift of its own remains to be

seen.

Like Darwinism, Marxism seems to align more closely with the research

program model. The hard core of Marx’s fundamental ideas remain intact,

and numerous extensions and variations have developed over the years.

25

Those who advocate for Marxism are indeed vigorous in its defense, even if

they do not always agree on the particulars (e.g. Joseph Stalin and Leon

Trotksy, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung). Also, over the decades, a large

community of researchers and practitioners has advanced Marxist thought,

maintaining its “protective belt.” Finally, when considering whether or not a

problem shift has occurred within Marxism, one can point to the collapse of

the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact and the subsequent adoption of

market-oriented economies, similar adoptions in other formerly communist

countries such as Albania and Ethopia, and the integration of market-

oriented policies in China and Vietnam. The question is whether this problem

shift is degenerative in nature. If so, according to the Lakatos model,

Marxism should be abandoned.

In a similar vein as Darwin and Marx, Wagner synthesized a new

operatic paradigm. From the outset, his innovations polarized the musical

community, some of whom enthusiastically embraced it (e.g. composers

Gustav Mahler, Anton Bruckner, and Hugo Wolf), while others reacted

against it (e.g. composers Felix Mendelssohn, Johannes Brahms, and Claude

Debussy). In short order, Wagner’s Gesamptkunstwerk approach gained a

large coterie of followers (Wagnerites). To be sure, Wagner’s invention of

music drama has had a tremendous influence on music and other artistic

domains. Over time, his ideas found their way into the literary, artistic, and

cinematic arenas. That said, it is difficult to align Wagnerism with the Kuhn

Cycle, primarily because of the artistic nature of his ideas. Also, although

26

Wagner does loom large, particularly in the musical arena, there are many

other operatic and musical alternatives both for musicians and audiences.

Therefore, I think it is incorrect to say that Wagner’s music-drama paradigm

fomented a broad-based paradigm shift in music.

At best, Wagner’s music drama invention resembles a research

program. The hard core of his ideas remain intact, due in no small part to the

emphasis placed on them at the Bayreuth Festspielhaus. With regard to

protective belt, Wagner still has supporters who study (and defend) his work,

but it is fair to say that this community is specialized and not pervasively

influential. From the standpoint of positive development, the fundamental

elements of his approach have been adopted and extended within music as

well as in other areas. When it comes to the notion of a “problem shift”

within Wagnerism, because Wagner set the bar so high with his invention of

music drama, especially in Der Ring des Niebelungen, it remains the

singular, epic, and unsurpassed embodiment of “the art of the future.”

Therefore, I do not think that a Lakatosian-like problem shift will ever occur

when it comes to the hard core of Wagner’s Gesamptkunstewerk construct.

Critique

There are several ways to improve this paper. First, because it is a

preliminary survey, the background data, the analytical lens, and the

analysis itself lacks depth. It is difficult to distill the essence of three

intellectually substantial theories and two sophisticated epistemological

models in a short paper. Numerous books and articles have been written on

27

each of these topics, so I am quite sure that I have left something out, either

due to space restrictions, or more accurately, due to my ignorance. As a

result, the veracity of my findings is vulnerable to more sophisticated,

learned appraisals. Next, the analytical models I used were designed to

describe scientific progress rather than social or artistic development. Of the

three figures, only Darwin’s theory reasonably fit into Kuhn’s and Lakatos’

models, but still imperfectly. As such, I generalized the models in order to

carry the analysis through. For instance, I glossed over Kuhn’s notion of

incommensurability (the mutual exclusive relationship of old paradigms to

new) and how Lakatos’ model incorporated Karl Popper’s falsification criteria.

This begs the question as to whether these models were appropriate to use

at all. For example, Kuhn’s paradigm shift concept has great intuitive appeal.

Behind this appeal lies a sophisticated theory of scientific development that

few ever explore, much less understand. What is apparent to me is that

Kuhn’s ideas have been misappropriated and applied willy-nilly across many

fields such as business, sociology, and politics. It’s one thing to popularize an

appealing academic construct, it’s quite another to throw out its entire

logical apparatus in the process. Although not my intent, applying Kuhn or

even Lakatos in this way evacuates their theories of their original meaning

and results in something akin to intellectual caricature. Finally, despite the

fact that I attempted to conduct a reasonable qualitative analysis, the limited

background, the model selection, the analysis itself, and the findings are the

product of an imperfect research design and over-generalized data. In

28

addition, the analytical models were distorted from their original purpose. It

follows, then, that the results of this survey are necessarily imperfect. In

sum, the challenges of applying the Kuhn Cycle and research program model

to applied science and non-scientific fields, while somewhat interesting, is

not the most compelling way to describe the impact of Darwinism, Marxism,

and Wagnerism on human history.

Conclusion

As to whether this paper answered the original research question, the

answer is at best equivocal, as might be expected from a preliminary survey.

To come to a more definite conclusion, a motivated researcher (1) could

widen and deepen the background to ensure major concepts, events, and

opinions are covered, (2) refine the analytical method to assure better

qualitative reliability and validity, and (3) generate more credible findings.

