Invisible University--aa1971@wayne.edu

The GOP as the Stupid Party?
An inadequate conceptualization

(see earlier version

from Paul Krugman, The Crazy Party (New York Times: 9-19-13):

Early this year, Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, made headlines by telling his fellow Republicans that they needed to stop being the “stupid party.”  . . . .  In recent months, the G.O.P. seems to have transitioned from being the stupid party to being the crazy party.


This comment by Paul Krugman reveals something about the theoretical nonchalance of journalists and commentators when it comes to discussing the often bizarre performances of the Republican far-right.  Bobby Jindal, who first used "stupid" to characterize the Republican Party, was referring to the sado-sexual rhetoric of, among others, Tod "legitimate rape" Akin, and Richard--"rape is God's will"--Mourdock.  Krugman, however, referring to the march to financial Armageddon--the Tea Party Republicans refusal to raise the debt ceiling--during the first two weeks of October, 1913 as "crazy," is in error when he distinguishes between stupid and crazy: the homogeneous inner logic of the GOP right--ressentiment--is the driving force in all of these instances.  That is, psychopathology and cognitive primitiveness are two sides of the same coin.  What is striking is the way the blatant sado-sexual psychopathology of the base-oriented rhetorical performance of the GOP is unremarked; or rather the way it is transformed into the inoffensive and simplistic epithet stupid.  It is obvious, therefore, that we have to function within two analytical domains: developmental psychology and psychoanalysis.  This page deal with the psychological dimension of the rhetorical peformances of the right: its sado-sexual obsessiveness.  Several other pages deal with the cognitive dimension of the rhetorical performances of the political.  This is part of a much larger project of putting contemporary homo sapiens into the broader context of evolutionary biology including the cultural historical explosion subsumed under the current discussion of the sapient paradox.

In fact the sado-sexual obsessiveness of the right is of far greater significance than the endless repetitions of the shibboleths of free market individualism, which themselves function as floating signifiers and performative cues.  The Trump campaign--meaning the totallity of its setting (theater), audience, and rhetoric--is a good example of this.  Trump began his summer offensive with blatant racist comments about Mexicans, and of course the base ate it up.  Subsequently, much of what he said, about political correctness, for example, or about Megan Kelley, functioned as signifiers of the primordial howl.  Thus, by tone and context Trump evokes the racist configuration: the sado-sexual obsessions of the base, and provides an outlet for a chronic non-specific rage, notwithstanding efforts by commentators to Cartesianize this phenomenon by assuming real external causes for this anger (illegal immigration, the economy) processed by a rational cogito.
                      PISA 2012 Scores Just Released (December 3, 2013)
         Figure 1.  PISA Math Scores, 2003 - 2012: 25 Nations
      p62
      NCES, Highlights PISA 2003,  p. 14     NCES, Highlights PISA 2009,  p. 18
       NCES, Highlights PISA 2006,  p. 12     OECD 2013 Key Findings,  p.5

Southeast Asian nations are in light blue; Scandinavian nations + Switzerland in dark blue; Anglo-Saxon nations in orange; France, Germany, Belgium and Poland in green; Italy, Portugal and Spain in brown; the United States in red.   These are the advanced capitalist nations (some have been omitted for the sake visual clarity). 

More on Figure 1 at The PISA Results

To what degree and in what way do these data relate to the theatrical performances of right wing audiences as well as demagogues?  The bottom red line in Figure 1 might be dubbed the Tea Party zone of cognitive performativity, inasmuch as the Tea Party is concentrated in the South (also the stronghold of birtherism).  Youtube now makes it possible to closely analyze thousands of performances of political theater, including the various manifestations of the Tea Party beginning in 2009 (for some of these see Ressentiment and the Mechanisms of Defense).  But there is more than politics, more than cognitive development, that is at issue here.  Are we entering a postmodern dark age, and are the debt-ceiling crisis and recent cognitive assessments moments in the unfolding of such a postmodern dark age?  The Enlightenment presupposition of the rational individual in a market economy--of the Cartesian self as the ontological foundation of society--can no longer be seriously entertained. (Neither can neoliberalism's two other main shibboleths--that markets are magic and institutions don't matter.)

