From: Subject: Joseph Carroll - Wilson's Consilience and Literary Study - Philosophy and Literature 23:2 Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:50:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/philosophy_and_literature/v023/23.2carroll_j.html =EF=BB=BF Joseph Carroll - Wilson's Consilience and Literary = Study - Philosophy and Literature 23:2
= Copyright =C2=A9 1999=20 The Johns Hopkins University Press. All rights reserved.
Philosophy and Literature 23.2 (1999) 393-413=20
 

Critical Discussion

Wilson's Consilience and = Literary Study=20

Joseph Carroll =

Consilience: The Unity of=20 Knowledge, by Edward O. Wilson; 332 pp. New York: Alfred = A. Knopf,=20 1998, $26.00.

For students of the humanities, and especially = of=20 literature, E. O. Wilson's Consilience: The Unity of = Knowledge=20 presents an extraordinary challenge. Wilson argues that the = humanities are=20 the last frontier of science, believing that "the greatest = enterprise of=20 the mind has always been and always will be the attempted linkage = of the=20 sciences and humanities" (p. 8). Because the physical sciences and = the=20 humanities constitute polar points in the field of knowledge, and = because=20 the products of human genius constitute the most complex objects = in=20 nature, Wilson considers this linkage as the ultimate test of=20 "consilience," his term for the unification of all knowledge. The = term is=20 taken from the Victorian philosopher of science William Whewell, = and it=20 signifies "a 'jumping together' of knowledge by the linking of = facts and=20 fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork = of=20 explanation." Wilson's own background is remote from the = humanities, but=20 he makes a heroic effort to meet the challenge he has set. He = formulates a=20 hypothesis about the evolutionary origin and function of the arts, = and he=20 draws a connection between human nature and the design of the = arts. He=20 argues that the arts serve to fill the gap between animal instinct = and the=20 "vastness of new contingent possibilities revealed by high = intelligence,"=20 and he maintains that "even the greatest works of art might be = understood=20 fundamentally with knowledge of the [End Page 393] = biologically=20 evolved epigenetic rules that guided them" (pp. 225, 213). His = theory of=20 art emphasizes the depiction of human behavior, and it thus = implicitly=20 makes fictional representation the central instance of art.=20

I think Wilson's hypothesis about the = evolutionary origin=20 and function of art is basically right, and it is far superior to=20 aesthetic theories that have been formulated by other = sociobiologists and=20 evolutionary psychologists. As he would himself acknowledge, his = aesthetic=20 theory is little more than a sketch or an outline. The outline = needs to be=20 corrected in some important ways, and the whole larger design must = still=20 be filled in. These challenges will be my main concern in the = latter part=20 of this commentary. Before turning to them, I shall assess = Wilson's=20 achievement, examine his main themes, and consider a = representative=20 sampling of the critical responses that reject his larger = theoretical=20 program.=20

Wilson contrasts two kinds of intellectual = achievement.=20 "Discovery" is the supreme merit of scientific enterprise. = "Scholarship"=20 and "wisdom" are the hallmarks of humanistic study. The two kinds = of=20 achievement are so little complementary that "many accomplished = scientists=20 are narrow, foolish people," and "many wise scholars" are = "considered weak=20 scientists" (pp. 56, 39, 57). The difficulty of combining these = kinds of=20 achievement gives some measure of Wilson's intellectual magnitude, = for he=20 has won singular distinction in both kinds. He is a world-class = scientist,=20 and his specific discoveries have led him steadily onward toward = ever more=20 encompassing reflection.=20

Wilson's areas of scientific expertise form a = nested set=20 that exemplify his core belief in causal explanation across = diverse levels=20 of organization. He is an entomologist, a naturalist, an = ecologist, and a=20 sociobiologist. He discovered pheromones, the chemical signaling = system in=20 ants--a discovery that opened an immense field of research for = other=20 naturalists. In collaboration with Robert MacArthur, he invented = the=20 science of island biogeography, and he thus brought ecology within = the=20 scope of the exact sciences. In Sociobiology: The New = Synthesis=20 (1975), he integrated population genetics, ethology, and = evolutionary=20 biology in such a way as to constitute a distinct new discipline, = now the=20 matrix or frame for a vast research program into the social = evolution of=20 all animals, including humans. In the final chapter of = Sociobiology=20 and in On Human Nature (1978), Wilson turned his own = attention to=20 the evolved basis of human behavior, and then, in collaboration = with=20 Charles Lumsden, he pioneered the theory of gene-culture = co-evolution.=20 [End Page 394] In the past two decades, he has become a = leading=20 authority in biodiversity and world ecology. Now, with the = publication of=20 Consilience, he has consolidated and extended the reach of = all his=20 previous study, and he has established a strong claim to be = considered the=20 most important general theorist of intellectual culture in his = generation.=20 Consilience is not the relaxed rumination of a senior = scientist=20 enjoying his retirement from the rigors of primary research. It is = the=20 bold and strenuous culmination of a lifetime's effort at exploring = and=20 mapping the natural world, and for Wilson the natural world = includes the=20 human world of culture and intellect. His deepest intellectual = conviction=20 is that nature forms an unbroken chain of causal sequences, and he = supports this conviction by assimilating and integrating knowledge = from=20 the whole array of disciplinary domains--from physics and other = hard=20 sciences, from the many subfields of biology, and from the social=20 sciences, intellectual history, and the humanities.=20

Wilson's lucid, easy style should make the book = accessible to most educated people, but this is not "popular" = science=20 writing in the usual sense. Wilson is not merely retailing = intriguing bits=20 of information in an engaging manner. He has a powerful mind, and = on any=20 of twenty or thirty areas of specialized expertise, he penetrates = to the=20 heart of the matter, seizes on the central issues, and offers in = condensed=20 form an authoritative account of the best understanding in that = area. All=20 of this information is used to illustrate Wilson's larger themes = and=20 arguments, but if one were to read the book even in the most = casual way=20 merely as a smorgasbord of popular science, it would still be = richly=20 rewarding. An illustrative selection of such nuggets of popular = science=20 would include expositions of quantum electrodynamics, the = electromagnetic=20 spectrum, nanotechnology, pheromones, neuroanatomy, the = neurophysiology of=20 dreaming, complexity theory, chaos theory, enzymes, artificial=20 intelligence, color vision, language and communications in humans = and=20 chimpanzees, behavioral genetics, population genetics, modern = economic=20 theory, cave art, and world ecology. Along with these bits of = scientific=20 information, Wilson offers a summary account, extending over = several=20 chapters, of modern intellectual history. He begins with the = Enlightenment=20 and the Romantic reaction, and he includes the main phases of = modern=20 social theory and of the modernist and postmodern movements in the = humanities. At the highest level of philosophic concern, he gives = an=20 extended exposition of the conflict between the materialist and=20 transcendental world views, including their ethical ramifications. = Major=20 problems in the philosophy of science, especially [End Page = 395]=20 the integration of science and the humanities, form recurrent = themes. The=20 final chapter, on world ecology, is surely the most masterful and=20 authoritative such exposition available to a lay public. In all of = these=20 areas, Wilson displays the ingenuous enthusiasm of the naturalist=20 delighted with his finds, but he is also deeply concerned with the = philosophical principles that bind one piece of information to = another and=20 that bind all together into a seamless web of causal relations.=20

Wilson's public standing reveals an interesting = split=20 between the educated reading public and the academic left--to use = the=20 designation made familiar by Gross and Levitt. 1 Wilson first emerged into wide public = recognition=20 with the controversy over Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. = His main=20 role in this controversy was to serve as a target for the violent=20 hostility of Marxist pressure groups such as Science for the = People. The=20 Marxist establishment, prominently represented by Steven Jay Gould = and=20 Richard Lewontin, tried to bully Wilson into recantation or = silence, but=20 he neither succumbed to intimidation nor allowed the bitterness of = his=20 enemies to sour his own temper. Instead, he steadily expanded the = scope=20 and strengthened the framework of his own positive formulations. = As a=20 result, he has emerged now, twenty-five years later, as a cultural = hero=20 and a national celebrity. He has won two Pulitzer Prizes, national = and=20 international awards for scientific achievement, and teaching = awards at=20 Harvard, and his expression of kindly humor and genial = intelligence has=20 been widely publicized in magazine photographs. He embodies some = of the=20 best qualities in the public idea of science--honesty, energy, a = delighted=20 absorption in sustained research, and a considered optimism about = the=20 power of the human mind to penetrate the mysteries of nature. = Moreover,=20 his concern for the environment and for biodiversity reflects a = mature=20 appreciation for the human and ethical dimensions of science. For = all=20 these reasons, he has become virtually an icon of the benevolent=20 scientist, a benign double or counter-image to the image of the = scientist=20 as sinister genius--as Dr. Frankenstein or Dr. Strangelove.=20