Also, researchers could restructure the analytical approach, effectively

abandoning Kuhn and Lakatos in favor of a more appropriate qualitative or

historical research framework.

Despite this paper’s shortcomings, the preliminary survey shows that

the work, development, and impact of Darwin, Marx, and Wagner aligns

more closely with a research program than a paradigm shift, but only at a

superficial level. The one partial exception was the paradigm shift that

followed after Darwin set the course to separate biology from theistic

influences and ground the field empirically as a bona fide scientific endeavor.

Marx’s synthesis incorporated extensions and modifications of previous

29

thought (Smith, Ricardo, Hegel) in the manner of a research program. He

combined them all in a novel way and produced a seemingly airtight

rationale for class-based social revolution. As his ideas spread, they were

attacked and defended. Many people were indoctrinated to the various

strains of his thought that developed over time, and millions of individual

paradigms were shifted, but Marxism never came to dominate the field of

political economy. Wagner’s invention of Gsamptkunstwerk changed the idea

of what opera could be, and his contribution is a true inflection point in the

history of music. In addition, his influence extends well beyond the musical

arena. Although Wagner’s approach remains an important musical genre, it

fails to rise to the level of a paradigm shift. To be sure, all three men had

monumental intellects and were outstanding synthesizers. Each of their

contributions was a new paradigm constructed in the form of a theory or

invention, but none resulted in a wholesale paradigm shift. Instead they

developed more akin to a scientific research program. Therefore I do not

recommend the use of the term paradigm shift when referring to the impact

of Darwin’s, Marx’s, or Wagner’s systems. In addition, although each system

aligns better with Lakatos’ work in a general way, only Darwin’s theory of

evolution, since it is a science, best fits under the rubric of a research

program.

30

Bibliography

Adorno, Theodor. In Search of Wagner. London: Verso, 2009.

Barzun, Jacques. Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1958.

Burbidge, Peter, and Richard Sutton. The Wagner Companion. London: Faber and Faber, 1979.

Burlingame, John. "Underscoring Richard Wagner's influence on film music." Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] 17 June 2010.

Carnegy, Patrick. Wagner and the Art of the Theatre. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006.

Cicora, Mary A. Wagner's Ring and German Drama: Comparative Studies in Mythology and History in Drama. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1999.

Cooke, Deryck. The Language of Music. Oxford University Press: New York, 1959.

Crai, Lindsay. “The so-called extended synthesis and population genetics.” Biological Theory 5.2 (2010): 117-123. Web.

Dahlhaus, Carl. Richard Wagner's Music Dramas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2006.

Darwin, Erasmus. Zoonomia: Or, the Laws of Organic Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Furness, Raymond. “Wagner’s Impact on Literature,” in The Wagner Compendium: A Guide to Wagner’s Life and Music, ed. Barry Millington, London, 1992, 396.

Gutman, Robert W. Richard Wagner: The Man, His Mind, and His Music. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1968.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

31

Lakatos, Imre. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Lee, M O. Wagner: The Terrible Man and His Truthful Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999.

Linnaeus, Carl , and Stephen Freer. Linnaeus' Philosophia Botanica. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Lovejoy, Arthur O. A. O. The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Magee, Bryan. Aspects of Wagner. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Marx, Karl, Ben Fowkes, and David Fernbach. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1. London: Penguin Books in association with New Left Review, 1990.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and Frederic L. Bender. The Communist Manifesto: Annotated Text. New York: W.W. Norton, 1988.

Marx, Karl. Essential Writings of Karl Marx: Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Communist Manifesto, Wage Labor and Capital, Critique of the Gotha Program. St Petersburg, Fla: Red and Black Publishers, 2010.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, and C J. Arthur. The German Ideology. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1974.

May, Thomas. Decoding Wagner: An Invitation to His World of Music Drama. Pompton Plains, NJ: Amadeus Press, 2004.

Mayr, Ernst, and William B. Provine. The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Millington, Barry. The Wagner Compendium: A Guide to Wagner's Life and Music. London: Thames & Hudson, 2001

Nelson, Richard W. Darwin, Then and Now: The Most Amazing Story in the History of Science. iUniverse Inc, 2009.

Pigliucci, Massimo, and Gerd Mu ̈ller. Evolution, the Extended Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010.

Ruse, Michael. The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2005.

32

Smith, Matthew Wilson. The Total Work of Art: From Bayreuth to Cyberspace. New York and London: Routledge, 2007.

Sutton, Emma. Aubrey Beardsley and British Wagnerism in the 1890s. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Vazsonyi, Nicholas. Richard Wagner: Self-promotion and the Making of a Brand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Wagner, Richard. “The Art-Work of the Future" and Other Works. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993.

Wagner, Richard, and William A. Ellis. Opera and Drama. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995.

Wheeler, Mark R, and William A. Nericcio. 150 Years of Evolution: Darwin's Impact on Contemporary Thought & Culture. San Diego: San Diego State University Press, 2011.

Wheen, Francis. Karl Marx: A Life. New York: Norton, 2000.

33

Appendix 1Assessment Matrices

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42