Figure 4, percent who doubt Obama's citizenship, and Figure 5, Public Acceptance of Evolution, should be viewed not ideologically, but rather as ontological markers, as topologies of ressentiment, as linguistic in form only, lacking the cognitive powers of modern language use.  The historicity of Being is always the big question whenever we observe the psycho-cognitive activities of homo erectus, homo sapiens and of homo sapiens sapiens.

Compare the Democratic and Republican debates of the Fall of 2015: a concept of psuedo-speciation is required to make sense of the differences, which are fundamental.  We are dealing here with different orders of being (and simultaneously with ontological instability) having nothing to do with genes and everything to do with history and culture, culture and power, power and the reactions to power, all made possible by that wonder of wonders, mind and language.

                    
Figure 4.  percent who doubt Obama's citizenship
Figure 5.  Public Acceptance of Evolution.
 "Why doesn't America believe in evolution"
                         
brthevo  
             from the DailyKos, "Birthers are mostly
Republican and Southern," July  31, 2009

The Research 2000 findings were pulled
together from a survey of 2,400 adults.

Poll question: Do you believe that Barack
Obama was born in the United States of
America or not?

Choices: Yes   No   Not sure

No + Not Sure = variable graphed




VIDEO:
Santorum: Oboma "A Snob" For Wanting Everyone To Go To College

Geneology: Walzer-->Cash/Lillian Smith-->Atwater-->Graham


The GOP's Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill in Virginia, well-covered in the media, was of a piece with Akin's and Mourdock's performances.  This event, taken together with the Akin and Mourdoch rape comments, and others like it, are discussed in the media in terms of insensitivity and political stupidity. Unconceptualized is the primary character of the GOP Right: its sado-sexual discursive practice.  "Don't you realize that you are hurting people" is a liberal plaint when the right wing attacks women's rights (or cuts the food stamp program).  Don't you realize, would be my response to this liberal plaint, that to hurt people--to hurt the other--is precisely the point.  To hurt the other is the source of a perverse joy that the GOP base gets out of the theater of ressentiment that politics provides.  And even when it appears not to be, the sexual obsessiveness of the GOP is present as the inner logic that drive their performances, that generates their rhetoric.  (Dan T. Carter)

The right's sado-sexual obsession recurs, as Nietzsche said, eternally.  In late September 2013, for example, these two anti-Obamacare ads hit the airways:
Before that we had, in late February 2013, Rush Limbaugh's infamous rant against Sandra Flake, another of the right's sado-sexual performances:

Rush Limbaugh - "It Makes Her A Slut, A Prostitute"  Feb 29, 2012

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.

On today's show (3-2-12), Limbaugh turned up the heat and suggested that women who use insurance-covered birth control should post sex tapes online: "So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch," he said.

opwl
the owl of Minerva flies only at night.
this is that time,
but there's no owl in sight.
This law is part of the theater of ressentiment and thus one should not take seriously the right-wing rationale of religious freedom (e.g., what if a Baptist baker is asked to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage?).  It is an obvious political move expressive of the sado-sexual obcessiveness of the "base."
Indiana Law Denounced as Invitation to Discriminate Against Gays    New York Times, March 27, 2015





A striking illustration of the cognitive limitations of liberals is that they fail to note the obvious--that is, they fail to conceptualize the generic character of this stream of
sado-sexual performances.  The excerpt at the right from a study of Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment makes this clear.  Jamieson and Cappella just don't get it: The vulgarity and sadism of Limbaugh's rhetoric is the main event in this theater of ressentiment, while the "issues" are merely the occasion for the expression of emotionally appealing sexual inuendo and sadism.  This is the stuff of Nietzsche's ressentiment.  