Wilson's stature as a cultural celebrity can be = indicated=20 by the immense publication campaign accompanying the appearance of = Consilience. Preview articles for the book appeared in a = number of=20 journals, including Science, The Wilson Quarterly,=20 Atlantic Monthly, and Academic Questions (organ for = the=20 intellectually conservative group, the National Association of = Scholars),=20 and the book itself instantly garnered a wide and enthusiastic = readership.=20 Nonetheless, reviews in the more prominent journals have been = weighted=20 towards the negative. [End Page 396] Symposia in The = Wilson=20 Quarterly and Academic Questions had a balanced mix of = positive=20 and negative responses, but The New York Review of Books, = The=20 New Republic, and Science all gave the book to hostile=20 reviewers. Wilson has continued to run directly counter to the = ideology of=20 a powerful academic class responsible for directing public = opinion, and=20 this class is itself largely out of touch with the best instincts = and the=20 freshest currents of thought in the educated reading public. The = situation=20 is something like that of a nation in which an official body of = priests=20 has fallen a generation behind the public movement of mind but = still=20 retains possession of the official pulpits.=20

The ideological antagonism to Wilson's work has = taken=20 three main forms: a Romantic belief in the autonomy of the human = spirit, a=20 postmodernist epistemological nihilism, and a traditional = humanistic=20 belief in the irreducible singularity of all artistic productions. = Each of=20 these forms constitutes a major position in the spectrum of = current=20 humanistic opinion, and the proponents of each form rightly regard = themselves as fundamentally threatened by Wilson's vision--his = conviction=20 that the human spirit is an integral part of the causal web of = nature,=20 that science can obtain reliable knowledge about the structure of = nature,=20 and that human art, like all other objects in nature, can be = reduced to=20 underlying regularities and submitted to scientific understanding. = Wilson's three sets of antagonists would find much to squabble = about among=20 themselves, but they join together in insisting on the separation = of=20 physical science from all matters of humanistic interest, and they = find a=20 common theme in repudiating the central sociobiological concept = that links=20 science and human affairs: the concept of human universals.=20

Tzvetan Todorov, writing in The New = Republic,=20 exemplifies the Romantic opposition to the causal determinacy of = the=20 naturalistic vision. Todorov affiliates his claims for spiritual = autonomy=20 with Rousseau and Kant, and he supports the idea of freedom by a=20 predictable pattern of waffling. Since causal antecedents can be = readily=20 identified for any definite characteristic of human beings, anyone = who=20 would invest these characteristics with autonomy can scarcely = avoid=20 equivocation. Todorov identifies "culture" and "freedom" as the = defining=20 peculiarities of the human species, and he identifies culture = itself as "a=20 collective freedom." Culture frees man from biology, he fancies, = but then=20 he bumps into the problem that culture itself becomes "a = determining=20 cause." There is no escape open, and Todorov can only disguise his = logical=20 cul de sac by appealing inappropriately to qualifications = of=20 degree, accompanied [End Page 397] with rhetorical = gestures. People=20 are capable of detaching themselves even from culture "up to a = point," but=20 no, the human species is "not entirely free." Still, "it knows the = motions=20 of liberation." 2 Rhetorical procedures of this sort are = motivated by=20 a sentimental attachment to spiritual feelings, and they nullify = their own=20 conceptual content.=20

Wilson's own thinking on the problem of human = freedom=20 displays his characteristic incisiveness, and it is embedded in = one of his=20 most inventive and potentially fruitful conceptions--the idea of = human=20 consciousness as a series of "scenarios." Wilson's exposition of = this idea=20 constitutes the bulk of a chapter entitled "The Mind," and it is = boldly=20 presented as a turning point in the way to do philosophy of mind. = "Much of=20 the history of modern philosophy, from Descartes and Kant forward, = consists of failed models of the brain" (p. 96). This formulation = is not=20 meant merely to be provocative. It is a serious diagnosis, and = Wilson=20 offers an evolutionary explanation for the diagnosis. Previous=20 philosophers have worked too exclusively from "introspection,"and = since=20 the brain was designed by evolution not to achieve self-knowledge = but "to=20 survive," introspection is inadequate. Reliable models of mental = activity=20 can be produced only through scientific investigation. Responses = to Wilson=20 like those of Todorov are motivated not only by ideological animus = but=20 also by a desire to remain within the methodological boundaries of = purely=20 discursive philosophy--to cling to Kant and Rousseau rather than = to=20 negotiate the new and difficult terrain of neurophysiology and = cognitive=20 psychology.=20

Scenarios are "coding networks" of sensory = impressions,=20 memories, and imaginative projections (p. 109). "Consciousness = consists of=20 the parallel processing of vast numbers of such coding networks," = and=20 "decision-making" consists in "the competitive selection among = scenarios"=20 (p. 115). Selection is determined by emotion. "The winning = scenarios are=20 those that match goals preprogrammed by instinct and the = satisfactions of=20 prior experience" (p. 113). We make decisions as the consequence = of the=20 relative weight of emotional force behind alternative scenarios, = and this=20 emotional force is not wholly available to conscious thought. = "Circuits=20 and determining molecular processes exist outside conscious = thought. They=20 consolidate certain memories and delete others, bias connections = and=20 analogies, and reinforce the neuro-hormonal loops that regulate = subsequent=20 emotional response" (p. 119). This theory of decision-making = provides a=20 straightforward solution to the supposed enigma of human freedom. = "The=20 hidden preparation of mental activity gives the illusion of free = will. We=20 make decisions [End Page 398] for reasons we often sense = only=20 vaguely, and seldom if ever understand fully."=20

Critics of sociobiological theories alternate = between=20 indignantly repudiating them and superciliously dismissing them. = John=20 Dupr=C3=A9, Richard Rorty, and Susan Haack, all objecting to the = standard=20 sociobiological theme that average human sex differences are = rooted in the=20 evolutionary logic of reproduction, exemplify the line of = indignant=20 repudiation, but their complaints offer no serious theoretical = challenge=20 to Wilson. They consist only of straw-man oppositions between = totalized=20 environmental or genetic determinacy (Dupr=C3=A9), contentions = founded on=20 ignorance of the relevant literature (Haack), and efforts at = political=20 blackmail (Rorty). 3 The other line of attack, supercilious = dismissal, is=20 more theoretically interesting. Steve Jones, writing in The New = York=20 Review of Books, exemplifies this approach. He offers a bland = and=20 sketchy list of sociobiological propositions, scoffs at the notion = that=20 they are "new revelations in human understanding," and maintains = that=20 "most human sociobiology is a restatement of the obvious in = biological=20 language." 4=20

The merit of complaints like those of Jones can = be=20 assessed against the test case offered by Wilson's theory of mind. = The=20 idea that "we make decisions for reasons we often sense only = vaguely" is=20 indeed commonplace, but it is a commonplace that has stimulated = myths of=20 divine inspiration and demonic possession, that has teased the = minds of=20 dramatists and novelists for centuries, that has motivated = elaborate and=20 incoherent philosophies of moral autonomy, and that has generated = major=20 systems of modern psychology. The systems of Freud and Jung were = created=20 in the old-fashioned humanistic way. They are discursive and=20 introspective, and they are enmeshed with fancies like that of the = collective unconscious and the Oedipal complex. Jung's notion of = the=20 collective unconscious is a hodge-podge of Darwinism, Lamarckism, = and=20 mysticism, and it has produced some illumination but also much = confusion.=20 The Oedipal theory, in contrast, has been proven to be = fundamentally=20 wrong--the theory of incest avoidance is one of the showpieces of=20 sociobiological research--and it has seduced generations of = humanists into=20 phantasmagoric error. 5=20

The common observation that "we make decisions = for=20 reasons we often sense only vaguely" is a fact to be explained. = The=20 efforts to explain this fact in the literary, philosophical, and=20 psychological traditions have been wildly divergent, and these = divergent=20 explanations form parts of radically different systems of thought. = On the=20 basis of a considered [End Page 399] hypothesis about = intellectual=20 history, a hypothesis that is itself rooted in the deep history of = the=20 adapted mind, Wilson discards obsolete dogmas and antiquated = fancies, and=20 he reformulates the common observation as an empirical problem = within the=20 conceptual framework of cognitive and emotional psychology. Like = all=20 empirical formulations, and unlike those of the humanistic = tradition,=20 Wilson's theory is a working hypothesis, provisional and amenable = to=20 improvements in scientific knowledge. Within the current framework = of=20 available information, he develops a model of decision-making, and = he uses=20 this model to offer cogent solutions for problems that still = mystify most=20 humanistic writers.=20

The idea of consciousness as a set of scenarios = should=20 have a wide utility in the social sciences and the humanities. It = should=20 prove particularly useful for a theory of fictional = representation, and I=20 shall return to it later in this commentary. For now, it is enough = to=20 register that the seemingly "obvious" character of Wilson's = observation is=20 an illusion produced by confusing levels of fact and theoretical=20 explanation. The fact that seems so obvious is part of a theory of = the=20 mind that is only now being developed; it offers a parsimonious=20 explanation of this fact; and the theory that explains the fact is = itself=20 embedded in a still deeper, well-established theory about = biological=20 evolution and the evolution of the mind. The two larger theories = are=20 themselves "consilient," and they produce broad and deep = interconnections=20 or "consilience" among diverse fields of knowledge; they are = subject to=20 falsification and development through empirical research, and they = enable=20 us to correct serious and long-standing errors from other, = competing=20 hypotheses. All these aspects of the theory exemplify the kinds of = criteria that Wilson identifies as characteristic of scientific = thinking=20 (pp. 53, 198). They are largely alien to the set of mind = exemplified by=20 most of his critics.=20

