I would appreciate more articles on evolutionary Psychology. This was great.
What irks evolutionists most about postmodernism is that by denying a consistent objective reality, it tends to hold all narratives to be inherently subjective and equally valid.
What irks those interested in late 20th-century and contemporary French philosophy are assertions like these that reveal the author has learned his postmodernism from the newspapers rather than from the sources.
E.g.: Derrida has said, "Meaning is determined by a system of forces which is not personal" (Literary Review vol. 14.18, Apr-May, 1980, 21-22). If that is true, then it is not subjective.
Except for this uninformed (or, rather, informed only by what some American literary types decided to make of the work of figures like Derrida and what, consequently became popluar in the press), this is an excellent piece. Thanks.
The moderate approach which argues that use of certain scientific methods may aid in our understanding of Literature or Art makes good sense. But the effort to subordinate and subdue the 'Humanities' to subsume them under the precepts of 'Evolutionary Psychology' is an intellectual wrong turn , no more valid than the one - time efforts made to subsume all to modern Physics when its star shone brightest in the Academcy. Each realm of discourse has its own world of explanation which in some sense cannot be translated into any other. I have recently read a couple of works which read classics of world literature through the lens of 'evolutionary psychology'. How poor and thin they are beside the great literary readings of those works.
So again while there is something to be gained by bringing the latest scientific findings and explanations to understanding works of Art it should not be taken as the all- in- all or even the heart of the matter.
To JimF:
I am glad your final comment was positive. Obviously you live on the well-informed side of the freight that Derridistas are obliged to endure with faint smiles.
However, you suggest that popular press misinterpretaions of post-modernism explain the author's comment.
Except I arrived there without the help of the popular press.
It's hard to conduct informed debate when one side questions the existence or validity of informed debate.
Not to say you might well be correct.
Postmodernism is certainly a blight upon the humanities, but importing Darwinian-reductionism into the humanities is a cure worse than the disease. It obliterates all the subtlety and psychological nuance that ought to inform reflection upon the arts—-that are, indeed, the whole point of the arts. So men and women have different sexual natures due to their biology: This is supposed to be news to the poets and novelists of the Western tradition? This is supposed to throw light on Un Amour de Swann? So symmetrical features are a sign of health and thus of reproductive vigor: This is supposed to provide insight into the reason why the beauty of the Bach cantatas makes me weep? Give me a break!
The core of the question about consciousness and the human powers of intellect comes to this: can a physical organ, the brain, produce something which is not physical, i.e., abstract thoughts - categories and generalities that have no physical existence? Every common noun in the dictionary is an example. The very best thought on this is the book "The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes" by the late Mortimer Adler.
Having come out of the Anthropology Dept at the University of Utah, I know just how bitter the evolutionary faithful can be. Anthropology departments across the country went through these "evolutionary" wars during the 90's and the early 00's. At Utah, I remember having Steven Pinker stuffed down our throats like his work was gospel, not to be questioned. I remember professors who ostracized people if they mentioned Marshall Sahlins's critique of sociobiology (for full-disclosure, me included, but this extended to faculty colleagues as well). The department did not want academic debate, it operated an inquisition.
The general nihilism of postmodernism has pushed too many bright people over the scientistic edge into the waiting arms of evolutionist pentecostalism. I agree with Darwinian evolutionary thought, but its Frankenstein off-shoot is not a scientific field, rather an attempt at arm-chair ratiocination. The rational-maximizing models on which they rely and their own "survival of the fittest" mentality leaves no room for compromise—it is the playground bully of academia and thus better avoided.
There are a number of problems with this article, particularly in that the author uncritically hews too closely to the victim complex of evolutionary psychologists. Whether it's defending against charges of eugenics, proclaiming that they are a "real science," or lamenting about the "misunderstanding" created by the humanities, ev. psych. practitioners have great difficulty in recognizing and directly and carefully addressing the empirical and methodological critiques leveled against them.
Now, I certainly think that evolution has something to say about human behavior. But ev. psych. (which is a distinctly different practice) goes way too far in stamping a depleted view of evolution and biology in order to explain all human behavior.
For example, the author of the article states:
"The classic view of evolution is that random alterations in the biology of individuals make some more adaptable than others to their changing environment. These adaptive traits are “selected,” and the fittest survive in succeeding generations until, eventually, a new species evolves. Evolutionary psychology takes evolution one step further: not only the body of Homo sapiens, but the human mind as well has been shaped by this process."
Yes, this is the classic view. But it's also declining in application and importance. Evolutionary biology as a science has moved away from the assumption of individual genetic adaptation (a.k.a. selfish gene theory) with a wider appreciation for the fact that there are multiple levels of selection acting upon organisms. Then there is the new book "Kluge", which demonstrates in vivid detail that one shouldn't assume a particular characteristic is a selected adaptation. It can very well be an accident, random, or leftover.
Reading back "purpose" into these physical and psychological traits - without adequate testing and clear lines of scientific causality - is a methodological error of the first order. A greater sensitivity to the nuances of biological development would provide a far superior picture of how genetics is affected by the environment and human agency to arrive at decision and then behavior. Sadly, this nuance is lacking in the ev. psych. discourse.
"It is impossible to overestimate eugenics' chilling effect on the application of evolutionary ideas to human psychology and society."