For example, in the theater of ressentiment that is the right, the really lousy rollout of Obamacare just doesn't matter.  Obamacare has already been transformed into a racially loaded epithet, and that is the only way in which the term is "understood" by right-wing audiences.  It is not that they disregard facts, or are even immune to them. They are  pre-operational in their cognitive modality, not concrete operational.  Facts are simply props in the theater of ressentiment.  Surely you must have noticed that by now.
from Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella, Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Estabisment (Oxford Univeristy Press, 2008), p.p. 188-89. (Emphasis added.)

Limbaugh's attempts at gender-based "humor" are of the locker room variety.  As the California gubernatorial recall was heating up, Limbaugh informed his folowers that Leutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante--"whose name loosely translates into Spanish for 'large breasts'--leads the Terminator by a few pionts" (August 18, 2003).  A photomontage on the Limbaugh website shows a photograph of Schwartzenegger's head and shoulders from his Pumping Iron days as a body builder.  A naked woman has been transposed onto his shoulders.  Over her breasts is a sign reading BUSTAMONTE.  When Madonna endorsed General Wesley Clark, Limbaugh reported that she had "opened herself" to him.  Why the vulgarity in this message does not alienate the churchgoing conservatives in his audiences a question for which we have no ready answer.

Ressentiment and the Mechanisms of Defense was the first page I constructed that could be described as a plane of immanence, one of Deleuze's fundamental concepts.  But I did not at that time think of it as such.  Rather,  it was Hegel's concept of the concrete universal, which I first encountered in Findlay's Hegel: a Re-examination, that provided the sense of what could be done with the wealth of graphic images and political-cultural performances available over the Internet (Google image searches and Youtube videos).  The web page cited above contains materials from history and philosophy mixed in with the shit of everyday life.  What makes it a plane of immanence is that the psychoanalytic concept of the mechanisms of defense provides the generative grammar, so to speak, for the production of the specific expressions of ressentiment.  

Consider the gun control "debate," which is just another sado-sexual performance.  One has only to enter into the experiental horizon of the right-wing phantasy world, where the gun is a prop in the theater of revenge, a symbol of manhood (see Gibson, Warrior Dreams), and thus linked to the whole culture of violence, revenge, and righteous slaughter (Katz, Seductions of Crime).  While discussions of the 2nd Amendment can be interesting, they completely miss the cultural historical forces behind the right-wing love affair with redemptive violence (Paxton, Anatomy of Fascism). Remember the 2008 GOP primary debates where torture--that is, sadism--was a key issue.

Sometimes the phantasy of the marauding other breaks through its politically coded, euphemistic representations. Thus, Senator Lindsay Graham on why we need assault weapons:

“In 1992 you had the riots in Los Angeles,” Graham said. “I think it was the King event, but you could find yourself in this country in a lawless environment through a natural disaster or a riot. … And the story was about a place called Koreatown. There were marauding gangs going through the area, burning stores, looting and robbing … and raping.”  (see NRA’s Wayne LaPierre, Lindsey Graham play the ‘racial scare’ card in gun control debate,  the Grio, Joy-Ann Reid  February 14, 2013)

And sometimes the phantasy is actually enacted,  as in the hunting down of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, and the uprising of white support for the perpetrator in his hour of need.  Not all whites, of course, but the severely and the really white.  (For this distinction see Intel Finalists.)