Of all possible responses to = Consilience, those=20 informed by postmodernism are the most antithetical to Wilson's = way of=20 thinking, and he is himself aware of this irreconcilable = antipathy. In the=20 historical chapters, he identifies himself as a proud heir to the=20 Enlightenment, especially to Bacon, and he declares that = "postmodernism is=20 the ultimate polar antithesis of the Enlightenment" (p. 40). = Unlike his=20 expositions of scientific topics, Wilson's excursions into = intellectual=20 history are the work not of a distinguished primary observer but = of a=20 talented and industrious amateur. Nonetheless, he seizes = effectively upon=20 the central features in this historical polarity. "Enlightenment = thinkers=20 believe we can know everything, and radical postmodernists [End = Page=20 400] believe we can know nothing." The postmodernists = repudiate the=20 idea of a "'real' reality" and hence of "objective truths." For = them,=20 science is not "demonstrably the most powerful instrument hitherto = created=20 by the human mind" but only "another way of looking at the world" = (pp.=20 190, 214). Wilson's genial and impersonally objective manner, a = product of=20 his scientific cultivation, tends very little toward emotionally = charged=20 personal characterizations, but the postmodernists provoke an = unusually=20 angry and contemptuous response from him. He describes them as "a = rebel=20 crew milling beneath the black flag of anarchy" (p. 40).=20

Richard Rorty quotes Wilson on the postmodern = view of=20 science and concedes the justice of the description. "I do indeed = think=20 that science is just another way of looking at the world." For = Rorty,=20 reality is a non-concept. In its place, he postulates a = heterogeneous set=20 of incommensurable "vocabularies," each with its own peculiar = charm, none=20 with any particular claim to greater relative validity. 6 Wilson declares that Rorty's views "would = drain much=20 of the power and joy from scholarly inquiry," and he protests that = Rorty's=20 unwillingness to link discoveries by causal explanation "lazily" = devalues=20 intellect (p. 190). In response, Rorty only lifts his shoulders in = a=20 languid Gallic shrug. These are not concerns he can share. Rorty = does not=20 argue against the grounds of Wilson's beliefs. He merely disclaims = any=20 personal receptivity to them. One could illustrate the stand-off = between=20 the two philosophers by reference to Wilson's descriptions of = animal=20 senses that humans do not possess. Human beings cannot feel what = the=20 sensation of an eel's electromagnetic field is like. Within the = human=20 range, one might compare the case with that of a moralist trying = to awaken=20 the tenderness of a sociopath. There is simply no mental organ to = register=20 the appeal. Similarly, a philosopher who has no interest in truth = or=20 reality could never be argued into feeling what he does not feel.=20

Despite his antipathy to the irrationality of = the=20 postmodernists, Wilson seeks to turn their provocations to the = good by=20 casting them in the role of antagonists in a productive dialectic. = He=20 divides the intellectual world into "those who upon viewing = disorder try=20 to create order, and those who upon encountering order try to = protest it=20 by creating disorder" (p. 43). The tension between the two, he = thinks, "is=20 what drives learning forward." Wilson is stimulated by skepticism = about=20 the unity of nature and of knowledge. He responds to this stimulus = by=20 recurrently seeking to formulate the conditions of a total = explanatory=20 network--an unbroken chain of causation from the simplest elements = of=20 nature to the most complex, from subatomic particles through the = [End=20 Page 401] mind of Mozart. Wilson's terminology in these = meditations is=20 not always consistent, but the basic theory is fairly simple. = Consilience=20 moves in two directions. In one direction, it moves toward = "reductionism,"=20 the "dissection and analysis" of complex phenomena (p. 54). This = movement=20 is "the cutting edge of science." In the other direction, it moves = toward=20 "synthesis and integration." Wilson characterizes this second = purpose as=20 "predictive synthesis" (p. 125) or "total consilience," but he = refers to=20 it also, confusingly, as a "deeper" form of "reductionism" (p. = 55). The=20 purpose of this second movement is to predict all the phenomena of = the=20 universe from the simplest elements in it. Wilson lucidly expounds = the=20 almost inconceivable complexity that rapidly emerges from even the = simplest interactions of subatomic particles, and he acknowledges = the=20 daunting difficulty of predicting the emergence of new principles = of=20 organization within the scale of natural hierarchies--from physics = through=20 chemistry and molecules, and up to organs, organisms, and = superorganisms.=20 Though unreachable within any currently imaginable condition of = knowledge,=20 predictive synthesis is "the ultimate goal" of science (p. 125). = (At one=20 point, the idea of predictive synthesis as the "ultimate goal" is=20 conflated with the idea of ordinary synthetic reassembly of = analytically=20 separated parts [p. 211].) The kind of science that can yield = practical=20 results proceeds mainly through ordinary analytic reduction and=20 reassembly. Consilience at this level is a common conception in = the=20 rationalist philosophy of science, and it is at this level that = the theory=20 of consilience must meet the challenge of irrationalist critics.=20

The third major form of antagonism to Wilson's = theory of=20 Consilience is that of a traditional humanistic = dualism--the belief=20 that the physical sciences and the humanities occupy irreducibly = distinct=20 ontological territories. In this vision, the physical world and = subjective=20 experience are radically distinct kinds of stuff. The physical = world is=20 subject to quantitative formulation and reductive causal analysis, = and the=20 mental world consists of unique and irreducibly qualitative = moments of=20 subjectivity. Roger Shattuck holds this belief, but he formulates = his=20 argument against Wilson in an epistemological rather than an = ontological=20 way. Shattuck declares that "the arts, in contrast with philosophy = and=20 science, deal with individuals and their particular actions, = thoughts, and=20 feelings in contingent situations that we find pertinent. The arts = and the=20 humanities do not look primarily for universals and general laws: = they=20 seek out the revelation and uniqueness of individual cases." = 7 If we were to take this proposition at = face value,=20 we would be unable to [End Page 402] make any = generalizations about=20 or comparisons of literature. We would be unable to identify = commonalities=20 of period, of style, or of genre. We would forbid ourselves to = notice=20 common themes or motifs, or to register similar situations = depicted in=20 different literary works. In practice, no one does or could = observe such=20 restrictions. They serve only as a makeshift barrier against = systematic=20 empirical understanding. Their purpose is to preserve the = humanistic=20 domain exclusively for traditional belletristic practice--for = eclectic or=20 theoretically opportunistic response at the level of common = language.=20

The repudiation or deprecation of human = universals=20 necessarily constitutes the main bastion of defense against = Wilson's=20 proposal to integrate science and humanistic study. Universals are = underlying regularities that render human experience susceptible = to=20 scientific generalization, and the universals identified by = sociobiology=20 situate these regularities within a well-established scientific = theory of=20 deep causal processes. Wilson's proposal depends fundamentally on = the idea=20 that there is "a scientifically constructible map of human nature = from=20 which the deep meaning of texts can be drawn" (p. 214). That map = would=20 depict a species-typical goal structure, and it would provide a = pattern=20 that would enable social scientists and humanists to engage in = valid=20 reductive analysis and reliable prediction about human behavior, = including=20 artistic behavior. The crudest form of defense is simply to deny = that any=20 regularities exist. Todorov, for instance, declares that "the = uniqueness=20 of human events means that they cannot be generalized." This claim = is=20 grossly and demonstrably false, so it could have effect only with=20 humanists operating theoretically at the level of creationists and = flat-earthers. A more subtle defense, exemplified by Rorty and = Jones, is=20 to acknowledge some regularities but to dismiss them as trivial or = banal.=20 8=20

Wilson identifies the underlying regularities = of human=20 nature as "epigenetic rules," defined as "the hereditary = regularities of=20 mental development that bias cultural evolution in one direction = as=20 opposed to another, and thus connect the genes to culture" (p. = 164).=20 Sociobiological propositions about human nature are neither = trivial nor=20 banal, but at this point in their development they are still, to = use=20 Wilson's own word, "rudimentary." He acknowledges that "the = central=20 weakness of contemporary human behavioral genetics and human = sociobiology=20 is that only a small number of the relevant genes and epigenetic = rules=20 have been identified" (pp. 154-55). The problems are "conceptual,=20 technical, and deep," but they are also "ultimately solvable" (p. = 173).=20 [End Page 403] Solutions will come through "the further = expansion=20 of biology and its coalescence with psychology and anthropology." = Wilson's=20 concessions about the still rudimentary character of sociobiology = as a=20 science reflect both his integrity as a scientist and his = confidence in=20 the ultimate success of his research program. Such statements are = remote=20 from the language of dogmatic certitude and partisan = self-promotion common=20 to manifestoes in humanistic cultural theory, but social = scientists and=20 literary scholars have no need to be discouraged by Wilson's = candid=20 appraisal of the historical condition of research in his field. = The map of=20 human nature has some firm outlines, and within these outlines = there is a=20 substantial and steadily growing body of specific findings.=20