Oh, come on, I bet you could if you tried really hard. Actually, in comparison with the damage done by belief systems such as Freudianism, Marxism and (of course) religion, eugenics has had relatively little impact on history and society. But any stick will do to beat an atheist with...
dear james
you weep at a bach cantata, others would quickly reach over and switch the station to hear rap music. your personal preferences are not the issue. the question is "why do all(most) humans make music?" "why do all (most)humans tell stories?". The study is of human nature not minor individual differences.
regards
dear james
you weep at a bach cantata, others would quickly reach over and switch the station to hear rap music. your personal preferences are not the issue. the question is "why do all(most) humans make music?" "why do all (most)humans tell stories?". The study is of human nature not minor individual differences.
regards
Emotion is a function of the brain whose properties, like those of any other body part, were selected for maximal probability of survival.The one important difference between cognitive and other biological functions is quantitative, not qualitative: culture shapes cognition and emotion to a much greater extent than physical environment modulates other biological attributes(frankly, I fail to grasp the earth-shattering importance of the European-Japanese facial expression experiment: emotion is culture-specific, headline news!).
This is why attempts to understand things like literature in terms of its survival value end up being, to be charitable, naive. From romanticism to realism to expressionism to surrealism to modernism and, now, post-modernism, was a trajectory that required less than two centuries, a time infinitestimally short in the scale of biological evolution. As michael remarked, evolution can explain why we need literature (isn't the survival value of communication, to a species as social as Homo sapiens, obvious?), not why we write (and read) the way we do.
Evolutionary psychologists would do well to emulate the methodolgocial paradigms of their biological colleagues: suvival value helps in formulating the most plausible hypotheses but, for testing these hypotheses, nothing can replace direct observation and analysis.
Constantin - I agree with your conclusion, but the difference between cultural and biological forces is not simply quantitative. Yes, there is the speed issue, but culture affects cognition in a fundamentally different way than genes or physical development. To a certain extent, I think the question revolves around what characteristic we're discussing. Comparing the evolution of the eye, for example, to an intellectual history of literature - it stretches the bounds of analogy too far without adequate recognition of the fundamental differences.
And this is where I disagree with you, Michael. Individual differences are part and parcel of human nature. You can't just wipe them away by saying "we're only looking at the commonalities." I think it's certainly important that we do that, but you're making a big assumption that people - for example - make music for the same reason. What if that's not the case? There are plenty of examples of similar adaptations (consider the many ways animals glide and fly) that are nevertheless structurally distinct and have an impact on the range of possible actions. As in all scientific theories, the measure of the theory is how well it can account for the minutia through direct observation and analysis. And because of that, I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion, Constantin.
Michael:
I certainly do not deny that different levels of music exist, both low and high. BTW, that is true for all the arts (think of the difference between Stephen King and Tolstoy).
We could have an interesting discussion about the arguments in favor of an objective hierarchy of values. But for the purposes of the present discussion, it is important to see that whether objective beauty exists is one question, and whether it can be "explained" by Darwinism is another. It is also important to note that the Darwinists must in some sense be on my side here—-that is, they must feel that a faculty for the appreciation of beauty exists—-for otherwise, there would be nothing for them to explain, and so no point to the whole discussion.
At any rate, my post was intended merely to point out the great disparity between the conceptual poverty of Darwinian theory (reducting all human capacities to a byproduct of reproductive success) and the extraordinary richness of the phenomenology of our human response to beauty.
Sorry but this argument is not about evolution at all but and argument for innateness and justifying cultural differences. More study of John locke and a committment to the genuine spirit of enquiry would have made all the difference.
I am not a scientist or psychologist and I did not understand half of what I just read. But I am comforted in that I do not have to worry about that because I know that all the scientific research and studies cannot disprove the fact that God created the world. This is not religious based, God simply Is and nothing can change that. Especially an idea that a human came up with and the world decided that it sounded good so it became fact. Its kind of funny to me that all of these really brilliant and successful scientists are going on about something that does not even exist. They could show me all the 'evidence' that they have come up with to prove evolution, and I would still never believe that it was true. How could anyone not believe that a majestic and all-powerful God did not create the world when they look at all of its complexities? This will confuse me till the day I die.
To Anon from August 29th. Maybe you should try understanding what you read. Then maybe you'll lose the silly God-made-everything attitude. The fact that evidence doesn't sway your opinion is frankly scary. There is a possibility that you are wrong, and you should be open to that. Otherwise you are no different than some brainwashed cult member. I hope that what I read was sarcasm and not an actual opinion of yours.
I have a problem with both sides of the above argument in this thread. It seems that both those pushing the influence of culture on one side and Darwinists on the other are offering a false either/or and accusing each other of fanciful or reductive thinking, especially when it comes to the arts. Isn't it quite possible that both culture and biology influence humanity, including its artistic output? In a sense, both sides of this dichotomy are reductive, and I suspect some of this theorizing is really territorial pissing instead of trying to get at both art and humanity.
I always recall that evolutionists have researched and written on religious and philosophical issues for a long time now
Hi!
I am looking desperately for the Paleontologist who\'s written the following:
A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth\'s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin\'s hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God as described in the Bible.\" (Czarnecki, Mark, \"The Revival of the Creationist Crusade\", MacLean\'s, January 19, 1981, p. 56)
I am writing a pro-evolution book, and need to handle this quote. I am sure that the author did not mean what Creationists has been doing with his words, and I need his response.
If you are the same Mark Czarnecki, Please respond to me about it.
my email is: oqimta@gmail.com
Thank you!
Randolf