Of a piece with the above is birtherism.  In this context "racism" should be thought of as a system of cognates, together with the generative grammar of this system of cognates.  Lee Atwater had an intuitive grasp of this.  ➘

cc
The excerpt below is about Puritanism in sixteenth and seventeenth century England.  That it appears so well to describe today's right wing is indicative of the power of the Hegel-Deleuze mode of thinking subsumable under the terms concrete universal (Hegel) and plane of immanence (Deleuze).

from Puritanism as a Revolutionary IdeologyMichael Walzer, History and Theory, Vol. 3, No. 1 (1963), pp. 59-90

About the Puritan saints Walzer writes of " . . . their almost Manichean warfare against Satan and his worldly allies, their nervous lust for systematic repression and control." p. 63 

"They felt themselves to be living in an age of chaos and crime and sought to train conscience to be permanently on guard against sin.  The extent to which they would have carried the moral discipline can be seen in the following list of offenses which merited excommunication in one seventeenth-century congregation:

-for unfathfulness in his masters service
-for admitting cardplaying in his house . . .
-for sloth in business.
-for being overtaken in beer.
-for borrowing a pillion and not returning it.
-for jumping for wagers . . .
-for dancing and other vanities.

Had the saints been successful in establishing their Holy Commonwealth, the enforcement of this discipline would have consituted the Puritan terror." p. 64

"The persecution of witches, of course, was not a vital aspect of Puritan endeavor, but the active, fearful struggle against wickedness was.  And the saints imagined wickedness as a creative and omnipresent demonic force, that is, as a continual threat." p. 79

One begins to get a sense of the deep historicity of the Tea Party when one contemplates Walzer's description of the Puritan saints and Lee Atwater's astonishingly frank interview on republican strategy.  

Joseph E. Lowndes' From the New Deal to the New Right: Race and the Southern Origins of Modern Conservatism (Princeton, 2009) refers to the "foundational violence of modern Republicanism." (p. 2)
from Wikipedia: (Lee Atwater's Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy)


As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of the interview was printed in Lamis's book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater's name revealed. . . . Atwater talked about the Republican Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan's version of it:
 
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[8][9]


For the centrality of violence in the political theater that is the far right (and the cognitive primtivism of the performance) see Alex Jones vs Piers Morgan On Gun Control (CNN 1/7/2013)
.

the Proto-Dorian Convention--the answer to Thomas Frank's question:
What's the Matter with Kansas


The Proto-Dorian Convetion in Action


Consider, Mitt Romney's infamous reference to Michigan's trees (Mitt Romney On Michigan's Trees And Cars, 2/24/12).  Focusing on the innanity of these remarks is to miss the point.  Given the fundamental reality of the elite-mass relationship within the GOP rhetorical field, the speaker has open to him only two rhetorical postures.  The first, and primary one, is to articulate the rage and ressentiment of the base through code words (i.e., floating signifiers).  Even economic issue can be floating signifiers, such as cutting Medicare, as Lee Atwater has pointed out.  Secondarily, there is the posture of proto-Dorian smoozing, of which the trees episode is a good example.  One must take seriously the appeal to lower class whites who identify with the beleaguered rich, on the one hand, and, on the other hand,  are cognitively primitive.  The emotional appeal of the proto-Dorian convention is dealt with in Ressentiment and the Mechanisms of Defense. The Crudeness and vulgarity that perplex Jamieson and Cappella are the aesthetic principles of the right's appeal.  

Here is some more proto-Dorian smoozing: Mitt Romney: "Son Of The South"

from Richard W. Wrangham (Department of Antroropology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University) and Michael L. Wilson (Department of Ecology and Behavior, University of Minnesota, and Gombe Stream Research Centre, the Jane Goodall Institute, Tanzania), "Collective Violence: Comparison Between Youths and Chimpanzees" (Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1036: 233–256 (2004))

cultural and biological approaches provide complementary rather than alternative perspectives in the analysis of human behavior. (p. 234)

Abstract: Patterns of collective violence found among humans include similarities to those seen among chimpanzees.  These include participation predominantly by males, an intense personal and group concern with status, variable subgroup composition, defense of group integrity, inter-group fights that include suprise attacks, and a tendency to avoid mass confrontation. . . .  Youth gangs . . . differ from chimpanzee communities as a result of numerous cultural and environmental influences including complex relations with non-gang society. . .  Nevertheless, the concepts that sociologists use to account for collective violence in youth gangs are somewhat similar to those applied by anthropologists and biologists to chimpanzees. . . .  We therefore view the similarities in aggression between humans and chimpanzees that we review here as being adaptive responses to local conditions, predicated on an inherent male concern for social status. (p. 233) 