Wilson devotes one main chapter, "The Fitness = of Human=20 Nature," to delineating systematically a sociobiological theory of = human=20 nature. At the beginning of the chapter, about two thirds of the = way=20 through his book, he summarizes all the examples he has used so = far as=20 illustrations, and the list is an apparent hodge-podge: dreaming, = fear of=20 snakes, taste, mother-infant bonding, facial expressions = corresponding to=20 the six basic emotions, cognitive tendencies toward conceptual = reification=20 and dichotomization, and color vision. This opening list and the = more=20 structured account of human nature that follows it can illustrate = an=20 important difference between evolutionary psychology and = sociobiology, two=20 doctrinal labels that Wilson himself presents as virtually = synonymous.=20 Random lists like the one that opens the chapter are = characteristic of=20 essays that adopt the label of evolutionary psychology. The items = in such=20 lists are designated "cognitive domains" or "domain-specific = modules."=20 9 Evolutionary psychology presents itself as = a=20 successor to sociobiology and distinguishes itself from its origin = by=20 emphasizing "proximate" mechanisms of motivation that are = sometimes remote=20 from the "ultimate" regulative principles of inclusive fitness. = Inclusive=20 fitness consists in successfully passing on one's genes, and = proximate=20 mechanisms are the evolved physical and behavioral structures that = mediate=20 inclusive fitness. As evolutionary psychology moves away from the=20 sociobiological emphasis on inclusive fitness as a direct and = proximate=20 motive, it approaches more closely to cognitive psychology as a = matrix=20 discipline, and in this move it tends to eliminate the underlying=20 motivational principles that would provide structure to randomly = assorted=20 lists of cognitive mechanisms.=20

For theorists like Wilson who take sociobiology = as the=20 matrix discipline, the deepest level of organization is that of = the=20 elementary principles of survival and reproduction. The = sociobiologist=20 Richard [End Page 404] Alexander identifies these = principles as the=20 somatic and reproductive motivational domains common to all = organisms, and=20 Wilson identifies "greater longevity and a secure, growing family" = as "the=20 universal bottom line of Darwinian genetic fitness" (p. 252). = 10 Since human beings are social animals, = somatic and=20 reproductive concerns are deeply enmeshed in principles of social=20 interaction. These three categories--survival, reproduction, and = social=20 interaction, provide the nucleus for standard efforts to organize=20 sociobiological principles into distinct behavioral systems. For = example,=20 McGuire and Troisi identify four basic behavioral systems: = survival,=20 reproduction, kin assistance, and reciprocation, and Buss (1999), = in a=20 textbook of evolutionary psychology, surveys the whole field of=20 evolutionary psychology within a sequence of book sections devoted = to=20 survival, sex and mating, parenting and kinship, and group living. = 11 In his chapter on "The Fitness of Human = Nature,"=20 Wilson breaks sociobiology down into a similar list of categories = and=20 summarizes the well-established findings in each category. The = categories=20 directly concerned with reproductive success include kin = selection,=20 parental investment, and mating strategy. The categories concerned = with=20 social interaction include status seeking, territorial expansion = and=20 defense, and contractual agreement--this latter a peculiarly human = feature=20 of social organization dependent on the capacity for higher = cognitive=20 organization and long-term planning. Each of these categories = breaks down=20 into a number of specific reg-ulative principles, and the = combination or=20 interaction of these principles within differing environmental=20 circumstances provides a strong network of elements capable of = achieving=20 substantial structural complexity. For example, mating strategies = involve=20 an array of evolved sex differences in motivational structures and = cognitive predispositions, and parenting and kinship include the = whole=20 field of developmental psychology--the problems of growing up--and = of=20 family dynamics. To gain some sense of the scope of these = principles,=20 consider that the vast bulk of fiction consists in personal = interactions=20 constituted primarily by combinations of motives involving mating=20 strategies, family dynamics, and social strategies devoted to = seeking=20 status and forming coalitions.=20

In concentrating on behavioral systems directly = connected=20 to survival and reproduction, sociobiologists sometimes forget to = include=20 the higher cognitive functions in their repertory of motivational = systems.=20 Although the random list of examples with which he begins his = chapter on=20 human nature includes specifically cognitive functions (namely,=20 reification and dichotomization), Wilson fails to include higher = cognitive=20 [End Page 405] functions in his general exposition of=20 sociobiological categories. These functions nonetheless form a = major part=20 of his larger exposition. 12 His Enlightenment credo itself suggests = that the=20 desire for knowledge can be a primary life purpose (p. 44), and in = a later=20 chapter he declares that "what really matters" to people are "sex, = family,=20 work, security, personal expression, entertainment, and spiritual=20 fulfillment" (p. 268). Personal expression and entertainment fall = within=20 the domain of artistic activity, and spiritual fulfillment = consists in the=20 need to envision a humanly meaningful order within the total order = of=20 nature. With respect to this latter need, to which he devotes a = whole=20 chapter, Wilson hopes that the quest for knowledge, combined with = a=20 reverential and morally responsible awe before the powers of = nature, will=20 ultimately supplant the illusions of religious myth. More = importantly, for=20 the purposes of literary study, Wilson's thesis about the = evolutionary=20 origin of the arts implies that they both depict epigenetic rules = and are=20 themselves regulated by such rules. They have an adaptive function = and=20 form part of the species-typical goal structure. In this respect, = Wilson's=20 views can be contrasted with those of other sociobiological = theorists who=20 have either treated the arts in a rather unintelligently reductive = way as=20 a form of sexual display or have discounted them as parasitic = by-products=20 of other adaptive functions. 13=20

Wilson's chapter on the arts is not among the = strongest=20 chapters in Consilience, but the limitations in his = specifically=20 aesthetic and literary formulations can be corrected through = appeal to the=20 principles available within his own wider exposition. The main = limitations=20 in his exposition are the reduction of artistic purposes to the=20 communication of emotion, the failure to include scenario-building = as one=20 of the behavioral systems represented in literature and the other = arts, a=20 too simple conflation of epigenetic rules with a quasi-Jungian = conception=20 of "archetypes" (and a correspondingly inadequate conception of = the roles=20 both of behavioral ecology and of individual psychology in the = analysis of=20 literary themes), and a failure to envision the integration of = substantive=20 epigenetic themes (such as mating strategies or cheater detection) = with=20 specifically formal aesthetic and literary structures.=20

The limitations in Wilson's formulations about = literature=20 and the other arts are due in good part to one of those evolved = cognitive=20 propensities he himself describes so astutely--the tendency toward = simple=20 dichotomization: dark and light, in-group and out-group, good and = evil.=20 The dichotomy that in Wilson's case supplants precise analysis is = the=20 standard opposition between feeling and thought, an opposition = [End=20 Page 406] hat carries over into a rigid opposition between art = and=20 science. "The defining quality of the arts is the expression of = the human=20 condition by mood and feeling, calling into play all the senses, = evoking=20 both order and disorder" (p. 213). To emphasize the function of = feeling in=20 the arts, in contrast to the exclusion of feeling in scientific=20 formulations, is perfectly reasonable, but if the contrast is made = absolute it becomes invalid and misleading. In a formulation to = which=20 Shattuck rightly takes exception, Wilson declares that artistic=20 productions "are meant to be delivered directly to the = sensibilities of=20 the beholder without analytic explanation" (p. 213). 14 In this supposed renunciation of = explanation, "the=20 arts are the antithesis of science" (p. 218). On the face of it, = this=20 proposition is false. Virtually all literature, even drama, = contains some=20 explanatory, meditative, essayistic content. Consider Hamlet's = speech on=20 the function of drama as holding the mirror up to nature. Some = works of=20 literature, like the poetry of Wallace Stevens or the novels of = George=20 Eliot, Tolstoy, or Conrad, are highly philosophical and contain = immense=20 efforts to explain themselves and everything else--the cosmos, = history,=20 the nature of civilization.=20

Literature does not restrict itself to the = depiction of=20 people operating out of instinctive motives--seeking sex and = power--though=20 these motives do in fact constitute a deep core of literary=20 representations. Both the authors of fictional representations and = the=20 characters depicted in them are sentient agents. A significant = part of=20 their activity is interpretive activity. They are trying to make = sense of=20 the world, to construct usable models or scenarios. They often and = even=20 usually slant these constructions toward their own interest or = vanity, but=20 they also construct normative models of the kind of communities in = which=20 they wish to live--or alternatively they construct satiric and = dystopic=20 models of the kinds of communities they find antipathetic. 15=20

The meaning systems created by authors depend = very=20 largely on the relation among at least three sets of interpretive = models=20 or scenarios: the author's own (generally privileged) version of = truth and=20 reality; the versions formulated by the characters depicted, and = the=20 version implicitly attributed to the putative audience. The = putative=20 audience usually consists in the author's own community, though it = can=20 also consist in the larger audience of humanity in general. The = versions=20 of reality presented by the characters usually conflict among = themselves,=20 with each character or set of characters offering competing = versions of=20 the dramatic interactions in which they are mutually involved. = 16 The author negotiates with the meaning = systems of=20 his characters and negotiates [End Page 407] simultaneously = with=20 the expectations, values, sympathies, and antipathies of his or = her=20 putative readers. No theory of literature that eliminates = "explanation"=20 can adequately account for such complex interactions, and without = them the=20 interpretation of "meaning" remains rudimentary. The theory of = scenarios=20 is one of the triumphs of Wilson's book. He has merely failed to=20 incorporate it adequately into his theory of literary = representation.=20

