After some three decades during which scholarly discussion of materialism lapsed, a revival of interest is taking place. The social sciences and critical humanities have embraced “new materialisms” with their “new” ontologies and epistemologies, while within disciplinary philosophy debates between reductionist philosophy of mind and emergentists present sharply opposed versions of materialism. In theoretical biology, “biosemiotic realism” promotes an emergentist materialism focused on mindlike processes in nature as codetermined by physicalist and informational causalities, while nearly everywhere where scholarship intersects with political-economic issues, a resurgent interest in Marxist materialisms has begun recapitulating elements of the debate between “Western” and “orthodox” positions. To make sense of the welter of present discourse from a Marxist perspective, it is useful to compare the positions of these contemporary tendencies with those of critical realism and allied strong versions of Marxist materialism, such as that associated with the writings of Friedrich Engels.
BhaskarRoy. 2009. Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. London: Routledge.
8.
BhaskarRoy. 2010. Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. New York/London: Routledge.
9.
BhaskarRoy. 2013. A Realist Theory of Science. New York/London: Routledge.
10.
BhaskarRoy. 2014. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. New York/London: Routledge.
11.
BhaskarRoy, BerthDanermark, and LeighPrice. 2017. Interdisciplinarity and Wellbeing: A Critical Realist General Theory of Interdisciplinarity. New York/London: Routledge.
12.
BentonTed. 1981. “Some Comments on Roy Bhaskar's The Possibility of Naturalism.”Radical Philosophy, 27, 13–21.
BynumVictoria E., and LynnHunt, eds. 1999. Beyond the Cultural Turn: New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture. Vol. 34. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
16.
CartwrightNancy. 2004. “Causation: One Word, Many Things.” Philosophy of Science, 71:5, 805–819.
17.
CooleDiana, and SamanthaFrost. 2010. The New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency and Politics.Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
18.
CoulterJeffrey. 1971. “Marxism and the Engels Paradox.” In MilibandR. and SavilleJ., eds., The Socialist Register. London: Merlin Press.
19.
DeaconTerrence. 2012. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Nature.New York: W. W. Norton.
20.
DeaconTerrence, and JeremySherman. 2012. “Teleology for the Perplexed: How Matter Began to Matter.” Zygon, 42:4, 873–901.
21.
EmmecheClaus, Kalevi Kull and FrederikStjernfelt. 2002. Reading Hoffmeyer, Rethinking Biology.Tartu, Estonia: Tartu University Press.
NagelThomas. 2012. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
O'BoyleBrian, and TerrenceMcDonough. 2016. “Critical Realism and the Althus-serian Legacy.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 46:2, 143–164.
48.
PetersRichard. 2015. The Concept of Motivation. New York: Routledge.
49.
PetrovicGajo. 1967. Marx in the Mid-Twentieth Century. New York: Anchor Books.
50.
PorporaDouglas. 1989. “Four Concepts of Social Structure.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 19:2, 195–211.
51.
PorporaDouglas. 2015. Reconstructing Sociology: The Critical Realist Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SartreJean-Paul. 1976. Critique of Dialectical Reason.London: Verso.
53.
SchmidtAlfred. 1971. The Concept of Nature in Marx.New York: New Left Books.
54.
ShermanJeremy. 2017. Neither Ghost nor Machine: The Emergence and Nature of Selves.New York: Columbia University Press.