(See primate genetic ontology in The Quantum Heterogeneity of Dasein: 5 Genetic Ontologies)
the Proto-Dorian Convention


from Bruce Clayton, "No Ordinary History: W. J. Cash's The Mind of the South", in  Charles W. Eagles, The Mind of the South: Fifty Years Later (University Press of Mississippi, 1992)

Cash offered a gripping argument that the elite had so drilled its superiority into the psyche of the common whites that they intricately and mysteriously connected themselves once and for all with their betters.  Here was Cash's "proto-Dorian convention."  Because of slavery, and the common white's psychological needs, color elevated the common white "to a position comparable to that, say, of the Doric kight of ancent Sparta," Cash wrote. The planters were admired and obeyed not because they were inherently good or capable, but because the lowly white saw in their masters--cotton patch Doric knights, in other words--examples of what they might become.  This belief was a fantasy that coddled the ego of the common man and was thus integral to maintaining the proto-Dorian bond.  When Helper,* Cash wrote, "and others began at last on the eve of the Civil War to point out the wrongs of the common white and to seek to arouse him to recogizing them, they could get no response."  Why?  Becuse "the common white, as a matter of course, gave eager credence and took pride in the legend of the aristocracy which is so valuable to the defense of the land.  He went further, in fact, and, by an easy psychological process which is in evidence wherever men group themselves about captains, pretty completely assimilated their own ego to the latter's--felt his planter's new splendor as being in some fashion his own."  (pp. 11-12)


from W. J. Cash, The Mind of the South (Alfred A. Knopf, 1941)

Yeoman and cracker turned to the planter, waited eagerly upon his signal as to what to think and do . . . because he was their obviously indicated captain in the great common cause.  "The stupid and sequacious masses, the white victims of slavery . . . believe whatever the slaveholders tell them; and thus are cajoled into the notion that they are the freest, happiest, and most intelligent people in the world," wrote the bitter [Hinton Rowan] Helper, gazing in baffled anger at the scene.  (69)


*Hinton Rowan Helper (December 27, 1829 – March 8, 1909) was a Southern US critic of slavery during the 1850s. In 1857, he published a book which he dedicated to the "nonslaveholding whites" of the South. The Impending Crisis of the South, written partly in North Carolina but published when the author was in the North, argued that slavery hurt the economic prospects of non-slaveholders, and was an impediment to the growth of the entire region of the South. Anger over his book due to the belief he was acting as an agent of the North attempting to split Southern Whites along class lines lead to Southern denunciations of 'Helperism'. (Wikipedia)
And what more rewarding form of political theater is there than the scarcely veiled sadistic attacks on the other--from attacks on school lunch programs (Reagan 1981) to attacks on Medicare today.  Bear in mind that among the rightwing masses such programs are identified with the other (however factually wrong this may be).  Think of these performances as lynchings, and you are very close to their inner logic.  The essential element?  The infliction of pain on the other.  And thus, in this context, think of the discourse on torture in the 2008 GOP primary debates.  

Inflicting pain on the other is the cultural eigenvector of right-wing politics, and thus sadism is the core value of the values voters.  (See three incidents: encounters in the raw--not yet available)

Consider Thomas Frank's concept of the Plen-T-Plaint.  This is not only consistent with the above.  It is a detailed mapping of the eigenvector of right-wing politics. 