The failure to incorporate the idea of = scenarios is=20 closely linked with the failure to integrate substantive = epigenetic themes=20 with formal literary structures--with techniques of narrative, = point of=20 view, and genre, or with matters of style and specifically = aesthetic=20 properties. One excellent example of such integration appears in = an essay=20 by Brian Boyd, who connects the development of free-indirect = discourse=20 with the evolved psychological propensity toward cheater = detection.=20 17 More generally, one could argue that = irony is a=20 fundamental and pervasive literary device designed for the purpose = of=20 detecting and exposing hypocrisy and deceit. Such detection is a = major=20 part of the sociobiological theory of social evolution. As Wilson = himself=20 notes, "More than error, more than good deeds, and more even than = the=20 margin of profit, the possibility of cheating by others attracts=20 attention. It excites emotion and serves as the principal source = of=20 hostile gossip and moralistic aggression by which the integrity of = the=20 political economy is maintained" (p. 172). All formal literary = structures=20 are prosthetic developments of evolved cognitive structures that = serve=20 adaptive functions. So long as theorists think of literature as = purely=20 emotional and expressive, they will be impeded in the effort to = analyze=20 the cognitive mechanisms and sociobiological functions of formal = literary=20 structures.=20

One of the most serious deficiencies in = standard versions=20 of evolutionary psychology is the commitment to a model of the = brain=20 consisting exclusively of domain-specific modules--the "Swiss army = knife"=20 model of the brain. The reason for this bias is easy to = understand. In=20 opposition to standard social science, the evolutionary = psychologists,=20 like Wilson, wish to affirm the idea of an "adapted mind" or = structured=20 human nature. Since standard social science attributes all = psychological=20 structure to some external social or cultural force, it is = committed to=20 the idea of the brain as a blank slate or all-purpose computer. = Succumbing=20 to the instinct for partisan dichotomization, evolutionary = psychologists=20 have rejected the idea of the all-purpose computer, and along with = it they=20 have sometimes rejected all domain-general intelligence. 18 To deny all general intelligence is to = run counter=20 to common [End Page 408] observation, and this is not an = error that=20 Wilson makes. On the contrary, he affirms that "the most = distinctive=20 qualities of the human species are extremely high intelligence, = language,=20 culture, and reliance on long-term social contracts" (p. 224). In=20 reconstructing the evolution of mind, Wilson presents general = intelligence=20 as a major advantage but also a major problem--as a source of = confusion=20 and disorientation--and he argues that the arts evolved as a means = for=20 counterbalancing this confusion:=20

There was not enough time for human = heredity=20 to cope with the vastness of new contingent possibilities = revealed by=20 high intelligence. . . . The arts filled the gap. Early humans = invented=20 them in an attempt to express and control through magic the = abundance of=20 the environment, the power of solidarity, and other forces in = their=20 lives that mattered most to survival and reproduction. The arts = were the=20 means by which these forces could be ritualized and expressed in = a new,=20 simulated reality. They drew consistency from their faithfulness = to=20 human nature, to the emotion-guided epigenetic rules--the = algorithms--of=20 mental development. (p. 225)

By building models of reality, the arts link = all=20 contingent and particular circumstances to the deep structure of = elemental=20 motives. They make psychologically meaningful connections between=20 elemental motives and the peculiarities in specific configurations = of=20 culture and of individual experience. The arts thus consist = neither in the=20 representation of differences and unique moments, as Shattuck, = Todorov,=20 and others would have it, nor in the representation of common or = universal=20 human experiences, as the neoclassical theorists believed. The = arts can be=20 more accurately conceived as consisting in something like the = combination=20 of the two, but even this idea of a combination of universals and=20 particulars needs to be qualified. A species-typical goal = structure is a=20 statistical aggregate, and any given person has an elementary = motivational=20 structure that varies, in however infinitesimal a degree, from the = statistical average. In certain cases, the differences are = substantial.=20 For instance, the hierarchy of motives in homosexual writers is = likely to=20 differ substantially from that in the heterosexual structures = taken as=20 normative by sociobiological theorists. The motivational structure = of men=20 differs on average from that of women. The concerns of the old are = not=20 identical to those of the young, and each strongly marked = personality type=20 has its own distinct structure of goals and satisfactions. In all = these=20 cases, peculiarities of individual identity [End Page 409] = and=20 personal experience make some difference. The commonalities of = human=20 nature make it possible for people to communicate across such = differences,=20 but when writers negotiate scenarios among themselves, their = characters,=20 and their audiences, such differences are a vital part of the = total=20 meaning system.=20

Wilson himself notes the interaction of "human = nature,"=20 "historical circumstances," and "idiosyncratic personal = experience" (p.=20 218). Moreover, in his exposition of scenarios, he identifies "the = self"=20 as "the key dramatic character of the scenarios" (p. 119), and he = thus=20 rightly implies the necessity of a psychology that pays due = attention to=20 the peculiarities of individual identity. His commentary on = literature is=20 nonetheless heavily weighted toward the universal aspects of = fictional=20 representation, and these aspects are conceived too simply as a = set of=20 static archetypal motifs--"the widely recurring abstractions and = core=20 narratives that are dominant themes in the arts" (p. 218). Drawing = on=20 Joseph Campbell and others, Wilson lays out a standard set of = supposed=20 archetypes, but these mythic themes are restricted largely to = tribal and=20 barbarian conditions of culture. All such formulations lack an = adequate=20 conception of adaptive flexibility. The epigenetic rules, as = Wilson=20 himself understands in his general psychological theory, are a set = of=20 potentials with a wide range of possible phenotypic expressions. = 19 As sociobiology and evolutionary = psychology become=20 mature sciences, they will become increasingly capable of = accounting for=20 the complex interactions of epigenetic rules and specific = environmental=20 conditions--conditions that display significant historical and = cultural=20 differences. As sociobiological literary study progresses in = tandem with=20 sociobiology, it will leave behind the idea of fixed themes and = unvarying=20 archetypal images. 20=20

Sociobiology has made major advances in = providing a map=20 of elemental human motives rooted in our evolutionary history, and = Wilson=20 has been one of the most creative and influential figures in this=20 movement. The program I am propounding here is fully in accord = with the=20 tenor of his larger argument in Consilience. I am urging = that=20 sociobiology become fully consilient with all standard psychology, = including the psychology of development, the theory of individual=20 differences in personality, and the interaction of instinctive = biases and=20 general intelligence. By integrating this more circumspect set of = theories=20 with concepts from traditional theories of cultural history,=20 sociobiologists would achieve a mature theory of cultural ecology. = I am=20 urging further that sociobiological literary analysis become = consilient=20 [End Page 410] with the best theory available from the = traditional=20 study of literature. This study includes both the techniques of = formal=20 analysis made available by the New Critics and their successors = and the=20 categories of historical analysis made available in studies of = genre and=20 period. Sociobiological literary study must incorporate terms such = as=20 "realism" and "symbolism," "tragedy," "comedy," and "satire." It = must=20 offer cogent sociobiological explanations for techniques of = narrative,=20 point of view, and style. It will have achieved consilience and = will have=20 mastered its subject when it can integrate the sociobiological = theory of=20 inclusive fitness, the theory of proximal mechanisms from = evolutionary=20 psychology, and the most subtle insights of traditional = interpretive=20 criticism. Within the total body of knowledge envisioned by = Wilson, all of=20 this is a specialized area of research, but as he rightly says, it = is a=20 crucial test case for the validity of his vision of a unified = total body=20 of knowledge. If we can formulate a theory and a methodology that = link our=20 deep evolutionary history, our evolved psychological structures, = our=20 cultural history, and the formal structures of literary texts, we = shall=20 have made a major contribution to the advancement of scientific = knowledge.=20 This is a goal worth working towards, and it is within our reach. =

University of Missouri-St. = Louis

Notes

1. Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, Higher = Superstition:=20 The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (Baltimore: = Johns=20 Hopkins University Press, 1994).=20

2. Tzvetan Todorov, "The Surrender to Nature," = New=20 Republic, April 27, 1998.=20

3. John Dupr=C3=A9, "Unification Not Proved," = Science 280=20 (May 29, 1998): 1395; Susan Haack, "The Ants and Us," Academic=20 Questions 11 (1988): 67; Richard Rorty, "Against Unity," = Wilson=20 Quarterly 22 (1998): 36.=20

4. Steve Jones, "In the Genetic Toyshop," New = York=20 Review of Books, April 23, 1998.=20

5. See David M. Buss, Evolutionary Psychology: = The New=20 Science of the Mind (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. = 217-19;=20 Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, "Is Parent-Offspring Conflict = Sex-Linked?=20 Freudian and Darwinian Models," Journal of Personality 58 = (1990);=20 and Carl N. Degler, In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and = Revival=20 of Darwinism in American Social Thought (Oxford: Oxford = University=20 Press, 1991), pp. 245-69.=20

