1. 1
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?

2. 2
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.

3. 3
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 small

4. 4
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 facitsaltus” (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).

5. 5
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

6. 6
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:

7. 7
“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

8. 8
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

9. 9
motive and the individual exists as an 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 least, the actual implementation of Marxism in its
1 http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Communism

10. 10
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 to

11. 11
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 and the yearning for

12. 12
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 doors during the performance,

13. 13
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
as to allow the audience to orient itself more easily" (Adorno, 2009:36). In fact,

14. 14
some regard Wagner as a kind of “proto-film composer” due to the epically
expansive nature of his music-dramas, “If Wagner had lived in this century
he would have been the No.1 film composer” (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.

15. 15
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 competing modes of scientific activity…[and] sufficiently

16. 16
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 paradigm)

17. 17
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

18. 18
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

19. 19
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.
Lakatos distinguished between two parts of a scientific theory: its “hard
core” which contains its basic assumptions and its “protective belt,” a

20. 20
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 observation, then
the program is degenerating and the program should be abandoned. Figure 2
depicts visually the research program model.

21. 21
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.
- Use the results to gauge whether or not the topics conform to the Kuhn
Cycle, a research program, both, or none.

22. 22
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
Common
Descent
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 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

23. 23
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 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,

24. 24
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 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

25. 25
“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. 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

26. 26
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 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.

27. 27
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 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

28. 28
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 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

29. 29
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 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

30. 30
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.

31. 31
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 Speciesby 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.

32. 32
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 Müller. Evolution, the Extended Synthesis.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010.

33. 33
Ruse, Michael. The Evolution-Creation Struggle. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 2005.
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.

34. 34
Appendix 1
Assessment Matrices

35. 35

36. 36

37. 37

38. 38

39. 39

40. 40

41. 41

42. 42