The cognitive dimension of the politics of ressentiment has a natural affinity with the preoperational and gestural cognitive modalities (see Donald excerpt).  This will be dealt with in Developmental Divergence: Cognitive Development in History

Such discursive limitations lend themselves readily to deployment of the mechanisms of defense--one needs the pesonification of the other, the object/victim of redemptive violence, for right wing politial performtivities to work.  Liberals note, without saying so clearly, the pettiness of right wing charges--where's your lapel pin, why did you appologize for burning the Koran, etc.  Yet they fail to realize that centration (see developmental divergence) and the Plen-T-Plaint are central features of right wing rhetorical  performances, and one argues in vain, for example, that Obama was really born in the United States.  "Truth" is what feels good, and what feels good is whatever facilitates the psychological release that Ressentiment is about.  
from Thomas Frank, What's the Matter with Kansas: the Plen-T-Plaint

As culture war, backlash was born to lose.  Its goal is not to win cultural battles but to take offense, conspicuously, vocally, even flamboyantly.  Indignation is the great aesthetic principle of backlash culture; voicing the fury of the imposed-upon is to the backlash what the guitar solo is to heavy metal.  Indignation is the privilege emotion, the magic moment that brings a consciuosness of rightness and a determination to persist. . . .  Everything seems to piss conservatives off, and they react by documenting and cataloguing their disgust.  The result is what we call the plen-T-plaint, a curious amassing of petty, unrelated beefs with the world.  Its purpose is not really to evaluate the hated liberal culture that surrounds us; the plen-T-plaint is a horizontal rather than vertical mode of criticism, aiming instead to infuriate us with dozens, hundreds, thousands of stories of the many tiny ways the world around us assaults family values, uses obscenities, disrespects parents, foments revolution, and so on.  121-3


from Merlin Donald, "The mind considered from a historical perspective: human cognitive phylogenesis and the possibility of continuing cognitive evolution." In D. Johnson & C. Ermeling (Eds.) The Future of the Cognitive Revolution (Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 360-61

"mimetic representations are evident in human children before they acquire language competence. . . .  They continue to be important in adults, taking the form of highly variable social customs, athletic skills, and group expressive patterns (such as mass demonstrations of aggression or rejection)."
zz  Giuliani: Obama Had a White Mother, So I’m Not a Racist


                                                                    
                                                                                                   Figure 5.  Public Acceptance of Evolution             Figure 4.  percent who doubt Obama's citizenship                  "Why doesn't America believe in evolution"
                                                                                by  Jeff Hecht, Science: August 20, 2006   
Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York on Thursday defended his assertion that President Obama did not love America, and said that his criticism of Mr. Obama’s upbringing should not be considered racist because the president was raised by “a white mother.”

Mr. Giuliani’s remarks — made at a New York fund-raising event for Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin on Wednesday night and first reported by Politico — set off an uproar.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America,” Mr. Giuliani said at the event. “He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country.”

Critics suggested that Mr. Giuliani’s description of Mr. Obama’s upbringing reflected a prejudiced view that Mr. Obama was different from other Americans.

In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Giuliani dismissed the criticism and said he was describing the worldview that had shaped Mr. Obama’s upbringing.

“Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people,” Mr. Giuliani said in the interview. “This isn’t racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism.”
from Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development, Urie Bronfenbrenner, ed. (Sage Publications, 2005)

The contemporary scientific study of human development is characterized by a committment to the understanding of the dynamic relationships between the developing individual and the integrated, multilevel ecology of human development.  This approach to development is marked by a theoretical focus on temporally (historically) embedded person-context relational process; by the embracing of models of dynamic change across the ecological system; and by relational, change-sensitive methods predicated on the idea that individuals influence the people and institutions of their ecology as much as they are influenced by them. (ix)

Especially in its early phases, but also throughout the life course, human development takes place through processes of progressively more complex reciprocal interaction between an active, evolving biopsychosocial human organism and the persons, objects and symbols in its immediate external environment. (xviii)

Within the bioecological theory, develoment is defined as the phenomenon of continuity and change in the biopsychological characteristics of human beings both as individuals and as groups.  The phenomenon extends over the life course across successive generations and through historical time both past and present. (3)
xxc










x