6. Rorty, "Against Unity," pp. 38, 30.=20

7. Roger Shattuck, "Does It All Fit Together: = Evolution,=20 the Arts, and Consilience," Academic Questions 11 (1988): = 59.=20 Shattuck's argument affiliates him with the New Critical theory=20 exemplified by Brooks and Warren in the thirties and by John Ellis = at the=20 present time. Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren, Modern=20 Rhetoric (New York: Harcourt, 1949), pp. 33-39; and = Understanding=20 Poetry, 4th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1976), = pp.=20 6-7; and John Ellis, Literature Lost (New Haven: Yale = University=20 Press, 1997), pp. 34-35. Shattuck and Ellis are both leading = lights of the=20 traditional humanists assembled under the auspices of the = Association of=20 Literary Scholars and Critics, a literary offshoot of the National = Association of Scholars.=20

8. Todorov, "The Surrender to Nature," p. 31; = Rorty,=20 "Against Unity," p. 36; Jones, "In the Genetic Toyshop," p. 14.=20

9. For example, see John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, = "The=20 Psychological Foundations of Culture," in The Adapted Mind:=20 Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, ed. = Jerome=20 Barkow, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby (Oxford: Oxford University = Press,=20 1992), p. 113, and Steven Pinker, The Language Instinct = (New York:=20 William Morrow, 1994), p. 420.=20

10. Richard Alexander, The Biology of Moral = Systems=20 (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987), pp. 40-41.=20

11. Michael McGuire and Alfonso Troisi, = Darwinian=20 Psychiatry (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 61, = and Buss,=20 Evolutionary Psychology.=20

12. For sociobiological expositions that include = cognitive=20 functions within the species-typical motivational structure, see = Jerome=20 Barkow, Darwin, Sex, and Status: Biological Approaches to Mind = and=20 Culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), pp. = 109-10; and=20 Donald Brown, Human Universals (Philadelphia: Temple = University=20 Press, 1991), pp. 130-41.=20

13. For treatments of the arts as a form of = sexual=20 display, see John Constable, "Verse Forms: A Pilot Study in the=20 Epidemiology of Representations," Human Nature 8 (1997): = 171-203,=20 and Geoffrey Miller, "How Mate Choice Shaped Human Nature: A = Review of=20 Sexual Selection and Human Evolution," in Handbook of = Evolutionary=20 Psychology, ed. Charles Crawford and Donald Krebs (Mahwah, New = Jersey:=20 Erlbaum, 1998), and "Looking To Be Entertained: Three Strange = Things That=20 Evolution Did to Our Minds," Times Literary Supplement, no. = 4985=20 (October 16, 1998.): 14-15. For arguments on art as a nonadaptive=20 by-product, see Steven Pinker, How the Mind Works (New = York: W. W.=20 Norton, 1997), pp. 534-43, and David Buss, Evolutionary = Psychology,=20 pp. 407-10. For a critique of this position, see Joseph Carroll, = "Steven=20 Pinker's Cheesecake for the Mind," Philosophy and Literature 22 = (1998):=20 578-85, and "The Deep Structure of Literary Representations," = Evolution=20 and Human Behavior, forthcoming. For arguments about the = adaptive=20 importance of the arts, see Ellen Dissanayake, Homo = Aestheticus: Where=20 Art Comes From and Why (New York: Macmillan, 1992), and Art = and=20 Intimacy: How the Arts Began (Seattle: University of = Washington Press,=20 forthcoming), and Robert Storey, Mimesis and the Human Animal: = On the=20 Biogenetic Foundations of Literary Representation (Evanston:=20 Northwestern University Press, 1996). Wilson's previous statements = on the=20 adaptive functions of the arts (from Sociobiology: The New=20 Synthesis, On Human Nature, Biophilia,=20 Naturalist, and other sources) have been collected by Brett = Cooke=20 in Sociobiology and the Arts, ed. Jan Baptist Bedaus and = Brett=20 Cooke (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999).=20

14. Shattuck, "Does It All Fit Together?" p. 19. =

15. On slanting narrative toward one's own = interest, see=20 Michelle Sugiyama, "On the Origins of Narrative: Storyteller Bias = as a=20 Fitness Enhancing Strategy," Human Nature 7 (1996): 403-25. =

16. Robert Storey offers one of the most = advanced efforts=20 to integrate the analysis of point of view with a sociobiological = analysis=20 of characterization. Storey gives an illustrative reading of a = novel by=20 Iris Murdoch in which he sharply distinguishes between the deep=20 sociobiological core of motives in her characters and the Freudian = distortions within her own explanatory commentary (see Mimesis = and the=20 Human Animal, pp. 179-200).=20

17. Brian Boyd, "Jane, Meet Charles: Literature, = Evolution, and Human Nature," Philosophy and Literature 22 = (1998):=20 22.=20

18. For a critical revision of the idea of=20 domain-specificity, see Steven Mithen, The Prehistory of the = Mind: The=20 Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion, and Science (London: = Thames and=20 Hudson, 1996).=20

19. On the plasticity of phenotypic expressions, = also see=20 Paul Griffiths, What Emotions Really Are (Chicago: = University of=20 Chicago Press, 1997).=20

20. David Buss and Kevin MacDonald have made = strong=20 arguments for integrating evolutionary psychology with the = standard=20 psychological categories of individual differences. See David = Buss,=20 "Evolutionary Psychology: A New Paradigm for Psychological = Science,"=20 Psychological Inquiry 6 (1995): 1-30; Evolutionary=20 Psychology; and Kevin MacDonald, "Evolution, the Five Factor = Model,=20 and Levels of Personality," Journal of Personality 63 = (1995):=20 525-67.

 
------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/images/journals/buttons/phl.gif R0lGODdhZAAkAPcAAP////f39/fv7//39//v7+fW1u/e3t7GxvfW1ufGxta1tcalpffOzs6lpeeM hN6Ee7VaUnshGM4xIXsYEGMQCM6Ee9aEe61rY7VrY5RSSoxKQnsxKd5SQtZKOcZCMXMhGK0xIb0x Ia0pGKUhEJQYCN6tpeetpdaclOdzY8ZaSu9aQvdaQu9SOa05KedKMd5CKc45IdY5IaUpGIwhEM4x GJwhEMYpEHsYCIQYCM4hCPfOxtatpeeUhK1SQq1KOfdjSow5KdZSOedSOYwxIcZCKdZCKb05IYwp GLUxGMYxGK0pEL0pEGsYCHMYCNaMe96Me3MhEJwpEJQhCJwhCO/Oxt69teellNaUhIwhCMalnIxS QnshCOfOxt7Oxvfn3u/n3s7Oxufn3tbezrW9ra21pSE5EISUe0prOUp7MUJzKSlKGCFCEM7extbn zrXGrYychDlaKTFjGL33pbXvnK3nlKXejJzWhJTOe4zGc4S9a3u1Y3OtWmulUkpzOWOcSlqUQilS GDlzISFKEISce7X3nDljKTFaIZStjHOMa2uEYylCIUp7OUJzMTlrKTFjISlaGKXelGulWmOcUkqE OUJ7MYSle63vnKXnlIzOe3u1a0JjOXOtY1qUSlKMQiFCGDlzKTFrIXOUa7X3pZzejJTWhHu9aylK IRg5EClSIefv5/f/98bOxs7Wztbe1qW1pa3Grefv987W3pylta21xq21zlJac4SMrTlCa3N7pQAI MVpjnDlCczlCexghUhghWgAIOUJKhAgQSgAIQhghaxghewgQWggQYwAISgAIUgAIWhAYcxAYewgQ awAIY+fn7+/v9/f3/8bGzt7e587O3sbG1pycrbW1zqWlvZyctYyMpbW11pycvXNzjIyMrXNzlIyM tXt7pXNznFpae3NzpVpahFpajDk5WkJCa1palDk5Y0JCc0JCezk5a0JChDk5cyEhSiEhUiEhaxgY ewgIMRAQcwgIQggIWggIawAAKQAAMQAAOQAAQgAASgAAUgAAWgAAACwAAAAAZAAkAAAI/wDr0KEz Zw4hUXISyhFV0BKdS3Xs2LmDJ08ePXsi8fHD6U+nTsqU0WNG8l6zkyhT+mu20l8ylslcyoyZLIfN mzhz6tyZw0bPHIHqXKJjqeAchkgb0oEUkdQdTHkyYdTI0SOxkMpIMjN2z1jKl81eimV5cuzYnz7T okVro63bt23ZfgoqkGhBhnKOFhzI1I5TqFL38JHk588fYldDavXqFSVYsStp+os8OaxNtZh/8tSp VkmguXZGQRpY1KhRh0xHTcRUMdMmwYQ5IU6slZnJxl/JRg5L9qXLHDRu+rx8Mzjc43HbivA891Oa NIwYoZG+qPqkTos8dtKu/SP2SdWHDf/baqx8MXvnkyVDxr4fMvfv3yfrBx8+smRL8ue3ob//fuRJ 2BBgEgQqIYIIgST4iRsAAACGAKloMkaDYyhySIMFmIGhhgAUoAgc1aGhjTTUCCDNOfUU8w0s1Ejj zT7IoCONNrEEgI0+x8QCwDPRPEONPjpCw00TJTS4QAFGMlEBAF40MQMSBEYpJQ1JUEkDElh+lmAg AQRgSiEAiOFJl6YYgoYYABSiCJpqsmlKiKkEEEw9xjwDgDq5ANBNPuVcgww5AISTDz/lABALPvsA QA0+2QSKj6L4YJEDAQPccAMVAOxAQQteLDHDgFISSIMREsBgKgwggIDEloE0IoAqnqj/AUAqnggg gCGmUMJKmp6wuWaaiqCBRiUAgPNLMcagY2gudkaTC4zOPKPPL+85A0Avj1KTjzcAbJOPovnUMEUA BNyAwxIEAHDBFynMsMSUSZRqagynmhqCESGw2sgzqgySCgCIjLljlw0qokgbAMChRisJezIdmuHM g6wxAASQzzl2QvPOLzviQ20y1ADgzbfScBPAM+/o0+AzAgwAgABMTGCDBw0q0IQMBEpQqrz1xlCE z0UYITSroKgSgBmJGOJIIwEIEOsnaBrSa8NowuFJdAxe80sw5QEwTS7CJLMNANJ8C0A++bwXsi+P lszOMexBSgK6A+CAAxI26ADADEzE/5sEDDTUC0MRhBdexAtEDL0lKK964kkjjTCuihpqfLKr1Jd7 knkaq3RS8S8pfgPAOvPEYs8+sTizTzQi53NMPwGUneiiwrCXjKK5uCsAARPMICCmMkDxt+CGF97B Cx244IEHRCzOoIOeABLI82R48obLrZiBvfYAsLKKAKyogQjL3sgCQDnUQmNNNs+Eg6M2AMjCjTPT 6LNPyDb+wk8yQXJzgwkNagATRvAElxUgAzIwwqmKd7gXuOCBD1yeB1jlCEfEARSOCIQjQBEIDjai VZALIeQ+IUIQGqMduGgH3Oxhj2TEIxzxgBt7kDGOcPBDhu6xz33ukwz+tGVKEgjcvP8M9wIHPrAD yQuCEIQgQQqCAoMV1GAFl6bBVoEwhCQkYQjPcx70JKOF6uHheuAzxvUkAx3bCCMLW8gfKEVJAsMz VfEcmLzkLVEILBCCCoIQhAl2UIpRnGIVHVGIQBSykAn6oCINmSBjJKMYj/yiGXeIDH/Yzj3rYc8w ujTDY0CyGO8SkJR6BjTkuSB5LrjjElXASj4G4Y+DBCQgMyjIChaiEUvL5SG92EIwfnGHmcykJeWD DGo8Axn2+MUv0GMPUImqZ0QsAgSVuEpWtpIDQeBgB6fIzUDWMpCxpKUjvuhLe9gOGdaYhjX6EQ9r 0MIazujGeqhBDWgcMxnCWCZ6+PP/RgUOsXCnfCA182hNFazgB9h8pTbj0M2GOvShGVSPJHl4n204 Ix4AQMctKsYLZ6iOGrNA3TP2IYxptbAYoaIBDeRFBKAdLqB35AALCvoDFXDgpgniYAUZylBuznKW EJXkJHcYD16EzBv64BE/jPktb/xCGwGoXT2OBckkvEtU/oSBS11QBFR2YIks4AArV6CCHyAUm7C0 IDd5CtG2jnOGv8xkNwAwDACMgx8BsMZSBZAobOSDGgE4hj3y+UVQhgpwciSC8SAIVplas6ZnzeYf labWnu5UrW7lphiJ2Y9k0EJPhkrHrNzhDGj0QkezsBM5kJFPZlr1jXHUauGQl8Q7/86UptjkwB9B Ydkp9raymA0qXM9Jn3AMgxe9yMc+8oEj5vJDHO9Arut+MQ9kFkNAV61SVudoxFTGtKBBwCYHdcpW y7K1m+UFbhwqeZ/6zDCHyHhde2YYH/rep4X5SSnPBke4DnQVpmDFYyuD0IEqAtW36A2ucIlpSUvC dz7xgfAwM8keFlb1XVcNwaiEKMfZHg+VqlwiEj0wXgum98SYRTFP3TNM+2CyvvOFsXtaiMz75je7 VYJBCOrFwIDWdonLe2UGpYjiFF/2ea44BSAcwTAAzI8arAtANJzhDR3xaMremMaOeiSNXuhjhjoi Bz6QIQBqHKBiB0jFDgTwMi3MwP8BL2uAy7rwhQGc4AhGQEDFEsAFAVxhCC0gwnh5e9lC9/S8cXhE l8pQBp46CB/R6EeitIEPdtwVUvvgBS/4AaleGEq51SJbLvRBjWRIAQBUYEIPHmABAFSACSJIgg6e IAPgMUHPPvgAEQDAgA+AAAUoCHTzhnxZRO/UEAxFtgVZ5ok1OALZ3UOUeyAljGkvah/bQMbs8OEL snksRi0CwC/ShowloJoJ7noCAJwA6yRQwQFR4AIAgqdnCEABBryGAgiqUAQQCE2nvDVvipWWbJ4a QhUCOIWzGQoANuCjdv3AdNyuLC2O8ahi6fhyP2JRDnB0y3X4OTcJbKDuV8eaCk//OAKmuCANAFQB CjLANwG60AUCyOAD/04Qgs1L8Gcf2hCKVoXCCR5tGCFD4hG/djiQwWlq1MLbX0YGNKC8o1GXG9UU cNcDXM0EJSyBAU+oAaZqwGYMQAEJ+GYAE2RwhRj4GwQY7OChLahsI9f9EQIIgCdO0YcxPKLhyqUP uGCUdGnbIuKUngUAZoEoW2xjH9i+05hzgHUpLGHXqdZdEiaAqRlsoEFAmAAS8h1zK4BABqvSabHV quy6F/wVDVoFGKAxCIapghv52IWOAlCNXLjDytGYMjV0BIBq5KPl1KgGNKSRjlu0fADpSAeSBrCA JtRgCQD8wgEEsAMcVMCAWsBA/wCRJIADdEEAXJhABJAAxUDEIdl0B278D/2IRL/f/nHIIX3o8579 +58f/QCA7sEL4bAL/MAPMcYeOTAFC5gDXud1D/AAUzAF/eFDS/AAT6AESvBaAiICSCACOuU4jiMI IliCJOgJJ0iCahArIriCjiMMJBWDMDiDMliDMAh5MQh5N0hSJCAFJDAFWEACPyiEPzgFRCiEPuiD RJiEPSgFBtJBaiAIgAAIakCFU3iFlFOFWliF0RM9gNCFU4iDNKiDNliDZFiGMKiER7iGSNiDQmiE UyAFUgCHQ2iESuAIJPiFKTiCKMiHfYiCXwgIeSiFKDiGZpiDiDiGhjiDbeiGTA34iG/Ihj5ohJNI AgEBADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/images/b_muse.gif R0lGODlhMgATANX/AP////T09Orq6t/f39XV1crKysDAwL+/v7e3t7W1taurq6enp6GhoZaWloyM jIeHh4GBgX9/f3d3d29vb2xsbGJiYllZWVhYWFdXV1JSUjc3Ny8vLyUlJR8fHxYWFg8PDwcHBwAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAMgATAEAG/8BIB0QsFj/GY1Jp RC6XngjogKlaqwAFwFHJAh6RLOaRnQAGikCgUhEIEAHCdY4BeQ4WjX7P7/v/gIEcHlN0hoeIiVcW VURUhlldW2EREmcPA1lkBA8IAA1mA5gCFYiOEqipqqusra6vDxOOVYxXAGdVnl+KvIazkAoIA8Jh YGJkChgGtwAEFVrMu4e/vYq11VcgGoYW3d7f4N0Y3uPh5t0T6RMaBwgH7/Dx8vP09fYLGoVz19j9 ixbU5hAgsKDKg4ES/PWaxQ8LAQClBjyMMEHBAwwVLz4oQMBAQowGCCgoZUpfwywEEDj4AiACMgxh FIQZ0CAWhgZbMHiaUJJKQ0IMWVYOI+NSTEwMqBoUyLIgJ6Jav04my1SBzEVPATwlW5ApQDIMDgQA EOAgUcBy4biJQ3tukRWoIDY8mUu3rt0iQQAAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/images/b_search.gif R0lGODlhPAATANX/AP////T09Orq6t/f39XV1c/Pz8rKysfHx8DAwL+/v7e3t7W1ta+vr6urq6en p6GhoZ+fn5aWloyMjIeHh4GBgX9/f3d3d29vb2xsbGJiYllZWVhYWFdXV1JSUjc3Ny8vLyUlJR8f HxYWFg8PDwcHBwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAPAATAEAG/8AQaUgsGo2jIymp ZBKdSqKokuBYr9cMAECAXKwZwUARIHAmgEIBEOEQAtsKAaAYAC5oul2C7ZMYGh6Cg4SFhoeIiYoe ICJVVhp9kpOUlZaSkRwkj5MWAAMSFXYVF58TAwIZaxJrDG4AVwIBEgcAFRUArriulCQKFRbBwsPE xcbHyMkTF5uQkhkBAQoKAAGX11dovJfNlhm0cBEMW+S3dnCuc1baWLtnuZXdlRoTExnYmdj6JBf9 kBoAAwqMNLBgQQ4BERocqLBfPwgJIkqcSLGixYsYM0Z04KEAlkwEEYoMSXKkyZIoT37UQOKAJQt2 0ljQd80CgTbXmuXDgkaBFYgHBGZeOECAwT0OEQgUtRKhKQF7DAgUmMAB17Sl8R7tvBIBzhafEQDw ofbFwoVx6QA44FCqygUvuKq461Vl67qpViTkgiAWS61b8NRx8OTzLR54cz9a6WaXgwNydPIKACCA j4XJdcwIHjwnQBt27Hq5vCLQZJ+tIE2LVIxJoTNNH6LInk27tuwgADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/images/b_journals.gif R0lGODlhQwATANX/AP////T09Orq6t/f39XV1c/Pz8rKysfHx8DAwL+/v7e3t7W1ta+vr6urq6en p6GhoZ+fn5aWloyMjIeHh4GBgX9/f3d3d29vb2xsbGJiYllZWVhYWFdXV1JSUjc3Ny8vLyUlJR8f HxYWFg8PDwcHBwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAQwATAEAG/8AQaUgkjopGZLJ4 VDpJTWd0KKokOFiOJpsFEDiXwIAh5lQADDOaAwgAAOeAYgCQcAgB8kAzQV8AYwIBGVxcJAwaHoqL jI2Oj5CRkpAgIldYW4Wam5ydnp9aWCSXhQdoDgAKHBIACRUDgxaAE3RpXlh9DmoMsgesABx9DGcE EwoAEZwkChUWzs/Q0dLT1NXW0xMXo5ict6DfnMLgHNuetwTAwWhnaexsX+pp4sdtwOIJb16Em+Wb FRPjAnrK5InEhYNcNChcyLChQi0PHUqcSJHhwYMQEmjcyLGjx48gQ4oM6cBDAU0EBapUqZDEgU8E VK0EZ4FAMnDbUhbyZuFATJFCFxgADApQqIICE3j5TAPGZwELu4IVIHAAqrJLOrt8wQcVAjJxudgA gHrmirsMFyoIAHbGwZkBEbJ1ysmNQwR4twoAuGAXAIS28d5hccdO1kl0UZ1F0Ms0S6ZyKcO8GbAv wtoBVo/JWePNXdhjAo5NcOeATp65LxPWhdgQIkqHhTJlDRXbsagPT3Lr3s27N5EgADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/images/b_thisjournal.gif R0lGODlhWgATANX/AP////T09Orq6t/f39XV1c/Pz8rKysfHx8DAwL+/v7e3t7W1ta+vr6urq6en p6GhoZ+fn5aWloyMjIeHh4GBgX9/f3d3d29vb2xsbGJiYllZWVhYWFdXV1JSUjc3NzY2Ni8vLyUl JR8fHxYWFg8PDwcHBwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAWgATAEAG/0BRaUgsGomko3LJ bDqTzuKokuBYr1gA4QoAFA4ABYcA4IAVBQADe52oORKvIsxhACr1ewUQ0NoFDH0ZGQEDc1V2E2xs JQwaHpCRkpOUlZaXmJmaliEjVVYai6KjpKWmp6hsoRwln6NaXFscsGRjABESAgJYAgASCb4ccw4S AVsQAAnFABN7a3mKdhXIDHZb0qUlChUW3d7f4OHi4+Tl5ufiExetoFgRBGTGBBawWAqyp27PqfxX idmuRNWbJYtWGQt9+EQQ5YygFWnYEjXMgyeRhniw/pFi16+jlQwTLIxa5bEkqwsoQWlYyXKlypYw YbZjyWFVqJgtX8bUiRMnSuyUEBIIHUq0qNGjSJMqXco0qQMPBbCQNEm1Kr+VJQ6IegevqwUCYuzh M/V1odVS70RurDI1Cz4tDggcyMAhwpoMDOA5GDVRQgECezlMYHBBMOELDCwUSDBYMQEJVib8nUsR YLtFAwHscliLzDY8DN8ICGAlzQUHzDigruBGAF3UC/+hjHPtjuW2sXJzLpPBQoVAZa4oEKOPQ4DN wCz8kzYx4h3UezPaXrSKI26HVuoZ5HAhjRa1VuJ0caWgT4FQGcgIAMb6TeVE6bUUCIA39UatV3Bf v3zK5s38NUlFyn6oVAdCFAgmqOCCDA4RBAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/images/b_contents.gif R0lGODlhRgATANX/AP////T09Orq6t/f39XV1c/Pz8rKysfHx8DAwL+/v7e3t7W1ta+vr6urq6en p6GhoZ+fn5aWloyMjIeHh4GBgX9/f3d3d29vb2xsbGJiYllZWVhYWFdXV1JSUjc3NzY2Ni8vLyUl JR8fHxYWFg8PDwcHBwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAARgATAEAG/0BRaUgsGomko3LJ bC5HlQRnSp1eAAdqxjI9AAiBQYYDGAwEAAcDwK5MyoHAhWxGq9mACuEbn1epJQwaHoSFhoeIiYqL jI0hI1JTGn+UlZaXmJl/kxwlkZUKAAUVEX0WohwOABFkBFNfHHsZGQUAFhYEEq2vrrIXAgQZV1mV JQoVt8nKy8zNzs/Q0RMXnpKUFgFfaAOaVWvdVN/gnZ9/FQAMlKoVvK2TsHuvAQR7rl/vvQBdbAEJ nJTVMGmYMOFPhgp+OEzgopChBXZT3FBZOIUih4dTDha8VOKCR0kaQooMCXKkSZPWRHLgNOnkyJIn PXqEkKCmzZs4c+rcybOnz7IEDjwUqPJvnNGjAjWUIGbpggJ6DpBuHDe1W7WiVMAwrMWKgwQGEcYo vDABLIcLAwBMGHOBgQOx08qyQqt2TAS3CQFGwvom3Z83CryiIxNgFjx9HM5ouBIYQOEMh18JuOUg b5WrlcpQiTDAwhpdkO252hWPjhuKsEgj9qogbYGinAJinRKKny4OEfAQSw1rjVoLaABM3rXL9wQI eIYXY7qS0myk0C21nFIChJPr2LNrLxIEADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/images/b_end.gif R0lGODlhAQATALP/AP///5+fn4eHh1JSUjc3Ny8vLyUlJR8fHwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACwAAAAAAQATAEAEC1AQUoopNJxJZxkRADs= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/images/b_top.gif R0lGODlhJQATANX/AP////T09Orq6t/f39XV1c/Pz8rKysfHx8DAwL+/v7e3t7W1ta+vr6urq6en p6GhoZ+fn5ubm5aWloyMjIKCgoGBgX9/f3d3d29vb2xsbGJiYllZWVhYWFdXV1JSUjc3NzY2Ni8v LyUlJR8fHxYWFg8PDwcHBwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAJQATAEAG+cCRaUgsFkvGpNJE EiU60KgUQIAqAIoDYNIhBAbXanQTNTE2n7R6zWZTIO106BMSmZ5QsnTP7+/1d35QVFADARMOAAxd AAkTAQJ+JgoWF5aXmJmam5kYgR16UBIEBAABpBeCqh2ffoQWilCljFAMABR9rat9s32hJhjBeRvE esXHx6DFwxvBGBcQCdLT1NXW19UHDiQFUqG7q2TEJgd9o6ToqeCgUoHfU2IdDgQFXB0SEhMEBxqS eO+DqmAA0K0DJEYYOiQAkJCPO1dVLjSCIiAAwg5X1ImD8glgB0IdNBQwpUAWFgAC1DksNyaPoFC9 VJUIsaSmzZpBAAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://muse.jhu.edu/plugins/installsearch.js function installSearchEngine() {=0A= if (window.external && ("AddSearchProvider" in window.external)) {=0A= // Firefox 2 and IE 7, OpenSearch=0A= = window.external.AddSearchProvider("http://muse.jhu.edu/plugins/muse-opens= earch.xml");=0A= } else if (window.sidebar && ("addSearchEngine" in window.sidebar)) {=0A= // Firefox <=3D 1.5, Sherlock=0A= = window.sidebar.addSearchEngine("http://muse.jhu.edu/plugins/muse-sherlock= .src",=0A= = "http://muse.jhu.edu/plugins/muse-sherlock.png",=0A= "Project MUSE Search",=0A= "");=0A= } else {=0A= // No search engine support (IE 6, Opera, etc).=0A= alert("Your browser does not support search plugins");=0A= }=0A= }=0A= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C8FC71.963419C0--